The papist alliance with occultists and reliance upon their texts has been the history of the Church of Rome since the Renaissance. This esoteric tradition created a precedent. If the Catholic martyr and saint, John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, could make use of the rabbis to craft his polemical points against Luther, why not traditional Catholics today? How much more “traditional” can you get than St. John Fisher? It was this rabbinic epistemology that shaped the methodology of Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, Josef Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) and other avant-garde theologians of the Left and the Right. The clandestine legacy of the Catholic hierarchy’s entanglement with the occult has inspired modernist conspirators to build on this centuries-old Neoplatonic and Hermetic precedent. This is their inner tradition.
In his 1525 rejoinder to Luther, Defense of the Sacred Priesthood, John Fisher, who was fluent in Hebrew, consulted rabbis to gain what he imagined would be a true comprehension of the Biblical texts related to his subject:
“In his Defense of the Sacred Priesthood he discusses at length the nature of Melchizedek’s sacrifice in Genesis 14:8 and quotes several rabbinic authorities in support of his explanation. He refers to Moses Ha-Darshan, an early 11th century French exegete and haggadist, to Pinchas ben Jair and Simeon ben Johai, 74 two second-century rabbis, to Rashi, Kimchi and the Targums as affirming that the sacrifice of the Messiah will be of the same substance as that of Melchiedek…”75
Some of the enthusiasm for Hebrew in Christian Europe and Britain was not rabbinic in orientation. It was inspired in part by the Christian intuition that Europeans were descended from the ten lost tribes of Israel, who had traveled north and settled on the continent in the Atlantic sea which they would one day transform into Europe.
The Christian practice of making laws for governing human society based on the Bible is exceedingly controversial in the Church. Christian philosophers have argued that Old Testament laws were a curse on Israel until such time as the Messiah would arrive. According to this thinking, in the post-Messianic age, only liberty must guide the Christian ship of state in the formulation of its laws. From this antinomianism arose the novel concept of prisons as places of punishing confinement, which Pennsylvania Quakers took one step further, inventing solitary confinement for an entire prison population, a practice which appalled Charles Dickens when he witnessed it on his tour of America, and which is in place at present at the Federal prison at Florence, Colorado, where prisoners are deliberately made to “rot.” 76 The assumption that all Old Testament practices were accursed ones and that novelties spun from the minds of modern Christians are always more salubrious, overlooks the havoc that the mind of man can play, as in the wastrel and inhuman modern prison system, which would be strictly illegal under Old Testament statute. It was in the interest of discovering what, among God’s old covenant laws, should be preserved for the better ordering of human society, that the dream of the Hebrew Republic came to the fore in Savonarola’s Florence and the Puritan Commonwealth of New England. For Catholics, the latter two have been models of how not to govern, and in the case of New England specifically, a synonym for trivial, killjoy, blue laws and a fanaticism so preposterous that it outlawed the celebration of Christmas. Compared with legions of men stored in prison-warehouses for years, away from their wives and families, in what are in fact schools for crime and homosexuality, the “horror” of Sunday blue laws or a five shilling fine for keeping Christmas, as absurd as it was, would seem to pale in comparison.
In early 16th century Italy the papacy licensed the publication of the Talmud and other virulent Judaic polemical writings against Christianity. It is repeatedly stated in books and movies that the “antisemitic” popes “always hated and burned the Talmud”; therefore Christians believe this lie. The mesmerists have seen to it that the “proper” beliefs should be induced and we believe properly. A movement comprised of hypnotics cannot wage a battle independent of the direction of the Cryptocracy, however much they cloak themselves in the trappings of religion.
The information we present on the popes and the Talmud and Kabbalah is not an indictment of the Catholic Church, the root of which is Jesus Christ; any more than an exposé of Judas indicts the Gospel. We are indicting those betrayers of the Church who periodically have held high office or, indeed, the highest office. Naive persons imagine that these betrayers occupied the Chair of Peter beginning in the 1960s. A share of the Vatican’s long-hidden Machiavellian tactics for the overthrow of the Gospel are being revealed in our time.
