Thursday, May 11, 2017

Pope Paul VI, homosexual and Freemason

Pope Paul VI, homosexual and Freemason

BY  on OCTOBER 9, 2016 • ( 0 )

AUGUST 10, 2016

Pope Paul VI, homosexual and Freemason

Pope Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, 1897-1978) reigned from June 21, 1963 until his death in 1978. His beatification process began on May 11, 1993. Pope Francis beatified him on October 19, 2014. He was the Pope who closed Vatican Council II (opened by Pope John XXIII in October 1962) in December 1965. The Council changed the direction and mission of the Catholic Church. Among many other things, he abolished the use of Latin in the liturgy, prohibited the use of Pope Pius V’s Missal, and introduced the use of the vernacular through the Novus Ordo Missae. He was a humanist, a modernist and a Freemason.

There have always been very credible charges that Paul VI was an active homosexual, and was blackmailed.
It provoked the controversial French homosexual author and former diplomat Roger Peyrefitte, in an interview published by the magazine Tempo, to accuse Montini of hypocrisy, and of having a longtime lover who was a movie actor. [69 ]
[70]
[71]According to rumors prevalent both inside the Curia and in Italian society, this was Paolo Carlini
[72] who had a bit part as a hairdresser in the Audrey Hepburn film Roman Holiday. Peyrefitte had previously published the accusation in two books, but the interview (previously published in a French gay magazine) brought the rumors to a wider public and caused an uproar. In a brief address to a crowd of approximately 20,000 in St. Peters Square on April 18, Montini called the charges “horrible and slanderous insinuations” and appealed for prayers on his behalf. Special prayers for Montini were said in all Italian Roman Catholic churches in “a day of consolation”. [70]
[72] 
In 1984 a New York Times correspondent repeated the allegations. [73]
The accusations again achieved prominence in 1994, when Franco Bellegrandi, a former Vatican honour chamberlain, and correspondent of its newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, alleged that Montini had been blackmailed, and had promoted fellow homosexuals to positions of power within the Vatican. [74] 
In 2006, the newspaper L’Espresso accessed private papers belonging to police commander General Giorgio Manes which confirmed the blackmail story, including that Aldo Moro, had been asked to help. [72 ]
[75]

References
68. Hitchens, Christopher, Christopher Hitchens on the death of Pope Paul VI, New Statesman, 28 February 2013.
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/02/christopher-hitchens-death-pope-paul-vi
69. Peyrefitte, Roger Mea culpa? Ma fatemi il santo piacere, Tempo, April 4, 1976.
71. Bellegrandi, Franco Nichitaroncalli: Controvita Di Un Papa, Edizioni Internazionale Di Letterature E Scienze (EILES), Rome 2009. English edition: Nikitaroncalli: Counterlife of a Pope
72. Posner, Gerald God’s Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican, Simon and Schuster, 2015 page 174
73. “Hoffman, Paul” “Oh Vatican! A Slightly Wicked View Of The Holy See“, Congdon & Weed, New York 1984 page 151
74. Bellegrandi, Franco, Nichita Roncalli – Controvita di un Papa, Rome: Editizioni Internazionale di Letterature e Scienze, 1994, pp. 85-86, 91-92

2.
Paul VI’s Homosexuality: Rumor or Reality?
By Marian T. Horvat Ph. D., February 1, 2006
The Italian periodical L’Espresso recently published a scoop reporting that Paul VI had been blackmailed about a certain secret. The “hush-hush” information was his supposed “waywardness” involving homosexual acts. 




The gist of the article was reported by the newspaper Il Giornale online, January 27, 2006. Rather than deny the accusations, Paul VI had sought the help of his friend Aldo Moro, the president of the Governmental Council, to stop the rumor. This was reported by General Giorgio Manes, who released his confidential notes to l’Espresso as an exclusive. 
Is there anything sound upon which to base this very serious accusation, or is it just a tabloid splash?
The report brings to the surface an unremitting accusation that Paul VI really was a homosexual. It has often been said that the principal thing that could stop the process of his canonization would be that his vice was, and still is, broadly known in countless Italian milieus. 
In his book, Vatican II, Homosexuality and Pedophilia, Atila S. Guimarães examined those accusations and, based on credible sources, made the following report. With his permission, I transcribe an excerpt from his work (pages 157 to 162, with the footnotes). He wrote: 
Accusations against Paul VI
It is especially painful to report that the moral integrity of one of the Sovereign Pontiffs was marred by serious reports of homosexuality. For Catholics who love and defend the Papacy, the revelation that homosexuality could have penetrated the highest cupola of the Church is particularly sorrowful. Nonetheless, given the credibility of the source and the importance of facing the truth in this grave matter, it seemed a requisite of honesty to offer the following data to the reader to allow him to form his own judgment. 
In April 1976, an important statement regarding Paul VI was made. In an interview with the Italian magazine Tempo, French author Roger Peyrefitte, a professed homosexual, commented on a homily (January 1976) in which Paul VI had spoken against homosexuality.
The French writer alleged that the Pontiff’s words were hypocritical and made this revelation: 
“The second sin from which I feel I have been freed, after this grotesque papal speech is my homosexuality …. In my last book, Hunting Scenes, and in another, About the French People, I stated with all the respect due a Pope (especially when he is still alive) that he is homosexual. It is amazing that the papal speech [against homosexuality] was published at the same time as my book. Was Paul VI moved by a guilt complex? But why should he feel guilty? It is known that a boyfriend of Paul VI was a certain movie star, whose name I will not give, although I remember him very well. He was an unknown actor when our friend Paul was Cardinal Montini, Archbishop of Milan.” (1) 
These grave accusations (which some might consider open to discussion, given the scandalous character of Peyrefitte) were confirmed by another author, a serious professor and journalist who had worked at the Vatican in the papal quarters.
The details he reported corroborate Peyrefitte’s affirmations and seem quite worthy of credit. His name is Franco Bellegrandi, camariero di spada e cappa (honor chamberlain) of His Holiness from the end of Pius XII’s pontificate into Paul VI’s reign. He was a member of the Vatican Noble Guard, the most distinguished corps of the papal military service. The Noble Guard – done away with by Paul VI – was an elite military honor corps made up of members of the Roman nobility that would assist the Pontiff at ceremonies and solemn acts, as well as at day-to-day diplomatic functions with Heads of States or important foreign representatives. 
With reliable credentials – professor of Modern History at Innsbruck University (Austria), a correspondent for L’Osservatore Romano, author of two other books on the Vatican, and decorated with the Golden Cross of Merit of the Austrian Republic – he utilized sources and was sure of his facts. In 1994, when his book Nichitaroncalli – Controvita di un Papa (Nikita Kruschev and Roncalli – Unknown Aspects of a Pope) was launched in Rome, among those present was Cardinal Silvio Oddi, who came to lend his prestige to the work and to indirectly endorse its contents. 
In this book Bellegrandi described the situation in the papal quarters:
“In Rome and throughout Italy the rumor is out that Paul VI is a homosexual …. When he was Archbishop of Milan, he was caught by the police one night wearing civilian clothes and in not so laudable company. Actually, for many years he has been said to have a special friendship with a red-haired actor. This man did not make any secret of his relationship with the future Pope. The relationship continued and became closer in the years ahead. [After Montini was elected Pope] an official of the Vatican security forces told me that this favorite of Montini was allowed to come and go freely in the pontifical apartments, and that he had often been seen taking the papal elevator at night. 
“The ‘banana peel’ that Paul VI stepped on and that put an end to the confident nature of his weakness was the homily on sexual ethics he delivered in January 1976, dealing with some points on homosexuality. This homily provoked a reaction from the writer Roger Peyrefitte. On April 13, 1976, the weekly Tempo published an interview with this author (with a reputation for very good documentation) … who accused the Pope of being a homosexual and denied his right to be a censor on the topic. Paul VI officially acknowledged the blow. 
“A ‘day of reparation for the offense received by the Pope’ was called for. All of Italy, however, was laughing about the incident. British TV broadcast made an interview with Peyrefitte, who confirmed his accusations and expressed surprise over the publicity he was receiving. 
“The first blackmail against Montini was made as soon as he mounted the steps of the throne of Peter by Freemasonry, which pressured him to do away with the Church’s condemnation of those who ask to be cremated after death (which he did). What it threatened was to reveal the secret meetings between the Archbishop of Milan and ‘his’ actor in a hotel in Sion, in the Valais Canton in Switzerland. In Paris, sometime later, the story behind this change made by Paul VI surfaced, with the indisputable evidence patiently amassed by a gendarme (policeman).” (2)
Some pages later, Bellegrandi described what he had personally witnessed:


“Another change observed by those in that narrow circle who, because of their position in the Hierarchy or their posts, used to pass a large amount of time inside the Apostolic Palace, was the sudden appointment of homosexuals to positions of prestige and responsibility close to the Papacy. This plague infested, transformed, and devastated the Vatican during the time of Paul VI. It had already begun then [in the pontificate of John XXIII], well hidden in the baroque curtain folds of the Pontifical Court, but, unfortunately, alive and real. But it was the distant hand of the Archbishop of Milan, himself a victim of such weaknesses, that discretely placed one after another on the State chessboard … the pieces of his game dear to his heart. 
“Those highly situated new personages, who were contaminated by the same ‘sickness,’ naturally brought with them other less highly placed people of the same ilk. Therefore, slowly but continuously, rumors and indiscretions began to flow in the Vatican, and grave facts began to occur as a matter-of-course. 
“Because of their functions, these people were often seen by us [the Noble Guard]. … They also had their favorites, who were the effeminate young men wearing elegant uniforms and make-up on their faces to dissimulate their beards. We (the camarieri di spada e cappa and noble guards) carefully kept our distance from their smiles and courtesies. We limited ourselves to greeting them at distance with the military salute of the heels. 
“‘Favorites’ of the Archbishop of Milan also began to appear at the level of functionary, and both small and large scandals at times would erupt. The Gendarmeria Pontificia [the Vatican police] had to steer carefully … along those floating mines and keep one eye closed – and sometimes both eyes – to keep reports from leaking and to discourage some sharp journalists …. Honorable old employees who relied on the Governatorato [the administration of the Vatican State] were suddenly fired or removed to other posts, and these newcomers were installed in their empty chairs, all them carrying in their pockets letters of recommendation from Cardinal Montini.” (3)
Guimarães ends his chapter by presenting the testimony of Spanish author Pepe Rodrigues, who openly states what would seem to be common knowledge in the inner circles of the European Hierarchy and elites, that there were not only many homosexual Bishops but also a “great homosexual Pope.” (4). 
The former claim, at least, can be affirmed without hesitation in face of the continuing crisis of homosexuality the Church is experiencing because of the involvement or complicity of her Prelates with these crimes. The second claim, if true, would explain in part the immense complacency from the highest cupola regarding homosexuality among ecclesiastics.

References
1. Roger Peyrefitte, “Mea culpa? Ma fatemi il santo piacere,” Tempo, April 4, 1976.
2. Franco Bellegrandi, Nichitaroncalli – Controvita di un Papa (Rome: Ed. Internazionale di Letteratura e Scienze, 1994), pp. 85-86.
3. Ibid., pp. 91-2.
4. Pepe Rodrigues, “Espana no es diferente,” El Mundo, March 19, 1995, p. 3.

3. Was Paul VI Homosexual? Testimony of Prof. Bellegrandi
May 12, 2007
The discussion on the alleged homosexuality of Paul VI continues. Recently we were asked to produce evidence for the hypotheses raised in an article on our site [2. above]. 
Today we reproduce an important document. It is a part of the book Nikita and Roncalli – Unknown Aspects of a Pope by Franco Bellegrandi on the Pontificate of Pope John XXIII. Bellegrandi was an insider at the Vatican from the end of Pius XII’s reign to the beginning of Paul VI’s. He was a member of an honor guard of the Sovereign Pontiff – camarieri di spada i cappa [honor chamberlains] – which along with the Noble Guards were in charge of services of honor for the Pontiff: introduction of heads of State, ambassadors, or other high level visitors, assisting the Pontiff at solemn events and private audiences. 

Top, the cover of Nikita and Roncalli.

Bellegrandi has further credentials that give him credibility: When he left his post of service for the Pope, he was chosen to be a correspondent of L’Osservatore Romano, the daily paper of the Holy See; he became a professor of Modern History at Innsbruck University, Austria; and he was decorated with the Golden Cross of Merit of the Austrian Republic. He is the author of two other books on the Vatican. 
Bellegrandi reports what he saw and heard during his term in the Vatican. In Rome and throughout Italy the rumor is out that Montini would be a homosexual. Hence, vulnerable. Hence, open to those who aim to use him to achieve their own goals. 
When he was Archbishop of Milan, he would have been caught by the police one night wearing civilian clothes and in suspect company. Actually, for many years he had a special friendship with an actor who colors his hair red. This man did not make any secret of his relation with the future Pope. The relation continued and became much closer in the years ahead. [After Montini was elected Pope] an official of the Vatican security forces told me that this favorite of Montini was allowed to come and go freely in the pontifical apartments. And that he had often been seen taking the papal elevator at night. 
The “banana skin” that Paul VI slipped on and that put an end to the non-official nature of his weakness was the homily on sexual ethics he delivered in January 1976 dealing with some points on homosexuality. This homily provoked a reaction from the French writer Roger Peyrefitte. 
On April 4, 1976, the weekly Il Tempo published an interview with the author, who has the reputation for very good documentation … He accused the Pope of being a homosexual and denied his right to be a censor on the topic. Paul VI officially acknowledged the blow. 
A day of prayers “to make reparation for the offense received by the Pope” was called for. All of Italy, however, was laughing about the incident. British TV made an interview with Peyrefitte, who confirmed his accusations and expressed surprise over the publicity he was receiving. 
The first blackmail against Montini, as soon as he mounted the steps of the throne of Peter, was made by Freemasonry, which pressured him to do away with the Church’s condemnation of those who ask to be cremated after death [which he did]. What it threatened was to reveal the secret meetings between the Archbishop of Milan and “his” actor in a hotel in Sion, in the Valais canton in Switzerland. In Paris, sometime later, the story behind this change made by Paul VI surfaced, with the indisputable evidence patiently amassed by a gendarme [policeman] … 
Another change observed by those in that narrow circle who, because of their rank or their posts, used to pass a large amount of time inside the Apostolic Palace, was the sudden appointment of homosexuals to positions of prestige and responsibility close to the Pope. This plague that would infest, transform, and devastate the Vatican during the time of Paul VI had already begun then [in the pontificate of John XXIII], well hidden in the baroque curtain folds of the Pontifical Court, but unfortunately alive and real. It was the distant hand of the Archbishop of Milan [Cardinal Montini], himself a victim of such weaknesses, that discreetly placed one after another on the State chessboard – the pieces of the game dear to his heart. 
Those highly situated new personages, who were contaminated by the same “sickness,” naturally brought with them other less highly placed people of the same ilk. So, slowly but continuously, rumors and indiscretions began to flow in the Vatican, and grave facts began to occur as a matter of course. 
Because of their functions, these people were often seen by us [chamberlains and noble guards] principally during the visits of Sovereigns and heads of State to the Pope. 
They also had their favorites, who were the effeminate young men wearing elegant uniforms and make-up on their faces to dissimulate their beards. We – the camarieri di spada e cappa and noble guards – carefully kept our distance from their smiles and courtesies. We limited ourselves to greeting them at distance with a military salute of the heels. 
“Favorites” of the Archbishop of Milan also began to appear in the lower levels of service, and both small and large scandals at times would erupt. The Gendarmeria Pontificia [the Vatican police] had to steer carefully, as one says, along those floating mines and keep one eye closed – and sometimes both eyes – to keep reports from leaking and to discourage some astute journalists … 
Honorable old employees who relied on the Governatorato [the administration of the Vatican State] were, without any apparent reason, ordered to retire or sent elsewhere, and these newcomers were installed in their empty chairs, all them carrying in their pockets letters of recommendation from Cardinal Montini.

Though the following article, albeit a tad soft on him, does not accuse Paul VI of homosexuality (some of the readers’ responses to the blog however do), it gives us a perspective on what he did to the Church:
4. The Enigma of Pope Paul VI
By John H. Knox and OnePeterFive, October 20, 20125
Forty years ago the regime of Giovanni Battista Montini, Pope Paul VI, began to reveal itself. Mythology had it that he was a good man who lost control, and that the disaster was caused by everything except his mistakes and pusillanimity. Msgr. F. D. Cohalan, a noted New York churchman and historian, contended there was a little more to it than that, and took a factual approach in this matchless piece, written under a pen name for National Review back in 1969.


The contemporary challenge to authority in the Catholic Church has received so much attention from the press that little space has been given to the reaction of authority to the challenge. Practically no one asks publicly what the Pope is doing about the evils he deplores and to what extent he is responsible for them because of his refusal to act instead of just talking against them. Yet, as we see so clearly in the American universities today, the reaction to a challenge is often more important than the challenge itself. History is full of examples of regimes overthrown less through the virtue or wisdom or strength of their opponents, than through their own inept and pusillanimous defense of their position. It is hard to believe Charles I, Louis XVI and Nicholas II had to end up just as they did.
What we are witnessing in the Church today is the disintegration of the central administrative authority —and this is not because of the strength of the attack but because of the weakness of the defense. Hitler’s comment on the Czech border defenses—that the strength of the concrete mattered little when the will to resist was so weak—comes to mind. We all know that though the constitutional and legal powers of the American President remain substantially the same, each Presidency differs markedly from the others. This is so not only because no two Presidents meet exactly the same problems but because each has his own style, personality, temperament, character, etc. The same is true of pontificates and popes.
No one doubts there would be plenty of serious problems no matter who was pope. This is especially true in the wake of the Council and while the necessary and difficult task of decentralizing Church government is in process. Still, it is not the problems but the way they are handled that distinguishes one reign from another. No one ever had any trouble telling Leo XIII from Pius IX or John XXIII from Pius XII. What distinguishes Paul VI from all his predecessors is his refusal to act against any individual, no matter how grave the provocation. He contents himself with deploring the error or misconduct, sometimes tearfully, and is always careful to attribute only high motives to all the erring, whom he never identifies. He seems to feel he has discharged his obligation to defend the truth and his own position when he has done that much. When he praises the motives of high-ranking prelates who openly attack his authority he resembles President Perkins of Cornell smiling gamely through a confrontation with SDS and the black militants.
When Cardinal O’Boyle returned from the Consistory of 1967 with his hat, he preached on the current disorders in the Church and the distress they were causing the Pope. He stated that since his election on June 21, 1963, the Pope had not censured or punished any individual. As far as I know this is still true with one exception—the Belgian abbot of a monastery in Mexico who was removed for making psychoanalytical treatment mandatory for his monks and who, according to press reports, promptly left the Church and started a nonsectarian religious community.

