The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome

by Michael Hoffman

  There has been no significant reparation made and no reckoning on this earth for this horrendous sabotage. War was made by the elite of the Church of Rome, led by the Pope of Rome, against their own faithful priests and people, as Neoplatonic-Hermeticism emerged from five centuries underground to crush the Faith permitted to exist until such time as the prophesied stage of human alchemy had reached a sufficient level of processing.

  Anticipating an objection, we assert that yes, even Pope “Saint” Pius X, who despite his repeated famous jeremiads against “the scourge of modernism,” never lifted even one finger against the root of evil—the love of money—Rome’s “decriminalization” of usury—incrementally relaxed and diluted, leading to the abolition of all ecclesiastical penalties by Pope Pius VIII, and the absence of all such penalties in the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law. Moreover, it is worth noting that the criminally negligent 1917 Code was compiled largely in the pontificate of Pius X, who did not live to see it actually promulgated.

  The “Jews” were cleverly branded and scapegoated as the iconic usurers, but as historian Prof. Goldwin Smith writes concerning the Catholic usurers, “The Lombards and Cahorsins…took up the business (of usury)…the money trade…in Italy…was in the hands of native houses, such as the Medici, Bardi, and Peruzzi, while at a later period the Fuggers of Augsburg were the Rothschilds of Germany.”

  The Fuggers were an anti-Lutheran Church of Rome banking house who had been placed in charge of the receipts from the sale of indulgences. They pioneered the five percent rate of interest on loans, which has been pinned on John Calvin as the miserly originator thereof. Our understanding of the papacy’s filthy lucre reached a new order of magnitude in 1832, when the Rothschilds began to finance of the Church of Rome, two years after Pius VIII removed the last penalties and obstacles to “Catholic” usury and those who practiced it.

  Employing the draconian power of the papacy, Pope John Paul II, that flak for the Pharisees, declared in a Roman synagogue and to the world’s media that the unbelieving mockers of Jesus Christ were the “elder brothers in the Faith” of Catholics, and through Church documents authorized by this pontiff, strongly intimated that evangelization of the “Jews” was no longer a primary objective because “Jews” could gain salvation through their racial heritage, rather than by their Messiah, King Jesus.

  The popes of the Renaissance and post-Renaissance stopped Islamic would-be conquerors in their bloody tracks in order to preserve the occult state that was the Church of Rome and her empire. But with regard to Judaic power, despite certain setbacks and pogroms which the Church of Rome engineered to gain temporary negotiating advantage with its rival and sometime partner, and despite the anger and hostility of the Catholic priests and laity at Talmudism, it was the religion of the Talmud and the Money Power which gained strength after strength, and went from victory after victory by the clandestine connivance of the Church of Rome. The Renaissance and post-Renaissance Church successfully ran its operations because those operations ensured that Catholics placed authority above truth—“underestimating truth and overestimating the popes.”22 Catholics concede to the person of the pontiff an infallibility coming from, and belonging to, God alone. This elevation of the Bishop of Rome generates a “creeping infallibility,” which leads Catholics further and further astray, submitting to doctrines, disciplines and acts contrary to the Gospel.

  Niccoló Machiavelli (1469-1527) of Florence offered the following counsel to the Renaissance princes of Church and State. His teaching became the papal charter:

  “Every one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on the word of the prince.

  “… a wise lord cannot, nor ought he to, keep faith when such observance may be turned against him, and when the reasons that caused him to pledge it exist no longer.

  “…it is necessary to know well how to…be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.

  “One recent example I cannot pass over in silence. (Pope) Alexander VI did nothing else but deceive men, nor ever thought of doing otherwise, and he always found victims; for there never was a man who had greater power in asserting, or who with greater oaths would affirm a thing, yet would observe it less; nevertheless his deceits always succeeded according to his wishes, because he well understood this side of mankind.

  “…a prince ought to take care that…he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Everyone sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many…” 23

  The Renaissance Medici and Guise clans were students of Machiavelli and a template for the Mafia, having engineered one of the great acts of Antichrist treachery in the history of Renaissance Europe, the mass murder of thousands of unarmed Protestants, and women and children in Paris, 1572. This mass murder was praised by the pontiff of the day. Can it be said that he was Catholic? Or was he an anti-Catholic intending to ruin the reputation of the Church?