“The Relatio post disceptationem presented on the 13th of October, despite the rehashing it underwent, didn’t obtain the expected majority of two-thirds (of the vote at the synod on the family), on two crucial points: the admittance of the divorced and remarried to Communion and the opening up to homosexual couples, attesting 104 in favor, 74 not in favor on the first point, and 118 for, 62 against, on the second. In spite of the evident débâcle, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of Munich, one of the most passionate exponents on the ‘progressive’ wing, said he was satisfied, since revolutionary processes are done in successive stages. On some themes, he explained, ‘we took two steps forwards and then one backwards.” 77
Where did Cardinal Marx learn this clever tactic? In part from the record of the popes who derogated, in stages, God’s Law against profit on loans: first, from 1515 to 1830, and then with the two Codes of Canon Law promulgated in the twentieth century. There is a Roman proverb, “Ma ciò che la dottrina non ammette viene ammesso dalla prassi, in attesa di essere sancito” (“What doctrine does not admit is admitted in praxis, waiting for sanction”).
One of the basic tenets learned in Thomistic philosophy is first principles: one must not proceed from false premises, from the idea that the revolution began with Kant or Rousseau, or the Enlightenment, or the French Revolution of 1789. Actually it started in the Garden of Eden with the serpent, 6000 years before Vatican II. Later, Jesus said, “Did I not choose you twelve and one of you hath a devil?”
One-out-of-twelve was an enemy agent in His very presence, yet Catholics are incredulous when we proffer a higher statistic for the papacy (every pope from 1515 onward). As with usury, the occult infiltration of the Church did not begin with the Enlightenment, much less with “the Council.” It commenced in the late 1400s with its Neoplatonism and Hermeticism. In an important address to the Brussels Société de philosopie in 1958, Francois Masai argued that the ‘caractére libertine, incrédule, anti-chrétien du platonisme byzantin’ was due not only to historical contingencies, but to the very principles of Platonic philosophy…” 78
The “traditional” Catholic fairy-tale in sum: 1. They cannot give their allegiance to the Second Vatican Council because it represents a radical departure from the unbroken, unchanging teaching and doctrine of the Church from the time of Christ.
2. They trace the seeds of subversion in the Church to the eighteenth century, to Rousseau in France and Kant in Prussia. 3. They teach that the modern departure from truth has its roots in the Reformation and Enlightenment, and the overthrow of the Bourbon dynasty in the French Revolution.
We reply: Kant is a symptom. Furthermore he is not wholly favored by the Cryptocracy, however much his radical epistemology seems to synchronize with modern theories of perception concerning dogma. Kant’s philosophy cuts both ways: it not only opened the Church to scrutiny, it represented a substantial setback to the prestige of Orthodox Judaism among the intelligentsia. Catholic Neoplatonism burnished the reputation of Judaism among the intellectuals of the West. How can Kant be worse than the Catholic-Kabbalists and how is it that they escape the main burden of culpability among “conservative” and “traditional” Catholics?
Kant was contra-Judaism. We have never known of any philosophy that was contra-Judaism in the essence of its core precepts that was embraced for any significant length of time by the Cryptocracy. A Kantian would never have been allowed to teach at the Catholic Society of St. Pius X Winona, Minnesota seminary. A Neoplatonic-H
ermeticist was, however, given the right to lecture at the seminary and lead seminarians on field trips to historic sites in the U.S. where he “explained” to them the “poisonous roots” of the Founding Fathers’ antimonarchial republican revolt. His writing was published by the Society’s Angelus Press. This “traditional Catholic” occultist was made a papal knight by Pope John Paul II. He continues to direct “traditional Catholics” through his writing, speeches and interviews.
The Zionist historian Jonathan M. Hess explains what is objectionable to Zionists in the philosophy of Kant:
“Kant’s Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone…dedicated an inordinate amount of time and energy denigrating Judaism and denying that it had any substantive link to the pure religion of reason introduced by Jesus…Kant’s Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone…presented Judaism as a ‘collection of mere statutory laws’ that did not deserve to be called a religion, and that was incompatible with the Kantian ideal of moral autonomy. As a worldly political commonwealth that ‘excluded from its communion the entire human race,’ and ‘which showed enmity toward all other people and which, therefore, evoked the enmity of all,’ Judaism for Kant was an historical faith utterly devoid of ethical impulse and virtually ‘irreconcilable with humanity itself.’ Jesus, in contrast, figures in Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone as…the ‘living archetype of the moral disposition in all its purity…” 79
What Kant sought to achieve in the dawn of the modern age was an end to Judaism’s immunity from criticism. It is true that Kant’s imperative consisted of universal criticism of all ideologies. Yet Kant was one of the few modern philosophers of integrity for this reason: he did not exclude Judaism from his withering critique of institutionalized dogma. Why make an equal opportunity skeptic like Kant the poster boy for the modern devaluation of truth, while giving a pass to Ficino, Mirandola, Reuchlin and the Renaissance popes? Kant did not peddle deceit. He advocated the skepticism his conscience demanded of him.
