Roncalli modified the Mass, in violation of St. Pius V’s law, Quo primum tempore, and kept his council in session after it had produced its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, another violation of the same law.
(FACT) He forced octogenarian Gaetano Cardinal Cicognani, President of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission, to sign the schema for presentation to the council.
FACT—This Constitution and Roncalli’s Mass changes produced the climate in which Montini suppressed the traditional Latin Mass and most of the sacraments.
John’s personal inspiration was the only conceivable excuse for calling a council. He alone in Rome wished a council. St. Robert Bellarmine holds that an heretical pope loses the pontificate ipso facto when his heresy becomes public knowledge. Having lost the papacy, the “pope,” becoming an inferior, can then be judged by the Church. We would err doubly in (1) granting this improperly and illegally convoked council power to prescribe forms for sacraments; (2) pretending that the council really prescribed or ordered change in sacramental forms. We condemn the “sacramental” changes as ultra vires and deliberately heretical, as well as never ordered by the council in the first place. Even a genuine council has no authority to effect change in sacramental forms. These changes “correct” Jesus Christ, His Apostles, His Church, and its Tradition. They are outright lies, often enough previously condemned heresies, not above nature, and cannot be accepted on faith in authority which contradicts that authority upon which true faith rests. Absolutely nothing guarantees innovation in matters (or forms) entrusted to the Church for preservation, even supposing change (necessarily creating argument and probable doubt) warrantable for some genuine reason such as neither Roncalli nor his “council” ever advanced.
John XXIII planned and convoked the council in knowing revolt! What else is updating, accommodation to modern man, exposing all but one doctrine (papal infallibility) to re-examination? Why was Paul VI not in heresy for reconvening the same council? It still had no proper base; it had already projected heretical change.
We conclude from the condemned nature of Roncalli’s and Montini’s heresies that these heretics cannot have been popes! We reduce ourselves to heresy in choosing among the teachings and actions of these “popes.” If they are popes they are infallible in matters of faith and morals. If they err—and they obviously have erred—in such matters they are not popes, and must be ignored in all their orders and teachings. All theological opinions fade before the law. Canons 188 n. 4 and 2314 §1 apply. A heretic is deposed by the fact itself of his public heresy, without any declaration.
Paul VI, an ineligible public heretic, had no authority to convoke a council. He was “unaware” of the council’s heretical nature, despite his close rapport and residence with Roncalli through the first session? This view is utterly inconsistent with the dogma of papal infallibility. A genuine pope under the guidance and protection of the Holy Ghost could not fall into heresy and destruction of the Church by accident. He would necessarily know what he was doing and would necessarily choose deliberately to do it. He would necessarily oppose the Holy Ghost every foot of the way.
Supposedly, the popes are not to blame for the postconciliar rot. The bishops work behind the pope’s back. They deceive him, thwart him, and disobey his orders. Montini and Roncalli worked behind Pius XII’s back, notably in dealings with communists. They deceived him in founding the “barbed-wire seminaries” for German prisoners of war, specifically in perversion of the curriculum. But if the postconciliar “popes” can be held blameless because deceived, then all their bishops—including those who succeeded them in the papal office—must have deceived them. When each in turn assumed the office did he forget that he and all his fellow bishops had plotted against the “pope” and permit himself to be deceived in the same manner in the same particulars? When the rot is universal—and what area has escaped it?—the blame attaches to the top. For the top man has the means and duty to know the situation and the authority to remedy it.
In the book “Le profezie di papa Giovanni” (The Prophecies of Pope John), printed in 1976 by Edizioni Mediterranee, the author, Pier Carpi, recounts the story of that Masonic initiation.
1935. Apostolic Delegate in Turkey, Roncalli joins the secret sect as a “Rose Cross,” states the author, and takes the name of Johannes. Two years after his election to the pontificate, in 1960, he would promote a series of studies on the esoteric and initiatory societies and their relationship with the Church, initiating that process that would bring about the overriding of the excommunication for Freemasonry.
Roncalli’s 1958 election was known in advance. Ten years later some one has revealed corroborating documents. One of these is the letter by cardinal Eugenio Tisserant to an abbot professor of Canon Law, in which the French cardinal declares illegal the election of John XXIII, because “wanted” and “arranged” by forces “extraneous” of the Holy Spirit.
Baron Marsaudon, a freemason, had been appointed minister of the Knights of Malta on recommendation by the nuncio in Paris, Roncalli. Investigation developed that “the nunciature of Paris was working in great secret to reconcile the Catholic Church with Freemasonry.” It was 1950!
In September 1958, a high Masonic authority in contact with the Vatican told Count Paolo Sella of Monteluce that “…The next Pope would not be Siri, because he was too authoritarian a cardinal. They would elect a Pope of conciliation. The choice has already fallen on Roncalli. … by our Masonic representatives in the Conclave.”
The France of those years endures anguishing crisis. Proletariat and gendarmerie clash in the streets. To the nuncio, it is but a re-enactment of the far-off days when Bolshevism attempted to seize power in Italy, back to the Ranica days, when with his bishop, Radini-Tedeschi, he had sided with the violent. This time Roncalli is the nuncio, the Pope in France. And his action unfolds directly, powerful, in the light of day. The nuncio will side with the strikers. And with him, behind him, all of the French clergy.
January 15, 1953, he receives the red hat at the Elysee, from the hand of president Vincent Auriol, a socialist, ultra-progressive misbeliever and long-standing friend. Roncalli galvanized the French episcopate, dragging it into a leftward race that at times surprised and overtook the communists themselves. Those bishops put down five condemnations which deplored the proletarian condition in standard communist terminology. Moreover, the text anticipates all the progressive remedies and goals provided by the usual violence. This document, printed in thousands and thousands of copies courtesy of the nunciature, was distributed to the striking masses.
Roncalli’s career continues. The cardinalitial purple is followed by the patriarchate of Venice. His secretary, Don Loris Capovilla, brother of a communist cell-head from Mestre, up to his neck in a murky past of red violence tied to the 1944-45 civil war in northern Italy, will influence Roncalli till the end of his life. The Communist party’s manifestos are now printed with the funds of the patriarch of Venice.
In this period the dream of rapprochement between the Holy See and the country of the greatest social revolution in history is born.
To anyone unable to conclude from this heavily cut article and/or its last predecessor on this website that Angelo Roncalli was not a Catholic because of his double apostasy (freemasonry and notorious heresy) from and open hostility toward the unchangeable Catholic Church, please refer to Franco Bellegrandi’s book, NIKITARONCALLI: Counterlife of a Pope, under BOOKS on this website.