Sensitive to Criticism
The objective causes of this state of affairs are mainly as follows. The Pope is trying hard to make the Church more acceptable to the non- Catholic world, whether Christian, non-Christian or anti-Christian. He is accentuating all points of agreement or mutual interest. As far as he can do so without altering fundamental Catholic doctrine or undermining his own position, he is willing to eliminate or tone down anything in Catholic doctrine or practice that repels or irritates that world. At the same time he wants to regain or retain the allegiance of many ordinary, nominal Catholics who in one way or another find the yoke of active membership too heavy.
Hence much of his stress on ecumenism, the Secretariat for Non-Believers, the campaign for peace and against poverty, the abolition of practically all fasting and abstinence, the abolition of papal ties to the Roman nobility from which nothing more is to be expected by the Holy See, the constant flattery of the common people in whom political power is seen or thought to rest, and many other facets of his plan to give the Church a new image.
In his speech in St. Peter’s on April 2, 1969 (quoted in the English edition of the Osservatore Romano, April 10) he said: “It has been rightly pointed out that a wave of sincerity and optimism has spread through the Church and the world from the Council: a consoling and positive Christianity acceptable and amiable, a Christianity friendly to life, to men, even to earthly values, to our society, to our history. We might almost see in the Council the intention to make Christianity free from all medieval rigorism and from any pessimistic interpretations regarding men, their customs, their transformations, their exigencies.” He then adds immediately and characteristically: “This is true, but let us be careful. The Council did not forget that the Cross is at the center of Christianity.”
Subjectively, Pope Paul’s attitude is rooted in his temperament. He is an intelligent, sensitive, introspective, high-minded, patient and well-trained man. He is also well-informed, austere, modest, industrious, timid and indecisive. He shrinks from making irrevocable decisions and, like most who do, finds it easier to say yes than no. His vacillation comes from a reluctance to accept responsibility. Like many professional diplomats he thinks he can attain almost any goal by patient negotiation and flexibility. He spent thirty years in close association with two particularly forceful superiors, Pius XI and Pius XII. In that time he neither made nor executed policy. His role was to transmit orders and decisions, for which others bore the responsibility. Now that responsibility is his, and he finds it almost too heavy to bear. He is a fine example of the excellent second who is over his head as number one. Tacitus describes him in his famous comment on Galba: “He seemed greater than a subject while he was yet in a subject’s rank, and by common consent would have been pronounced worthy of the crown if he had never reigned.” Paul VI is intensely sensitive to criticism; since most of the public criticism comes from liberals he makes strenuous efforts to placate them. Moreover, he is afraid of being disobeyed.
Every pope’s task is to rule, teach and sanctify the Universal Church, in that order. Few will heed his teaching if he is unable to enforce it and keep order in the Church. If he cannot rule or teach effectively his contribution to sanctification will be minimal. It is a tragedy for Paul VI and the Church that he is placed where his chief weakness—a congenital incapacity to govern—is so evident and so important. His admirable intentions are not enough.



As Pius XI said in another connection, “piety does not allow us to dispense with technique.” It is obvious that he finds his role as ruler uncongenial, and that, like Adlai Stevenson, he is uncomfortable with authority. He rarely gives an order. He is always exhorting, entreating and recommending, but that is all. When he teaches with supreme authority as in his Creed and in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae he never orders his teaching to be accepted but merely recommends it. There are no penalties for disobeying it or even for repudiating it publicly.

Uncorrected and Unpunished
We could hardly find a clearer example of the Pope’s refusal to act firmly and openly against dissidents than the one provided by the NY Times Magazine (May 11, 1969) in the article on Father Hesburgh of Notre Dame. It states that the Pope has received from Father Hesburgh serious charges against two priests teaching theology at Notre Dame. One of them attacks the doctrine of the Resurrection and the other the papal teaching on birth control. The first is a basic Catholic teaching expressly restated in the Creed of Pope Paul VI (April 30, 1968). The other attacks the authority and competence of the Encyclical Humane Vitae in which the Pope expressly states that he is teaching with the authority conferred on his office by Christ. Yet, nothing is done and the article suggests that Father Hesburgh deals directly with the Pope, bypassing the regular channels, because he knows that is the way to make sure that nothing is done.
There are other instances, e.g. the claim of the Theology faculty at the Catholic University of America that academic freedom allows them to attack, in a pontifical university, the formal public teaching of the Holy See in matters of faith and morals. The editors of America, who took such a lofty stand when National Review criticized Mater et Magistra, have openly criticized Humanae Vitae. The point is not that criticisms are made but that they go uncorrected and unpunished. No wonder the ordinary people are bewildered and that their uncertainty as to what the Church really teaches leads many to doubt all her teaching.

Marriage and the Clergy
The wave of serenity and optimism from the Council to which the Pope referred is not evident now either in the priesthood or in the religious orders, and once again his own role is pivotal. He has stated repeatedly that the existing law on celibacy for the clergy of the Latin Church will never be relaxed. Very recently he asked the various Episcopal conferences of the world to reaffirm their support of that teaching. If he intends to retain it, why does he allow it to be discussed endlessly as an open question in the official Catholic press? He personally made the decision to relax the ancient discipline and make it very easy for priests to marry. By so doing he has substantially devalued the vow of celibacy. By that and by tolerating the endless discussion of celibacy he has unsettled and confused large numbers of the younger priests and seminarians. Moreover, by making clerical marriage both easy and respectable he has served notice that the clergy are fair game for husband hunters. Recently released statistics indicate that the number of applications for release from celibacy have increased over 1,000 per cent since the election of Paul VI, and that the rate is increasing steadily. It is hard to believe he neither foresaw nor intended the consequences of his decision, though he may not have foreseen that it would spread to bishops and to his own entourage.
With the exception of the more extravagant innovations in the liturgy, no developments under Paul VI have surprised ordinary people as much as the changes in the religious orders. The speed and extent of the collapse would have been incredible in 1962. In all his speeches on the reform of the orders, the Pope has stressed the necessity of preserving the basic principles of each congregation and the spirit of its founder. Once again there is the gap between precept and practice. He has released such a torrent of dispensations, exemptions and permissions that many sober observers wonder if the religious order will last another twenty years. The flight from the cloister, which in this country led to the 1969 Catholic Directory listing nine thousand fewer sisters than the 1968 volume, would be serious enough but would leave the institution intact. Now the institution itself, in every form the Church has known since the third century, is under attack from within. The stricter orders have suffered most. The spectacular collapse of discipline among the Jesuits has done them more damage than all the attacks from within and above. No one supposes Paul VI approves of all these changes but no one expects him to do anything about them.

Settling Things
One of the major causes of the success of the Reformation was the administrative chaos in the Church. It has often been said that the smoothly functioning, highly centralized system of the past century would make it impossible for anything remotely resembling the Reformation to occur now. But no system can help if the man on top is unable or unwilling to put it in motion.
There is a striking parallel between the attitude of the liberals in the American universities and the present situation in the Church. All the blame is assumed by the institution. All guilt and blame are removed from the dissidents and wreckers, there is a wallowing in self-reproach and in protestations of moral inferiority to those who reject or wish to change or wreck the status quo, and there is a general attitude of universal, indiscriminate, spineless—and often mindless— benevolence. There is above all a failure to stress and act upon the basic principles that mature human beings are accountable for their conduct and that their freedom to act or not to act brings no immunity from the consequences of their free choice. In the academic world as in the Church, weakness masquerades as compassion. Unfortunately, in the administrative order weakness often does more harm than vice does.
In these circumstances the liberal attacks on Paul VI are ungenerous and unjust. There never will be a pope who has tried so hard to please them and who so sincerely shares so many of their beliefs.


Like so many of them he believes in law without sanctions, a policy most Catholics reserve for the Church Triumphant and the Millennarians for the reign of the saints. It is strange how few, who criticize Pius XI and Pius XII for not stopping Hitler, ask what Paul VI would have done. Fortunately we will never know. The thirtieth anniversary of Pius XI’s denunciation of Hitler, in the composition of which Pius XII played an active role, passed unnoticed by the Catholic press. No one could imagine such a document being issued.
The Pope himself has defined the crisis in the Church as one of faith and of authority. In his speech to the cardinals on June 23, he described two current problems as being of greater import than all others. These are a diminished sense of doctrinal orthodoxy and a certain diffuse lack of confidence in the exercise of the hierarchical ministry. They are closely linked. If it is true that those who have real trouble with faith can easily reject authority, it is equally true that those who find the voice of authority an uncertain trumpet may easily develop trouble with the faith. It is important to keep in mind that there is nothing new in the present attacks on the faith. The Catholic teaching of the Eucharist, the sacraments, the veneration of the saints, original sin, the authority of the Hole See, the celibacy of the clergy, etc. has been attacked for centuries by those outside the Church. When people inside it began to advance such views they generally went out of their own accord or were put out. What is different now is that people in good standing in the Church attack her fundamental doctrines with impunity. The Holy See will do nothing.
Paul VI is well aware of the difference between himself and his predecessors and is confident that he has chosen the correct path. He has convinced himself that he is not obligated to interfere, and that for high religious motives. On December 7, 1968, he addressed the students of the Lombard College in Rome and said in part: “The Church finds herself in an hour of disquiet, of self-criticism, one might even say of self-destruction. It is like an acute complex interior upheaval that no one expected after the Council….” This sad fact has become most notable: The Church is wounding herself. Many expect from the Pope dramatic gestures, energetic and decisive interventions. The Pope does not deem that he should follow any line but that of confidence in Jesus Christ, to whom he has entrusted his Church more than to anyone else. “It is for Him to calm the tempest.” Again on June 23, 1969, in speaking to the cardinals in Rome he said, in reference to the attacks on papal authority:
“It would be easy and perhaps even obligatory for us to rectify certain assertions relative to those dense and clamorous objections, but we believe the good People of God, being informed of the true state of matters and enlightened by that wisdom that proceeds from charity, can easily do this for itself.” On February 17, 1969, he addressed the Lenten Preachers of Rome and said in part: “Notice please, dear friends, how the style of our ecclesiastical government aims at being pastoral, that is, aims at being guided by duty and charity, open to understanding and indulgence, demanding in sincerity and zeal but fatherly, brotherly, humble in sentiment and in its forms. From this point of view, if the Lord helps us, we would like to be loved.”
With the exception of that hardy substitute for thought, “Love is all that matters,” no slogan has been more used more frequently since the Council than that authority is a form of service. Many who use it think it is new, though it is surely as old as Christianity and was already venerable when Gregory the Great wrote on it circa 600 A.D. It appears frequently in the writings and speeches of Paul VI. The one service rendered by authority, that is peculiar to it and one of its specific functions, is to settle things. This is not always easy, agreeable or popular, but that is unimportant. We need not look beyond our own time to see in both Church and state the evils that accumulate for both authority and the community it is intended to serve, when that task is shirked.   

But the crowning evidence is provided by Fr. Luigi Villa who had the blessings of his Archbishop, St. Padre Pio and Pope Pius XII to investigate Freemasonry and other evils in the highest echelons of the Church.
Please also read, in the same series:
WHY WAS THE BEATIFICATION CAUSE OF POPE PAUL VI SUSPENDED?-FR LUIGI VILLA 
VATICAN II ABOUT FACE-FR LUIGI VILLA
FR LUIGI VILLA-A TWENTIETH CENTURY PROPHET
WHO IS FR LUIGI VILLA?-DR FRANCO ADESSA 
THE THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA-DR FRANCO ADESSA

Excerpts from
5A. Who is Father Luigi Villa?
http://www.chiesaviva.com/donluigivilla%20ing.pdf – Bold emphases are the author’s, coloured are mine
By Dr. Franco Adessa
Paul VI beatified?
Freemasonry wanted her man Paul VI on the altars. Part of the plan was to put the two Popes, John XXIII and Paul VI, on the altars in order to prove the nature of Vatican II was indeed “supernatural.”



During the course of the proceedings of the XXXV Assembly of the Italian Bishops Cardinal Ruini announced the decision to introduce the “cause of beatification” of Paul VI before the Pope and the Bishops.
On May 13, 1992, Card. Ruini, president of the CEI and the Vicar of the Pope for Rome, issued an edict which, among other things, reads: «We invite all individual believers to communicate directly or submit to the diocesan tribunal of the Vicariate of Rome any “news” from which we can argue to some extent against the reputation of sanctity of the said “Servant of God”.»
But Father Villa wanted to see things more clearly. So on May 25, 1992, he telephoned Secretary of State, Msgr. Nicolino Sarale, the faithful friend and collaborator of “Chiesa viva,” asking about this decision of Card. Ruini to open the “beatification” of Paul VI.
Well, Msgr. Sarale told Father Villa that this decision was a “forced coup” by Card. Ruini, because most of the Italian Bishops would have never wanted it!
The “cause of beatification” continued to proceed until the year 1997. Father Villa was aware of the fact that Card. Pietro Palazzini had sent a letter to the Postulator for the “cause of beatification” of Paul VI that contained three names of the last homosexual lovers of Paul VI.
Cardinal Pietro Palazzini was an authority in this field, because the Cardinal held two binders of documents that demonstrated, unequivocally, the impure and unnatural vice of Paul VI.
Then, Father Villa wrote a letter to the Postulator, referring to what he had known from Card. Palazzini.
The book “Paul VI beatified?”
(see following page) was released in February, 1998. I took on the task of organizing the shipment of the first 5,000 copies.
Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and thousands of Italian Priests were given a copy of this book simultaneously. From Rome, someone told us that the Vicar of the Pope, Cardinal Ruini, was furious. He wondered who had financed the printing and mailing of these books, free of charge, to thousands of members of the Italian Clergy. When Father Villa told me about this telephone call, smiling, he said: «We should respond to the Vicar of His Holiness, that the lenders are three Persons and their names are: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.»
The reactions to the book were violent, and as a result, I, as the sender, had my share of this irrational and furious reaction.
We even received several copies of the book with all the pages torn out and containing phrases and epithets, written in black marker, to embarrass even the wicked and most hardened. I kept some of these copies, while the most vulgar, Father Villa threw out. The diocese of Brescia was in turmoil. The Bishop, Msgr. Bruno Foresti, promised the diocesan clergy that a book to refute that of Father Villa would be written.
After more than twelve years, those promises and commitments haven’t even appeared on the horizon! The fair battle fought openly does not seem to be an advantageous method of combating a priest like Father Luigi Villa!
The result of the book was clear to everyone: it had blocked the “beatification cause” of Paul VI.
No one was able to refute the volume, that is, the avalanche of “facts,” “quotations,” “documents” and “pictures”shown in the book, which did justice to a Pope who had committed perjury, by putting into place, during his pontificate, just the opposite of what he, himself, had promised to accomplish with a solemn oath on the day of his coronation.


The book “Pope Paul VI, a Pope on Trial?”
a continuation of the previous book, “Paul VI beatified?”
was the answer to the attempt by the Vatican to continue the “cause of beatification” of Paul VI with the visit of Pope John Paul II in Brescia, in 1998.

5B. THE BACKGROUND TO THE WRITING OF “PAUL VI BEATIFIED?” BY FR. LUIGI VILLA TH. D.
This book, “Paul VI…beatified?,” was the result of Father Villa answering the call of Cardinal Ruini, Vicar of the Pope for the city of Rome, who had issued an “Edict,” appearing in the diocesan weekly “Roma Sette” on May 13, 1992, which, “invited every single faithful to communicate to us directly … any information” which, in any way, may argue against the reputation of sanctity of the said “Servant of God” by writing this book.
Father Villa, playing the “Devil’s Advocate” (as was once a requirement in the process for beatification), wrote this book basing it on the critical study of thousands of pages of encyclicals, speeches, Conciliar documents, historical journals, commentaries and magazines.


Father Villa waited several years – waiting for others – that were more prominent in the Church to speak out. As all who should have spoken fell silent – Father Villa then felt the urgency to write this book that eventually stopped the beatification process of Paul VI.

Excerpts from
5C. Paul VI … beatified?
By Dr.
Fr. Luigi Villa, Th. D.,327 pages, 2009 (For the author’s bold emphases, see the pdf file)






“The book that stopped the beatification process of Pope Paul VI”


Paul VI was always an enigma to all, as Pope John XXIII himself observed. But today, after his death, I believe that can no longer be said, in light of the fact that in his numerous writings, speeches and actions, the figure of Paul VI is clear of any ambiguity. Even if proving this point is not so easy or simple, since he was a very complex character, both when speaking of his “preferences”, by way of suggestions and insinuations, and also for his jumping abruptly from one idea to another, and when he opted for Tradition, but then immediately preferred “novelty”; the whole thing in a language that was often very inaccurate.



