| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 799 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 796 Guest(s)
Baidu, Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Pope Leo diagnosed with l...
Forum: Pope Leo XIV
Last Post: Stone
7 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 45
|
Is the Synod Redefining P...
Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
Last Post: Stone
7 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 72
|
St. Anthony Mary Claret: ...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
7 hours ago
» Replies: 13
» Views: 8,095
|
The Book of Divine Consol...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
8 hours ago
» Replies: 30
» Views: 5,626
|
Bartholomeu Holzhauser's ...
Forum: Catholic Prophecy
Last Post: Stone
8 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 7,653
|
Archbishop Lefebvre: The ...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
8 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 8,934
|
Holy Mass in New Hampshir...
Forum: October 2026
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 01:09 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 90
|
The Sixth Apparition at F...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 12:55 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 22,107
|
Archbishop Lefebvre: 1986...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 12:17 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 8,254
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Day...
Forum: October 2026
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 10:27 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 74
|
|
|
| Pope Leo diagnosed with lung cancer after ‘successful’ surgery |
|
Posted by: Stone - 7 hours ago - Forum: Pope Leo XIV
- No Replies
|
 |
Pope Leo diagnosed with lung cancer after ‘successful’ surgery
Part of Pope Leo XIV's right lung was removed during surgery in Rome on Tuesday.
![[Image: GettyImages-2215669551-1.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/GettyImages-2215669551-1.jpg)
Pope Leo XIV
Franco Origlia/Getty Images
Oct 13, 2026
(LifeSiteNews) — The Vatican confirmed Tuesday that Pope Leo XIV underwent surgery to remove part of a lung that included a cancerous growth.
The Holy See reported that the surgery was deemed successful and the 71-year-old Pontiff was resting after returning to his room at Agostino Gemelli University Policlinic hospital in northwest Rome.
“The procedure was completed successfully, within the expected time frame and as planned, and the Holy Father has returned to his room,” the Holy See Press Office said.
During the surgery, doctors said there was evidence of pulmonary adenocarcinoma, a common type of lung cancer, and that they removed part of the lung.
“The Holy Father underwent thoracic surgery as scheduled,” Dr. Luigi Carbone and Professor Stefano Margaritora said in a statement after the surgery. “To make the procedure more radical, the lower lobe of the right lung was removed using video-assisted surgery.”
Pope Leo had announced Sunday to a crowd in St. Peter’s Square that a nodule had been detected on his right lung and that he was scheduled to undergo a procedure this week while asking for prayers.
The U.S.-born Pope had not been reported to have any health issues since he was elected to the papacy last year.
Pope Leo had conducted a normal schedule with meetings on Monday before he entered the hospital. All of Leo’s scheduled events have since been cancelled until October 20. The Pope’s recovery in the hospital is expected to last a week.
Oncologists said the prognosis is good considering the cancer was caught at an early stage.
This story is developing…
|
|
|
| Is the Synod Redefining Papal Infallibility? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 7 hours ago - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- Replies (1)
|
|
Is the Synod Redefining Papal Infallibility?
![[Image: papal-infallibility-under-attack.jpg]](https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/papal-infallibility-under-attack.jpg)
By: Gaetano Masciullo [Emphasis - The Catacombs] | October 9, 2026
A proposed revision to Canon 749 raises a fundamental question: who determines the truth of Catholic doctrine? Gaetano Masciullo examines the Synod’s vision of infallibility, the expansion of lay authority, and what these changes could mean for the Church’s teaching office and Sacred Tradition.
Today in the Vatican it is possible to identify a plurality of centers of power, operating within a complex dialectic between strategic convergence and internal tensions. Bergoglio acted as several sovereigns and emperors of the past did, that is, he concentrated power in his own hands during his lifetime, even going beyond what is granted to a Pope by divine law, while at the same time preparing a deliberate fragmentation of this very power that would explode at the moment of his death, precisely to prevent a single successor from monopolizing it and changing its direction.
Tetrarchy in the Vatican?
This is the technique employed by great emperors of the past, such as Genghis Khan or (perhaps a more fitting example in our case) Diocletian, the Roman emperor who prepared the Tetrarchy, that is, a system with four emperors in order to preserve the political project and to prevent the fate of the entire Empire from depending on the will of a single successor.
