“When Pope Stephen VII desecrated the remains of Pope Formosus during the hideously shameful Synodus Horrenda (the ‘Cadaver Synod’), every Catholic who strove to practice justice and who respected the sanctity of the human body was then ‘more Catholic than the pope.’
“When Pope John XII effectively ‘turned the Lateran palace into a brothel,’ as contemporary historians so colorfully put it, and when Pope Benedict IX gave himself over to unchastity and bloodshed, every faithful Catholic who strove to cultivate the virtues of chastity, purity, mercy, and peace in their personal conduct was then ‘more Catholic than the pope.’
“When Pope John XXII preached in his sermons the error that the faithful departed do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until after Judgment Day at the end of the world, every faithful Catholic was then ‘more Catholic than the pope’ — and the loud and outraged cry of the faithful against him led him to retract his error, and his successor then infallibly defined John XXII’s opinion as heresy.
“Papal infallibility doesn’t mean papal impeccability or papal omniscience. The obligations of docility and obedience do not extend so far that one must stand on one’s head and cross one’s eyes in order to see how a scandalous, erroneous papal utterance is in fact true after all. Most of what a pope says is not infallible, and papal authority has never extended to having the right to introduce teachings and laws that contradict or go counter to the Faith.” 10
“As Rorate has argued since day one of the first Synod—(Pope) Francis is leading the destruction of the family and the defiance of the words of Jesus Christ Himself.” 11
Early in his career, before his final break with Rome, the Augustinian monk Martin Luther made his own correct observations about the popes similar to the preceding “traditional” Catholic discernment, and it does not make them less true because it was Luther who expressed these views. The conservative Catholic rejoinder to Luther, prior to the public emergence of the Liberal theology among the 1960s popes and their successors, was that the Pontiff is sovereign. He has no judge on earth. No individual’s conscience can refuse the pope’s theology, and “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that everyone be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” including in the realm of the nullification of the Word of God under the Church of Rome’s euphemism for betrayal of divine law, the “development of doctrine.” The traditional answer to Luther was that in practice the pope’s power is indeed unlimited.
Luther’s rage against the pope’s development of permission for usury (profit on loans) is one of the most tightly suppressed motivating factors of the early Protestant Reformation. He wrote:
“The heathen were able, by the light of reason, to conclude that a usurer is a double-dyed thief and murderer. We Christians, however, hold them in such honor, that we fairly worship them for the sake of their money…Whoever eats up, robs and steals the nourishment of another, that man commits as great a murder…as he who starves a man or utterly undoes him. Such does a usurer, and sits the while safe on his stool, when he ought rather to be hanging on the gallows, and be eaten by as many ravens as he has stolen guilders…
“Meanwhile, we hang the small thieves…Little thieves are put in the stocks, great thieves go flaunting gold and silks…there is, on this earth, no greater enemy of man (after the devil), than a gripe-money and usurer, for he wants to be god over all men…a usurer and money glutton—such a one would have the whole world perish from hunger and thirst, misery and want…so that he may have all to himself and every one may receive from him as from a god, and be his serf forever.
“To wear fine cloaks, golden chains…to be deemed and taken for a worthy, pious man…Usury is a great huge monster, like a werewolf, who lays waste all…and yet decks himself out and would be thought pious…”
In this case, Luther’s views were a reaffirmation of the Roman Catholic dogma of almost all of the popes prior to the Renaissance, all of the Fathers of the Early Church, of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anthony of Padua. After Neoplatonic-Hermeticism invaded the hierarchy of the Church of Rome it succumbed to the “development of doctrine,” in this instance the early modernist heresy of the neo-Catholic Nominalist school, which made 5% usury respectable and fueled the Catholic Fugger usury empire (the Fuggers were the buccaneer-capitalists who banked the Renaissance papacy’s indulgence loot). Catholics denounce John Calvin for supposedly pioneering the five percent interest rate in Christendom, but Calvin wasn’t even born when Nominalism and the “Five Percent Fuggers” were first in the ascendant; and Calvin was a child when Medici Pope Leo X began the gradual derogation of the immutable Catholic law against profit on loans (which was sustained by all of his successors), beginning with his papal bull of May, 1515.
To this day, much of the conservative Catholic world believes the story that Rome stood against the moneygluttons, while it was the early Protestants like Luther who were the first to enable them. In fact, after the Medici established their “monte” usury banks on a firm foundation, the Money Power was in a position to buy ecclesiastical offices and choose personnel in the hierarchy of the Church. From the sixteenth century until now the Church of Rome has been under the suzerainty of money.
The popes of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries were Hegelian dialecticians centuries before G.W.F. Hegel. Neoplatonism is anterior to Hegelianism. Both are based in magical thinking: the projection of the inevitability of observations about reality that nullify the permanence of the Word of God in the Scriptures. Here is the slogan of every revolution: “History is on our side.” In the theology of this spiritual virus, the insinuation is that the pendulum-swinging god of changing times — not the God of the Bible who does not change (Malachi 3:6) — inevitably favors the revolution. This temporal chauvinism has consistently trumped Biblical dogma in the post-Renaissance Church, although for Machiavellian purposes of dissimulation, it was, up until recently, seldom publicly conceded. In western civilization, no power on earth could advance this sorcery that puts forth revolutionary change as an invincible historical force, half so well as the papacy.