Simply read, for example, his Addresses of the “General Audiences”, to see a Paul VI made up of an irreducible duality of thought, a permanent conflict, almost, between his thought and that of the Church, which he was nonetheless to represent. Since his time at Milan, many already called him “the man of the utopias”, an Archbishop in pursuit of illusions, generous dreams, yes, yet unreal!”… Which brings to mind what Pius X used to say of the “Leaders” of the Sillon1: “… The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticisms, mixed, with a measure of Illuminism, have carried them towards another Gospel, which they thought was the true Gospel of our Savior…”2.
Now, this our first “study” of research upon the historical-religious figure of Paul VI has brought us to a sad conclusion, and that is, that the “religion” preached by Paul VI did not always coincide with that authentic Religion, constantly taught for 2,000 years, by the perennial Magisterium, by all of the Saints and Doctors of the Church. Although it is far from my intention to judge Paul VI, for “only God probes kidneys and hearts”3, we nonetheless wish to report, here, the painful findings of our study on him, convinced as we are that he has drawn the faithful toward a “new religion”, while this continues to carry the label of “Catholic”.
For the drafting of this “Dossier” – given the seriousness of the “stakes”, especially when it comes to honestly taking one’s courage in both hands to tell the whole “truth”, despite the risk of becoming unpopular (exactly because, customarily, “veritas odium parit” – “Truth begets hatred”), the author of this work, for more than a decade, has been going through no less than 30,000 pages of encyclicals, speeches, Conciliar documents, historical journals, commentaries and magazines of all kinds, in order to gather an overview adequate enough to weigh up the Pontificate of a Pope who has already been consigned to History. Therefore, making it open for discussion and possible “judgments” as to his actions. It is evident that, with this work of mine, I do not claim to have done an exhaustive analysis of the entire oeuvre of Paul VI. Yet his quotations that I am presenting here cannot certainly have a different meaning from what they contain; and therefore, the presentation of other diverse texts of his, cannot but validate the “mens” of this “Hamlet”, that is, of the “double face” of Paul VI! However, the honest reader will find that our writings reproduce his true dominating “mentality”; one so deeply rooted in him as to have disastrously inspired his entire pastoral and his Magisterium. We are presenting this work, therefore, not to rejoice in it, but with sadness. It is but the execution of a painful duty.
As Faith is by now publicly attacked, we can no longer feel bound to the duty of silence, but rather to that of unmasking an anti-Christian mentality, so many years in the making, and one that sunk its root in the Pontificate of Paul VI, too. Certainly, writing about him has not been easy on me, as Paul VI was a Pope at the center of an Ecclesiastical shipwreck that perhaps was, and still is, the most dreadful the Church has ever witnessed throughout Her history.
In writing about him, therefore, one cannot be beating about the bush, quibble in search of sensational episodes in order to hide the reality, that is, the real responsibilities of his unsettling Pontificate, in the complex framework of Vatican II. That is why, to come to a humanly equitable judgment of the thought of Paul VI and his responsibilities, I had to go over again the “official texts” of his writings and his words, pronounced during Vatican II and those of his executions. Only thus could I untangle the grave “question” of his responsibilities in the dreadful drama the Church has lived and has been living from the onset of the Council to this day. I may, therefore, make mine the lesson of Manzoni in his celebrated book: “Observations Upon Catholic Morality“, where in Chapter VII, he wrote: «… One must demand, of a doctrine, the legitimate consequences drawn from it, not those which passions might deduce from it». And so, let us open directly the pages of the First Address to the Council, in which Paul VI made his own, manifestly, the principle of “Modernist heresy” that Pope John XXIII has already expressed, in his Opening Address of the (second Vatican) Council, on October 11, 1962, (an Address, however, which had been inspired by the then Archbishop of Milan, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (Paul VI –Michael)), in which he said the following:
«Neque opus Nostrum, quasi ad finem primarium, eo spectat, ut de quibusdam capitibus praecipuis doctrinae ecclesiasticae disceptetur, sed potius ut ea ratione pervestigetur et exponatur, quam tempora postulant nostra».
And here is the substance in the English language: «…But, above all, this Christian doctrine be studied and exposed through the forms of literary investigation and formulation of contemporary thought».
Now, one such “principle” is unheard of in the history of all the century of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, as it takes the place of the “dogmatic” principle, alone to offer proof and certainty of the “Catholic truth”, and the teaching Church has always taught that the “reason of believing” does not lean at all upon scientific conquests, achieved through man’s intellect, for the “reason of believing” rests exclusively upon the AUTHORITY of REVEALING GOD and upon that of the SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, which received from Jesus Christ the mandate to teach it officially and in an infallible manner. The “principle” enunciated by Paul VI, on the contrary, becomes the negation of that of the APOSTOLIC TRADITION, wanted by God, and it reverses the traditional Magisterium of the Church, putting on the teacher’s desk, in place of “REVEALING GOD” and of the “TEACHING CHURCH”, the method of man’s autonomous investigation and the formulation of a purely human and arbitrary doctrine, peculiar to the philosophical-literary style of modern man – therefore, of the man of all ages, mutable with the times – oblivious that only the “truth” revealed by God is the sole immutable and eternal truth. Therefore, it vanished; that principle of the investigation to know “Revelation” by knowing the original teaching of the Church was done away with, instead it would be that of knowing the teaching of modern thought. But this smacks of “heresy”! One cannot invent dogma, nor can one reduce it into a convenient cliché, as it has been done in these years of upheaval and arrogance, ignoring that Christ, and only Him, is and shall always be the absolute “truth”. How Paul VI should have shuddered, for inflicting on the Church of Christ this horrible catastrophe, by means and in the name of an alleged Ecumenical Council!
Furthermore how prevailing is still that whole 2nd Chapter of Epistle 2.a of St. Paul to the Thessalonians: «… For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only that he who now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way.


And then that wicked one shall be revealed: whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: him whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power and signs and lying wonders: And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish: because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to iniquity»4.
This is the reason, the only reason, in the light of the Gospel and of the Tradition of the Church that we are asking the reader to proceed with the following pages.

1 Sillon was a social Movement, originated in France in 1893 by Marc Sangnier. At first, the movement adhered to the Pontifical directives. Leo XIII and Pius X honored Sangnier with praises. The organ of the Movement was the newspaper “Le Sillon” (The Furrow). Toward 1903, however, the Movement began to involve itself with political-social concepts that brought it to become a “Center of Moral Unit” independent of the doctrine of the Church. Hence the condemnation inflicted upon it by Pius X in 1910.
2 S. Pius X, “Letter on the Sillon”, 25 August 25, 1910, n. 41.
3 Psalm 7, 10.
4 II Thessalonians II, 7-12.

«… I was not drawn to the clerical state which seemed sometimes stagnant, closed… involving the renunciation of worldly tendencies in proportion to the renunciation of the world… If I should feel this way, it means that I am called to another state, where I would be fulfilled more harmoniously for the common good of the Church». (Paul VI to Jean Guitton, in: “Dialogues with Paul VI,” p. 285)

«I noticed how his thinking was secular. With him, I was not in the presence of a “cleric”, he even promoted an unexpectedly secular Papacy»! (Jean Guitton, in: “The Secret Paul VI“, Ed. Pauline)

PROLOGUE
It was during the course of the works of the 35th Assembly of the Italian Bishops that Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the president of CEI (Italian Episcopal Conference), before the Pope and the Bishops announced the decision of filing the “cause for the beatification” of Paul VI. Although the assent of the “Permanent Council of the Italian Episcopal Conference” had already been granted, the procedure for the causes of the Popes also calls, however, for the consultation of the entire National Episcopate. A Pope, in fact, is not only the “Bishop” of Rome, but he is also the “Primate of Italy”, and therefore the “placet” of the Italian Bishops was one more passage required by the canonical procedure, such as it was established by Paul VI himself, and, subsequently, by John Paul II in the document “Divinus Perfectionis Magister“. Rome is, however, the diocese of every Pope. It is Rome, therefore, that must act as official interlocutor with the “Congregation for the Causes of the Saints”. And so on May 13, 1992, Cardinal Ruini, Vicar of the Pope for the city of Rome, issued an “Edict”, appearing in the diocesan weekly “Roma Sette” in which, among other things, it stated: «We invite every single faithful to communicate to us directly, or else transmit to the Diocesan Tribunal of the Vicariate of Rome any “information” which, in any way, may argue against the reputation of sanctity of the said “Servant of God”».
I waited a few more years before introducing this “evidence” against the reputation of sanctity” of Paul VI, both for religious courtesy toward part of the “senior consents” to the introduction of “the cause of beatification” and in order to first follow a part of the canonical process, hoping that at least someone would come forth with a few reasons “for serious doubt” (at least on the opportunity of this process!).
However as this did not happen, the undersigned, who completely disagrees with this initiative for the beatification of Paul VI has felt the obligation to pass these comprehensive “informational pages” against the reputation of holiness.”
Also, I was morally driven because of two “pushes” by John Paul II: one, on May 13, 1993 in his speech to the Bishops at the Italian Episcopal Conference saying: «I received the notification of the opening of the process for the canonization (?!) of my Predecessor, Paul VI. To me, he was a Father, in a personal sense. For this reason, I can but express my great joy and my gratitude»…
The other, just 15 years after the death of Paul VI, saying: «I do hope the process of beatification of Paul VI may soon be favorably concluded. We pray that the Lord will grant us to see, as soon as possible, this Servant of His elevated to the honors of the altars»1.
Well, he told me that the said “pronouncement” had been a sort of “coup d’état” on the part of the Vicar of Rome, since“the majority of the Italian Episcopate would squarely reject it” (sic). I leave with him – now in heaven – the responsibility of this clarification.
I, however, believe this to be true, due to the Monsignor’s profound honesty and sincerity, and from the various other sources that I subsequently gathered, on this scheme to raise to the altars the two Popes of Vatican II, in order to manifest the “supernaturalness” of Vatican II, and, consequently, of this “New Church” with its “Reforms”, despite the explicit declaration of Paul VI himself when he spoke of the “self-destruction” afoot within the Church (for which, however, he himself was primarily responsible!).



That being said, another justification, for my work on Paul VI, is the fact that, in any age, historians and theologians have always judged every “Pontificate”; thence there cannot be anything extraordinary in passing a “judgment” on the pontificate of Paul VI, as well. Moreover: as a son, by natural right, has always the prerogative of complaining about his own father and even reproach him about his acts, when these should not be in keeping with his parental duties, why should not I, a priest, and a member of the “Ecclesia Mater”, have the right and duty to maintain the teaching I received as irreformable doctrine, and therefore eternal, from the “Ecclesia Docens” in Her perpetual Magisterium? Is my “rational homage” to God3, through Faith, perhaps to break away from that which once was taught to us, and replace it with that which is being taught today, in the name of “novelty” and “change”? And is the one “responsible”, the “accomplisher”, the “collaborator” of all that occurred, during and after the Vatican II, not perhaps he who sat at the “top” of the Hierarchy? Certainly never, in the past, was there such a disconcerting conflict, or a similar contradiction between the “truths” of the “past” and the other “alleged truths” of this “present”.
Definitely, one needs to have lost all love for the Church and for souls – as well as lost common “good sense” – to have the nerve to propose the beatification of Paul VI! Indeed this is the last straw, this desire to sanctify a Pope that openly failed his “duties” as Supreme Pontiff. Yes, for even a Pope, like any Catholic faithful, must indeed seek his own sanctification through the fulfillment of the duties related to his own station.
Now, since in this historical-theological “Essay” I shall attempt to demonstrate that Paul VI did not fulfill his duty, I allowed myself to side with the “devil’s advocate”, the one who in every “process of beatification”, has the grave task of scrutinizing the life and writings of the candidate, just to dig up all those elements that might oppose his canonization!
Even though a man becomes the Head of the Roman Catholic Church, and is called officially “Holy Father”, does not mean that his “alleged sanctity” has necessarily accompanied him into this office. In fact, of the 261 Popes who governed the Catholic Church, only 76 were ever “canonized”. The last of them being St. Pius X.
It also must be known that, within the framework of the procedure necessary to establish “the heroic virtues” – an indispensable preliminary to beatification and canonization, rather, a “sine qua non” condition – is the verification of a certain number of posthumous miracles (that is, after death), attributed to the celestial intercession of the candidate. This, legal procedure must be executed, as the honor of the Church and the credibility of Her decisions toward everyone, believers and non-believers, are at stake. Unfortunately, some dispensations that have already been done against these canonical requirements have later opened the way to certain abuses! Now, even if this inexplicable push for a quick speedy solution for the “process for the beatification” of Paul VI, may not seem an obvious violence to Canon Law in order to rush to a positive solution, and even if a conclusion in his favor is reached and would be based exclusively on positive “depositions”, it is undeserved, illegal and dishonest, since Paul VI had betrayed Pius XII, with whom he collaborated; he had a dubious moral life4; and finally his Pontificate had been marred by very grave deviations from the very “Depositum Fidei” and consequent errors.

1 August 7, 1993.
2 He had been collaborating with it for over 12 years, with the “Vangeli Festivi” and with the “Osservatorio Romano” page.
3 Romans 12, 1; Pius IX, “Qui pluribus”, DB 1737.
4 In order for the “Congregation for the Causes of the Saints” to recognize the “supernatural signs” of divine approval, such as “miracles”, obtained by “He” whom the Congregation must recognize as “worthy” of the supreme honors, the Congregation must, in the first place, (and thus in Paul VI’s cases, too) form a clear idea as to the “reputation” of the “sanctity of life”, and then study the “heroicity of the virtues”. Now, that could neither come from the sole observation of the “facts”, nor from the exclusive account of the judgments, but it must also come from the people that have known him in life, or, at any rate, from reliable writings and “documents”. Now, since it is undisputable that Paul VI’s moral repute had not been so clear, it is a very serious moral obligation for the “Congregation for the Causes of the Saints” to ascertain the minutest detail.
While a “beatification” would not imply the infallibility on the part of the Papal Magisterium, (and all the less would it confer any value upon the saying, “vox populi, vox Dei!”), it would not be honest, nonetheless, that one let the faithful believe it, distracting them from a just and dutiful notion one has to have of the divine truth, of the alleged “sanctity” of the elected, and of his alleged virtues

For this, what more could be done, to give a confident “judgment” of the real “thought” of Paul VI and, therefore, of his responsibility in the dreadful drama in which the Church is living, if not quoting his own “Addresses” to the Council and his Sunday “texts”, or of particular occasions, relating to his mandate as Supreme Pontiff of the Church of Christ? How many times had I noticed that Paul VI was against his Predecessors, despite the illusory quantity of mundane applauses he received! How many times had I considered that his “Great Design” which was opposed, however, to the Faith of Catholic Tradition, to the extent of recalling what St. Pius X had written: «This triumph of God on earth, both in individuals and in society, is but the return of the erring to God through Christ, and to Christ through the Church, which we announced as the program of our Pontificate»5.

5 “Communium Rerum” of April 21, 1909.

While studying the program of Paul VI, I saw the opposite, and that is: to lead to ruin the Kingdom of God through a “universal ecumenism” of “faith in Man” and of “cult of Man“*, necessarily leading to a Deist Humanism in the service of the Masonic UN (United Nations). Now, this reminds me of that strange “confidence” Paul VI made to the pilgrims that Wednesday of April 12, 1967: «But there is the strange phenomenon that is produced in us: wanting to comfort you, you communicate to us, in a certain sense, your peril, to which we wish to remedy; it comes to mind, with the consciousness of our inadequacy, the memory of the weaknesses of Simon, son of John, called and given the name Peter by Christ… the doubt… the fear… the temptation of bending Faith to modern mentality…».


Unfortunately, this Church of Christ, under his Pontificate, indeed withered because of his innovative, reforming, and perturbing action. And he could see it for himself, so much so that, in disturbing terms, on December 7, 1968 – third anniversary of his proclamation of the “Cult of Man“* – he had to recognize it: «The Church, today, is going through a moment of disquiet. Some indulge in self-criticism, one would say even self-destruction. It is like an acute and complex inner upheaval, which no one would have expected after the Council. One thought of a flourishing, a serene expansion of the concepts matured in the great conciliar assembly. There is also this aspect in the Church, there is the flourishing, but… for the most part one comes to notice the painful aspect. The Church is hit also by he who is part of it».
*See also page 5 of
VATICAN II ABOUT FACE-FR LUIGI VILLA

And on June 29, 1972, his judgment, on what was happening in the Church, was even gloomier:
«Through some cracks the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: there is doubt, uncertainty, problematic, anxiety, confrontation. One does not trust the Church anymore; one trusts the first prophet that comes to talk to us from some newspapers or some social movement, and then rush after him and ask him if he held the formula of real life. And we fail to perceive, instead, that we are the masters of life already. Doubt has entered our conscience, and it has entered through windows that were supposed to be opened to the light instead…». «Even in the Church this state of uncertainty rules. One thought that after the Council there would come a shiny day for the history of the Church. A cloudy day came instead, a day of tempest, gloom, quest, and uncertainty. We preach ecumenism and drift farther and farther from the others. We attempt to dig abysses instead of filling them». «How has all this come about? We confide to you our thought: there has been the intervention of a hostile power. His name is the Devil; this mysterious being who is alluded to even in the letter of St. Peter. So many times, on the other hand, in the Gospel, on the very lips of Christ, there recurs the mention of this enemy of man. We believe in something supernatural (post-correction: “preternatural”!), coming into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate anything of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent that the Church would explode into the hymn of joy for having regained full consciousness of Herself» (!!).