Paradoxically, the Pope has become, among these four new major centers of power, the least “influential” of them all, although on paper he remains the summit of the Church from every point of view; and he certainly remains so, because the Church is of divine institution, which no one can modify according to his own arbitrary will.
In addition to the Pope, among these centers of power we find the Secretariat of State, which retains control over the most delicate international dossiers (such as the secret agreements with China and multilateral dialogue) and exercises pervasive control over the bureaucratic machinery through offices such as that of the Substitute (a role formerly held by the controversial Edgar Peña Parra), but above all through its influence over episcopal appointments in synergy with the Secretariat of the Dicastery for Bishops.
The third tetrarch is the Roman Curia as a whole. Once at the service of the Pope, over the last twelve years it has become a revolutionary bureaucratic and doctrinal apparatus that dictates to the Pope the agenda to be followed.
Leo XIV himself said at the beginning of his pontificate: “Popes pass, the Curia remains”: an announcement that appeared revealing and programmatic. The Bergoglian Curia now acts by seeking to preserve the acceleration initiated by its founding father and finds its nerve centers in the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, a true sounding board for the environmentalist agenda and a privileged interface with the Popular Movements and the UN; in the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, until now led by Cardinal Fernández; and in the Dicastery for Divine Worship, which intends to pursue a precise agenda of liturgical reform (aka demolition).
There is a fourth and final center of power that Bergoglio established during his years of rule, namely the Secretariat of the Synod. Led by Cardinal Mario Grech and including key figures from the progressive world such as Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich (who is its General Rapporteur), the Secretariat of the Synod is not merely an organizational body, but the driving force of the ecclesiological engineering of the post-conciliar Church. A laboratory that realized the dream of many revolutionary Jesuits of the last century.
The Secretariat collects, synthesizes, and often steers the impulses coming from local Churches and the more “advanced” European episcopates (such as the German and Belgian ones), serving as a buffer between the most radical reform proposals and the authority of the Pope.
A Proposal to Amend Canon Law
On September 29, the Secretariat of the Synod published the final report of the canonical commission, led by Filippo Iannone, the Prefect for Bishops chosen by Leo XIV, and by Cardinal Gianfranco Ghirlanda, Bergoglio’s leading canonist and architect of some of the most important legislative reforms carried out by the Argentinian.
This report proposes restructuring the Latin Code of Canon Law to make it more consistent with the new “needs” of the synodal Church. The main reform proposals mostly include granting laypeople – both men and women – governmental, judicial, and liturgical roles that until now have been reserved to the ordained clergy.
For example, the reform of canon 1425 §4, which would provide for the possibility of a layperson (man or woman) serving as a “sole judge” in first-instance trials involving serious sanctions such as dismissal of a priest from the clerical state and the declaration or imposition of excommunication; the reform of canon 463 §1, which would provide for the requirement that laypeople constitute the majority of members in diocesan synods; the reform of 512 §4, which would allow the appointment to diocesan pastoral councils of Christians belonging to “Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church”; the reform of canons 230 §3 and 1112 §1, delegating to laypeople (men or women) the authority to assist at marriages without the need for prior authorization from the Holy See and even to lead the liturgical prayers proper to this sacrament.
According to statements by Cardinal Grech and the Commission, the purpose of this reform would be to convert into binding legal norms the ecclesiology that “emerged from the synodal journey.” Canon law is understood as the juridical expression of the Church’s perception of herself, necessary so that theological reflection on so-called “co-responsibility” does not remain purely theoretical.
The Reinterpretation of the Dogmatic Concept of Infallibility
Understandably, many analysts focused on this aspect of the canonical reform proposed by the Synod, namely the extension of governance to laypeople. Less attention, however, has been given to another proposal by the same commission, in my view more serious and important, although it is specular and directly connected to the one that received greater attention.
Among the proposed amendments, in fact, the rewriting of canon 749 §1 reinterprets the concept of infallibility. This is not a minor amendment, since infallibility is a very important theological and dogmatic concept for Catholic doctrine.
Infallibility, traditionally restricted to the Supreme Pontiff and, in a subordinate sense, to the College of Bishops under specific conditions, is now extended to the entire body of the faithful.
