The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome

by Michael Hoffman

  Nevertheless, “The vigilance and the pastoral solicitude of the Roman Pontiff…according to the duties of his office, are principally and above all manifested in maintaining and conserving the unity and integrity of the Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God…” 6

  The “traditional” Catholic writer dares to use his conscience and private judgment to disclaim the judgment of the Apostolic See which is to be disclaimed by no one. Nor can it be judged.

  “Traditional” Catholics quote Vatican Council I and omit a key sentence from its decree. Here it is: “…the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error…” We know of “traditional” Catholics who revel in this astonishing, “infallible” statement and at one time quoted it often, but now, not quite as often. The late twentieth and twenty-first century popes view these “traditional” and “conservative” Catholics as ignoramuses sadly in need of initiation into the hidden verities of the Church, as understood by the pontiff and the hierarchy, in all secrecy.

  Imagine what an inside joke it must be in Rome when the “traditional” Catholics come calling and boldly declare that, when it comes to Judaism, they want the Church returned to the way it was before Vatican II. “Guys,” the cardinals and clerics are thinking, “what you wish for is now, and has been, for five long centuries. The only difference being that we went public with it in 1965.”

  The Second Vatican Council was the culmination of Renaissance popery. The gnosis of Renaissance popes is reflected in the theology and actions of modern Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis. The Roman Church in the Renaissance did not have a “vacant see.” All of the pontiffs who reigned (with the exception of the Avignon interregnum), were incontrovertibly popes and some of those popes approved the overthrow of Catholic dogma that had been held by all the Church since the first century A.D. The others who did not overthrow it condoned the revolution by the fact that they did not restore the dogma. Those popes were not just material heretics, they were formal ones.

  The “Conservative” and “traditional Catholic” movement as now constituted is doomed to failure because the post-Renaissance popes of Rome and their hierarchies will not be taught doctrine and history by “traditionalist” cowans, dupes and goyim. The post-Renaissance popes and their hierarchies possess the key to a mystery of history which the “traditional” Catholics do not: the “traditional Catholic” papacy and its administrative organs and instruments radically departed from the dogma of the Church, beginning around the last decades of the fifteenth century. The magisterial dogmas that were tossed away were never restored. For five hundred years the three Traditions of the Renaissance Church of Rome have been: 1. Judaism and the occult; 2. Lying and deceit; and 3. The root of evil itself — the legalization of the love of money.

  When “traditional” Catholics appeal for a restoration of tradition, what can be the reaction of the contemporary Vatican’s bishops, cardinals and pope, other than mirth and mockery? If one desires 500 years of Catholic tradition, then look to the Second Vatican Council and you will find the culmination of five hundred years of Renaissance occult Catholic tradition, contrasted with fifteen hundred years of Catholic Truth as taught by Jesus, the Apostles, the Fathers of the Early Church and most of the theologians of the Middle Ages.

  The Vatican II document Nostra Aetate was the public acknowledgement of the accommodation and blending of the Roman Church with Pharisaic Judaism which had been underway since the late 1400s. This sub-rosa hybrid process started in the Renaissance era with Judaizing popes such as Alexander VI, Leo X, Sixtus V and Clement VII. This clandestine fact is part of the illumination process of high-level initiates at the Vatican, who are informed sub-rosa that “traditional Catholicism” is hopelessly compromised and double-minded, in that it claims to oppose Pharisaic Judaism and yet it ignorantly pledges allegiance to all popes previous to Vatican II, when in fact some of those pontiffs were as much in league with the Talmudic/Kabbalistic imperium as Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis.

  One of the reasons why the “traditional” Catholic movement has been outclassed and out-fought by its enemies is that many “traditional Catholics” believe the myth that the Judaizing of the Church commenced with the Second Vatican Council and the popes thereof. Until Catholics confront the full history of the panoply of papal treason and alliance with Talmudic Judaism, they will be fighting a Vatican that smirks at their naiveté, and accords to itself the patriarchal task of gradually initiating childish traditionalist leaders into the elder gnosis of post-Renaissance “Catholicism”—the traditions of the Pharisees and the love of money—which Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers of the Early Church vigorously challenged and exposed with every fibre of their being.