And so, Paul VI admitted to himself that the hand of Satan was in the conciliar and post-conciliar Church! But what did he do to save that Church of Christ from the dominance of Satan, of whom he had ascertained was the devastating reality? Nothing. Al though it had been he himself that had thrown the barque of Peter into the tempest! Ought he not perhaps, instead, with decisive and vigorous gestures, refloat the boat from the banks in which he had thrown it? Nay, he apologized and washed his hands of it like a modern day Pilate, saying: «The Pope does not believe he must follow another line other than that of the faith in Jesus Christ, whom holds His Church at heart more than anyone else. It shall be Him to stifle the tempest. How many times has the Master repeated: “Confidite in Deum. Creditis in Deum et in Me credite!” The Pope will be the first to execute this command of the Lord and to abandon himself without anguish or inopportune anxieties, to the mysterious play of the invisible but very certain assistance of Jesus to His Church»6. Just something Pilate would say indeed! Three years earlier, when he threw everything up in the air in order to reform, change, and modify, did he not govern, and impose his ideas, creating all of the premises of that tempest on the Church, and thus relinquishing any right to fold his arms, to abandon the helm of the barque of Peter, demanding that God Himself miraculously rescue the calamity that he created?
And instead, on June 21, 1972, Paul VI went back to repeating his false doctrine through which he sought to convince (whom?) that it was God’s job to rescue His Church: «In some of our personal notes, we find on this subject: perhaps, the Lord has called me to this service not because I have any flair for it, or because I govern and rescue the Church from Her present difficulties, but because I suffer something for the Church and because it appears clearly that He, and not another, guides Her and saves Her». «We confide this sentiment surely not to make a public, thus conceited act of humility, but so that it be given to you, too, to enjoy of the tranquility that we derive from it, thinking that not our weak and inexperienced hand is at the helm of the boat of Peter, but the invisible, and yet strong and loving hand of Lord Jesus»!
It is one more false and hypocritical witty remark, for God had not put him at the helm of Peter so that he would send the boat adrift with his “Reforms”, but so that he would govern it according to just Tradition, as had his Predecessors. And so, Paul VI should not have asked God for a miracle to save the Church again, but he should have, instead, humiliated himself and corrected his own “errors”, and fulfilled the work of salvation that his duty demanded. In one word, he had to quit praising and exalting the Man making himself a god, and think instead of the billions of men who still lay in the shadow of death and are awaiting the Revelation of the true God, Jesus Christ, the only one that sanctifies them and saves them. It is not this, perhaps, the first question of our Father: “sanctificetur Nomen Tuum”?
And what are, then, these UN, these UNESCO and all these other International Institutions if not the work of Satan intent on destroying the Kingdom of Christ, His Church? Therefore, why that rushing to erect sand castles, forgetting that “ADVENIAT REGNUM TUUM”, which is the sole “International” that shall truly last for eternity? And how could he nurture dreams of international politics when his duty, willed by his vocation, could not be anything other than the relentless quest for the “Will of God, on earth as it is in heaven”? And had Paul VI not seen, what the Earth had become when God was thrown out by the French Revolution to be governed by “Freedom”, “Equality”, “Fraternity”, that is, upon the false “Great Principle” of 1789, which had taken the place of the “Law of God”, to submit it to the “Rights of Man”? Therefore, he was to be the faithful Judge of the “Honor of God” and of the “Rights of God” in order that the “Will of God” would be respected.


Not so, instead! Perhaps, Paul VI had forgotten the command of Jesus: “But seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you”7; Paul VI, that is, had forgotten that the future belongs to God, to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of the World, and that, at the end of times, the “Now shall the prince of this world be cast out”8, to make room only for the “Church of God: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman”. With such a picture before me, how could I not be tempted to ask myself whether Paul VI had ever had a true vocation to the “priesthood”? Even the words I had read in the book, “Dialogues with Paul VI” by Jean Guitton – his greatest “friend” – had already caused me to reflect a lot: «I had an intense calling to live in the world, to be a lay man, as they say today. I did not feel cut out for the clerical life that, at times, seemed to me static, closed, more interested in preserving than promoting, implying the renunciation of earthly tendencies in the measure of its condemnation of the world. Nonetheless, if one had these feelings, could one join priesthood in the Twentieth century? If I feel thus, it means that I am called to another state, where I will realize myself more harmoniously, for the common good of the Church».9
Grave “words”, which brought to mind those other ones, also written by his “friend”, in “Paul VI Secret“:
«I noticed how his thoughts were of a secular kind. With him, one was not in the presence of a “cleric”, but of a layman, promoted, unexpectedly, to the papacy!»10.
Paul VI, then, would have been a “layman” (not a “priest”, that is!). A phrase that had upset me, precisely because the “layman” Giovanni Battista Montini had become “Pope” Paul VI.

6 December 7, 1968.
7 Matthew 6, 33.
8 John 12, 31.
9 Jean Guitton, “Dialogues with Paul VI”, Mondadori, p. 285
10 Jean Guitton, in “Paul VI Secret”, Edizioni Paoline, p. 21

Oh! May Mary’s Immaculate Heart grant me the “grace” of being able to transmit, in these pages, the “truth”, in order to remain faithful to the Faith in Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and transmitted by His Church, sole “custodian” of the “Depositum Fidei”!
-Father Doctor Luigi Villa

The Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success
1288 Summit Ave Suite 107 Oconomowoc, WI. 53066 USA

“Paul VI…beatified?” is also available in the following languages:

Excerpts from
5D. Beatification of Paul VI? – Letter to the Cardinals –
By Dr. Fr. Luigi Villa
Your Eminence,
I had read in the press that on December 11 the Cardinals and Bishops, overcoming the obstacle of the theologians, will give their “yes” for the beatification of Pope Paul VI, despite the fact that he never had, while he was living, any reputation for holiness, but instead, was primarily responsible for all the current troubles of the Church, and I even dare to say that the result of his pontificate was really catastrophic!
Allow me then, to concede on what had been reported, in bold print, in “Avvenire” of March 19, 1999, page 17, about Monsignor Montini: “Ruini makes a Profile of the Pope (Paul VI) that changed the Church.”

How very true! … We proved it with our “Montinian Trilogy,” which was never found to be false or invalid by my opponents who always limited themselves to public ridicule, insults and trivialities without ever denouncing in public, the “how,” “where,” and “why” of our arguments and our documents that would be contrary to the truth.

Certainly, to tell the “truth” is not wrong, even about the person of Paul VI, because he has become part of History, so his entire life can be studied without hesitation or misinformation, without putting a halo on his head, which would mean to put it around his “revolution” carried out by Freemasonry, through him, in the name of Vatican II.

It must be, then, a duty to give an outline of his alleged virtues necessary for a beatification. Cardinal Ruini, in his closing address to the “Diocesan Process,” said, «His faith shines from his person, glitters in his words. In 1967, he gave life to the Year of Faith. In 1968, in front of St. Peter’s, he proclaimed the “Creed” of the people of God, a faith based on the “Nicene Creed.”»

Now, as to that of his alleged Faith, a Faith that the Cardinal even called “passionate,” is belied by the same Paul VI who, in his famous speech on the self-demolition of the Church, he said: « The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-demolition [auto-destruction]. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated. “Many expect dramatic gestures from the Pope, energetic and decisive interventions. The Pope does not believe that he must follow any other line than that of trust in Jesus Christ, whose concern for His Church is greater than that of anyone else’s. It shall be Him to stifle the tempest …»

But these words sound like a betrayal of his duty as Vicar of Christ, who, for the defense of the Faith, has always relied on His successors, starting immediately with St. Peter, His first Vicar on earth. Thus, the refusal of Paul VI in defending the Faith was an open refusal to do what should have been his main duty. Thus, his “non-intervention” policy was an abdication of his official duty to intervene in this self-destruction of the Church, that he himself led. A rejection, then, that is a real “sin of omission.”

What should one think, then, when [the Church] brings to the altar for the veneration of the faithful a Pope who has so badly failed in his primary duty which is, in fact, to defend the “Deposit of Faith”?

Paul VI abdicated by not fulfilling his primary role as “Head” of the Catholic Church to instead, “serve” Humanity and reconcile all beliefs and all religions into one universal religion. By dreaming to become the great unifier of the people, he sacrificed the Catholic Church, Tradition, Institutions, and the faithful themselves, to form The Movement of Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy,” that must enslave all the churches to the World.

Paul VI, thus failing to ever distinguish the Church of Christ, which is “one and not two or more,” was the first Pope that called on the schismatic and heretical, religious communities in his opening speech of the Third Session of Vatican II, September 14, 1964, saying:
«”O Churches, who are so far away and yet so close to Us! O Churches, the object of Our heartfelt desire! O Churches of Our incessant longing! O Churches of Our tears”» and announced, then, on several occasions, the mutual forgiveness for each other’s faults.

Later, His ceaseless ecumenical propaganda was only to lead to the recognition of other Christian communities and not to a true community of salvation.

There is proof of this, even in his visit to the “World Council of Churches”, on June 10, 1969, where he was well received by 234 religious communities. Here, Paul VI assumed their lingo and even took part in their schism with this general statement: « “Christian brotherhood … among the Churches which are part of the “Ecumenical Council” and the Catholic Church» … ignoring the fact that there can be no fellowship between the Catholic Church and “dissidents.” Instead, he himself raised the issue by saying, “The Catholic Church must become a member of the “Ecumenical Council.” And then he said, « In all brotherly frankness, we do not consider the question of the Catholic Church’s participation in the Ecumenical Council to have advanced to the stage where one could give an affirmative answer. The question must as yet remain in the realm of hypothesis… certain grave implications… the way is long and difficult.”»

But it was a “trial balloon” because, underneath it all, there was already His “yes”; the evidence can be found in his words: « The spirit of a sound ecumenism…which inspires all of us… requires, as a basic condition of all fruitful contact between different denominations, that each should loyally profess his own faith, » and here, Paul VI invited one to recognize the positive and evangelical Christians values which are in other denominations and open oneself up to any possibility of collaboration … as in the field of charity and as in the search for peace between peoples.

To the question, then, whether there is salvation in any of those 234 “churches,” members of the “COE”, while the doctrine of the Catholic Church had always responded negatively, Paul VI, on the contrary, replied in the affirmative! His “mind” was shown, then, still more in accepting Jews, Muslims, Buddhists monks … and going to them during his “apostolic journeys” of “dialogue.”

Never before Paul VI, had any Pope declined the Faith in the plural. Paul VI, however, said that the “faiths” should pay homage to each other.

During his trip to Uganda, Paul VI spoke of “the Ugandan Martyrs” Yes, he went to visit these “Catholic
Martyrs”, but confused them, indiscriminately, with the Muslims, Protestants; according to him, they had died in the “ecumenical spirit”, all united over dogmatic conflicts.
Even during his trip to Bombay (where the Hindus gave him a small idol, and Buddhists offered him a Buddha!), Paul VI showed no discrimination between human religions and Catholicism.

And I could go on and on with this theme of Faith. Just to mention, here, Paul VI’s scandalous gesture of delivering, with a written apology, the “glorious banner of Lepanto” to the Turks, as if to apologize [to them] for not being able to occupy all of Catholic Europe and deliver it to Islam.

As for his “Credo of the People of God,” that Cardinal Ruini compared to the “Nicene Creed,” and presented as the apex of the “Faith” of Paul VI, it must be said, however, that when this so called “Creed” was recited publically in Peter’s plaza, Paul VI prefaced this prayer by stating “two explicit statements”: the first, that he wanted to give a “firm testimony to the divine truth entrusted to the Church” (and this is commendable!) but with the second statement he put it all into question, because he specifically excluded, that his “Creed” was “a dogmatic definition.” In fact, he said: «. . . We are about to make a profession of faith, to utter a creed, which, without being a dogmatic definition in the strict sense of the word, and despite some developments sought-after by the spiritual conditions of our time …».

Now these words of Paul VI took the signature of infallibility away from our Catholic “Creed” to be, that is, the “revealed Truths” of the divine Faith and of the Catholic Faith, professed in Scripture and Tradition.

In St. Peter one can read: “Inde oritur unitas sacerdotii,” [Arises from unity of the priesthood], that the
Pope must be the bond of “Charity” and, therefore, of unity. Instead, Paul VI honored and preferred “Those who are far” more than the ones who were close to the Faith, showing, them therefore often a cold friendship. He admired the language, the religious rites and traditions of the “others”, while persecuting those belonging to the ancient Catholic tradition. The doors of his house were always open for theological adventurers, for agitators, for those who sowed scandals and heresies. He never concealed, however, his animosity towards the traditionalists who defended what he wanted to destroy.

He never excommunicated them because there were no canonical reasons to do so, but he took, however, precautions not to have direct personal contact. This however was much worse than an excommunication, because it was a “cancellation,” [an annulment], it was a “dialectic suppression” of the adversary who, like myself, has never bowed to the follies, whims, distortions, and vagaries of the many of the progressive clergy, servilely obedient, in reaching the aim, as Cardinal Garrone once put it: “the defeat of the other party.”

About the facts concerning his false “Charity,” you can read many of them in my three books on Paul VI, all marked by his sectarianism, all flavored with schism. Yes, schism, because schism is the separation of a portion of the faithful from the Catholic Church. This gives one the right to call it a “sin/crime” against Charity, that Charity which is guided by Faith and Hope. And so [this sin/crime against Charity] necessarily involves hatred toward the Kingdom of God and toward the Church, to weaken Her and tear souls from Her, by means, in fact, of divisions and heresies!

For this reason, Paul VI would never have been able to exclaim:
“CHARITAS CHRISTI URGET NOS.” [The Charity of Christ drives us.]

After what I have written about Paul VI, I am obliged to highlight the profound mystery of the modernist “mind” of Paul VI through ‘ ‘sayings” and “facts,” because these constitute the reason for my spiritual reaction that has caused me great suffering.

Deign, Your Eminence, to consider my work, an expression of my respect and my prayers.

Fr. Luigi Villa




LIST OF PAUL VI’S “SAYINGS” AND “FACTS”
PAUL VI AND THE DOUBLE BLACK MASS
The election to the papacy of Card. Montini (June 21, 1963) was due to the intervention of some representatives of the High Jewish Masonry of B’nai B’rith.

On June 29, 1963, eight days after the election of Paul VI, in the Pauline Chapel, and in a chapel of Charleston (South Carolina – USA) a double black Mass was celebrated in order to enthrone Lucifer in the Chapel of St. Paul, the heart of Catholicism.

At the end of this sacrilegious Mass, the participants of the Pauline Chapel swore:

“To transfer their soul into the hands of the Almighty Lucifer”;

“To be a willing instrument and collaborator of the Founders of the ‘House of Man on Earth”;

“To form the ‘New Age of Man”;

“To erect the ‘Universal Church of Man.'”

After the Black Mass, what did Paul VI do for all 15 years of his Pontificate?

From his trip to the Holy Land, in 1964, Pope Paul VI began to wear the Ephod, the symbol of the denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

In 1964, Pope Paul VI, in the presence of 2000 Bishops, definitively deposed the Tiara on the altar, rejecting the three papal powers, as if to signify that he no longer wanted to govern the Church.

Reading the “Montinian Trilogy” of Father Luigi Villa, one discovers that Paul VI:

– Has invented a new Christianity taken down from the Cross;

– Replaced the “Cult of God” with the “Cult of Man,” which replaced the primacy of the supernatural with the primacy of the natural and temporal;

– Replaced the primacy of the “Law of God” with the “primacy of conscience”;

– Replaced the primacy of the “Kingdom of God” and “eternal life” with the primacy of the “world”,
“Peace” and “Heaven on earth”!

– Has invented a Christianity that sees Christ as a “liberator,” not from sin but from suffering and from servitude;

– He invented a Gospel confused with the “Charter of the Rights of Man” and placed it at the service of “social justice”; the “Rights of God,” were abolished to the benefit of the exaltation of the “Rights” and “taste” of Man;

– He reduced the evangelization of the supernatural “docete” to a “dialogue” that is based only on human means and does not aim at conversion.

– He invented a Christianity that while worshiping Man, proclaims “Religious Freedom” as a fundamental and absolute right for Man, and has promotes a false love for Man on which Paul VI founded His “Religion of Man”:

«We must ensure to the life of the Church a new way of feeling, of wanting, of acting»;

«Religion must be renewed»;

« It is no longer necessary to attract souls to have an interest in “supreme things»;

«Do not work for the Church, work for humanity»;

«Shan’t modern man come, one day (…) to lend his ear to the wonderful voice of the Spirit which throbs in it? Will it not be the religion of tomorrow?»;

« Our humanism becomes Christianity; our Christianity becomes centered on God; in such sort that we may say, to put it differently: a knowledge of man is a prerequisite for a knowledge of God!»;

« Man reveals himself to us a giant. He reveals himself to us divine not in himself, but in his origin and in his destiny. Honor to man, honor to his dignity, to his spirit, to his life. King of the Earth and now Prince of heaven as well.»

On December 7, 1965, Pope Paul VI, in front of the entire Conciliar Assembly, delivered the speech in which he proclaimed the “CULT OF MAN”:

«To know God, one must know man.»

«All this doctrinal wealth of the Council is aimed at one thing: to serve man.»

«Secular humanism and the profane finally appeared in its terrible stature and have, in a sense, defied the Council. The religion of God who became man has met the religion of man who has become God … We more than anyone else; WE HAVE THE CULT OF MAN!»

«… Man turns out to be divine. He is revealed as divine not in himself, but in his principle and in his destiny.»

PAUL VI FREEMASON
Msgr. Montini said to P. Felix A. Morlion, OP: « «A generation would not even pass before peace would be made between the two societies (Church and Freemasonry).»

On March 20, 1965, Pope Paul VI received in audience the leaders of the “Rotary Club,” a Masonic organization, and said: «the form of association of this para- Masonic group» was good, and that “it was a good method, and so “the purposes were good as well.”