The proposal for the new canon states that the totality of the baptized, having received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, “cannot err in matters of faith.” Such infallibility would manifest itself through universal consensus. In this way, the “supernatural sense of faith of the entire people… from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” would become the new measure (at least apparently) of truth.
Note the usual lexical manipulation, typical of neo-modernism. “Sense,” that is, feeling, elevated to a criterion. Catholic Tradition always regarded the sensus fidei, that is, the people’s sentiment of faith, with great respect, but it has never considered it a measure of truth, also because, in the past, there have been several moments in which the majority of baptized faithful – laity and clergy – believed in erroneous doctrines: consider the Arian crisis or the great diffusion of Protestant and related ideas between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries.
Every feeling is a sign of something real, but this does not mean that it is necessarily a sign of truth. It certainly has an important experiential dimension worthy of consideration, but it is not an autonomous source of Revelation – as some modernist theologians would have it – precisely because a feeling cannot be authoritative.
Some great theologians of the past, such as St. Vincent of Lérins, St. Robert Bellarmine, and John of St. Thomas, taught that the con-sensus of the faithful is worthy of consideration because it is a privileged witness to Tradition, that is, to the transmission of the same doctrine from the time of the Apostles.
St. Vincent of Lérins coined the famous maxim: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus (“everywhere, always, by everyone”). When one considers history and sees that a certain doctrine has been continuously transmitted and believed, especially at the liturgical level, then that doctrine is worthy of belief. Therefore, the sensus fidei is the reflection in the people of God of the faith preached by the teaching Church and is what confirms Tradition, without judging it.
One could also say that, traditionally, the People of God must be listened to in order to understand how the faith is lived, not to establish what is true. It may also happen, and it has often happened in the history of the Church, that because of a crisis of authority the People of God live the faith badly. In such a case, the People of God must not be indulged, but admonished and corrected.
A New Conception of Power in the Church?
The proposal for canonical reform reverses this traditional vision. It stands in continuity with a theological tendency of recent times that seeks to reform the traditional concept of the power of governance in the Church, according to which authority arises from God through charism. We will return to this shortly.
Traditionally speaking, in the Church there are two parallel hierarchies, united but distinct: the hierarchy of order and the hierarchy of jurisdiction. The first has the bishop at its summit, who possesses the fullness of Holy Orders; the second has the Pope at its summit, who possesses direct, universal, and absolute jurisdiction over ecclesiastical laws.
Over the centuries, various schools of thought have arisen to study, deepen, and understand to what extent the bond between these two hierarchies should exist, but the majority of authoritative theologians have always held that consecration, and episcopacy in particular, makes the subject especially “suited” to receiving the power of governance, while the two hierarchies – as stated – remain formally distinct and are not confused with one another.
This is, moreover, fitting to the very nature of the Church, which is not only hierarchical but also sacral in its foundations, in which the teaching Church and the learning Church must remain clearly distinct for proper functioning, and where the munus docendi (“office of teaching”) is traditionally considered part of the munus regendi (“office of governance”). Only those who govern also have teaching authority: the Pope above all, and then the bishops united to him. Teaching, in fact, is the noblest act of governance, because it guides the will not through coercion, but through conviction.
Moreover, it is fitting that the power of governance should not derive immediately and automatically from Holy Orders (this too being a tendency of thought that spread in the post-Council period, especially in conservative circles), also in order to avoid the presumption that merely being consecrated is sufficient to govern legitimately.
The two hierarchies must nevertheless remain tendentially united (although there have always been cases in history of laypeople to whom jurisdiction was delegated), both to maintain the unity of the three munera, that is, the offices of Christ (to sanctify, govern, and teach), and because the Church is neither merely a juridical society nor merely a sacramental reality: it is both.
Now, if governance is distributed horizontally, teaching also becomes horizontal, and the one who teaches is also the one who learns. Thus we witness the democratization and, ultimately, the relativization of Dogma. Exactly what the modernists want: to modify attitudes, while perhaps leaving doctrine intact on the pages of catechisms.
From this perspective, the munus docendi tends progressively to transform from an act of governance into an act of consultation; the Magisterium ceases to be conceived primarily as the objective criterion and sole legitimate interpreter of the twofold source of Revelation (Sacred Scripture and Tradition), and instead becomes the interpreter of a faith presumed already to be present and widespread among the people of God.