  To win in chess one needs to stay at least three or four moves ahead of one’s opponent. In the game at hand, the Vatican Cryptocracy is three or four light years ahead of “traditional” Catholics. The cri de coeur should be, we want the Church restored to the way it was before the Renaissance— before the de facto legalization of the mortal sin of usury, the crucial clandestine support for the Talmud and Kabbalah, and the permission to lie and deceive (mental reservation and equivocation). Until these three sides of the Renaissance papal pyramid are dismantled, there can be no “restoration” of the True Church.

  These are radical truths which many will shun so as to return comfortably to their candy-coated world of make-believe, where they may soothe themselves with corrupt delusions and reassuring myths. But in the combat for Christ’s Church there can be no half-strength measures and no compromise with the harsh truth about the ecclesiastical history of the Father of Lies. Either we are for the whole truth or we are nothing. Either we face the facts and struggle on the basis of the demands of revelation, or we will answer for it in this life and the next. One of the best summations of the Process we are studying was put forth by Socrates Scholasticos (380-439 A.D., alternately spelled “Scholasticus”), in his Ecclesiastical History. In volume one, chapter 22 he analyzes the infiltration methods of the Manicheans as they sought to subvert the Church with deceptive pseudo-Christian texts as part of their conspiracy: “The contents of these treatises are apparently accordant with Christianity in expression, but thoroughly pagan in sentiment.”7

  Scholasticos’ insight into the agents of paganism inside the Church centered on their “parasitically surviving within Christianity” by using the development of doctrine as their vehicle. Here is unveiled the neopagan syncretic theology of the Renaissance papacy behind the appearance of orthodoxy; a theology which never lifted its hold over the Church of Rome, not even under Pope Leo XIII, the so-called “Light from Heaven” and supposed scourge of Freemasonry who refused to expose the rabbinic-Kabbalistic foundation of the masonic order in his famed 1884 “anti-masonic” encyclical Humanum Genus. Consequently, the encyclical constitutes a colossal act of misdirection. Furthermore, on his watch, Pius X chose the personnel who were the authors of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which omitted all mention of the mortal sin of charging profit on loans.

  These highly esteemed and celebrated “conservative” pontiffs, who are revered as “paladins of pious Catholic orthodoxy,” failed to assault the axis of the evils they purported to address. They excoriated symptoms and by so doing they lent to the Church of Rome in that time an undeserved public relations reputation for unmasking and combatting occult subversion. The calculated dissimulation of these popes testifies to the fact that the arcane Neoplatonic-Hermetic-Kabbalist-Renaissance theology is untouchable in papal Rome, no matter which pontiff, Liberal or Conservative, occupies the “Chair of Peter,” and no matter how many thundering denunciations they directed at the modernist and masonic branches of the Renaissance theology.

  One reason the covert pagan movement that came to the fore in the Catholic Renaissance survived was its secret alliance with and submission to papal authority and supremacy. Its leaders who did so (Father Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola,
Johannes Reuchlin and many more), lived to freely pass on their spiritual bacillus, while equally diabolic occultists such as Giordano Bruno, were burned — not for their ideas, but for their defiance of popery. Consequently, the Neoplatonic-Hermetic heretics were usually almost always wearing a highly pious mask, outwardly conforming and deferential to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

  The special protection afforded the occult virus which Rev. Fr. Marsilio Fincino and the Kabbalah-crazed Count Giovanni Pico della Mirandola 8 and others like them cultivated in the deepest bowels of the Church, has never been expelled. It remains the arcane gnosis of the post-Renaissance papacy. It made the papal permission for usury possible. It institutionalized equivocation, lying and child molestation. (The foundations of the institutionalization extend as far back as the beginnings of clericalism, and secrecy for the sake of the protection of the “higher-souled” clergy and their operations, as exposed by St. Peter Damian in the middle of the eleventh century).