In 1965, Pope Paul VI received the Head of the P2 Lodge, Licio Gelli, at the Vatican. Later, Pope Paul VI granted Gelli to be appointed Commander of: “Equitem Ordinis Sancti Silvestri Papae” [“Knight of the Order of Pope St. Sylvester”]…

Paul VI gave the eulogy of the Grand Master of the Palazzo Giustiniani, Giordano Gamberini, written in “La Rivista massonica” (The Masonic Magazine).

Paul VI also wanted the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, Prof. Giordano Gamberini, (one of the founders and “bishop” of the “Gnostic Church” Italian, which is the “satanic church”, founded in France in 1888) on the Executive Committee for a “Concordat Bible.”

Count Leon Poncins reported: “with Paul VI, we [Freemasonry] had won!”

The high initiate, Marsaudon, on the subject of Montini wrote: «You can talk about the reality of the Revolution, which advanced from our Masonic lodges, extending beautifully over the Basilica of St. Peter. »

Paul VI removed the “censorship” of Masonry, whereby the Grand Master Lino Salvini was able to say: «Our relations with the Vatican are great. »

During the Pontificate of Paul VI, Masonic laws such as: abortion, divorce, separation of Church and State, and the degradation of the Seminaries and Religious Congregations have been passed.

At the UN, Paul VI entered the “Meditation Room”, the sanctuary of Freemasonry, at the center of which there is “an altar to God without a face.”

During his trip to the Holy Land in 1964, on the Mount of Olives, Paul VI embraced the Orthodox Patriarch, Athenagoras I, a 33rd degree Mason!

Paul VI gave “His Pastoral” and His “Ring” to the Burmese Buddhist and Mason, U’Thant, the UN Secretary General.

On March 23, 1966, Pope Paul VI put his “new Conciliar ring” on the finger of Dr. Ramsey, a secular and Mason and then, he gave him a “blessing” and all present as well.


In 1971, Paul VI received in a public audience, at the Vatican, members of the “Masonic Lodge” of the “B’nai B’rith, which Paul VI called, «My dear friends.»

The high initiate Mexican, Carlos Vasquez Rangel, revealed that «Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII)and Giovanni Montini were initiated on the same day into the august mysteries of the Brotherhoods

Paul VI – according to experts in heraldry and nobility – was a descendant of converted Jews. In addition, he had been “initiated” into the Lodge of B’nai B’rith.

Prince Scotersco wrote that the election of Card. Montini to the papacy was due to the intervention of some representatives of the High Jewish Masonry of B’nai B’rith.

The most prominent and powerful collaborators of Paul VI were Freemasons.
Among these:
– Archbishop Pasquale Macchi, his personal Secretary from 1967 to 1978;
– Cardinal Jean Villot, for many years Secretary of State of Pope Paul VI;
– Cardinal Agostino Casaroli the man to whom he entrusted his Ostpolitik;
– Cardinal Ugo Poletti, representative of Paul VI in the Diocese of Rome;
– Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio, Prefect of the “Congregation for Bishops”;
– Cardinal Joseph Suenens, one of the great electors of Paul VI;
– Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, to which Paul VI entrusted the Liturgical Reform;
– Cardinal Franz Koenig, Archbishop of Vienna;
– Cardinal Achille Liénart;
– Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, president of the IOR, linked to the Mafia.

Other evidence of Paul VI’s membership into Freemasonry are:
– On the tile N. 12 of the “bronze door” of St. Peter’s Basilica, there is a “five-pointed star” inscribed within a circle imprinted on the back of the left hand of Paul VI.

– The Monument to Paul VI, on the Sacro Monte of Varese, glorifies the three betrayals of Paul VI to Christ, the Church and History.

– The odd signature, that appears in the official portrait of Pope Paul VI, in addition to representing the Mark of the Beast, the number of the Antichrist and the declaration of war on God, indicates that Paul VI is the Second Beast arising from the earth of the Apocalypse of St. John, namely: the Supreme Head of the Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria.

– The Templar Cross is surmounted by a “torch” on the pallium of Paul VI which is a symbol of the Supreme Head of the Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria.

– Visible Masonic symbols, including a square, compass, and triangle, designed by Msgr. Montini are engraved on the tombstone of Judith Alghisi (Jewish mother of Paul VI, who died in 1943), in the cemetery of Verolavecchia (Brescia). These symbols express the geometry of the blasphemous and satanic Masonic Triple Trinity, the deepest and most carefully guarded secret by the Unknown Superiors of Freemasonry. The meaning of this representation is none other than the “predestination” of Mgr. Montini as the future Patriarch of the World, that is, as the future Supreme Head of the Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria [chosen] by the Unknown Superiors.

PAUL VI AND COMMUNISM
During World War II, Don Battista Montini worked for military intelligence of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) (the forerunner of the CIA), as well as with the British and Soviet Intelligence, and transferred their information that served the Allies in order to detect the strategic objectives of bombing.

Montini had secret meetings with the communists, despite the official anti-communist position of Pope Pius XI and Pius XII. In 1938, Monsignor Montini had a confidential meeting with the Communists, Donini and Sereni; in 1944, he entered into negotiations with Togliatti; in 1945, with the Communist, Eugenio Reale.

In 1954, Pius XII received the evidence of the betrayal of Msgr. Montini with the Soviet Secret Services from Colonel Arnauld and he deposed him as the Secretary of State.



In the archives of Card. Tisserant, there were the “Letters” of Montini that reported to the KGB the names and the activities of the priests who clandestinely exercised their priestly ministry among the oppressed and persecuted people of the communist countries.

In the archives of Card. Tisserant, there was also the Marxist “creed” of the then Mgr. Battista Montini.

In 1954, Pius XII also discovered that Msgr. Montini “had hidden all the dispatches relating to the schism of the Chinese bishops.”

In 1954, in Milan, Montini gathered around him a clique of traveling liberal minded companions, anarchists, communists, socialists, gangsters and members of the “avant-garde” literary and artistic community

In September, 1965, another scandal occurred with the fraudulent removal of the “Petition of 450 bishops” who wanted the Council’s condemnation of Communism, but Paul VI did not want the Council to condemn it. A true betrayal!

Paul VI never intervened, nor condemned the campaign in favor of Communism and the exaltation of black racism, while he always remained cold when faced with the misfortunes of Christians unjustly enslaved.

Paul VI opened the Church to “dialogue” and cooperation with the Communists. His betrayal was manifested in 1971, with the forced removal of the great Cardinal Mindszenty whom Paul VI prevented from publishing his “Memoirs.”

Paul VI had meetings with Gromyko and Podgorny. He had long secret sessions with Monsignor Nicodemus, Archbishop of Leningrad and top secret agent.


It turned out that Berlinguer, at that time Secretary of the Communist Party of Italy, was the secret diplomatic agent of Paul VI at the Communist government in Hanoi.

Paul VI, in an appeal to China, expressed his joy at the announcement of the Cultural Revolution.

Under the pontificate of Paul VI, the betrayal of Cardinals Mindszenty and Slipyi, and millions of victims of Communism, especially in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, South Vietnam, Angola, Mozambique, Uganda was consummated…

The “Church of Silence” was a crime of condemnation for “witnesses” who were killed for witnessing and defending Jesus Christ!!

The “openness to the East” of Paul VI was a real slaughterhouse for the Faith! That “openness,” called “Ostpolitik,” became the biggest betrayal of all time, because Paul VI used the Church for subversive purposes, to make Christ a “social revolutionary” for human well-being.

The “Church of Silence” annoyed the “Silence of the Church” of Paul VI. For this reason, at the behest of Paul VI, Card. Slipyi, after decades of concentration camps and forced labor, was asked to come to the Vatican to be locked right away in a prison, where, as he said to me, during my “visit”: «Every moment is fixed in my mind, the odyssey spent in the Soviet camp, and my death sentence, but in Rome, behind the walls of Vatican, I have experienced the worst of times.»

Paul VI deposed Cardinal Mindszenty from his position as Primate of Hungary, because he (Mindszenty) never wanted to accept dialogue with Communism. The Cardinal, in a meeting in Vienna, told me: «Believe me
… Paul VI delivered entire Christian countries into the hands of communism … but the true Church that is still ours, has been forced into the catacombs.»

The pro-communism of Paul VI brought about Communism’s victory in Italy.

His “Ostpolitik”, in his pontificate, was aimed and led to a marked rapprochement with Bolshevik Russia.

His “Populorum Progressio” (March 26, 1967) had a completely Marxist flavor, because his “Justice” meant “Equality” and because he wanted the fusion of religions.


PAUL VI HOMOSEXUAL
Witnesses of the homosexuality of Paul VI are:
The homosexual writer, Robin Bryans who wrote of the homosexual relationship between Msgr.
Montini and Hugh Montgomery.

Homosexual and former Ambassador, Roger Peyrefitte, who spoke of his homosexuality by saying that
Paul VI, Archbishop of Milan, was in a secluded house to meet guys ad hoc.

The “New York Times” who also had the name of a famous Italian actor, Paolo Carlini, who had become a frequent visitor of Paul VI to his private apartments in the Vatican.

Abbe Georges de Nantes who exposed allegations of homosexuality against Paul VI, citing a variety of sources.

The writer, Franco Bellegrandi, who wrote on the following facts:
– the blackmail of Montini (because of his homosexuality) by the Soviets to force him to reveal the names of the priests and bishops secretly sent by Pope Pius XII across the Iron Curtain;

– the process of “homosexual colonization” of the Vatican during the reign of Montini;

– the nightly interventions by the police of the Archbishop of Milan, Msgr. Montini who was found several times on the streets of the city in civilian clothes and in dubious company;

– the authorization given by Montini to his lover Paolo Carlini to come and go as he pleased from the apartment of the Pope, in the Vatican;

– the blackmail of Montini by the Masons, threatening him to reveal certain facts about his homosexuality, unless they would obtain from him the approval of cremation, always denied by the Church.

– Card. Pietro Palazzini possessed two large folders full of documents that show, conclusively, the impure and unnatural vice of Paul VI.

The homosexuality of Paul VI was instrumental in the paradigm shift that saw the rise of the “Homosexual
Collective” in the Catholic Church in the United States.

In the midst of these [in this Homosexual Collective], there were:
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, Cardinal Terence James Cooke, Cardinal John Wright, Archbishop Rembert Weakland George, Bishop James S. Rausch, Bishop George Henry Guifoyle, Bishop Francis Mugavero, Bishop Joseph Hubert Hart, Bishop Howard James Hubbard …

PAUL VI AND HIS PONTIFICATE
Paul VI was a Pope who has ruled the Church, so he cannot be excused for the complete self-destruction of the Church, of which he alone was primarily responsible.

The destructive action of the pontificate of Paul VI can be summarized as follows:
– The demolition of the Holy Office, the guardian of orthodoxy;

– The repeal of the “anti-modernist oath”;

– The abolition of the Index, which forbade the reading of books dangerous to Faith;

– The scandalous passivity before the Dutch schism;

– The authorization of an Italian edition of the Catechism of the Dutch heretics;

– A visit to the Assembly of the “World Council of Churches”;

– The breakdown of the liturgical treasure;

– The lutheranization of the Mass;



– The public tributes to Luther;

– The demolition of encyclicals, which condemned Communism, Modernism, Freemasonry;

– The demolition of religious and clerical life;

– The constant appointment of liberal and progressive bishops to vacant sees in the whole Catholic world.

Paul VI has replaced “religion”, the principle of union among men, with “freedom.” With Paul VI and Vatican II the “disunity” among the hierarchy has entered the Church, so we no longer have one Church, but two different churches: the “Church of Christ” and the satanically inspired “Universal Church of Man.”

Immediately after his election as Supreme Pontiff, Paul VI began carrying out the rebirth of the “New Theology” by recalling the biblical teaching of the Jesuits, Lyonnet and Zerwhick, already condemned by the Holy Office, then, asking them to be part of the Biblical Commission, along with Cardinals Alfrink and Koenig, and four other progressive modernist scholars, who, on April 21, 1964, released an “Instruction” which was the rejection of the “canonical warning” of the Holy Office defending the historicity of the Gospels.

Paul VI made Michele Sindona, his “confidence man” who ran the money of the Sicilian Mafia, the Propaganda 2 Lodge and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Paul VI decided on the “resignation” of Bishops at 75 years, and also members of the Conclave at 80 years for the Cardinals.

Paul VI took away all forms of devotion and public prayers. He was almost never seen praying.

Even at Fatima, no one had ever seen or heard him reciting a Hail Mary!

The same can be said of “morals”. Under his pontificate there has been a complete collapse.

Even the marriage of priests has increased with his consent, complicity and even cooperation.

Paul VI introduced, then, even divorce by mutual consent.

Paul VI did not condemn the evil and Satanic Dutch Catechism, desiring that poisonous book to spread throughout the Church.

Paul VI welcomed terrorists and slaughterers of women and children at the Vatican. In fact, in 1970, he received the three terrorist leaders of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde.

Under Paul VI, “Thomistic Scholasticism” and the “Tradition” of “Natural Law” were discarded and replaced with the theological methods of scientific thought, such as Phenomenology and Existentialism.

Under the pontificate of Paul VI, the priests became effeminate figures, not very chaste, sentimental, easygoing, and ecumenical. They do not condemn any errors or who is teaching and spreading them, and are incapable of leading a battle against the evil for the pursuit of the good.

Paul VI presided over the complete secularization of thousands of priests validly ordained, giving them a dispensation “pro-gratia.”

Paul VI weakened the celibate and obligatory Priesthood through opening the way to a permanent non-celibate diaconate and the acceptance of “lay ministers” to assume the roles of “Lector”, and to open the way for “Lay Rite of Communion.”

Paul VI decided get rid of the cassock in exchange for civilian clothes.

Paul VI has eliminated all the Minor Orders: the Tonsure, the Ostiariato, the Exorcistate, the Sub-diaconate; he allowed “concelebrations” of Anglican Bishops, he has tried several times to delete the “cloistered life”; he allowed “Communion in the hand” and also allowed girls in miniskirts to administer Communion.



Paul VI abolished the “Latin” in the liturgy, forcing the national language and even the “dialects”, he ruined sacred music with the use of “drums” and “rock music”; he made the altars into tables for a Protestant “Supper” – turn toward the people, against “Humani Generis“; he demolished the dogmas, he obscured the Sacraments and weakened the Commandments; he blessed the “Pentecostals”, dancing and screaming in St. Peter.

Paul VI with his “updates” to adapt the Church to the world, he emptied the seminaries, the religious novitiates; he gave the Church “unionist priests,” “leftists”; he has reduced the message of the Cross to a vile humanism; he has suppressed many Holy Days of Obligation; he removed abstinence from meat on Fridays; he has issued a “decree” for the “mixed marriage”, without a demand for the Catholic baptism of their children.

Paul VI sent Cardinal Willebrands, as his legate, to the Lutheran Assembly of Evian, giving praise to Luther; he destroyed the “triumphalism” in the Church, creating the slogan: “The Church of the Poor.”

Paul VI was in a fury to destroy the Catholic States (Italy, Spain, etc).

Paul VI, because of his pride, his sensuality, his materialism, and his secularism, never did anything serious and challenging to rehabilitate the de- Christianized Europe.

Paul VI destroyed the excommunication “latae sententiae” of St. Pius X, against clerics who challenged the decree, “Lamentabili” and the encyclical “Pascendi“, and demanded that no one should even speak about excommunication.

Although Paul VI had no theological training and lacked a supernatural spirit, he still changed and defiled the entire Catholic religion.

In 1978 Paul VI said, «The present time … is the time of a storm! The Council has not given us … tranquility, but, unfortunately, has caused confusion.»

Paul VI, with the Motu Proprio “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem“, stated that “men of mature age, whether single or joined in marriage may be called to the diaconate.” It was a papal gesture which was a prelude to the Priestly Ordination for the married.

Paul VI, with the Motu Proprio “Matrimonia Mixta“, took out the solemn pledge of the non-Catholic spouse to baptize and educate their children in the Catholic Church. It was a Legislation that was passed, then, in the “Code of Canon Law” of 1983 (can. 1125).

Paul VI, with the Instruction “Memoriale Domini“, authorized the Episcopal Conferences to grant the distribution of Communion in the hand. It was another sacrilegious act!

Paul VI, with Instruction “Fidei custos“, authorized the “laity” to distribute Holy Communion, counter to the mission that Jesus Christ had reserved for the Apostles and the clergy.

Paul VI, as he accepted the friendship with dissidents, heretics, worldly, rebellious, atheists, and members of all religions, had a constant hostility and inflexibility with the defenders of the Catholic Faith.

Paul VI refused to receive 4,000 traditionalist Catholics from around the world, but received at a public audience, however, a group of Talmudic rabbis and the Patriarch of the Bonzi.

Paul VI, under the guise of an “aggiornamento,” even doctrinal, opened the doors to all kinds of heresies.

PAUL VI AND HIS NEW CHURCH
The “New Church” of Paul VI was summed up in these words:
– Had to change Her true and deep concepts [beliefs];

– Had to replace “docete” with “dialogue”;

– Had to be freed from dogmas;

– Was to become the “Church of Man”;


– Had to learn a new way of praying;

– Had to have a new liturgy;

– The Church had to be de-Christianized to be “absolved” from Her past;

– Had to accept the primacy of secular and the religious;

– Had to replace the “perennial philosophy” with another “revolutionary philosophy”;

– Was open to the world, to all the false religions, non-believers, atheists;

– Had to accept an ecumenical syncretism based on modern philosophy;

– Had to leave the supernatural to a simple religious attitude;

– Was to become a counter-natural religion;

– Was intended to create a Masonic “New World Order”;

– Had to be protestantized to facilitate Her transformation into a “Universal Church of Man”;

– Had to adopt a policy of non-intervention, in advancing the self-destruction of the Church.

Paul VI, in 1963, declared: «It is not surprising that after twenty centuries … the true, deep and full concept of the Church, which Christ founded … still need to be more precisely proclaimed.»