The charismatic vision of ecclesiastical authority was mentioned. Under the pontificate of Francis (and in the reflection of many cardinals close to him), the idea has emerged of completely severing the power of governance from the power of order, in order to anchor it in the transversal dignity of Baptism: two hierarchies no longer distinct but united, but neither confused with each other as certain conservative theologians would have it, but rather distinct and independent. A sort of ecclesiological Nestorianism.
On February 16, 2026, for example, Cardinal Marc Ouellet defended the lay appointments made by Francis, calling them a prophetic shift and proposing the development of an even more “charismatic” vision of Church governance. According to Ouellet, it would be Baptism – not the sacrament of Holy Orders – that makes the faithful “suited” to participate in a stable and proper manner in ecclesiastical governance.
Even earlier, in November 2025, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio suggested in one of his books modifying canon law precisely in order to stabilize and structure lay participation in the governance of the Church according to this “charismatic” vision. With this proposal from the Synod’s canonical commission, this project reached a greater degree of concretization.
The Tetrarchies of the Past Always Collapsed
In conclusion to this brief analysis, I would like to propose a reflection on Bergoglio’s strategy of dividing centers of power in order to preserve control of the Church’s direction along the path he had undertaken. Bergoglio’s strategy, as we said at the beginning, is not a new strategy in history.
Yet history itself teaches us that tetrarchies, or more generally systems of collegial government among several formally equal sovereigns, tend to fail for a structural reason: supreme authority is by its nature difficult to share stably.
This happens because every complex organization sooner or later requires a definitive decision. What the neo-modernists refuse to understand out of ideological obstinacy is that reality is by nature monarchical: this fact cannot be evaded.
In the event of conflict, when there is no truly common superior, the dispute inevitably tends to turn into internal struggle. Moreover, successors do not necessarily share the founder’s project. Sooner or later someone may arise who begins to ask himself: why be one of four when I can be the only one? And the experience of the post-conciliar Church teaches us that personalism is not exactly an unlikely temptation for bishops…
Furthermore, the nature of the human being means that people tend to attach themselves to personality more than to structures. If there are four centers of power, four patronage networks inevitably arise and end up competing with one another. In reality, of all these limitations, this is perhaps the one of which Bergoglio was most aware.
Indeed, as is gradually emerging throughout the world, Francis created in the Vatican a veritable “society of mutual blackmail”: key roles entrusted to prelates burdened by serious allegations or by affairs that have never been entirely clarified, who are guaranteed protection in exchange for absolute loyalty to the line of government. Those who belong to the entourage of power thus feel protected by the higher authority or by the other converging centers of power as long as they remain aligned with the power agenda. As soon as conformity is betrayed, the existence of a judicial case or a complaint is revealed through the media. Consider the unfortunately well-known “McCarrick network” in the United States or the “Lute case” in Peru.
This gives us further hope, in truth, in the fact that modernists do not have a long life. As the Gospel says, “do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, nor secret that will not be made known” (Matthew 10:26). The proposal of the Secretariat of the Synod to redefine infallibility and democratize the Church is part of a deliberate strategy of fragmenting authority, but this strategy is already structurally destined to fail. The Church will rise again through those who have known how to preserve the true Catholic Tradition.
|
|
|
|
| Holy Mass in New Hampshire - October 18, 2026 |
|
Posted by: Stone - Yesterday, 01:09 PM - Forum: October 2026
- No Replies
|
|
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - Feast of St. Luke
w/Commemoration of the Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost
Date: Sunday, October 18, 2026
Time: Confessions - 10:00 AM
Holy Mass - 10:30 AM
Location: The Oratory of the Sorrowful Heart of Mary
66 Gove's Lane
Wentworth, NH 03282
Contact: 315-391-7575
sorrowfulheartofmaryoratory@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
| 'Conciliar Church,' an Expression Created by Paul VI |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-12-2026, 09:32 AM - Forum: The Architects of Vatican II
- No Replies
|
|
'Conciliar Church,' an Expression Created by Paul VI
TIA | October 10, 2026
Tradition in Action habitually uses the expression "Conciliar Church" when referring to the ensemble of changes made in the Catholic Church in the post-Vatican II period. Given the extent of the reforms in every single field of our Holy Religion, the recent ecclesiastical establishment looks very much like a New Church molded by the Council..
