The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome

by Michael Hoffman

  While it is true that Christianity is resisted by formidable intellects and sophisticated systems of deception, in the end, guilt for the subverted condition of Christ’s ecclesia must first be apportioned not so much according to the conspiratorial plots of the few, as by the hypnotic sleep of the many. While the New Testament teaches that unbelieving Jews are under wrath, an even more damning sentence falls upon the baptized, who, under the spell of a paralyzing lassitude, quietly trade their obligation to bear witness to the truth, for the pottage of human respect and the promise of material security in a conforming world.

  Under Pope Francis the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, on December 10, 2015, issued The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable:

  “The Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews…it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.”

  In light of what this Pontifical Commission teaches, it would appear that the New Testament is a fraud, at least as it applies to Jews. All of the preachings and disputation to the Jews in the New Testament were for no purpose if we accept the “reasoning” of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the papally-endorsed document, The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable. Why did Jesus persist in causing a great deal of difficulty for the Jews by insisting they had to be born again, they had to believe He was their Messiah, they had to stop following their Oral Law traditions of men, and that they couldn’t have eternal salvation unless they believed that He was the Son of God?

  The Francis Papal Commission instructs so-called Jews in the true path to their salvation: their race. It is all they need and all they have ever needed according to the popes. God has a covenant with their genes and it is their covenanted genes that save them. The Church of Rome is tolerated by the rabbis because it is no longer the Catholic Church. No Church of Jesus Christ could teach that it has no “mission work directed towards Jews.”

  This statement is so preposterous it almost does not merit a response, other than derisive horse laughter at the chutzpah that so bald a betrayal manifests. It ignores Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 which prophesies the existence of false Jews. If the majority of disbelieving Israelis are not descended from the patriarchs, but are in fact Khazars, by what means other than faith in Jesus Christ, can they be saved? The answer is, none. They are damned. They can thank Popes John-Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis for formulating the theology of their perdition, based on the arcane theology of the Renaissance.

  Despite the public relations folderol, nothing about the religion of the Pharisees—Orthodox Judaism—has changed, except that it is increasing in depravity and political and religious power. Students of Judaism know what this increase signifies because we have read the texts of Rabbi Moses Maimonides, the leading religious authority for Israelis of European and American background. Maimonides ruled that when Judaic persons are weak they should feign friendship for Christians as a way of gaining power over the Christians. But when Judaics are dominant, Maimonides ruled, they may kill or oppress anyone who obstructs their supremacy. The outcome of the papal and Protestant Fundamentalist surrender to the Sanhedrin will be the extirpation of Christians, as the world witnessed when Soviet Russia was ruled by the children of the rabbis. 20

  The Church of Rome for centuries has certainly had some things in common with Judaism. It must relish the fact that Orthodox Judaism permits the molestation of boys under age nine by the Pharisee Hillel’s permission. Molester priests and the bishops and popes who facilitate their molestation can go wild under Talmudic law. The rabbis made their religion desirable for sex perverts. Children may be molested at a young age with no penalty for the adult Judaic molester. Rabbis may have sex with boys under nine 21 and with girls under age three. 22 Mothers may engage in sexual activity with their male sons under the age of nine. 23

  III

  Tridentine Judaism according to the “Traditional Catholics”

  Since the mainstream of “traditional Catholic” theology in our time preaches servile submission to almost all the popes prior to Paul VI (or prior to John XXIII), and because the priority is personal piety and the recitation of x number of rosaries and novenas, attendance at “First Fridays” and “First Saturdays,” and scapular-wearing, they are highly susceptible to the allurement of Neoplatonism and Hermeticism, enveloped as it is in the clouds of incense and Latin ceremony in which the Renaissance conspirators shrouded themselves and which “traditional Catholicism” is committed to reviving, without sufficient regard to, or vigilance over, who is stage-managing the revival. Powerful occult forces are operating inside contemporary “traditional Catholicism,” whose clerical leaders are not routinely answerable to the laity except in emergency terms of threats of lawsuits or withholding donations.

  How do occult forces manifest inside “traditional Catholicism”? Primarily in the same manner they chiefly (though not exclusively) manifest inside the post-Renaissance Church of Rome: as an adjunct of Neoplatonic-Hermetic-Kabbalistic advancement of gnosis, through commission or omission. The hybrid abomination we style “Tridentine Judaism” can be seen controlling the “traditional Catholic” movement. This union of irreconcilable opposites is known in alchemy as individuation. In Freemasonry it is symbolized by tessellation.

  Their movement is open to this exploitation because “traditional Catholics” are far more devoted to the incense, bells, sacred music and ceremonies of the Tridentine Latin Mass of old, than they are to the substance of the true Church’s dogma of rabbinic Judaism’s perfidy. The exterior of the Mass has been retained but the interior of its Biblical, Patristic and medieval theology has been hollowed out and replaced by apathy toward accommodations with Talmudic Judaism and the betrayal of Jesus that they symbolize.