In his encyclical, “Ecclesiam Suam,” Paul VI wrote: «The Church makes “dialogue,” and this “dialogue” must characterize our Catholic task. » He wanted to open to all religions and ideologies of the world that became at once his collaborators in his “self-destruction” of the Church, to replace it with the satanic “Religion of Man”!

Paul VI forced the Church to learn a new way of praying, singing, a “new liturgy”, a “new attitude to the world,” a “new relationship” with the brethren of other Churches and Christian denominations, with the “Jewish brothers”; with non-Christians, with non-believers…

Paul VI wanted to protestantize the whole Church, and then dissolve it into the Masonic “Super-Universal Church”, i.e. a synthetic religion, called the ORU, or “Organization of United Religions.”

Paul VI put into effect the policy of “non-intervention” to abdicate his duty to intervene in the prevention of the self-destruction of the Church that He Himself was orchestrating to be at the service of Humanity and to reconcile all beliefs and all religions into one “Universal Religion.”

PAUL VI AND HIS MASS
Paul VI believed that the dogmatic Church was a major obstacle to ecumenism because the “truth” revealed by Christ, to establish unity in Truth, was, however, an obstacle to unity of religions!

Paul VI, with the Constitution “Missale Romanum”, and then with the “Novus Ordo Missae” of April 3, 1969, replaced the ancient Roman Rite of the Mass with his “New Mass,” all Protestant material.

The “Mass” of Paul VI is the intentional destruction of the belief and of the intrinsic value of the “Eucharistic Sacrifice,” of the “Real Presence” and of “sacramentality” of the ministerial priesthood, namely: [it is] the destruction of all essential dogmatic value of the Holy Mass.

The Ecumenical Mass of Paul VI “desacralizes” Holy Communion, by receiving it standing, in the hand and distributed by laymen: it attacks the “Propitiatory Sacrifice” of the “people of God” with that of the Priest (becomes only a “Presider”) with the rite where the “reform” was inspired by a Masonic syncretistic ecumenism.

The Mass of Paul VI was harshly criticized by the two Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, because “it departs in a remarkable manner, both as a whole and in detail, from the Catholic Theology of the Holy Mass”. Paul VI was forced to change his heretical definition, but, in the “new definition” that he made, he added only a weak reference to the “Holy Sacrifice”, without changing anything in the rest of the liturgical text.

With his “New Mass”, Paul VI has imposed the “errors”, already condemned by the Council of Trent and Pius VI, who condemned the same mistakes of the “Synod of Pistoia” against the Jansenists.

Paul VI, after deletion of the “Minor Orders” and “Sub-diaconate”, made sure that, little by little, the “secular” would take the place of priests, just as did Luther and like the Protestants.

PAUL VI AGAINST THE CULT OF MOST HOLY MARY
Montini had no “Marian sensitivity.” He was always absent from the traditional festivities of the coronation of Mary, pilgrimage to Loreto, and public recitation of the Rosary.
Paul VI even attempted to limit the worship of Mary, to please the Protestants.
In Milan, he said: «The proposal for a new title, namely that of “Mediatrix,” attributed to Mary seems “inappropriate” and even “dangerous” ….» «The extension of this title does not seem to promote true piety.»
The “Mediation of Mary” was totally obscured by the Vatican at the behest of Paul VI.

THE COFFIN OF PAUL VI
There was no Christian symbol, not even the Cross, on the coffin of Pope Paul VI.

Readers are requested to view the following videos:
Who Was Paul VI? Disturbing Accusations of Immorality against “Blessed” Giovanni Montini
Part VII – The Rite of Sodomy
April 2, 2011, 101 viewers’ comments
Part VIII – The Destruction of the Mass
April 4, 2011

Check out this Facebook page, A Call for Caution against the Beatification of Paul VI:https://www.facebook.com/groups/220774561390684/

5E. THE BACKGROUND OF THE AUTHOR FR. LUIGI VILLA AND HIS BOOKS ON POPE PAUL VIETC.
An Italian priest named Fr. Luigi Villa Th.D. (February 3, 1918-November 18, 2012*) of the diocese of Brescia was blessed by St. Padre Pio, by his own Archbishop Msgr. Giambattista Bosio and by Venerable Pope Pius XII who approved the mandate given by Padre Pio to Fr. Villa to dedicate his entire life to defend the Church from the cancer of Freemasonry and to expose other errors in the highest echelons of the Church.
No condemnation or criticism of Fr. Villa can be located on the Internet either, to the best of my knowledge.
He founded the magazine “Chiesa viva“, Italian for “Living Church”.
One of the Deputy Directors of “Chiesa viva” was the famous German Roman Catholic philosopher Prof. Dietrich von Hildebrand (October 12, 1889 – January 26, 1977), whom Pope Pius XII called “the 20th Century Doctor of the Church”. 
Pope John Paul II also greatly admired the work of von Hildebrand, remarking once to his widow Alice von Hildebrand “Your husband is one of the great ethicists of the twentieth century.”
Pope Benedict XVI has a particular admiration and regard for von Hildebrand, whom he knew as a young priest in Munich. The degree of Pope Benedict’s esteem is expressed in one of his statements about Hildebrand: “When the intellectual history of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century is written, the name of Dietrich von Hildebrand will be most prominent among the figures of our time.”
Dietrich von Hildebrand converted from Judaism to Catholicism in 1914. He authored over two dozen books on issues pertaining to the Catholic Faith.
His wife Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, interviewed below, is also a Catholic philosopher and theologian.
Over the decades of his investigation of the infiltration of both Freemasons and Communists into the hierarchy of the Church, and certain other evils, several attempts were made to assassinate Fr. Luigi Villa.
In his three books, Fr. Luigi Villa revealed the list of high-ranking Freemasons in the Church and at the Vatican – including at the Second Vatican Council — the list including Pope Paul VI, proved that Pope Paul VI was a homosexual, and the fact that Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was chosen by the conclave following the death of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI in 1963 and 1978 respectively but was forced to withdraw because of threats from the Freemasons, and confirmed that Cardinal Luciani who was finally elected and became Pope John Paul I, was murdered 33 days later.


“The ’cause of beatification’ of Pope Paul VI continued to proceed until the year 1997.
Father Luigi Villa was aware of the fact that Cardinal Pietro Palazzini had sent a letter to the Postulator for the ’cause of beatification’ of Paul VI that contained three names of the last homosexual lovers of Paul VI.
When Paul VI … beatified? (Paulo Sesto Beato?) [the present file]
was first published in 1998, the book was sent to every single Italian bishop. None of them acknowledged receipt; none challenged any of Father Villa’s claims. But the book was eventually instrumental in blocking the ‘beatification cause’ of Paul VI.
Fr. Luigi Villa’s December 1999 book (which Dr. Alice von Hildebrand inaccurately refers to as published in the year 2000) Pope Paul VI, a Pope on Trial? (Paolo VI: process a un Papa?), a continuation of the previous book, “Paul VI beatified?” was the answer to the attempt by the Vatican to continue the “cause of beatification” of Paul VI with the visit of Pope John Paul II to Brescia, in 1998.
On January 31, 2003, the 380-page third book of Father Villa: “The ‘New Church’ of Paul VI” was published, and as always sent to the top of the Church and to part of the Italian clergy. The book was devastating and the reaction was … a deadly silence!

It all began when Fr. Luigi Villa was asked in 1956 by St. Padre Pio to dedicate his entire life to defend the Church from the work of Freemasonry. The Bishop of Chieti, the then superior of Fr. Luigi Villa,Msgr. Giambattista Bosio, was told by the Papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Domenico Tardini that Pope Pius XII had approved the mandate given by Padre Pio to Fr. Villa, but with two conditions: Father Luigi had to have a degree in dogmatic theology, and that he had to be placed under the direction of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, Cardinal Pietro Parente, and Cardinal Pietro Palazzini.

Seven years later, “In the second half of 1963, Father Villa had his second meeting with Padre Pio. As soon as he saw him, Padre Pio said: «I have been waiting for you for a long time!» …Padre Pio embraced Father Villa and said: «Courage, courage, courage! for the Church is already invaded by Freemasonry,» adding: «Freemasonry has already reached the Pope’s (Paul VI’s!) slippers.»”

In December, 2008, Father Villa received his first award which was the “International Inars Ciociaria Journalist Award,” «… for his very extensive work as a journalist, author of books and pamphlets on theology, asceticism, non-fiction … and for his commitment to defend the Christian roots of Europe and for his protection of truth against forces alien to our civilization.»

In October, 2009, he was awarded the “Cultural Prize of Val Vibrata di Teramo” for being «a journalist, an outstanding writer, an incorruptible editor, Head Publisher and Editor of “Chiesa viva”,» but also «for being an eminent theologian devoting his ‘entire life to defend the Catholic religion and disseminating the historical truth and living according to the Gospel!’»

The credibility of Fr. Luigi Villa is unassailable.

Excerpts from my CRITICIZING VATICAN COUNCIL II-IS IT HERESY?
All words and sentences in green, black, blue and red colour emphases are mine –Michael
“After Vatican II, a tornado seemed to have hit the Church” -Dr. Alice von Hildebrand
Present at the Demolition – An interview with Dr. Alice von Hildebrand

The Latin Mass magazine, Summer 2001
The following conversation with Dr. Alice von Hildebrand (AVH) opens our discussion of this issue’s focus: The Crisis in the Church: Scenarios for a Solution.
Dr. von Hildebrand, professor of philosophy emeritus of Hunter College (City University of New York), has just completedThe Soul of a Lion, a biography of her husband, Dietrich
(called “a twentieth-century Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XII”).

AVH: […] There have been two books* published in Italy in recent years that confirm what my husband had been suspecting for some time; namely, that there has been a systematic infiltration of the Church by diabolical enemies for much of this century. My husband was a very sanguine man and optimistic by nature. During the last ten years of his life, however, I witnessed him many times in moments of great sorrow, and frequently repeating, “They have desecrated the Holy Bride of Christ.” He was referring to the “abomination of desolation” of which the prophet Daniel speaks.

TLM: This is a critical admission, Dr. von Hildebrand. Your husband had been called a twentieth-century Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XII. If he felt so strongly, didn’t he have access to the Vatican to tell Pope Paul VI of his fears?
AVH: But he did! I shall never forget the private audience we had with Paul VI just before the end of the Council. It was on June 21, 1965. As soon as my husband started pleading with him to condemn the heresies that were rampant, the Pope interrupted him with the words, “Lo scriva, lo scriva.” (“Write it down.”) A few moments later, for the second time, my husband drew the gravity of the situation to the Pope’s attention. Same answer. His Holiness received us standing. It was clear that the Pope was feeling very uncomfortable. The audience lasted only a few minutes. Paul VI immediately gave a sign to his secretary, Fr. Capovilla, to bring us rosaries and medals. We then went back to Florence where my husband wrote a long document (unpublished today) that was delivered to Paul VI just the day before the last session of the Council. It was September of 1965. After reading my husband’s document, he said to my husband’s nephew, Dieter Sattler, who had become the German ambassador to the Holy See, that he had read the document carefully, but that “it was a bit harsh.” The reason was obvious: my husband had humbly requested a clear condemnation of heretical statements.
TLM: You realize, of course, Doctor, that as soon as you mention this idea of infiltration, there will be those who roll their eyes in exasperation and remark, “Not another conspiracy theory!”
AVH: I can only tell you what I know. It is a matter of public record, for instance, that Bella Dodd, the ex-Communist who reconverted to the Church, openly spoke of the Communist Party’s deliberate infiltration of agents into the seminaries. She told my husband and me that when she was an active party member, she had dealt with no fewer than four cardinals within the Vatican “who were working for us.”
Many a time I have heard Americans say that Europeans “smell conspiracy wherever they go.” But from the beginning, the Evil One has “conspired” against the Church – and has always aimed in particular at destroying the Mass and sapping belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That some people are tempted to blow this undeniable fact out of proportion is no reason for denying its reality. On the other hand, I, European born, am tempted to say that many Americans are naïve; living in a country that has been blessed by peace, and knowing little about history, they are more likely than Europeans (whose history is a tumultuous one) to fall prey to illusions. Rousseau has had an enormous influence in the United States. When Christ said to His apostles at the Last Supper that “one of you will betray Me,” the apostles were stunned. Judas had played his hand so artfully that no one suspected him, for a cunning conspirator knows how to cover his tracks with a show of orthodoxy.
TLM: Do the two books by the Italian priest you mentioned before the interview contain documentation that would provide evidence of this infiltration?
AVH:
*The two books I mentioned were published in 1998* and 2000** by an Italian priest, Don Luigi Villa of the diocese of Brescia, who at the request of Padre Pio has devoted many years of his life to the investigation of the possible infiltration of both Freemasons and Communists into the Church.
My husband and I met Don Villa in the sixties. He claims that he does not make any statement that he cannot substantiate. When *Paulo Sesto Beato?
Paul VI … beatified? (1998) was published the book was sent to every single Italian bishop. None of them acknowledged receipt; none challenged any of Don Villa’s claims. 

The interview continued:
AVH: In this book, he relates something that no ecclesiastical authority has refuted or asked to be retracted – even though he names particular personalities in regard to the incident. It pertains to the rift between Pope Pius XII and the then Bishop Montini (the future Paul VI) who was his Undersecretary of State. Pius XII, conscious of the threat of Communism, which in the aftermath of World War II was dominating nearly half of Europe, had prohibited the Vatican staff from dealing with Moscow. To his dismay, he was informed one day through the Bishop of Uppsala (Sweden) that his strict order had been contravened. The Pope resisted giving credence to this rumor until he was given incontrovertible evidence that Montini had been corresponding with various Soviet agencies. Meanwhile, Pope Pius XII (as had Pius XI) had been sending priests clandestinely into Russia to give comfort to Catholics behind the Iron Curtain. Every one of them had been systematically arrested, tortured, and either executed or sent to the gulag. Eventually a Vatican mole was discovered: Alighiero Tondi, S.J., who was a close advisor to Montini. Tondi was an agent working for Stalin whose mission was to keep Moscow informed about initiatives such as the sending of priests into the Soviet Union.
Add to this Pope Paul’s treatment of Cardinal Mindszenty. Against his will, Mindszenty was ordered by the Vatican to leave Budapest. As most everyone knows, he had escaped the Communists and sought refuge in the American embassy compound. The Pope had given him his solemn promise that he would remain primate of Hungary as long as he lived. When the Cardinal (who had been tortured by the Communists) arrived in Rome, Paul VI embraced him warmly, but then sent him into exile in Vienna. Shortly afterwards, this holy prelate was informed that he had been demoted, and had been replaced by someone more acceptable to the Hungarian Communist government. More puzzling, and tragically sad, is the fact that when Mindszenty died, no Church representative was present at his burial.


Another of Don Villa’s illustrations of infiltration is one related to him by Cardinal Gagnon. Paul VI had asked Gagnon to head an investigation concerning the infiltration of the Church by powerful enemies. Cardinal Gagnon (at that time an Archbishop) accepted this unpleasant task, and compiled a long dossier, rich in worrisome facts. When the work was completed, he requested an audience with Pope Paul in order to deliver personally the manuscript to the Pontiff. This request for a meeting was denied. The Pope sent word that the document should be placed in the offices of the Congregation for the Clergy, specifically in a safe with a double lock. This was done, but the very next day the safe deposit box was broken and the manuscript mysteriously disappeared. The usual policy of the Vatican is to make sure that news of such incidents never sees the light of day. Nevertheless, this theft was reported even in L’Osservatore Romano (perhaps under pressure because it had been reported in the secular press). Cardinal Gagnon, of course, had a copy, and once again asked the Pope for a private audience. Once again his request was denied. He then decided to leave Rome and return to his homeland in Canada. Later, he was called back to Rome by Pope John Paul II and made a cardinal. Continued below.
**Fr. Luigi Villa’s December 1999 book (which Dr. Alice von Hildebrand refers to as published in the year 2000) “Pope Paul VI, a Pope on Trial?” (Paolo VI: process a un Papa?), a continuation of the previous book, “Paul VI beatified?” was the answer to the attempt by the Vatican to continue the “cause of beatification” of Paul VI with the visit of Pope John Paul II in Brescia, in 1998.

Mumbai’s Association of Concerned Catholics’ MumbaiLaity blog, on November 21, 2012
https://mumbailaity.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/letter-written-by-fr-luigi-villa-to-all-cardinals-regarding-pope-paul-vi-and-who-was-appointed-to-uncover-freemasonry/
published (i) Fr. Luigi Villa’s open — and very detailed and fully documented — 13-page letter sac. Luigi Villa PAUL VI beatified? – Chiesa viva, (https://mumbailaity.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/letter-to-cardinals-compl-en-11.pdf) to the Cardinals of the Catholic Church questioning the Beatification of Pope Paul VI on a number of serious charges, as well as (ii) the link http://www.chiesaviva.com/paoloVI%20beatoin.pdf to Fr. Villa’s 327-page 1998 book “that stopped the beatification process of Paul VI”. MumbaiLaity also provided a supplementary link http://www.huttongibson.com/PDFs/Paul-VI-Beatified-Book.pdf.