Radical progressivists are proud to affirm that they have changed or are changing the Catholic Church into something very different, as we have documented exhaustively in this section Progressivist Documents. For instance, [See original link for multiple instances where this is documented. - The Catacombs]
The middle-of-the-road and "conservative" progressivists, however, struggle to present the post-Vatican II Church as a justifiable continuation of the Catholic Church. Doing so, they prevent Catholics from reacting against those changes, which would lead to a paralysis of the process. Therefore, those "moderate" and "conservative" progressivists are agents to keep that healthy reaction anesthetized.
Since a growing number of Catholics are indignant over those changes, the "moderates" and "conservatives" want to stop TIA from pointing out the gap between the two Churches. For this reason they attack us.
Recently these persons – including Internet active priests – are accusing us of being "heretical" and "Gnostic" for using the expression "Conciliar Church."
Regardless of their poor arguments, it is ironic because the first person to employ this expression referring to the Vatican II reforms was no other than Paul VI himself, their great architect. So, by providing evidence that it was Paul VI who invented the expression Conciliar Church and made it circulate, the foolish ignorance and grim malice of our accusers are exposed. Further, their imputations boomerang back against their idol, Paul VI...
Below, we present three instances in which Paul VI used the expression "Conciliar Church" referring to the Church after the changes made by the Second Vatican Council.
We are posting photocopies of the official Vatican documents taken from Insegnamenti di Paolo VI published by the Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, followed by our translation from the Italian into English. The parts relevant to our topic are marked with bright red underlining. The texts where the Pope uses that expression are indicated by an arrow.
Quote:Paul VI - Christmas Radio Message of December 23, 1965
The Conciliar Church, therefore, is looking for encounters. Very zealous of its discipline of the arcane, it started to invite the witnesses and disseminators of social information and to let them see and speak; to release the news.
But much more: The Conciliar Church has produced an encounter, which has not happened for centuries and that seemed implausible to be realized. Humbly and cordially, it has called Christian Brothers close to it who have long been far from its communion, in order to repair, at least in its human and elementary weaving, a torn tissue: that of reciprocal knowledge, respect, confidence, an initial conversation.
And after that, the peoples, the world. The Church desires to meet with the world.
+ + +
Quote:Paul VI - General Audience of January 31, 1968
It could appear to be a paradoxical reaction, almost illusory or imprudent, this general mobilization of the Christian militia, officially made by the Conciliar Church. But the reality is indeed this: The Church, to use the authoritative expression of Cardinal Suenens, forged in a book by himself issued a little before the Council, the Church has put itself "into a state of mission."
+ + +
![[Image: A209_Conc-3.png]](https://traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/Images%20201-300/A209_Conc-3.png)
Quote:Paul VI - General Audience of January 29, 1969
In other words, the Council is the answer to the good will of all those who wish to live and make Christ live in our time. It is not only a great doctrinal teaching; it is also a great moral impulse. It offers to thinking a great picture of the truths of the faith, although it does not pretend to present a complete organic synthesis, because in a great many parts it refers to Scriptural sources and authentic traditions. But in other parts, it explains and develops them. Altogether, and this is what is important for us to note, it constitutes an energetic operative impulse. It is doctrine and it is turned toward action. It is dogmatic and moral; it is turned toward the light of souls and toward a renewal of a practical activity both personal and communitarian.
This are the intentions of the Conciliar Church. But what is the reality in the minds of everyone everywhere? What do we observe? Does this satisfy your good will and that of the great ecclesial community? Behold a grave question.
|
|
|
|
| How a priest tied to the CIA worked with Jewish groups before Vatican II to influence Nostra Aetate |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-12-2026, 08:44 AM - Forum: The Architects of Vatican II
- No Replies
|
|
How a priest tied to the CIA worked with Jewish groups before Vatican II to influence Nostra Aetate
Fr. Félix Morlion worked with the American Jewish Committee, going so far as to arrange multiple high-level meetings between its leaders and prominent churchmen.