  Most laity as well as even priests and bishops have little accurate knowledge of the legal basis of Ashkenazic Orthodox Judaism: the Talmud Bavli, Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Joseph Karo’s Shulchan Aruch, Shlomo Ganzfried’s Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, or the Mishna Berurah. As a result of this ignorance, in February 2016, two “prestigious traditional Catholic” organizations, the “International Federation Una Voce” and the “Latin Mass Society of England and Wales” issued a position paper defending the Talmud, fulfilling the mandate of Mirandola and Reuchlin and the other Renaissance subversives. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

  Their position paper is titled The Good Friday Prayer for the Jews in the Extraordinary Form (an allusion to the Tridentine Latin Rite “form” as it is now called in the Vatican). This text from Una Voce and the Latin Mass Society is a farrago of illiteracy with regard to the Talmud and its opponents. The paper dares to traduce the medieval Franciscan Nicholas Donin, a saintly Judaic convert to Catholicism, for having allegedly sparked “a tragic phase in the Church’s history.” Here is an excerpt from the text issued by Una Voice International and Britain’s Latin Mass Society. It is, not surprisingly, perfectly consonant with Renaissance occult theology:

  “…official theological resistance to anti-Semitic violence was itself challenged, however, in the 13th century. Notably, in 1238 Nicholas Donin attacked the Talmud as leading the Jews into error and blasphemy, undermining the notion of the Jews as bearing witness to the truth. In the following centuries Jewish religious writings were seized for examination or destruction, sometimes by Papal mandate; synagogue services were disrupted and aggressive proselytization attempted by members of religious orders; mass expulsions were carried out from many European countries…It must be underlined that this tragic phase in the Church’s history cannot be blamed on the theology of the Fathers…Throughout the period attempts were made to defend the Patristic view, notably by St Thomas Aquinas, and to refute Donin’s claims about the Talmud, a refutation definitively accepted following the Council of Trent.”24

  This text is a n
early verbatim repetition of the rabbinic propaganda about the despised convert Nicholas Donin. He is execrated by the rabbis because this Catholic friar had inside knowledge of the Talmud and used it to damaging effect against rabbinic Judaism. This servant of God has the distinction of being the first Catholic in the history of Christendom to cause the Talmud to be formally put on trial. This occurred in Paris in 1240, before a papally commissioned jury of university scholars, with Donin valiantly acting alone as prosecutor. It required an entire team of rabbis from northern France to endeavor to refute him. The rabbis were under no coercion and they safely returned to their homes after the trial, which convicted the Talmud of being a heinously evil, anti-Christian text constituting blasphemy against the holy name of Jesus.

  For this tremendous feat his reputation is sullied by “traditional Catholics,” on the preposterous grounds that Donin’s anti-Talmudic theology runs counter to the Fathers of the Church.

  From the earliest history of the Catholic Church, Judaism and Judaizers inside the Church (“nostri Judaizantes”) were condemned in no uncertain terms by the Fathers of the Church. In the first century St. Ignatius of Antioch declared that nothing unconverted Jews could teach Christians was of any use, and that all such teachers were to be shunned. (Letter to the Philadelphians [1]). St. Ignatius stated that to profess Jesus Christ while Judaizing was a monstrosity, and that there is no salvation for those who follow Judaism. (Letter to the Magnesians). In St. Justin Martyr’s second century Dialogue with Trypho, and in the fourth century St. John Chrysostom’s Adversos Judaeos and his Discourses Against Judaizing Christians (in particular the first, second and fourth discourses), Chrysostom declares that both Jewish synagogues and Jewish souls are dwellings of demons. These Patristic dogmas derived from the Bible were upheld by the Council of Antioch (341 A.D.) and the Council of Laodicea (circa 363 A.D).

  It is even alleged by “traditional Catholics” that attempts were made by St. Thomas Aquinas to combat the anti-Talmudic “tragic phase in Church history” by upholding the Fathers of the Church, who, it is insinuated, would have also opposed the “tragic phase.” Where does Aquinas have one good word to say about the Talmud, or one bad one for Nicholas of Donin? How can it be said that the Fathers of the Early Church would have opposed militant challenges to rabbinic Judaism when those challenges were founded in part on their theology?

  We can laugh at these assertions in the hope that derision will put paid to the falsehoods. It would be comforting to be able to say that anything so utterly ludicrous should be ignored. Why bother to challenge this tissue of absurdities? For one thing, these “traditional Catholics” confirm a portion of our thesis regarding the Renaissance Church. Una Voce and the Latin Mass Society openly acknowledge that the Renaissance Church compromised with Talmudic Judaism! They allege that a refutation of Donin was accepted “definitively” by the Renaissance Catholic Church at the Council of Trent.

  The authors of The Good Friday Prayer for the Jews in the Extraordinary Form make this claim by extrapolating from the datum which they themselves correctly put forth: that during the Renaissance the Vatican permitted the publication of the Talmud. As we have seen, this publishing enterprise was made possible under the influence of the occult Neoplatonic-Hermeticism-Kabbalism which had infiltrated the papacy and the curia.

