http://heimbich.tripod.com

"Communism  is  another  enemy  of  the  Catholic
Church. The Masonic  sect  gathers  together  the
bourgeois;  the  communists  gather  together the
proletariat. The aim of each group  is  identical
--  a  socialist  society, rationalistic, without
God and without Christ. The  two  movements  have
one common head: international Jewry.

1.  We condemn all persecutions of Jews for their
religion or for ethnic  reasons.  The  Church  is
against 'antisemitism.'

2.  But the Church cannot ignore the facts of the
past and the clear affirmations of  international
Jewry. THE HEADS OF THIS JEWRY HAVE FOR CENTURIES
CONSPIRED METHODICALLY AND OUT AN UNDYING  HATRED
AGAINST  THE CATHOLIC NAME AND THE DESTRUCTION OF
THE CATHOLIC ORDER, AND FOR THE  CONSTRUCTION  OF
WORLDWIDE  JEWISH  EMPIRE.  This  is what Masonic
sects and the communists stand for. Money, media,
and  international politics are fore a large part
in the hands of the Jews. Although the  Jews  are
the   biggest  capitalists  and  should  on  that
account  be  the  greatest  adversaries  of   the
Russians  communists,  they  do not fear them. On
the contrary, they  help  them.  Those  who  have
revealed  the atomic secrets of the USA were Jews
(Fuchs, Golds,  Gringlass,  and  Rosenberg).  The
founders  of  Communism  were  Jews. They are the
promoters, organizers, and bankers.

This is the reality. Should this  foster  hatred?
No!  But  with  viligence  and  clarity we should
launch a systematic and methodical  onslaught  of
'the  enemy  of  man,'  whose  secret  weapon  is
hypocracy, 'the leaven of the Pharisees.'    

  Catholic Bishop Gerald de Proenca Sigaud
  of Brazil, 1959


Domenico Cardinal Tardini wrote to the Bishops of
the world, in preperation for Vatican II,  asking
for  their input on the main  concerns they would
submit to the  forthcoming assembly. Siguad,  the
Archbiship of Brazil,  replied with a remmarkable
letter, a small part of which is quoted above. It
was an extraordinary letter, says Hugh Atkins, in
that it clearly reflected the  Magesterium of the
Catholic Church and its counter-revolutionary and
counter-conspiracy spirit of holy militancy.

Bishop Gerald de Proenca Siguad was what had come
to be known as an "integralist", which is to say,
according to the  Webster Unabridgred Dictionary,
one who holds  "the  belief that  one's  relgious
convictions should  dictate one's  political  and
social actions."   Thus, the term was a neologism
used by liberal revolutionaries in the  Church to
identify  traditional  Catholics who, contrary to
the Protestant and  Judeo-Masonic American ideal,
refused to  countanance the  separation of Church
and State, but insisted, in keeping with Catholic
tradition, on the social Kingship of Christ.

Towards the end of the 19th century, a small band
of  "integralists",  one of  whom was the  French
abbot,  Msgr. Henri Delassus,  persuaded Pope Leo
XIII to  engage the issue of "Americanism", which
he did, sending a Letter,  addressed first to the
nominal head of the American hierarchy,  Cardinal
James Gibbons,  Archbishop of Baltimore, and next
to all other  Bishops.   Known  by its  first two
words, Testem benevolentiae, it was issued in the
year 1899.

Fr. Delassus had become a famous foe of modernism
in all its varied aspects. This reputation earned
him advancements and honors, granted by the Popes
of his time, including Saint Pius X.  This should
dispell  any notion that the integralist position
is unorthodox or somehow un-Catholic.   The Papal
approval of Delassus and the integralist party he
represented is problematical, however, because it
stands in stark contrast to the  current claimant
to the Papacy,  Cardinal Ratzinger.  In his book, 
"The Principles of Catholic Theology",  Ratzinger
says that the "integralists" cannot be too firmly
resisted,   and the teachigns of Vatican II are a
sort of counter-Syllabus:

"Was  the  Council  a wrong road that we must now
retrace if we are to save the Church? The  voices
of  those who say that it as are becoming  louder
and their followers more numerous. Among the more
obvious  phenomena  of  the  last  years  must be
counted  the  increasing  number  of  integralist
groups  in  which  the  desire for piety, for the
sense of mystery,  is  finding  satisfaction.  We
must  be  on  our  guard against minimizing these
movements. Without  a  doubt,  they  represent  a
sectarian  zealotry  that  is  the  antithesis of
Catholicity. We cannot resist them  too  firmly."
                                             
(Cardinal  Ratzinger, pp. 389-400, Principles
of Catholic Theology)

Again, writing on Vatican II, Ratzinger:

"Let us be content here that the text serves as a
countersyllabus  and, as such, represents, on the
part of the Church, an attempt at  reconciliation
with   the   new   era   inaugurated   in  1789."
                                             
(Ratzinger,  page  382,  Principles  of  Catholic
Theology)

Question is, was Vatican II an effort to come to
terms with the ideals of the  French Revolution,
or was it, rather,  a compromise with the world,
one which allowed  the "smoke of Satan" to enter
into the Church, as some say.  

In any case, whatever the solution to this enigma
and seeming imbroglio, what we can say, with sure
affirmation,  is that Seqaud, Delassey, and other
integralists of distinction are perfectly in line
with the thinking of the Magesterium and are thus
rightly identified as traditional Catholics,  and
the term 'integralist' is Owellian newspeak which
conceals more than it reveals -- a euphemism used
by liberals in the church to avoid acknowledgment
of the fact that Vatican II diverged dramatically
from the traditional teachings of the Magesterium
and set a  new course.

The question is, at least to those who are not of
the tradtional Catholic faith, is the traditoinal
Catholic faith tenable given that it has now been
repudiated by the Vatican II 'Church'? Evidently,
as evidenced by the  precipitous  post-Vatican II
drop in  Catholic vocations,  many have concluded
that it is not, while those who adhere to the old
school of Catholic thought have seperated in many
ways from Vatican II rulership, some going so far
as to hold that all  Vatican II  claimants to the
Papacy are  Anti-Popes.   Evidently, these people
do not buy the claim that  Vatican II can somehow
be recociled logically with the Magesterium.  The
logical  contradictions of  Vatican II  teachings
may be euphemistically and  disengenuously called
a 'counter-Syllabus',  but fact is,  truth cannot
contradict truth,  and Vatican II is not counter-
Syllabus but counter-Magesterium,  in which case,
either the  Magesterium is right, in which Vat-II
is wrong, or Vat-II is right, in which case   the
traditional teachings of the Catholic Church were
wrong.  If the Magesterium was in error, then  it
is not  what it claims to be,  in which case,  as
most people seem to conclude, neither Vatican II,
nor the Magesterium can be relied upon, and, in a
word, the Catholic religion is bunk.

Simplistic?   Yes,  but so is a fork in the road,
where  one  road  leads  home,  the  other  to to
destruction.       "By their fruits ye shall know
them." 


In all places where emphasis is added,  either by
use of  italics,  bold  lettering,   or all caps,
this was not  found in the  original but was done
by the editor,  Hugh Atkins. Any yellow highlight
is mine.