On December 1, 1974, Cardinal Johannes Willebrands issued Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration “Nostra Aetate” (N. 4).
[NOTE: For those unfamiliar, there are a number of articles available here on akaCatholic detailing the outrageous claims made in Nostra Aetate (N. 4), including its blatant misappropriation of Sacred Scripture to suggest that the Jews of “our time” (nostra aetate in Latin) have been made one with believers in the Cross of Jesus Christ, the instrument of salvation at which that they openly scoff.]
Six weeks earlier, on October 22, 1974, Paul VI created the Commission for the Church’s Religious Relations with the Jews, with Willebrands being appointed as its first president.
In the Preamble to Guidelines and Suggestions, Willebrands attempts to put Nostra Aetate – aka “The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions” (remember that name) – in its proper historical perspective, writing:
… the Council finds its historical setting in circumstances deeply affected by the memory of the persecution and massacre of Jews which took place in Europe just before and during the Second World War.
As I write in 2025 from my office here in the United States, the glorified Shabbos goys of the Trump Administration appear ready, if not anxious, to bring the full weight of the Federal Government down upon anyone who dares to engage in rhetoric that is anything other than music to Mosaic ears. That would include, of course, openly questioning even the slightest oft-repeated detail of the Holocaust narrative.
Even so (the anti-Semitism police be damned), I must admit to being of the opinion that any so-called “historical facts” that cannot be questioned cannot be trusted, i.e., one has good reason to suspect that such accounts are either grossly exaggerated if not entirely false.
That said, even if one assumes that every last drop of the Holocaust narrative – exactly as it has been drummed into everyone’s head for more than 75 years – is 100% accurate, one still cannot help but acknowledge that the aforementioned “persecution and massacre of Jews” is invoked every bit as much as a cudgel as it is a commemoration.
As such, Willebrands was entirely correct: Vatican Council II was “deeply affected” by the Holocaust narrative, or better stated, the assembly fell victim to the wiles of Holocaust, Inc., an industry that weaponizes the illusion of perpetual Jewish victimhood as a tool for advancing an anti-Christian agenda.
Having mastered the art of imparting collective guilt upon ignorant non-Jews, while convincing many of their own unassailable innocence, Holocaust, Inc. has managed to further establish Jewish influence (if not ironclad control) over practically every sector of society – banking, finance, media (news, cinema, music, etc.), healthcare, government, and yes, even religion.
With regard to the latter, it is no exaggeration to say that the most impactful deviations from the Catholic faith produced by the Second Vatican Council, even beyond Nostra Aetate, were greatly influenced by, if not co-authored by, the Jews – a topic that deserves an even more in-depth treatment than we will be giving it here.
At this, let’s talk about the Jews.
The events of Holy Week place the expression the Jews in its proper context as “the chief priests and ancients of the people” (i.e., the wealthy and influential elite of first century Jewish society) stirred many among the masses into a bloodthirsty frenzy, calling for the release of Barrabas and the Crucifixion of Christ.
Were these powerful men among the Jews in a position to achieve, on their own, the outcome that they desired?
No, for this they needed the cooperation of non-Jews, namely, their pagan Roman rulers, which they secured via the thinly veiled threat of civil unrest. This same dynamic remains very much at play even in our day, but with one regrettable difference that we will discuss momentarily.
Self-identified Jews are but two-tenths of one percent (.002) of the global population, and just 2% of the U.S. population, and yet their impact on national and international affairs far exceeds their numbers. Much of that influence, it must be noted, is brought to bear in the form of anti-Christian movements like abortion rights, LGBT activism, transgender mutilation, the climate hoax, etc.
How is this possible?
Well, it’s possible only insofar as the Jews have been able to enlist the collaboration of non-Jews, some of whom also occupy lofty positions in high places (like the White House), whether that cooperation be motivated by overlapping self-interests (e.g., financial pursuits, a hunger for influence and prestige) or perhaps coerced in some manner (e.g., via blackmail, or economic pressure).
What makes the present situation somewhat unique, and in a sense all the more regrettable as compared to the Crucifixion, is that many of those who join the Jews in facilitating evil are men who claim to be Christian. (Again, one thinks of the White House.)
As far as similarities are concerned, the Jews of our time, who wield such a staggering amount of power and influence, are, like the Jewish leaders of the first century, an elite minority among a minority.
In other words, when discussing the frequently anti-Christian influence of the Jews of our time, we no more intend to include every self-identified Jew alive today than the Scriptures do when recounting Our Lord’s entrance into Jerusalem, His Passion, and Crucifixion. Recall that even as the leaders of the people plotted His demise, still, a multitude cried out, “Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.”