  One of the representatives of the Latin Mass Society in Britain promoting and defending the position paper, The Good Friday Prayer for the Jews in the Extraordinary Form, is a “traditional Catholic” and an academic. He corresponded with us with regard to our concerns. What he wrote on March 15, 2016 contains a noteworthy admission:

  “The paper, as you quote it, does not say that St Thomas Aquinas defended the Talmud. That distinction goes to Raymond Martin. 25 His judgement, that only a few verses of the Talmud needed to be censored, was confirmed by the Congregation of the Index, which was asked to look into the matter again by the Council of Trent. That decision was never overturned, and in that sense proved definitive.”

  In 2016 the “Latin Mass Society” leader conceded that the Renaissance Church of Rome had no major objection to the contents of the Babylonian Talmud, with the exception of “a few verses” out of its thousands of pages.

  Moreover, the “distinction” of “Raymond Martin” in his Pugio Fidei, one of the formative philo-rabbinic texts which predates the Renaissance, which yet remained influential in the Neoplatonic and Hermetic papal networks, is his defense of the Talmud. As we stated previously, Martin was a clever operator. His book was officially anti-rabbinic, as its full title attests (“adversus Mauros et Iudaeos”). It formed the literature of Rome’s Machiavellian, one-step-backward-two-steps-forward deceit mechanism. The Pugio Fidei’s key thesis was that which Giovanni Pico della Mirandola put forth two centuries later: that rabbinic books such as the Talmud contain proof of Jesus being the Messiah. Martin wrote:

  “As often as the Talmud offers us some prophetic proof text, interpreting it concerning the messiah or concerning those things known to relate to the messiah, if it has expounded the text well, it should be admitted in argument. For honey, as the wise man knows, is consumed eagerly, even though, if it is examined carefully, it proves to be the spittle of bees…I found in the Talmud and midrashim—that is, glosses—and traditions of the ancient Jews which I gladly raised up like pearls out of an enormous dung heap…Certain (traditions) which know the truth and in every way reveal the doctrine of the prophets and holy fathers, wondrously and incredibly bespeak the Christian faith too, as will become obvious in this book. They destroy and confound the perfidy of modern Jews…”

  The “Talmud and midrashim…destroy and confound the perfidy of modern Jews.” This is an unintentionally hilarious statement, but there is nothing humorous about it since this notion gained increasing traction over the centuries, and was one constituent part of the successful occult movement to rehabilitate rabbinic Judaism and its Babylonian Talmud.

  In our exchange of correspondence, the individual representing the Latin Mass Society added: “The reference to Aquinas is connected with his more general defense of the Patristic view of the role of the Jews in the economy of salvation, by contrast with the views of Scotus and others. Also of note is his refutation of the charge of decide, made against the Jews…On the Talmud, the (position) paper refers to an article by John Lamont which is available online, in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, which goes into more detail.”

  Our point of contention is not “the role of the Jews in the economy of salvation.” The reference to it would seem to be a diversionary tactic. We are not contending against the Old Testament, or the Book of Romans, chapter eleven. The point at issue is Talmudic Judaism. The Latin Mass Society wants us to believe that the Roman Catholic Church was always, even prior to the Renaissance, a politically-correct ally of Pharisaic Judaism’s diabolism, and that Aquinas is noteworthy for “his refutation of the charge of decide, made against the Jews.”

  As for deicide, concerning culpability for the hatred that motivated His crucifixion, Jesus said: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: They hated me without a cause.” (John 15: 22-25).

  St. Thomas Aquinas on deicide stated, “…their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhood. Hence, He Himself says of them in John 15:22: ‘If I had not come, and spoken to them they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.’ And John 15:24 ‘If I had not done among them the works that no other man had done, they would not have sin….

  “Bede likewise says, ‘It is to be observed that he does not pray for those who, understanding Him to be the Son of God, preferred to crucify
Him rather than acknowledge Him.’…

  “All this shows that while they beheld Christ’s marvelous works, it was owing to their hatred that they did not allow him to be the Son of God…The rulers of the Jews knew that he was Christ: and if there was any ignorance in them, then it was affected ignorance, which could not excuse them…Among the Jews, some were elders, and others of lesser degree…those of lesser degree—namely the common folk…The Jews of the common order sinned most grievously as to the kind of their sin: yet in one respect their crime was lessened by their ignorance…they were deceived…by their rulers so that they did not believe Him to be the Son of God or the Christ.” 26

  St. Thomas Aquinas has succinctly summarized a thousand years of Catholic teaching regarding the words of Jesus Christ in this regard, and no amount of spin from agents of the post-Renaissance Church of Rome, whether Latinists or not, can alter that fact.

  The leader of the “Latin Mass Society of England and Wales” with whom we corresponded, made a further revelation of a once suppressed secret: “The Congregation for the Index asked only that a very small number of verses referring to Our Lord be removed. Their ruling meant that the Talmud could be freely printed and distributed, as far as the Church was concerned.”

  Yes indeed, the papists, more than any other power on earth, and certainly more so than Protestants of that era, were the principal enablers of the Babylonian Talmud.

  The person in the Latin Mass Society with whom we corresponded stated further, “On the Talmud the paper refers to an article by John Lamont which is available online, in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, which goes into more detail.”