![[Image: Website-Image-%E2%80%94-Integrity-Templa...990217.jpg]](https://integritymagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Website-Image-%E2%80%94-Integrity-Template-2-e1790882990217.jpg)
Fr. Felix Morlion giving a public oration.
Integrity Magazine | October 3, 2026
Editor’s Note: This essay is Part III of a new series critically reviewing the efforts of Father Félix Morlion (1904-1987). Part I discussed his involvement with the US Deep State; Part II discussed his efforts with ‘Pro Deo University;’ Part IV will speculate about his role with the assassination plot against John Paul II.
Father Félix Morlion helped lay the groundwork for the conciliar document Nostra Aetate (“Declaration on Non-Christian Religions”) while serving as president of Pro Deo University. Although Morlion played no direct role in the conciliar proceedings, he was instrumental in forging the personal relationships from which the declaration emerged. This was chiefly by facilitating cooperation between Augustin Cardinal Bea and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, the latter of whom was the principal Jewish activist in its drafting. Journalist Joseph Roddy exposed this all important Bea-Heschel connection in his 1966 LOOK Magazine exposé.
Nostra Aetate was one of the landmark progressive documents of the Second Vatican Council. By proposing that the Church, in its relations with Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and Hinduism, “rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions,” Nostra Aetate could be interpreted in such a way as to abrogate the Kingship of Christ.1 Thus, it represented a far-reaching shift in Church teaching, one with momentous consequences for the Church’s mission to the world in the contemporary era.
In a 1964 letter to Henry Luce, Father Morlion outlined his basic ideological presuppositions. “If man’s dignity, and man himself, is to survive, the philosophy of Democracy under God must be applied to the newly liberated and newly independent countries.”2
To achieve these goals, Morlion established the American Council for the International Promotion of Democracy or CIP, a non-governmental organization in the United States to link Pro Deo University to its American financial backers.3 The steering committee for the CIP included a glittering array of high-profile American powerbrokers, including George Deluca, the Lieutenant Governor of New York; Frank Altschul, Secretary of the Council on Foreign Relations; Ellsworth Bunker, future Ambassador to South Vietnam; and Paul Felix Warburg, scion of the legendary Jewish banking family whose uncle was the first director of the Federal Reserve Bank.4
As written about previously, the ideological aims of Pro Deo University made Morlion receptive to the cause of ecumenism and dialogue with the world’s false religions. A critical part of his program was involving Jewish and Protestant communities in the activities of his institute. He therefore sought to appoint at least five Americans to the 12-member Board of Trustees for Pro Deo University, including two American Catholics, two Protestants, and one Jewish member. In 1955, Morlion traveled to the United States, where he conferred with Rabbi Morris Kertzer, director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee (AJC), and Dr. David Danzig, the AJC’s Program Director, about which Jewish figure ought to serve on the Board of Trustees. In exchange for the appointment of a Jewish board member, Father Morlion asked for a donation of $50,000, a sum worth more than $600,000 today.5 A 1957 memo from Morlion to the AJC outlining his overtures to the Jewish community provides a window into the real sources of funding for Pro Deo University. From 1953 through 1955, Morlion received some $94,250 from various Catholic sources, including Samuel Cardinal Stritch, Archbishop of Chicago; Edward Cardinal Mooney, Archbishop of Detroit; and Archbishop Richard Cushing of Boston. Meanwhile, Henry Luce had personally contributed $40,000. Combined with other sources, Protestants had donated a total of $109,500.6
The AJC eventually decided to hand over the money, initiating a close relationship with Morlion’s organization that precipitated Nostra Aetate. In Rome, Morlion proved an aggressive promoter of Jewish interests. In July 1957, for instance, as part of the quid-pro-quo for a donation to appoint a Jewish Board of Trustees member, Morlion arranged an audience between Dr. Irving Engel, President of the AJC, and Pope Pius XII. In the meeting, the pope read a brief statement condemning the “violation of fundamental rights inherent in the human person” which had been meted out to Jewish refugees after the Second World War.7