True, cries such as these are no longer emanating from any segment of the Jewish community, but the fact remains that “the Jewish supremacist billionaire class” (as much maligned anti-Zionist Professor Norman Finkelstein calls them) are the ones leading the anti-Christian charge. One also notes that fellow Jews of far better intent – persons who have neither tremendous wealth nor influence – are often numbered among the victims of the elite.
With all this said, let’s turn our attention back to the Commission for the Church’s Religious Relations with the Jews.
The Guidelines and Suggestions issued by its first President, Cardinal Willebrands, went on to say:
Christianity sprang from Judaism, taking from it certain essential elements of its faith and divine cult…
The ink on Nostra Aetate 4 had barely had time to fully dry, and by 1974 it was clear that the conciliar church’s relationship with the Jews, unmoored as it is from the immutable Catholic faith, was beginning to drift, i.e., the sacrilegious seeds of the Council were already sprouting like thistle in a vineyard.
According to the Council:
The Church recalls that the Apostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people. (ibid.)
Fair enough. While it could have been better said, the Apostles and many of the Church’s first believers were, in fact, Jews.
Less than ten years later, however, one notes how the commission charged with “implementing, correctly and effectively, the express intentions of the Council” (see Willebrands, Guidelines and Suggestions) has taken this idea a step further by suggesting that Christianity itself “sprang from Judaism.”
In 1974 – more than twenty years before John Paul II would become the first claimant to the papacy to set foot inside a synagogue – one may be forgiven for failing to recognize just how much of a sellout this idea truly is. Today, given the conciliar church’s deferential posture toward to the Jews, it is patently obvious.
Willebrands even claims that the Church takes certain essential aspects of faith and worship from Judaism, giving one the impression that Catholicism is merely a breakaway movement, a spinoff that left the original intact. This, of course, is false. Judaism, properly speaking, is no more.
Having gravitated further and further away from Catholic teaching since Nostra Aetate opened the way of perdition, the conciliar church now openly professes, without apology, that “the Jews are not excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ” (see The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable, 2015), as if Our Blessed Lord is but one way of salvation and not the way, as He plainly taught.
I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)
St. Paul leaves no room for confusion: Because of their unbelief, the Jews are broken off from the olive tree of salvation. By the mercy of God, they can be grafted in again, but only if they cease to persist in their unbelief (see Romans 11).
It is the Holy Catholic Church’s duty to preach this lifegiving truth to the Jewish people, to urge them unto belief, just as did St. Peter on the day of Pentecost.
The conciliar church, by contrast, has abandoned the descendants of Abraham in the flesh, assuring them that it “neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews” (cf,The Gifts and the Calling).
Could there be a more unmistakable sign that the conciliar church presently in occupation of the Vatican simply cannot be the one true Church of Christ?
How did this happen? What sort of diabolical forces moved the churchmen gathered at Vatican Council II to set in motion the apostasy referenced above?
Well, as a matter of historical fact, the false impression of Judaism’s enduring validity is precisely the one that the Jews themselves lobbied the Church to adopt.
For example, in June of 1961, The American Jewish Committee (AJC) – led by an elite group of wealthy, politically connected figures – submitted a memorandum to Cardinal Augustin Bea, who was charged with preparing a document on the Jews for the upcoming Council. [The photo at the top of this post shows Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who was chosen by the ACJ to collaborate with Cardinal Bea in drafting a text on the Jews, meeting Paul VI along with his wife.]
The memorandum, entitled, “The Image of the Jews in Catholic Teaching,” insists that the Church, along with other religions, “must recognize and correct erroneous teachings that keep bigotry [against Jews] alive.”
Among the examples of allegedly erroneous teachings provided in the text are those taken from the New Testament, i.e., the AJC had the unmitigated audacity to pressure the Catholic Church into abandoning the very words of Sacred Scripture!
More outrageous still is the fact that the Council was all too happy to oblige.
A sober reading of Nostra Aetate reveals just how selectively the Council chose to cite Sacred Scripture when speaking of the Jews, carefully referencing passages devoid of crucial context, confirming the Jews in their unbelief, whilst avoiding at all cost the divinely inspired words that condemn them for the same.
The AJC memorandum complains with respect to Catholic teaching:
There are no references to Judaism as a religion after the birth of Christianity. Jewish religious practices, holy days, etc., are described only in the context of the ancient past. The Catholic student is given the impression that Judaism as a faith ceased to exist with the founding of Christianity, or with the destruction of the Temple.
The memorandum went on to pose the following rhetorical question:
Is there not a responsibility [on the Church’s part] to mention that Judaism continues as a living faith?