At this juncture questions are bound to arise: if the papacy was part of the Cryptocracy from the late fifteenth century onward, why did the conspirators trouble to found and maintain Freemasonry, with its aim of destroying tiara and crown? Why did the Freemason Giuseppe Garibaldi destroy the papal state if the pope was a fellow-traveler?
This is like asking, why bother to start General Motors with its aim of building automobiles when there is already a Ford Motor Company that builds automobiles? Or, why did the Gambino crime family make war on the Colombo crime family? Have we not the wit to comprehend that institutions can have similar goals and serve the same devil, and still be vicious rivals, savagely competing for money, power and the fealty of the people? Why did the troops of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V nearly destroy Rome in 1527? Why did Pope Innocent XI support the Protestant army of Prince William of Orange? When that army defeated Irish and French Catholic troops at the Battle of the Boyne, why did Innocent’s successor, Alexander VIII, order a Te Deum sung in honor of the Protestant victory? 80
Rome represents one wing of an enormous executive. Rivalry with the Anglo-Saxons was intense before the Reformation, and even prior to the Cryptocracy gaining a hold over the Vatican. Intense rivalry between the Catholic monarchs of France and Spain was episodic and sometimes lethal. Secret alliances with Freemasons, Protestants and non-Christian bankers were made, broken and re-constituted. This is not the history of the Boy Scouts, yet Catholics suspend their suspicions of the papacy and are as jejune as boy scouts when they encounter the dealings of the popes prior to the modern era.
Why did the pope have Savonarola executed? Though he made mistakes, Savonarola was, in general, part of the true Catholic resistance to the Church of Rome’s Cryptocracy, in this case as it existed in Florence. Years after Savonarola was burned, Clement VII used his own army to put Florence under siege, as part of a mopping up operation to pacify the troublesome population who were in revolt against their Neoplatonic masters a quarter-century after Savonarola’s death. Where did Clement VII acquire the gold to undertake the costly expense which the siege of Florence entailed? The source of the funds was supposed to be disclosed in the records of the papal camera. The record-keeping was circumvented, however. Who were Clement’s bankers?81
Freemasonic mobs and armies were (and are) part of the Hegelian dialectic, although since this predates Hegel we may rightly call it the dialectic of the Zohar. The Masons were killing the Catholics in the name of being rid of “priestcraft,” while in the masonic Lodge they dubbed each other “High Priest, “Grand Hierophant” and other bombastic, priestly titles. The Freemasons represented the rabbinic pillar of chesed — literally, mercy — but more accurately, an outward show of hippie-type liberation from “dogma,” extending back to Rabelais’ Abbey of Theleme, and revived in Sir Francis Dashwood’s “Hellfire Club.” The Masons pretended that they wanted freedom of speech for the nations, and for every lodge brother to live in freedom. But in fact theirs was a very circumscribed church, even more strict than that of their papist rivals.
We don’t see evidence that Masonry actually wanted to destroy the Tiara; that was a cover story to deflect attention from the covert objective—to capture it—and with each successive capture, sow more poison by means of the neo-Catholic sin against the First Commandment, papalolatry, so that even a pope like Pope “Saint” Pius X cooperated with the usury-Money Power, and failed miserably, and indeed with gross negligence, to extirpate these toxins from the bowels of the papal edifice and curial office when he had the authority to do so.
The history of the Church of Rome in the age of the Renaissance is akin to Tim Finnegan’s legendary ladder—one false step after another. It is an irony that both Ultramontane Catholics and flaming New Age hippies are loath to abandon their mutually cherished belief that Rome in any era other than the modern one, was the implacable enemy of occult forces.