  When the Bishop of Rome does deviate, Christians have the duty to admonish him and expose his fallibility, as Christ did to the teachers of falsehood of His day. No obedience or deference is owed to any “spiritual authority” on this earth, be he pontiff or Protestant pastor, who repeatedly and knowingly imparts falsehood. The theology that says otherwise was promulgated by fallible pontiffs enshrining idolatry of “His Holiness.” Resistance against the highest religious authority in the Church of Rome is always incumbent on every Christian when that authority betrays the perennial truths of the Gospel as always taught by the true Catholic Church. The ones who are called to challenge the usurpers are those who most profoundly value the safeguarding of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, because at least some Christians, however few, will always deploy, in obedience to divine fiat, and rally to defend and advance the true Church founded by the Resurrected Christ. This is a challenge mounted against the Left flank to defend against those who seek to use psychological pressure from academia and the mass-media to morally stigmatize those who uphold the Word of God concerning Pharisaic (“Orthodox”) Judaism, homosexuality, divorce, contraception and abortion. The defense is mounted against the Right flank where dwell those who believe that the Bishop of Rome is a sovereign authority endowed with the right to nullify God’s law against usury, murder Protestants and Anabaptists in Europe, devolve Christ’s Ecclesia into a Neoplatonic-Hermetic hierarchical institution for the elevation and protection of clerics whose souls, allegedly enhanced by the mark of ordination, are covertly deemed higher souls (Neshama HaElyonah in the words of the rabbis), than those of the laity, and therefore more worthy of protection from criminal prosecution than the children which some of them prey upon. We have made reference heretofore to Catholics among whom we lived in the 1950s and 1960s; to their rectitude and in some cases, sanctity. Thinking on those people from our past, many of whom are now deceased, and visualizing their faces and their way of life from out of the “mystic chords of memory,” it is difficult for us to believe that very many of them would have any active connection in the twenty-first century to what passes for the “Catholic Church,” in view of the revelations of systematic molestations of helpless Catholic children, whose predation was facilitated by numerous bishops and cardinals (many of whom still living are comfortably retired) and at least
one “infallibly canonized saint” (John Paul II).

  How do we distinguish between the Catholic Church and the usurper Church of Rome? The Catholic Church always taught that profit on loans of money (usury) was a sin that separated man from eternal salvation. The Church of Rome gradually usurped the Catholic Church by seizing the papacy and using a type of “signs of the times” pilpul (intellectually dishonest, Talmudic-style casuistry), so as to submit to the Money Power and replace the eternal, unchanging Word of God with situation ethics, justified by allusions to “changing economic realities.”

  Five centuries later the same trend is in place: “The reasoning of the clerics who advocate for a radical revision of the teaching of the Church on the question of homosexuality takes as a given that the phenomenon of same-sex couples, with their respective children, is one of a considerable size and grows in an irresistible way, as a ‘sign of the times’ to which the Church cannot deny welcoming and positive recognition anymore” (Sandro Magister, L’Espresso).

  Revolutionary overthrow by pastoral means

  Most of the evils which befell the Church, from the sale of indulgences to the rise of Neoplatonic-Hermeticism within the hierarchy, as well as the alliance with the Rothschild bank from 1832 onward, to the public emergence of Neoplatonic-Hermeticism in the twentieth century Church, all lead back to the Renaissance root of incremental relaxation of moral and dogmatic laws against usury which led to the eventual total nullification of those divine laws. These facts represent the beginning of the discernment of the true Church and the impostor Church. How was this gradual revolution in the Church’s attitude toward money achieved? To answer we turn to a replay by Pope Francis of the incrementalism and plausible deniability put into motion by Leo X Medici, and his successors. It works like this:

  Pope “Francis would like to liberalize Church doctrine on marriage, the family, and homosexuality, but he knows that he lacks the support and institutional power to do it. So he’s decided on a course of stealth reform that involves sowing seeds of future doctrinal change by undermining the enforcement of doctrine today. The hope would be that a generation or two from now, the gap between official doctrine and the behavior that’s informally accepted in Catholic parishes across the world would grow so vast that a global grassroots movement in favor of liberalizing change would rise up at long last to sweep aside the old, musty, already-ignored rules….It’s a brilliant, clever, supremely Machiavellian strategy—one that promises to produce far-reaching reforms down the road while permitting the present pope…to claim plausible deniability (‘I haven’t changed church doctrine!’).” 24

  On October 17, 2014 Cardinal Raymond Burke, who was then the head of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (canon law court), stated concerning Francis, “The pope has done a lot of harm…’ Burke…went on Catholic television in 2013 to rebut remarks Pope Francis made to an interviewer that the church had become ‘obsessed’ with abortion and sexuality to the exclusion of other issues.’ Burke said, “We can never talk enough about that as long as in our society innocent and defenseless human life is being attacked in the most savage way. The pope, more than anyone else as the pastor of the universal church, is bound to serve the truth,’ Burke said. ‘The pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the indissolubility of marriage or any other doctrine of the faith.”