The Catholic answer is a firm and resounding no. The Church has but one responsibility toward the Jews, namely, to inform them of the truth, in charity:
Judaism as a faith, such as it was in the ancient past, has indeed ceased to exist. It has it become obsolete (see Hebrews 8:13). As Pope St. Pius X explained to Zionist leader Theodor Herzl:
The Jewish religion was the foundation of our own; but it was superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity.
Before we move on, it is important to recognize that the American Jewish Committee is not, despite the religious posturing contained in the 1961 memorandum, a religious organization. Its mission was, and remains, ordered toward political and civil ends.
In other words, the AJC is not involved in theological endeavors aimed at explaining “Jewish religious practices, holy days, etc.,” nor is it in any way committed to defending Judaism as a “living faith.” Although it has long been a proponent of so-called “religious liberty,” the organization waxes religious only to the extent that doing so may serve as a means of facilitating the continued ascendency of Jewish (read: anti-Christian) influence over national and international affairs.
More could be said about the AJC’s successful efforts to influence the direction Vatican Council II. The evidence is publicly known and widely available. In fact, numerous Jewish publications (including those produced by the AJC) openly brag about their direct involvement in steering the Council.
What remains unknown (at least to my knowledge) is precisely how this was done, meaning:
Was there more to the operation than just memoranda and pleas for fairness? Were any threats or promises made along the way? Was any sort of payoff offered? Could blackmail have played a role in convincing Paul VI to bow to Jewish pressure?
On this latter question, before dismissing the possibility out of hand, the reader may wish to consider the testimony of Franco Bellegrandi, who was a papal chamberlain for both John XXIII and Paul VI, as well as a longtime correspondent for L’Osservatore Romano. Writing in his book, Nikita Roncalli, Bellegrandi discusses rumors surrounding Montini’s alleged homosexuality (which he evidently found convincing) as well as his Jewish family heritage.
Bellegrandi states that Montini’s “ambiguity of personage” was such that he was “constantly exposed to blackmail.” (pg. 197)
Of course, it may be the case that the bishops of Vatican II collectively, albeit inexplicably, fell prey to a purely diabolical attack.
Either way, the outcome remains the same. Despite any unanswered questions, one thing is certain, an undeniable rupture occurred at Vatican Council II. This much is plain in various ways, not the least of which concerns the conciliar church’s approach to the Jews.
In conclusion, recall that I asked you to remember the full name of the document, Nostra Aetate, “The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.”
Even before the Council had ended, Paul VI established the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue as a dicastery charged with engaging the non-Christian religions. As noted previously, in order to facilitate the implementation of Nostra Aetate (No. 4) very specifically, which addressed “Abraham’s stock,” Paul VI established, in 1974, the Commission for the Church’s Religious Relations with the Jews.
Get that? Relations with the Jews, that is, with members of so-called Judaism, a “Non-Christian Religion,” just as the name of the conciliar decree indicates.
And what exactly distinguishes the Non-Christian Religions from those identified as “Christian” (however loosely)?
The answer: Baptism.
Vatican Council II produced a separate document aimed at addressing the Church’s relationship with the non-Catholic communities of the baptized, Unitatis Redintegratio, “The Decree on Ecumenism.” In 1966, Paul VI established the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity as a permanent dicastery charged with implementing this text.
Knowing all of this, guess under which dicastery Paul VI placed the newly formed Commission for the Church’s Religious Relation with the Jews?
There can only be one logical answer: The dicastery known as the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, the one that was established to facilitate relations with the Non-Christian religions.
Right?
Well, yes, that is the only logical answer. It is, however, wrong.
Curiously, Paul VI placed the Commission for the Church’s Religious Relations with the Jews under the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, and there it remains to this day (now called the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity).
So, to the question posed in the title to this post (What’s in a name?) we must conclude that a great deal is conveyed in the names of the dicasteries and commissions housed within the conciliar curia.
Right out of the gate, from the very inception of the commission charged with implementing Nostra Aetate 4, the head of the conciliar counterfeit church, Paul VI, deliberately chose to place it within the dicastery that is ordered very specifically toward relations with other Christian communities.
The message seems rather clear: The conciliar church, for whatever nefarious reason, appears to look upon the Jews as equals in the economy of salvation, as if they share in the dignity of the baptized even as they reject Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Given that every putative pope since has reaffirmed this grave offense against Our Lord and His Church, I would go a step further:
All indications are that the leaders of the conciliar church are not content with treating the Jews as mere equals, but rather are they determined to enter into their service as handmaids to the Hebrews.