The interview continued:
TLM: Why did Don Villa write these works singling out Paul VI for criticism?
AVH:
Don Villa reluctantly decided to publish the books to which I have alluded. But when several bishops pushed for the beatification of Paul VI, this priest perceived it as a clarion call to print the information he had gathered through the years. In so doing, he was following the guidelines of a Roman Congregation, informing the faithful that it was their duty as members of the Church to relay to the Congregation any information that might militate against the candidate’s qualifications for beatification.
Considering the tumultuous pontificate of Paul VI, and the confusing signals he was giving, e.g.: speaking about the “smoke of Satan that had entered the Church,” yet refusing to condemn heresies officially; his promulgation of Humanae Vitae (the glory of his pontificate), yet his careful avoidance of proclaiming it ex cathedra; delivering his Credo of the People of God in Piazza San Pietro in 1968, and once again failing to declare it binding on all Catholics; disobeying the strict orders of Pius XII to have no contact with Moscow, and appeasing the Hungarian Communist government by reneging on the solemn promise he had made to Cardinal Mindszenty; his treatment of holy Cardinal Slipyj, who had spent seventeen years in a Gulag, only to be made a virtual prisoner in the Vatican by Paul VI; and finally asking Archbishop Gagnon to investigate possible infiltration in the Vatican, only to refuse him an audience when his work was completed –
all these speak strongly against the beatification of Paolo VI, dubbed in Rome, “Paolo Sesto, Mesto” (Paul VI, the sad one).
That the duty to publish this depressing information was onerous and cost Don Villa great sorrow cannot be doubted. Any Catholic rejoices when he can look up to a Pope with boundless veneration. But Catholics also know that even though Christ never promised He would give us perfect leaders, He did promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail. Let us not forget that even though the Church has had some very bad popes, and some mediocre ones, she has been blessed with many great popes. Eighty of them have been canonized and several have been beatified. This is a success story that does not bear parallel in the secular world.
God alone is the judge of Paul VI. But it cannot be denied that his pontificate was a very complex and tragic one. It was under him that, in the course of fifteen years, more changes were introduced in the Church than in all preceding centuries combined.
What is worrisome is that when we read the testimony of ex-Communists like Bella Dodd, and study Freemasonic documents (dating from the nineteenth century, and usually penned by fallen-away priests like Paul Roca), we can see that, to a large extent, their agenda has been carried out: the exodus of priests and nuns after Vatican II, dissenting theologians not censured, feminism, the pressure put on Rome to abolish priestly celibacy, immorality in the clergy, blasphemous liturgies (see the article by David Hart in First Things, April 2001, “The Future of the Papacy”), the radical changes that have been introduced into the sacred liturgy (see Cardinal Ratzinger’s book Milestones, pp. 126 and 148, Ignatius Press), and a misleading ecumenism. Only a blind person could deny that many of the Enemy’s plans have been perfectly carried out.
One should not forget that the world was shocked at what Hitler did. People like my husband, however, actually read what he had said in Mein Kampf. The plan was there. The world simply chose not to believe it.


But grave as the situation is, no committed Catholic can forget that Christ has promised that He will remain with His Church to the very end of the world. We should meditate on the scene related in the Gospel when the apostles’ boat was battered by a fierce storm. Christ was sleeping! His terrified followers woke Him up: He said one word, and there was a great calm. “O ye of little faith!” The end of the interview 

Padre Pio and Chiesa Viva
Welcome to www.PadrePioandChiesaviva.com! This site has been developed to expose the Truth of what has happened to our beloved Catholic Church in the past 50 years. We have the permission of the Italian magazine, “Chiesa viva,” to publish their works included on this website. The founder and editor of the magazine is Father Luigi Villa.
Father Villa met with Padre Pio over fifty years ago. In a series of meetings with Padre Pio, Father Villa learned of a mission Our Lord desired to entrust him with that would eventually consume his life up until the present day. This mission was to defend the Catholic Church from Her enemies! Enemies that would not only attack from outside, but also enemies that would be so daring as to enter the very bosom of the Church to attempt to destroy Her from within!
This mission is therefore, truly a mission of love for our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Our Lord promised would never be completely demolished as He promised, “the gates of Hell would not prevail against Her.”
For more information email us at: info@padrepioandchiesaviva.com
For more articles from Fr Villa and “Chiesa viva”: http://www.chiesaviva.com/

Paul VI was however declared “Blessed” (beatified) by Pope Francis on October 19, 2014. His beatification received praise as well as criticism and opposition from those who know better.

And so I end with an old article by Traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991), founder of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) who was excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in 1988 along with other priests and bishops (the excommunications were lifted in 1991 by Pope Benedict XVI).

Can Paul VI be beatified?
Archbishop Lefebvre gives his assessment as to why Pope Paul VI should not be beatified, firstly for his adherence to liberalism.
On December 20, 2012, Benedict XVI authorized the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to promulgate a decree recognizing the “heroic virtues” of Paul VI, pope from 1963 to 1978. Now only a miracle obtained through the intercession of Paul VI is necessary to proceed to his beatification. Apparently the postulator for his cause, Fr. Antonio Marrazzo, has already chosen a case to present to the medical commission, the cure of an unborn child diagnosed with severe malformation. According to Andrea Tornielli of La Stampa’s Vatican Insider, the beatification could take place in 2013.
Chapter 31, “Paul VI, a Liberal Pope,” provides a strong indication of what the Society of St. Pius X’s founder would have said about the pending beatification. DICI has introduced headings in the form of questions into Archbishop Lefebvre’s text, the better to follow his analysis.

How will Paul VI be judged by the Church of the future?




Perhaps, you will say, in 30 years secrets will have been revealed, or elements that should have been obvious to contemporary observers will stand out, statements made by this pope in complete contradiction to the traditions of the Church, etc. Perhaps. But I do not believe that such hypotheses are necessary; in fact, I think it would be a mistake to espouse them.
Others think, simplistically, that there were two popes: one, the true pope, imprisoned in the cellars of the Vatican, and the other, an imposter, his double, seated on the throne of Peter, working for the destruction of the Church. Books have been published about the two popes, based on the ‘revelations’ of a possessed person and on supposedly scientific arguments that state, for instance, that the double’s voice is not the same as that of the real Paul VI…!

What is your own explanation of Paul VI’s pontificate?
The real solution seems entirely different to me, much more complex, more difficult, and more painful. It is given us by a friend of Paul VI, Cardinal Daniélou. In his Memoirs, published by a member of his family, the cardinal clearly states, “It is clear that Paul VI is a liberal pope.”
Such is the solution that seems the most historically likely, because this pope was himself a fruit of liberalism. His whole life was permeated with the influence of the men he chose to surround him or to rule him, and they were liberals.
Paul VI did not hide his liberal leanings; at the Council, the men he chose as moderators to replace the presidents appointed by John XXIII, were Cardinal Agagianian, a cardinal of colorless personality from the Curia, and Cardinals Lercaro, Suenens and Dopfner, all three liberals and the pope’s friends. The presidents were sidelined at the head table, and these three liberals directed the conciliar debates. In the same way, Paul VI supported the liberal faction that opposed the tradition of the Church throughout the entire Council. This is a recognized fact. Paul VI repeated—I quoted it to you—the exact words of Lammenais at the end of the Council: “L’Eglise ne demande que la liberte” – the Church only seeks freedom—a doctrine condemned by Gregory XVI and Pius IX.
Paul VI was undeniably very strongly influenced by liberalism. This explains the historic evolution experienced by the Church over the last few decades, and it describes Paul VI’s personal behavior very well. The liberal, as I have told you, is a man who lives in constant contradiction. He states the principles, and does the opposite; he is perpetually incoherent.

Could you provide some examples in support of your analysis?
Here are a few examples of the thesis-antithesis conundrums that Paul VI loved to present as so many insoluble problems, mirroring his anxious and conflicted mind. The encyclical Ecclesiam suam, (August 6, 1964), provides an illustration:
If, as We said, the Church realizes what is God’s will in its regard, it will gain for itself a great store of energy, and in addition will conceive the need for pouring out this energy in the service of all men. It will have a clear awareness of a mission received from God, of a message to be spread far and wide. Here lies the source of our evangelical duty, our mandate to teach all nations, and our apostolic endeavor to strive for the eternal salvation of all men. (…) The very nature of the gifts which Christ has given the Church demands that they be extended to others and shared with others. This must be obvious from the words: ‘Going, therefore, teach ye all nations,’ Christ’s final command to His apostles. The word apostle implies a mission from which there is no escaping.”
That is the thesis, and the antithesis follows immediately:
To this internal drive of charity which seeks expression in the external gift of charity, We will apply the word ‘dialogue.’ The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make.”
And finally he attempts a synthesis, which only reinforces the antithesis:
Before we can convert the world—as the very condition of converting the world—we must approach it and speak to it.”[1]

Have you another example?
Of greater gravity are the words with which Paul VI suppressed Latin in the liturgy after the Council, and they are even more characteristic of his liberal psychology. After restating all the advantages of Latin: a sacred language, an unchanging language, a universal language, he calls, in the name of adaptation, for the “sacrifice” of Latin, admitting at the same time that it will be a great loss for the Church. Here are his very words, reported by Louis Salleron in his book La nouvelle messe [The New Mass] (Nouvelles Editions Latines, 2nd ed., 1976, p. 83)
On March 7, 1965, he said to the faithful gathered in St. Peter’s square:
‘It is a sacrifice that the Church makes in renouncing Latin, a sacred language, beautiful, expressive, and elegant. The Church sacrifices centuries of tradition and unity of language in the name of an ever-growing desire for universality’.”
The ‘sacrifice’ of which he spoke became a reality with the Instruction Tres abhinc annos (May 4, 1967) which established the use of the vernacular for reciting the Canon of the Mass aloud.
This ‘sacrifice,’ in Paul VI’s mind, seems to have been final. He explained it once again on November 26, 1969, when he presented the new rite of the Mass:
The principal language of the Mass will no longer be Latin, but the vernacular. For anyone familiar with the beauty and power of Latin, its aptness for expression of the sacred, it will certainly be a great sacrifice to see it replaced by the vernacular. We are losing the language of centuries of Christianity, we become as intruders, reduced to the profane in the literary domain of expressing the sacred. We lose, too, the greater part of the admirable, incomparable wealth of art and spirituality contained in Gregorian chant. It is with good reason, then, that we experience regret and even distress.”
Everything therefore should have dissuaded Paul VI from imposing this ‘sacrifice’ and persuaded him to maintain the use of Latin.


On the contrary, deriving a singularly masochistic pleasure from his ‘distress,’ he chose to act against the principles he had just set forth, and decreed the ‘sacrifice’ in the name of promoting understanding of prayer, a specious argument that was only a modernist pretext.
Never has liturgical Latin been an obstacle to the conversion of infidels or to their education as Christians. Quite the opposite: the simple peoples of Africa and Asia loved Gregorian chant and the one sacred language, the sign of their affiliation to Catholicism. And experience shows that where Latin was not imposed by missionaries of the Latin Church, there the seeds of future schism were planted.
Paul VI followed these remarks with this contradictory pronouncement:
The solution seems banal and prosaic, but it is good, because it is human and apostolic. The understanding of prayer is more precious than the dilapidated silks in which it has been royally clad.  More precious is the participation of the people, the people of today who want us to speak clearly, intelligibly, in words that can be translated into their secular tongue. If the noble Latin language cuts us off from children, from youth, from the world of work and business, if it is an opaque screen instead of a transparent crystal, would we fishers of men do well to maintain its exclusive use in the language of prayer and religion?”
Alas, what mental confusion. Who prevents me from praying in my own tongue? But liturgical prayer is not private prayer; it is the prayer of the whole Church.  Moreover, another lamentable lack of distinction is present: the liturgy is not a teaching addressed to the faithful, but the worship the Christian people address to God. Catechism is one thing, and the liturgy is another. The point is not that we “speak clearly” to the people assembled in the church, but rather that these people may praise God in the most beautiful, most sacred, and most solemn manner possible. “Praying to God with beauty” was St. Pius X’s liturgical maxim. How right he was!

How would you describe a liberal?
You see, the liberal mind is conflicted and confused, anguished and contradictory. Such a mind was Paul VI’s. Louis Salleron explained it very well when he described Paul VI’s physical countenance, saying “he was two-faced.” Not duplicitous—this word expresses a malicious intent to deceive which was not present in Paul VI. No, he had a double personality, and the contrast between the sides of face expressed this: traditionalist in words, then modernist in action; Catholic in his premises and principles, and then progressive in his conclusions; not condemning what he should have, and then condemning what he ought to have preserved.
This psychological weakness afforded an ideal opportunity for the enemies of the Church. While maintaining a Catholic face (or half-face, if you like) he contradicted tradition without hesitation, he encouraged change, baptized mutation and progress, and followed the lead of the enemies of the Church, who egged him on.
Did not the Izvestia, official newspaper of the Communist Soviet party, demand from Paul VI my condemnation and that of Econe in the name of Vatican II? And the Italian Communist paper L’Unita followed suit after the sermon I gave in Lille on August 29, 1976; furious because of my attack on Communism, they devoted an entire page to their demand. “Be aware,” they wrote, addressing Paul VI, “be aware of the danger Lefebvre represents, and continue the magnificent approach initiated through the ecumenism of Vatican II.” With friends like these, who needs enemies? This is a sad illustration of a rule we have already established: liberalism leads from compromise to treason.

How should priests and faithful who are attached to tradition act under a liberal pope?
The psychology of a liberal pope is easy enough to imagine, but difficult to bear! Indeed, such a leader—be it Paul VI or John Paul II—puts us in a very delicate position.
In practice, our attitude must base itself on a preliminary distinction, made necessary by the extraordinary circumstances of a pope won over by liberalism.  This is the distinction we must make: when the pope says something in keeping with tradition, we follow him; when he opposes the Faith, or encourages opposition of the Faith, or allows something to be done that attacks the Faith, then we cannot follow him. The fundamental reason for this is that the Church, the pope, and the hierarchy must serve the Faith. They do not make the Faith, they must serve it. The Faith cannot be made; it is immutable, and must be transmitted.
This is why papal teachings intended to validate actions opposed to tradition cannot be followed. In following, we would participate in the self-destruction of the Church, in the destruction of our Faith.
It is clear that what is unceasingly demanded of us—complete submission to the pope, complete submission to the Council, acceptance of the entire liturgical reform—is in opposition to tradition, in the sense that the pope, the Council and the reforms lead us far from tradition, as the facts show more overwhelmingly every year. Therefore, to demand these things is to require us to participate in the downfall of the Faith. Impossible! The martyrs died to defend the Faith; we have the example of Christians imprisoned, tortured, sent to concentration camps for the Faith. One grain of incense offered to an idol, and their lives would have been safe. I was advised once, “Sign, sign saying you accept everything, and then you can continue as before!” No! One does not play games with the Faith.
Notes



Excerpts on one more aspect of Pope Paul VI’s association with Freemasonry from my file
WHY WAS THE BEATIFICATION CAUSE OF POPE PAUL VI SUSPENDED?-BY FR LUIGI VILLA 
– Pope Leo XIII, in his 1884 encyclical against Freemasonry: “Humanum genus“, having recognized the division of mankind into two adverse and opposing camps: «the first is the kingdom of God on earth, that is the true Church of Jesus Christ» and «the second is the kingdom of Satan…». Further on, he affirms «The ultimate goal of Freemasons being to persecute Christianity with relentless hatred, and that they will never be at peace, – not ever until they will not see all religious institutions founded by the Popes on the earth». The Pope notes that «Wanting to destroy the religion and the Church founded by God, Himself, and His assurance of immortal life (…) is signal folly and audacious impiety…»!

– After the publication of the “Humanum genus,” The Bulletin of the Symbolic Scottish Grand Lodge expressed, in these terms, the thought of the sect: «The Freemasonry cannot help but thank the Supreme Pontiff of the last encyclical. Leo XIII, with unquestionable authority, and with great luxury of evidence has demonstrated once again that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the Church of which he is the representative, and the Revolution, of which Freemasonry is the right arm. It is good that the skeptics cease to entertain vain hopes. All must get used to the understanding that one must come forward to re-choose between the old order that rests on Revelation and new order which does not recognize any other foundations then that of science and human reason, in the spirit of authority and spirit of liberty». (Enrico Delassus, “Il problema dell’ora presente”, Desclèe e C. Tipografi-Editori 1907, vol. I, p. 39).



The cemetery Verolavecchia, near Brescia (Italy), where the graves of family Alghisi (the maternal family of Paul VI) rest. At the base of the right tomb, dedicated to family Alghisi, the bas-relief erected with those Masonic symbols.


The “bronze door” at St. Peter’s Basilica – Rome, now with 5 figures*

The “Doors of Good and Evil”
This is the “bronze door” of the sculptor, Luciano Minguzzi, called: “The Door of Good and Evil”.
It was put into place in 1977 and created in honor of the birthday of Paul VI.
When it was inaugurated, the “Panel of Good”, panel N° 12, featured “The Second Vatican Council”. It included the Four Council Fathers between John XXIII and Paul VI. While John XXIII and the four other Council Fathers were carved with the face looking forward, Paul VI (the last on the right – a total of six figures* in all) was hand carved in profile, to present, clearly visible, his left hand with a clear Masonic symbol “the five-pointed star”, or “Masonic Pentalfa”.
Shortly after the inauguration of the “Bronze Door”, the undersigned [Fr. Luigi Villa], went to see that “new door” of the Basilica of St. Peter and observed well, seeing that Masonic sign on the back of the left hand of Paul VI.
Immediately, I went to a Cardinal to denounce what I had seen. The Cardinal assured me that he would immediately take care of it. In fact, shortly after, when I returned to Rome, I went to review the “bronze door”, I noticed that the Masonic sign on the back of the left hand of Pope Paul VI had been scraped off: you could see the red copper.