  The special protection afforded the occult virus made possible the public emergence of the doctrine of the Second Vatican Council document, Nostra Aetate, which denounced “anti-Semitism” (a phrase that can mean almost anything), without warning of the anti-goyimism of the sacred rabbinic texts of Talmudic-Kabbalistic Judaism, thus creating an unequal equation, conveying an advantage to the “persecuted” enemies of Christ; while hatred toward the followers of Christ, and gentiles in general, went unmentioned and unlamented by the Second Vatican Council.

  Notice we do not say that the occult virus made the doctrine or the ideology itself possible, but rather the public emergence of the doctrine and ideology was made possible, timed to coincide with the Zeitgeist. The doctrine and the ideology predate by centuries Rousseau, Kant and the French Revolution, and by decades Calvin and Luther. Protestantism, occultism and Judaism were propelled into the West by the Renaissance papacy, germinating through the centuries. These actions were screened from public view and from the view of the laity and all those Catholics not initiated into the highest echelons of the hierarchy. The screen was by no means total, and it was in partial public view symbolically and brazenly in accordance with chutzpah, from the mid-1400s onward, when the magical doctrine of the sexualization of everything came to the fore in Church-appointed, Church-financed and Church-approved art works and architecture. These embodied and enshrined nudity, paganism, homo-erotic seduction and demonic paradigms and paragons which unambiguously pointed to the substitution of Neoplatonic-Hermetic diabolism, with its ape of God, for the plain Gospel of Jesus Christ, as had been taught and conveyed by the true Catholic Church from the Resurrection of Jesus Christ until the coming of the accursed “Renaissance,” which actually signifies a rebirth of forces hitherto chained.

  Throughout this work we distinguish between the Catholic Church and the Church of Rome as it metastasized during and after the Renaissance. The distinction is critical. Frederick Meyrick of Oxford University wrote, “The value of truth for truth’s sake is a thing apparently unappreciated and inappreciable by the Roman theological mind, in so far as it is Romish or distinct from Catholic.”

  A contributing factor in the rise of the Protestant Reformation was the authority claimed by the pope of Rome, a claim that pre-dates the Renaissance. In the 1599 edition of The Geneva Bible, which was the influential English Calvinist translation of the Scriptures in wide use in Elizabethan England, we read at the commentary on Rev. 11:7: “Boniface the Eighth…who lifted himself in so great arrogancy…that he called himself Lord of the whole world.”

  Protestant Dr. Gary DeMar writes, “Boniface VIII was pope of the Roman Catholic Church from 1294 to 1303. In his special charter, Papal bull Unam Sanctam of 1302—considered by the Reformers as one of the most heretical statements of Papal authority ever made—Boniface insisted, ‘Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

  “Traditional Catholics” (and even many “conservative” ones) believe that unfettered freedom of the press such as enjoyed by Americans under the Constitution is a Masonic vice. They also condemn “private judgment.” Then, relying upon the very vices they condemn, they proceed to publish their critiques of the Church since the 1960s. “Catholic traditional” Bishop Richard Williamson writes:

  “…modern Catholics have tended to put too much faith in the pope and too little in the Church, and here is the answer to that reader who asked me why I do not write about infallibility in the same way that the classic Catholic theology manuals do. Those manuals are marvelous in their way, but they were all written before Vatican II, and they tended to attach to the Pope an infallibility which belongs to the Church. For instance, the summit of infallibility is liable to be presented in the manuals as a solemn definition by the pope, or by pope with Council, but in any case by the pope. Modern Catholics have tended to put too much faith in the Pope…in the same way that the classic Catholic theology manuals do.”