  But Cardinal Burke, surely you are aware that popes have changed the church’s teachings on profit from loans of money, and on Judaism; popes violated the First Commandment when they invited the smoke of Satan (pagan and Kabbalistic philosophy) into the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and conveyed it via Catholic universities and seminaries and via hieroglyphic public art. Cardinal Burke has nothing to say about these earlier papal violations of truth and the law of God. Consequently, one wonders if he is sounding an alarm because he is genuinely outraged, or because Francis is giving the papal game away by his blatant embrace of the actual praxis of the Church of Rome since the late fifteenth century? Dante in The Inferno connected usury to sodomy. Francis was only being papally consistent when he sought to soften the laws against the latter after his predecessors removed the barriers to the former.

  The Vatican philosophy is the occult philosophy of the Renaissance. It is also known as the “post-conciliar orientation” and the “Forte Theology.” It can be summarized as follows: “…according to the ‘Forte Theology’ of the partial Monday relatio—all bad things have ‘semina Verbi,’ and ‘elements of sanctification,’ lying, cheating, and destroying are not even ‘sins’ properly, but just ‘steps’ on the path to an ‘ideal’ of truth, faithfulness, and integrity that is nearly impossible to achieve…” This is the Kabbalistic dogma viewed through a “Catholic” lens.

  Neo-Catholics would seem to have little or no idea what a true Catholic believes according to the Church founded by Jesus Christ and those who remained faithful to His Ecclesia through the centuries. A vast sea of texts and decrees, doctrines, encyclicals and pious practices and sideshows accumulated by the man-made Churchianity that usurped the true Church, mesmerizes and misdirects its adherents, implanting a false picture of what it means to be Catholic. For them Catholicism consists in veneration of the pontiff and nearly blind faith in the local cleric; in other words in popery and priestcraft. Where is this in the Gospel? And after five hundred years, where has it finally led? Catholics of the first few centuries after Christ would not recognize the Church of Rome as having much of anything to do with the Faith bequeathed to them.

  They would never sign on to the ban on human reason and divinely instilled conscience stigmatized by the Church of Rome as “private judgement.” Freedom of the press is no more masonic than listening to one’s conscience is Protestant (Freemasons have a history of burning the printing presses of their opposition; masonic “freedom of the press” is a hoax). Freedom of inquiry and the sanctity of a Christian conscience are pre-Renaissance Catholic virtues that should never be conceded to detractors as something anti-Catholic. “Traditional” Catholics practice private judgment when they refuse the Mass of Pope Paul VI or pick and choose which pope they shall follow, or declare that certain popes are not popes—the “Vatican II Popes” have been deposed by the declarations of various priests ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who later had themselves made “bishops” (all these acts were by private conscience and judgment). Fr. Jürgen Wegner, United States District Superior of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) wrote that exposing Catholics to the Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Paul VI is known to be harmful to their faith. The pope’s own Mass is harmful to the faith of Catholics? How was this decided by Fr. Wegner and published in a mass mailing of September 2015, devoted to honoring a priest, Msgr. James Byrnes, who, by the light of his private judgment, has refused to offer the Novus Ordo Mass? It was decided by Wegner’s conscience and private judgment.

  We have seen these same “traditional” Catholics proclaim the need to only read a Catholic Bible that contains “annotations” by Rome’s theologians, since it is too dangerous for Catholics to read the words of Christ by themselves without annotations—they might lead to “private judgment.” The irony is lost on these tragicomic characters who burlesque Catholicism.

  The bishops of Rome when they were humble servants of God and cognizant of their human fallibility, were often true shepherds and guarantors of the unity so sorely lacking in the Protestant world. But as Romanism replaced Catholicism with the passage of centuries, the popes became enveloped in a mystique worthy of an emperor. They had directed the people away from seeing that the supposed “infallible papacy” had become like the “princes of the house of Israel” who “hate the good and love the evil,” as written in the Book of Micah, chapter three.

  The post-Renaissance papacy is the last significant absolute monarchy on earth. The person who is elected pontiff rules the Roman Church with complete authority. Papists have explained this by means of allusion to an all
eged historical miracle: that other than Pope Honorius I who “strayed” doctrinally but (it is alleged) “only briefly” into Arianism, the papacy has otherwise been free of dogmatic error. Catholics grant that the papacy has had rum popes who fell into concupiscent situations involving mistresses, children out of wedlock and similar sexual failings common to human frailty. Other than Honorius however, who is deemed not to have formally pronounced in favor of heresy, legend has it that the papacy has been miraculously preserved from error in theology. “Traditional” Catholics maintain that this was true until the pontificate of Paul VI (some say until John XXIII).

  Reading the Russian Orthodox author Fyodor Dostoevsky, we saw the papacy described as being of Antichrist rather than Christ. This troubled us because we could not find any grounds for impeaching the testimony of Dostoevsky. In studying Talmudic Judaism, we discovered that during the Renaissance the Vatican enabled Talmudism to a startling degree in spite of having a reputation for “antisemitism.” In studying the occult, we found that, once again during the Renaissance, the popes embraced Neoplatonic-Hermetic-Kabbalism.