The audience with Pius XII represented a major stride in the Jewish effort to persuade the Church to abrogate its call to explicit conversion and instead more or less recognize the legitimacy of post-Christian Judaism as a religion. The effort paid off with Nostra Aetate. When the AJC learned in 1961 that Pope John XXIII had tasked Cardinal Bea with coming up with a conciliar statement on the Jews, the AJC contacted Morlion to seek help in influencing Bea’s deliberations. In July 1961, Morlion arranged for a meeting between Zachariah Shuster, the director of the AJC’s Paris office; Dr. Ralph Friedman, director of the AJC’s foreign affairs department; and Bea. In the meeting, the aged cardinal made clear his eagerness to produce a mutually acceptable document on Jewish issues. The AJC then appointed Rabbi Abraham Heschel, who apparently first met Bea while the two were students in Berlin,8 to serve as its negotiator with the churchman over the text of the document to became Nostra Aetate.9
Heschel proved to be a highly adept negotiator for Jewish interests. In the torturous drafting process for Nostra Aetate, Heschel played a critical role in persuading Bea’s subcommittee on the Jewish declaration to adopt language maximally favorable to Jewish interests. In a memorandum entitled “On Improving Catholic-Jewish Relations,” submitted to Bea in May 1962,10 Heschel articulated four demands for the Church:
(1) a repudiation of the charge of “deicide,” with the specific inclusion of this word;
(2) an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of Judaism;
(3) mutual dialogue; and
(4) the establishment of a Vatican commission to eliminate antisemitism in the Church.11
Prior to the documents submission to Bea, Morlion helped vet the draft to ensure its acceptability, thereby playing a major role in permitting Heschel to influence the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council.12 Some of Heschel’s demands were incorporated in the text of Nostra Aetate, although the explicit use of the word “deicide” was later removed by Paul VI himself amid a torrent of controversy in the last two Council sessions in 1964 and 1965.
Later, Father Morlion played a key role in orchestrating Bea’s secret March 1963 meeting in New York City with the “modern Sanhedrin” involving numerous figures in American rabbinical Judaism, including Rabbi Louis Finkelstein of the Jewish Theological Seminary; Rabbi Emmanuel Rackman, former president of the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America; and Rabbi Albert Minda of Reform Judaism’s Central Conference of American Rabbis. At the meeting, Bea promised that the Church would adopt a declaration substantially conforming to all of Heschel’s demands for the declaration.13 Eventually, Bea, Morlion, and Heschel decamped to a conference in honor of Bea held in New York City attended by numerous powerful dignitaries, including Cardinal Spellman; Cardinal Cushing; Greek Orthodox Archbishop Iakovos; Nelson Rockefeller, the Protestant Governor of New York; and U. Thant, the Buddhist Secretary General of the United Nations.
The successful adoption of Nostra Aetate at the Second Vatican Council occurred in no small part due to Father Félix Morlion’s extensive contacts in both Rome and the United States, thereby making him one of the silent agents of the revolution in the Church that has consumed it since the end of the council in 1965.
1. Paul VI, Nostra Aetate (‘In Our Time,’ or ‘Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions’), (October 29th, 1965), 2, official Vatican translation.
2. Father Félix Morlion letter to Henry Luce, ‘The American Stake in the Accreditation of the Italian Government of the International University of Social Studies “Pro Deo” Rome,’ (February 8th, 1964), Box 52, Folder 7, quoted in chapter 39, David A. Wemhoff, John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition: How the CIA’s Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church (South Bend: Wagon Wheel Press, 2022).
3. Valerie Aubourg, ‘“A Philosophy of Democracy under God,”: C.D. Jackson, Henry Luce et le movement Pro Deo (1941-1964), Revue française d’études américaines,’ Number 107 (March 2006), pp. 34-5.
4. Ibid., pp. 35-6.
5. Father Félix Morlion, ‘Financial Conditions Regarding the Nomination of a Jewish Member to the Board of Trustees of the International University of Social Studies “Pro Deo” in Rome,’ (July 13th, 1957), AJC Archives, Record 1505, in the ‘Timeline’ Collection, ‘Interreligious’ Category, Subcategory ‘Catholic-Jewish Relations,’ Group ‘AJC and Pro Deo, 1957-1962). Link: https://ajcarchives.org/Portal/Default/e...Index/1505.