  Were the classic theology manuals modern or “traditional”? Was it only theology manuals that taught this excessive faith in the pope? Absolutely not. It was the popes themselves who promulgated this faith in themselves and the papacy. Are their teachings not subject to revision because they were written before Vatican II? Is it not true that “traditional” Catholics claim to cling to the whole Church as it existed prior to the Second Vatican Council? Yet now we see a rejection of theology manuals that are pre-Vatican II as advised by a “traditional” Catholic bishop who seeks to restore the Church as it existed before Vatican II. How do we adequately account for the painful, self-contradictory gymnastics which certain Catholics undertake to try to resolve the dilemma of heretical popes, and which leads them into what can only be described in terms of an oxymoron: madhouse modernist-traditionalism.

  This modernist-traditionalist (sic) theology on papal power, which would never have been concocted if today there was a reigning pontiff of the “traditional Catholic” Pius X type on the papal throne, was invented in response to the Neoplatonic gang of pontiffs elected since Pope John XXIII in 1958. Here is a conservative Italian observer, Antonio Socci writing in Libero, October 5, 2014:

  “…the Church belongs to Christ and not the popes, who are only temporary administrators and not masters…. They are subject to the law of God and the Word of God and must serve the Lord by protecting the ‘depositum fidei’ entrusted to them. They cannot take possession of it or change it according to their own personal ideas…”

  Protestant readers of Mr. Socci’s statement will ask him, what took Catholics like you so long to realize this truth?

  The Revelation of the Method of Pope Francis came in many ways, one of which was in connection with his Synod on the Family, which in October 2014, produced Italian Archbishop Bruno Forte’s Relatio post disceptationem, which states: “Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.” After an uproar, the Vatican, with Hegelian guile, took one public relations step back and announced that the Relatio post disceptationem was a preliminary document and not a final pronouncement. This was for image-management. The substance was something else: Archbishop Forte remained in the pope’s hand-picked inner circle of top synod advisors on the issue. Two steps forward.

  The Synod of Bishops on the Family met in further sessions in 2015. Amoris Laetitia (“The Joy of Love”) is a papal document, technically an apostolic exhortation, written by Francis as the result of the Synod. It was made public April 8, 2016. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna stated in an interview with the Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica, that Amoris Laetitia is part of the Magisterium.

  On September 5, 2016 the bishops of the Buenos Aires region of the pope’s native Argentina drafted a set of guidelines intended to assist local priests in putting Amoris Laetitia into pastoral practice, particularly chapter ei
ght, which makes reference to “discernment regarding the possible access to the sacraments of some of those who are divorced and in a new union.” The guidelines say that some civilly remarried couples who can’t adhere to the Church’s teaching of celibacy (‘living like brothers and sisters’), who have complex circumstances, and who can’t obtain a declaration of nullity for their first marriage, might undertake a “journey of discernment,” and arrive at the recognition that in their particular case, there are factors that “diminish responsibility and culpability.”

  For divorced Catholics in these exceptional cases the bishops wrote, “Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.” The guidelines, dated September 5, reached Pope Francis, who answered on the same day, writing: “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.” 9

  “More Catholic than the Pope”

  On the Internet five months earlier, incensed by Amoris Laetitia, the Rorate Caeli Catholic-traditionalist blog, selfadvertised as the most popular in the English-speaking world, issued the following statement:

  “The Catholic Faith is not something invented anew by each pope according to his own opinions, predilections, understanding, or whims. The pope is only good as a ‘yardstick’ when he formally teaches in accordance to ‘the Faith once delivered unto the saints,’ as St. Jude the Apostle wrote. When Pope Liberius assented to the unjust excommunication of St. Athanasius the Great, and signed off on an ambiguous creedal formula that could be accommodated to the Arian or semi-Arian heresies, every faithful Catholic was then ‘more Catholic than the pope.’

  “When Pope Honorius I uttered false theological opinions and failed to correct and condemn the Monothelite heretics, every faithful Catholic was then ‘more Catholic than the pope.’ Indeed, they were so much more Catholic than Honorius that the Church posthumously condemned him as a heretic, a decision that Honorius’ successor St. Leo II approved. ‘We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius…and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.’ For most of the Church’s history, priests praying their Office repeated the anathema pronounced against Pope Honorius.