Any historian expecting to find a document signed by one or more popes of the Renaissance stating, “I am a Satanist,” will be disappointed. There are true believers who will not accept the occult nature of the Church of Rome unless we produce such a document. The Renaissance and post-Renaissance papacy did not operate with the guileless candor of Jesus Christ. It shaded its true nature with a hundred different forms of camouflage and misdirection. It is easy to become lost in the thicket of these illusions.
1 Judaic Kabbalists of the fifteenth century such as Yohanan Alemanno encouraged the promulgation of the Neoplatonic-Hermetic myth that Platonism resulted from the doctrines of the Biblical patriarchs. Cf. Kocku von Stuckrad, Location of Knowledge in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Esoteric Discourse and Western Identities (2010), p. 38. Alemanno was a mentor and companion of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and scholar in residence in the home of the Judaic da Pisa family in the 1480s and early 1490s. Decades later, Daniel ben Isaac da Pisa would become a favorite of Pope Clement VII.
2 Jean Seznec, The Survival of the Pagan Gods (1981), p. 98.
3 Seznec, p. 98.
4 Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology (2011) pp. 59-60.
5 Moshe Idel, Kabbalah in Italy: 1280-1510 (2011), p. 311.
6 Quispel adds that in Egypt in 1945 “a better version in Coptic of parts of the Hermetic Asclepius, preserved in Latin among the work of Apuleius,” was discovered near Nag Hammadi.
7 From whom Ficino received a villa in 1463.
8 Named Pimander after the “spirit” that legend has it dictated the Corpus Hermeticum to Hermes in his sleep.
9 Jens Zimmerman, op. cit.
10 In Italy, a poem set to music.
11 Jill Kraye, “Philologists and Philosophers,” in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism (Cambridge University, 1998), pp. 149-151.
12 Ficino, De christiana religione, ch. 22: “Prisca Gentilium Theologia, in qua Zoroaster, Mercurius, Orpheus, Aglaophemus, Pythagoras consenserunt, tota in Platonis nostri uoluminibus continetur.”
13 C. A. Patrides, The Cambridge Pl
atonists (1969), pp. 4-6. “Plotin,” i.e. Plotinus.
14 Some accounts have Ficino putting Orpheus or Zoroaster in first place and Hermes second.
15 N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003), pp. 49-53.
16 Horton, op.cit., p. 48.
17 “Religious pluralism and relativism lie at the heart of modernity, as is evident in Lessing’s clever parable of Nathan the Wise (1778), which is similar to Nicholas of Cusa’s On the Peace of Faith…” Horton, p. 61.
18 Horton, op.cit., pp. 60-61.
19 From which, the Neoplatonist Iambilchus (250-325 A.D.) taught, divine powers could be obtained by way of the precise enactment of ceremonial magic.
20 Translated and published in English as Introduction to Christianity (Herder and Herder, 1971).
21 Ratzinger, ibid., pp. 186-187.
22 Ibid., pp. 222-223.
23 Ibid., pp. 237-238.
24 Matthew Vogan, “Does the Pope Believe in the Resurrection?” Free Presbyterian Magazine, September, 2010. Vogan’s references are to the Ignatius Press edition of Introduction to Christianity (2004), pp. 98, 152, 211-212, 240-241, 243 and 256.
25 YHVH, “Yahweh” — “I Am who I Am.”
26 Michael Horton, op. cit., pp. 230-233.
27 Owen Davies, Grimoires: A History of Magic Books (2010), p. 46.
28 Angela Voss, ed., Marsilio Ficino (2006), pp. 1 and 3.
29 Christopher McIntosh, The Rosicrucians: The History, Mythology and Rituals of an Esoteric Order (1998), p. 7.
30 “Qablistic” and “Qabalah” are alternative spellings of the Kabbalah root word.
31 McIntosh, op. cit., pp. 7-8.
32 Kiran Toor, Coleridge’s Chrysopoetics (2011), p. 33-34.
33 Florence: Antonio di Bartolommeo Miscomini, 1489; reprinted in Venice in 1498 and in Bologna in 1501 by Benedetto Faelli.
The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome Page 15