After the eclipse of the divine right of kings and the absolute power of those secular monarchs, the papacy alone possessed those pharaonic prerogatives. The Cryptocracy would have us believe that the Freemasons are the hereditary enemies of the papacy. We witness their ritual stabbing of the papal tiara and cursing of the pope. One stands in awe at this virtuoso misdirection and how effectively the image it has produced has been burnished by both the black and white players in this alchemical theatre. We’re now in the last act of the theatrical however, and the tragi-comedy is not ending as we have been led to believe it would. We are beginning to detect from the corners of the stage that the papacy is the able servant of the same occult process of which the Freemasons are a part. From Alexander VI to Leo X, from Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI to Francis, the development of the doctrine on money, liturgy, Pharisaic Judaism, sexuality and the family has been and is underway according to ever-mutating situation ethics.
Pontiffs with a conservative reputation are as culpable as liberals. In 1947, in his encyclical Mediator Dei, Pius XII repudiated a retun to the tradition of the Catholic Church: “…the desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form…”
With no earthly check on the pontifical power there is no limit to the revolutionary havoc which the bishop of Rome can wreak. This is the surpassing utility of papalolatry to the Cryptocracy.
The “development of doctrine” is not only a 1960s phenomenon. It is the inheritance of the Church since the permission granted for the rise of the Fugger Money Power and, even more contentiously, but as we hope to demonstrate, the resurrection of fealty to the diabolism of Pharaonic Egypt in the aftermath of the Council of Florence.
“…the biggest problem in the Church…is—whatever one wishes to call it—papalolatry, hyper-papalism, that adulation of
the pope that is unprecedented in the history of the Church, and the assumption that the power of the Pope has no limits, no boundaries, such that his pronouncements can change doctrine, of course under the guise of development controlled by the Holy Spirit, at will.” 12
“…unprecedented in the history of the Church…” This is what Right-wing Catholics are now asserting: the misapprehension (if not outright amnesia) with which the adversaries of Pope Francis console themselves. The contemporary conservative mind has difficulty entertaining the datum that papal absolutism has been the traditional dogma of the papacy since the late Middle Ages. According to this Roman doctrine, which was an innovation in the medieval era, Catholics must submit to popes like Francis and to his innovations.
To escape the record of subjection which Catholics have permitted to the popes for the past nine hundred years, “traditional” and “conservative” contemporary Catholics have recast a theology of the papacy, of what the non-popes have owed the pope, but they lack the candor to admit this. Instead, they pretend that refusal of obedience to the pontiffs was the case in the Renaissance, in the Baroque era and all subsequent eras up until the supposedly “unprecedented” papalolatry of the present.
Antonio Socci is a surrealist in this vein: “What many (also among believers) ignore are the very rigid limits that the Church has always placed on popes, while at the same time recognizing Petrine ‘infallibility’ in ‘ex-cathedra’ proclamations on matters of faith and morality. Specifically in the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, through which Vatican Council I defined papal infallibility, we find ‘For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”
When he cites what he fantasizes are “the very rigid limits that the Church has always placed on popes,” if we charitably resist the urge to pronounce Mr. Socci demented, then we are left with the realization of the obligation of offering to Him and mankind in general, a desperately needed education in the suppressed, authentic history of the Church.
What is the use of this alleged qualifier — “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine…”—if there is no mechanism for enforcement when a pontiff indeed does promulgate “new doctrine”? The qualifying statement is toothless. It appears that it was included in Pastor aeternus, to assuage the consciences of Catholics rightly disturbed by the prospect of any human being spiritually elevated above the rest of humanity and declared possessed of infallible judgment (whether at certain special times under certain circumstances, or not).
The notion that in halcyon days of the Renaissance and successive ages, “very rigid limits” were “always placed on popes” sis a species of Brobdingnagian self-delusion that requires no further comment.
The Word of God forbids gaining profit from loans of money among Christians. This was always the magisterial dogma. The glory of the true Catholic Church was Her law against profit from loans of money as taught by the Magisterium: as a dogma to be definitively held. On this point no further modification or alteration was to be implemented. It was a truth that could not be challenged among believers. Yet it was incrementally overthrown by the tinkering, tampering “infallible” popes of yesteryear. Today, no Catholic lender who makes his living making money breed money is forbidden communion, or made to confess his crime in the Sacrament of Penance. This has been the case since the 1830s and the pontificate of “the infallible” Pope Pius VIII.