Realizing they were discovered, then, they had seen to it: first, to scrape off the Masonic symbol. Then, as I saw on my return to Rome once again, they replaced the entire panel No. 12 with another, the current (see photo above right) on which appeared not more than six figures, but five, so far as I could see! (For a better understanding of the great significance of “five-pointed star”, carved on the back of the left hand of Paul VI, as it appeared on the first tile N° 12, see Appendix II: “Five-pointed Star” “The Signature” of the Pontificate of Paul VI).
*Initially, there were 6 figures


THE “FIVE-PONTED STAR” “SIGNATURE” OF THE PONTIFICATE OF PAUL VI



Detail of tile original N ° 12 of “bronze doors” of St. Peter’s Basilica (built to mark the 80th birthday of Paul VI) showing Paul VI with the “five-pointed star (which we highlighted red), engraved on the back of his left hand/Magnification of the back of the left hand of Paul VI, engraved with “five-pointed star”

“Five-pointed Star” “Signature” of the Pontificate of Paul VI
“SYMBOL” OF THE HATRED TO GOD AND RELIGION
Karl Marx had written: «Religions are the opium of the people»; «The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness»1.
And again, «The root of man is man himself… The critique of religion comes to the doctrinal conclusion that, TO MAN, THE SUPREME BEING IS MAN»2.
Lenin’s hatred for religion was every bit as fierce: «All religious ideas are an unspeakable abomination. God is a monstrous cadaver. Faith in God is a weakness»; «From now on we shall be pitiless with everyone. We shall destroy everything, and on the ruins WE SHALL BUILD OUR TEMPLE». Lunaciarskij, Minister of Education of the Lenin government, in lieu of the religion of God proposed the religion of hatred: «Down with the love of thy neighbor! Hatred, that’s what is wanted! WE MUST LEARN HOW TO HATE. THAT IS OUR RELIGION. Through hatred, we shall conquer the world». Stalin, too, was brimming over with hatred against Religion: «There is no room for neutrality when it comes to Religion. Against the propagators of religious absurdities, the Communist Party can but pursue its war». Khrushchev stayed the course of his predecessors: «The struggle against Religion is at one with the shaping up of the NEW MAN, citizen of the Communist society». And thus the Religion of God was abolished, and, in Her place, there appeared a new one: the religion of man. The Hierarchy, the institutions, the places of cult, the rites and any reference to the Religion of God were jeered at, repressed, encroached on, abolished, eliminated, and erased. Even the images and the religious symbols suffered a similar fate and were outlawed, and, in their place, there appeared a strange symbol: The “Five Pointed Star”.





In Soviet elementary schools, under the Communist regime, pupils received a little “five pointed red Star”, in whose center stood the image of six year-old Lenin. It was the “Lenin child” watching over the little “comrade”, a symbol that, in Soviet pedagogy, was to replace religious images. The “five pointed red Star” thus emerged as the symbol of the “new Communist religion”; a “religion” hinged upon the hatred to God, and thus to man, and the alleged aspiration of shaping up the “new man”, edifying a new “Temple”.
The “five pointed red Star” thus became the “symbol” of what is the most anti-Christian that one could envision and conceive; it became the “symbol” of the systematic war to the bitter end against God, against Christianity and against the Christian Civilization. In fact, Communism was the political re-proposition of the Masonic and Satanic Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria, whose secret program it had adopted, without changing a word, turning it into the “Communist Manifesto” of 1848. The publication of the “Manifesto” was financed by two Illuminati: Clinton Roosevelt and Horace Greely. Marx belonged to the Cologne’s “Apollo” Lodge3. Lenin was initiated to Freemasonry by the “Union de Belleville” Lodge of the Grand Orient of France4. Trotsky entered Freemasonry in 18975. Lunaciarskij belonged to the Grand Orient of France6. Mikhail Gorbachev has been a member of the Masonic “Trilateral Commission” since 19897, and even a member of the Masonic and Satanic “Lucis Trust”8. Igor Gaidar, leader of the “Russian Choice” Party, belongs to the “Cooperation” Lodge9. Edward Shevardnadze, former Soviet Foreign Minister and current President of Georgia, is the head of the Georgian Freemasonry and has been an affiliate, since 1992, of the “Magisterium” Lodge10. Anatoli Ciubas, head of the Yeltsin’s Administration, has been a member of the “Cooperation” Lodge since 199311, and so on and so forth. This “Masonic reality” of Russian Communism was but a carry-over in the Masonic tradition of those that had preceded them. Kerenski was, in fact, the President of all the Russian Lodges, and had been in the “Ursa Minor” Lodge since 191212.

1 Karl Marx, “Manuscripts”.
2 Karl Marx, “Morceaux Choisis”.
3 Hiram, n. 5, 1990, p. 114.
4 Y. Moncomble, “Les Vrais Responsables de la Troisiéme Guerre Mondiale”, Editions Faits et Documents, 1980, p. 86.
5 Platonov, “Bethlehem”, Rodnik Editions, Moscow 1996, p. 376.
6 & 7 Idem, p. 360 and p. 427.
8 “Bethlehem”, EIR, 1989, p. 29.
9 Platonov, “cited works”, p. 426.
10 Idem, p. 438.
11 Idem.
12 Idem, p. 354.

“FIVE POINTED STAR”: THE MASONIC “SYMBOL”


The “Flaming Star” “The symbol of Freemasonry”/The “5-pointed star” inside “a square and a compass”.

To Freemasonry, symbology and ritual are “everything”.
The Freemason Augusto Lista wrote: “The Real initiation (…) lies entirely, and I say ENTIRELY, in Masonic symbolism and ritualism”1. Masonic symbolism on the one hand, and iron organization, on the other, are the two pillars upon which the Masonic edifice rests, far more than upon the pseudo-philosophical ravings no one understands and which convince no one”2. Of the myriad of symbols the Freemason one is confronted with when entering the Lodge, one stands out above all the others: it is the symbol of the “Five Pointed Star”, the “Masonic Symbol” par excellence. The dictionary of Masonic symbols elevates it to the station of “Masonic symbol” by antonomasia. In fact, such “Star” is found on the Masonic handkerchiefs, rugs and Lodge paintings, on sketches and representations of the Lodge; it is observed sculpted on monuments, engraved on Masonic jewels and medallions; it appears on the portraits of the initiated, on allegorical Masonic representations; it shows on the emblems of the 2nd, 3d, 4th, 9th, 12th and 24th degree of the Freemasonry’s Scottish Rite; it stands out on the Masonic “aprons” of the “Apprentice” and of the “Master”; it is placed in the central point of the “collar” worn by the Grand Masters; but its highest place is at the summit of the Palace of the Grand Lodge of England (the Freemason’s Hall), located in London’s “Great Queen Street”.


1 Augusto Lista, “The Spiritual Bases of Universal Freemasonry”. Rome Ankh, 1946, p. 22.
2 P. F. Giantulli, “The Essence of Italian Freemasonry: Naturalism”, Pucci Cipriani Editore – Firenze 1973, p. 62

THE “FIVE POINTED STAR”: ON THE BRONZE HAND OF PAUL VI
It is the “bronze door” when it was inaugurated. On the “Door of Good”, in panel 12, there appeared the “Second Vatican Ecumenical Council”: four Conciliar Fathers between John XXIII and Paul VI”. However, while John XXIII and the other four conciliar Fathers were sculpted with the face looking forward, Paul VI (the last on the right) was sculpted instead in profile, so as to present, in good showing, his left hand bearing the engraving of the Masonic insignia: the “five-pointed-Star”, or “Masonic Pentalpha”. Shortly after the inauguration of that “new bronze door” of St. Peter’s Basilica, I went to see it. Observing it closely, I immediately noticed that Masonic emblem on the back of Paul VI’s left hand. So I rushed to see a Cardinal, to report the fact. He assured me that he would promptly look after the matter. In fact, when soon afterwards I returned to Rome, just to check on that “bronze door”, I noticed immediately that that Masonic emblem on the back of Paul VI’s left hand had been scraped off: all one could see was the live red of the copper. It was all clear! Having been discovered, those responsible for the fact had seen, first, that the Masonic symbol were erased from the hand, and then – as I myself could see on a subsequent trip to Rome – had panel N. 12 replaced with another – the current one – on which, however, the six previous figures had now become five, as anyone can see. Now, how could anyone explain that a Pope (Paul VI) had his image sculpted onto that “bronze door”, with that Masonic symbol on the back of his hand, well aware that it would remain there as a testimony, down the centuries, and that He, Paul VI, would be judged a “Freemason Pope?” And certainly one cannot say that that work of the sculptor Minguzzi’s had been executed unbeknownst to him and without his approval, since it was him to bless it on the date of his birthday, as it was also published, later, on a “Special Insert” of the “Osservatore Romano”, for his eightieth birthday1, and precisely with that satanic mark on his hand, a “signature”, as it were – and not a common one – of his Pontificate”.
1 Special Insert of the “Osservatore Romano”, Sunday, September 25, 1977, p. XI.


“FIVE POINTED STAR”: “SIGNATURE” OF PAUL VI’s PONTIFICATE
This statement is disquieting, as this “signature” of the “five-pointed Star”, sculpted on the back of Paul VI’s hand, on the original “panel” of St. Peter’s Basilica’s “bronze door”, is perhaps the most disconcerting and reckless act of a tremendous reality that, throughout his Pontificate, kept coming to the surface, to then give shape to a mosaic that lay bare Paul VI’s incredible and unspeakable approach toward Freemasonry. And that, he did following 250 years of renewed “excommunications”, “admonishments”, “punishments”, and after about 200 “documents” of the Magisterium of the Church against Freemasonry, and after 16 Encyclicals and over 590 “convictions” against that sect, branded as “Kingdom of Satan” by Leo XIII in his 1884 Encyclical “Humanum Genus”. Immediately after the publication of that Encyclical, the high initiate Tommaso Ventura, having recognized “Humanum Genus” as the “most celebrated solemn anti-Masonic document”, wrote, «Pope Leo XIII was right on the point; he perceived what Freemasonry was; he uncovered its precise physiognomy; he lay bare its aspirations in unequivocal terms»1.
Now, the Church never did entertain any uncertainties or doubts in Her struggle against Freemasonry; it was only with the advent of Vatican II, and with Paul VI in particular, that the “new approach” reversed the previous position of the Magisterium of the Church, adopting “ecumenical” and “liberal” stances toward Freemasonry up to the point of “looking forward to a peace between the two institutions”. In order to shed some light upon this odd aspect of Paul VI’s personality, we list a few of the many “facts” and “remarks” relating to his person2:
1) A Masonic magazine reads: «The Grand Master Gamberini, on the very day of the announcement of Montini’s election to the Pontificate, said: “Here is our man!”»
2) The “obituary”, or funeral oration, the former Grand Master of Palazzo Giustiniani, Giordano Gamberini, made of Paul VI on the “Rivista Massonica” Magazine3: «To us – it is read – it is the death of HE who made the condemnation of Clement XII and of his successors fall. That is, it is the first time – in the history of modern Freemasonry – that the Head of the greatest Western religion dies not in a state of hostility with the Freemasons». And he concludes: «For the first time in history, the Freemasons can pay respect to the tomb of a Pope, without ambiguities or contradiction»4.
3) In a private letter, written by a Freemason friend of the renowned French writer, Count Lion de Poncins, expert in Masonic issues, the following passage appears, «… With Pius X and Pius XII, we Freemasons could do very little, but, ‘avec Paul VI, nous avons vencu.’ (With Paul VI we won’)».
4) Under his Pontificate, “Masonic laws” were introduced in Italy, such as divorce, abortion, and separation between Church and State. And there was a thorough penetration of Freemasonry even into the ordinary ecclesiastical structures.
5) On November 13, 1964, Paul VI laid down the “Tiara” (the “triregno”) on the altar, definitively renouncing it. A gesture that was the objective of the “French Revolution”. The French Freemason Albert Pike wrote: «The inspirers, the philosophers, and the historical leaders of the French Revolutions had sworn to overthrow the “CROWN” and the “TIARA” on the tomb of Jacques de Molay»5.
6) During his trip to the Holy Land (in 1954) on the Mount of Olives, at Jerusalem, Paul VI embraced the Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras I, Freemason of the 33d degree. Then, on the eve of the closing of Vatican II, the pair lifted the mutual “excommunications” launched in 1054.
7) On March 23, 1966, he put on the finger of Dr. Ramsey, secular and Freemason, Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, his “new conciliar ring” and then imparted, together with him, the “blessing” to those present.


8) With Paul VI, through Cardinal Bea, the Freemasons managed to obtain, at the Council, the “Decree” on “Religious Freedom”, in order to achieve the so much yearned-for realization of a “universal religion”, then set off with the contracting syncretistically, of the “Ecumenical Movement” of Assisi. And while Paul VI always refused to receive the Catholics of Tradition, he continually welcomed, on the other hand, the members of the Masonic Lodges, such as, for example, those of the High Jewish Freemasonry of the “B’nai-Brith” and those of “L’Alliance Israélite Universelle”, which aims at achieving the union of all religions into one.
9) His identity of views with the “Masonic scheme” can also be observed in the identity of his programs with the Masonic schemes of the UN, and of UNESCO. I would have one read, for example, his encyclical “Populorum Progressio“, in which Paul VI speaks of a “world bank” backed by a “world Government”, which would be ruling thanks to a “synthetic and universal religion”.
10) In his address to the UN of October 4, 1965, Paul VI uttered unusual and astonishing declarations, such as the following: «(…) We presume to say (the UN) is the reflection of the loving and transcendent design of God for the progress of the human family on earth, a reflection in which we see the heavenly message of the Gospel (…)» Before he pronounced his humanist address in front of the General Assembly of the UN, Paul VI had stepped into the “Meditation Room”, the Masonic sanctuary, at the center of which stands “an altar for a faceless God”, which the Secretary General of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld, had described as an altar to the Universal Religion6.

1 Tommaso Ventura, “Freemasonry on Trial – Its True Origin – Its True Essence”. Atanòr, Roma 1961, p. 113-114.
2 Luigi Villa, “Paul VI… beatified?”, Edizioni Civiltà Brescia 1998, Chapter IV, p. 117-155.
3 “La Rivista Massonica”, n. 5, July 1978, p. 290.
4 “La Rivista Massonica”, ed., p. 290.
5 Albert Pike, “Morals and Dogma”, vol. II, p. 156.
6 Epiphanius, “Freemasonry and Secret Sects: The Occult face of History”, Editrice Ichtys, Rome, p. 429.

Moreover, Paul VI should have known that the UN, at its highest levels, is directed by a Satanic sect, the “Lucifer Trust” (renamed “Lucis Trust“), which is the real spiritual brain of the UN and UNESCO, whose founder had for an objective «to wipe our Christianity from the face of the earth», and «throw out God from the heavens».
11) A head of Freemasonry, Minister of State of the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite in France, Mr. Marsaudon, in his book: “Ecumenism From the Perspective of a Freemason of Tradition”, speaking of all Pope Montini had done, wrote: «… The Christians should not forget that all avenues (all religions) lead to God, and stay within this brave notion of freedom of thought. One could really speak of a Revolution that from our Masonic Lodges has spread out magnificently, reaching the top of St. Peter’s Basilica».
12) Finally, his “Liturgical Reform” had been foreseen by the Freemason and apostate Roca, in 1883: “The divine cult –Roca wrote – in an Ecumenical Council shall undergo a transformation that will put it in harmony with the state of modern civilization”7. Roca’s plan for the introduction of Christianity into the Masonic “Universal Religion”, provided for:
a) A doctrinal adaptation, which presupposed the equivalence of all cults and religious views;
b) New Dogmas, primarily that of Evolution, which presupposes Gnostic Pantheism and Integral Humanism, for the passage of the mission of the Church from the mystical and sacramental (supernatural) sphere to the political-social (natural) one; c) A rapprochement with Freemasonry;
d) The birth of the “priests of the future”, whom are to involve themselves with the “social” and abandon the “supernatural”. And so on along this line. And thus Freemasonry, with Paul VI, had not only penetrated the grass-root Church, but also the echelon of the Vatican, both with clerics and secular. And that is conceded at the highest levels, too8. It is sufficient to read Chapter IV (“His Opening to Freemasonry”) of our book, “Paul VI… beatified?” to realize this fact.
To conclude: who was, then, Paul VI?
It will suffice to recall that Paul VI had been opposed to Pius XII’s “political religious line” with his own “political secular line”, through which he, “Pro-Secretary of State”, betrayed Pius XII, setting up “secret channels” with Moscow and other Communist Heads of State, forgetful of, or in contempt of what Pius XI had written in his Encyclical “Divini Redemptoris Promissio” (1937) against Communism, clearly branding it as “intrinsically perverted” and as a “tragedy to humanity”.
But now, Paul VI’s “betrayal” stands before the tribunal of History.

7 Pierre Virion, “Mystère d’Iniquité”, ed. Saint-Michel, 1967, p. 21-43.
8 Raimondo Spiazzi, “Cardinal Siri Archbishop of Genoa from 1946 to 1987”, Bologna 1990.

RELATED FILES
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
CRITICIZING VATICAN COUNCIL II-IS IT HERESY? 

IN EMINENTI-ON FREEMASONRY
CLEMENT XII APRIL 28, 1738
PROVIDAS ROMANORUM-ON FREEMASONRY
BENEDICT XIV MAY 18, 1751



ECCLESIAM A JESU CHRISTO-ON THOSE WHO JOIN THE CARBONARI
PIUS VII SEPTEMBER 13, 1821
QUO GRAVIORA
(FREEMASONRY)
LEO XII MARCH 13, 1826
TRADITI HUMILITATI
(AGAINST FREEMASONRY)
PIUS VIII MAY 24, 1829
DECLARATION ON MASONIC ASSOCIATIONS
CDF NOVEMBER 26, 1983

FREEMASONRY


LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
CDF1 OCTOBER 1986
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
CDFJUNE 3, 2003
MARRIAGE AND HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS DOCTRINAL NOTE
CARDINAL CAFFARRA
FEBRUARY 14, 2010

ON HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE PEDOPHILIA ISSUE 
QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 03-HOMOSEXUALITY THE SEX ABUSE CRISIS AND THE GAY LOBBY 
-

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)