6. Ibid.
7. Pope Pius XII, statement reprinted in ‘Memorandum to AJC Chapter Instructing Them How to Communicate the Significance of AJC’s Audience with Pope Pius XII to the Public,’ AJC Archives, Record 1498, in the ‘Timeline’ Collection, ‘Interreligious’ Category, Subcategory ‘Catholic-Jewish Relations,’ Group ‘Audience with Pope Pius XII, 1957’. Link:
8. https://ajcarchives.org/Portal/Default/e...Index/1498.
This statement repeatedly reappears in the record of Nostra Aetate but appears to be based on verbal conversations from either Heschel or Bea or both to different sources.
9. Edward Kaplan, Spiritual Radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, 1940-1972 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 235, 239-341.
10. Ibid., p. 243.
11. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, ‘On Improving Catholic-Jewish Relations,’ (May 22nd, 1962), American Jewish Committee Archives, Call Number 1527.
12. Edward Kaplan, Spiritual Radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, 1940-1972 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), p. 243.
13. This eventful and significant meeting is described in numerous sources, including Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, ‘Heschel and Vatican II: Jewish-Christian relations,’ paper presented at the Memorial Symposium in Honor of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel (February 21st, 1983), 11; Joseph Roddy’s famous Look article ‘How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking’ (January 1966), 19-213; and Cardinal Bea’s authorized biography by his secretary Father Stjepan Schmidt, Augustin Bea: The Cardinal of Unity, trans. Leslie Wearner (New York: New City Press, 1992), pp. 425-8.
|
|
|
|
| Leo XIV has promoted prime enforcer of Traditionis custodes, who wears Bugnini's ring |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-10-2026, 11:44 AM - Forum: Pope Leo XIV
- No Replies
|
|
From gloria.tv October 10, 2026:
Leo XIV has appointed Vittorio Francesco Viola OFM, the current secretary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, and prime enforcer of Traditionis custodes,
who famously wears the episcopal ring of Annibale Bugnini...
Leo XIV appoints enemy of Roman Mass, Archbishop Viola, as archpriest of St. Peter’s – “More to the left than Andrea Grillo”, wears Bugnini’s ring.
Today, Pope Leo XIV appointed Archbishop Vittorio Francesco Viola, 61, O.F.M., as Archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica, Vicar General for Vatican City, and President of the Fabric of St. Peter.
He succeeds Cardinal Mauro Gambetti.
Monsignor Viola will likely be created a cardinal, as every listed Archpriest of St. Peter’s for hundreds of years has been a cardinal.
In 2021, when he was Bishop of Tortona, Francis appointed him Secretary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship.
Viola’s career was strongly supported by Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino, who served as Prelate of Pompeii, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and later Bishop of Assisi. In Assisi, he worked closely with Viola, who was active in Franciscan, liturgical, and charitable work.
Archbishop Viola is part of the circle inspired by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the architect of the disastrous liturgical changes under Paul VI. He even wears the episcopal ring once owned by Bugnini.
Viola became one of the leading interpreters of Traditionis custodes, which restricts the Roman Mass.
He also reportedly helped draft the 2022 apostolic letter Desiderio desideravi, in which Francis claims that Catholics cannot truly accept the Second Vatican Council while rejecting the liturgical reform that followed it.
Paix Liturgique reported that Viola has played a key role in denying permissions for young priests who wish to celebrate the Roman Mass. Under current rules, bishops must often seek Vatican approval for such requests.
Andrea Grillo, a well-known enemy of the traditional liturgy, has reportedly said: “Viola is more to the left than I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fanastpaul.files.wordpre...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fanastpaul.files.wordpress.com%2F2022%2F10%2Fgiorgio-vasari-st.-luke-painting-the-virgin.jpg%3Fw%3D840&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=54802c0aea5e7b9c5f92499c0a7eb4fab08d8f8da64225667605667c78126366&ipo=images)
![[Image: A209_Conc-1.png]](https://traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/Images%20201-300/A209_Conc-1.png)
![[Image: A209_Conc-2.png]](https://traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/Images%20201-300/A209_Conc-2.png)
![[Image: bouguereau21.jpg]](https://www.medjugorje.ws/data/olm/images/pictures/jesus-christ-images/little-baby-jesus/bouguereau21.jpg)