The papal innovators of usury were too clever to challenge the divine dogma openly, and have always, in public, spoken eloquently in favor of the dogma and forcefully against avarice, since to do otherwise would reveal them for what they are. Catholic victims of deception point to this sham as their alleged proof that the popes actually changed nothing that was substantially God-ordained. What they managed to overlook prior to the pontificate of Francis was the exceptionally shrewd “pastoral” means that were employed to gradually transform profit on loans from a mortal sin to no sin at all. This pastoral tactic for nullification of the Law of God is, in the twenty-first century, not as difficult to perceive as in the past. A mind open to the proposition that devious tactics by revolutionary popes is not, in fact, unprecedented, can grasp the most notable contemporary example of those tactics: Pope Francis, spiritual heir of Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici. Roberto de Mattei, writing in Il Giorno (Italy): “Francis presents himself as a conservative, he doesn’t speak against the dogmas, but his pastoral strategy is, per se, revolutionary, as it subordinates the truth to praxis, moreover on a hot issue like the family. In this way it marks a profound discontinuity in the history of the papacy…” 13
Catholic dupes impel themselves to believe that Francis is the pontiff who originated this chameleon pastoral technique for radical nullification of God’s Law by means of rhetoric upholding it and tactics for overthrowing it. The amnesia is appalling. On the contrary, the pastoral strategy of Pope Francis marks a profound continuity in the history of the papacy. Revolution inside the Church achieved by pastoral techniques has marked “the history of the papacy” for more than five centuries. The popes of the past sustained usury not by changing the dogma in the sacred books, but by legalizing usury de facto, as a form of “pastoral care” and “compassion” (“pieta”). When the popes allowed Neoplatonic-Hermeticism into the hierarchy of the Church and with it, esoteric Judaism; and likewise when they removed the immemorial penalties for profiting from loans of money—refusal of Communion and absolution to unrepentant usurers, the requirement to make restitution after the usurer quits his occupation, and a refusal of burial to the impenitent usurer — then they proceeded to establish a precedent for all the revolutionary papal changes that would follow: coerced suppression of the Latin Mass, shenanigans in synagogues, prayers with Buddhists, pagans and rabbis at Assisi; Voodoo in Benin, protection for child molestation facilitators, and declarations that “Jews” need not be actively converted to the Gospel because “Jews” don’t need Faith in Jesus Christ to be saved. Scapegoating Pope Francis as an unprecedented phenomenon of papal revolution is willful ignorance. Francis is a terminal, “Peter Romanus” fragment of a five hundred year old timeline.
Advancing Satan’s kingdom with “a wink and a nod”
Take for example the notorious “Borgia Pope” Alexander VI, who is almost universally denounced by many informed Catholics for his egregious sexual indiscretions. This is often followed however, in the next breath, with the qualifying statement, “But even Alexander left the doctrine of the Church untouched.”
What this statement rests upon is the notion that whatever the personal sins, failings and disgusting immorality of a pope, short of his formal declaration against a dogma of the Church, he has not negatively impacted the Faith of Catholics or undermined the teaching of Jesus Christ.
We mention Pope Alexander VI in this vein because he was critical to the growth and success of the Neoplatonic-Hermetic-Kabbalist cancer inside the Church. As we shall see, he protected and patronized the two most influential and flagrant, out-of-the-closet Catholic occultists of the fifteenth century, Ficino and Giovanni Pico, yet he did not, it is true, on any occasion issue an encyclical letter or any kind of edict for the record endorsing demonology, or nullifying the First Commandment of the Decalogue. He merely furthered the career of those who did. The papalolaters insist that Alexander VI did no serious harm to the Faith or the Church itself as a result. These folks remind this writer of the comic movie character Chico Marx who asked, “Who are you going to believe—me or your own eyes?”
Our own eyes indicate that the Church of Jesus Christ is harmed as much by slowly chipping away at its foundations through sub-rosa, papally-enabled subversion and infiltration, as it would be if a pontiff were to issue a document amounting to the same thing
. Actually, the clandestine conspiracy is likely to be more lethal to souls than a public testament, because the former preserves the absolute authority of the institution of the papacy, while the latter causes Catholics to question its claims on their submission.
The playboy Borgia pope was never guilty of formally promulgating any papal documents contrary to immutable Biblical dogma. By other means however, he created a safe haven for the forces of Satan. Because he used other means, the cult mentality decrees that for all of his sins of the flesh, he sinned not against the Faith. The fact that Alexander VI is known to history mainly as a playboy pope rather than a pope of occultism, is itself an indication of the success of the conspiracy in suppressing exposure of its capture of the papacy.
Pope Francis did not formally promulgate any papal documents contrary to immutable Biblical dogma. Yet in the second decade of the twenty-first century he was a leader in grinding Biblical statutes and standards into the dust. Catholic writer Matthew Schmitz observed, “Instead of explicitly endorsing communion for the divorced and remarried couples, he has quietly urged them on with a wink and a nod.”
Alexander VI was far from being the only Renaissance pontiff guilty of enabling the diabolic. If these types of papal actors constitute the definition of a “Holy Father” then we are prisoners of the lexicon of hell.
The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome Page 6
