Pope Benedict accuses the Apostle Paul of exaggeration (“rhetorical excesses”) and admits that “reconciliation between Christians and Jews” has been his goal as a theologian from the beginning of his career—not the conversion of Judaics, but “reconciliation.” How can two opposites reconcile? Where in scripture is the mandate for a “reconciliation between Christians and Judaics” warranted? The Vatican worships the god of the United Nations, the mainstream media and the spirit of the world (1 Cor. 2:12). In our media age the concept of reconciliation with evil (except the unpardonable supposed “evil” of obstructing Talmudism and Kabbalism), is a politically correct idol to which the Vatican has submitted.
Pope Benedict exhorted Catholics to work for “peace between Christians and Jews.” What sort of “peace” was there between Jesus and the Pharisees? How can there be peace with the successors of the Pharisees, except by diluting the Catholic Faith with the leaven of the Pharisees? With reference to supporters of Bishop Williamson, Pope Benedict wrote of their: “…arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with onesided positions…”
Holocaustianity
In the Neoplatonic-Hermetic theology of the Church of Rome, the “Holocaust” or Shoah, represents the sublimation of our Lord Jesus Christ. His subsidiary status is a type of blasphemy since it is brought about by the idolatry inherent in Shoah theology, viz. Holocaustolatry. Consider the fact that Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston made the astonishing declaration on February 23, 2009, that the “Holocaust” was the “worst crime” in history. Calvary? What’s that? A footnote, at best.
We also observe the effects of Holocaustolatry in the increasingly bold and public Talmudic mockery and denigration of Jesus by Hollywood (as for example by repeatedly taking His name in vain; Exodus 20:7; Philippians 2:10), and in the deadly anti-Christian libel that constitutes denial of His Resurrection, as personified by the “Discovery” cable television channel with its worldwide broadcast of “Titanic” movie director James Cameron’s documentary claiming to have found the burial tomb of the “dead” Jesus Christ. Needless to say, Hollywood moguls are not jailed for blaspheming Jesus or denying His Resurrection. Furthermore, all the hot air blown by the Right-wing over Obama, abortion, Islam etc. is nowhere to be found assailing the Talmudic source of the media’s blasphemies, which strike at the heart of the Christian Faith (1 Corinthians 15: 14-15).
Meanwhile, revisionist historians serve prison sentences in Germany for blaspheming Judaism’s sacred Auschwitz, which is far more sacred in our modern world than the immolation of the Son of God on Calvary. In Europe, faith in the alleged homicidal gas chambers is state-mandated and papally promulgated. Their status as a sacred relic is vastly superior to the Crucifixion of the Son of God. There is no civic protection for Jesus Christ and no Vatican promotion of His Gospel as salvation to the Jews. Rather, the Neoplatonic-Hermetic popes of the modern era, in Nostra Aetate (“In Our Time”) and subsequent post-conciliar and papal decrees, have twisted scripture to rehabilitate Christ’s assassins, the Pharisees.
The roots of Holocaustianity’s Catholic-Shoah cult pre-date 1965 and the Second Vatican Council. Talmudism and neo-Platonic Kabbalism were, as has been demonstrated in these pages, powerful currents in the Renaissance and that era’s popes succumbed to the allure. The protagonists behind Nostra Aetate were Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, and the “Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity” led by Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea and Bishop Johannes Willebrands, with assistance from Bea’s peritus (“theology expert”), Jesuit Father Malachi Martin (who intermittently wrote for Zionist publications under a pseudonym). Josef Ratzinger (the future “Benedict XVI”) was also a player.
In June, 1960, Pope John had a fateful meeting with Jules Isaac, an 81-year-old French Zionist who founded the Amitié Judeo-Chrétienne, a Paris-based study group of approximately sixty Judaics and “Christians.” As far back as 1947, Amitié had proposed “correcting” what it described as “theologically inexact concepts and presentations of the Gospel of Love” that place Judaics in spiritual and physical ghettos. Mr. Jules Isaac had prepared for the Roman Church a study that sketched the history of its teachings, legislation and actions toward Judaics. Isaac’s unedited memoirs record his conversation with John XXIII. He noted that “the teaching of contempt for the Jews, in essence anti-Christian, should be purified…” Could not the pope, “a voice from the summit, show the true path?” Pope John XXIII asked Isaac to meet with Cardinal Bea. On September 18, the pope and Bea weighed Isaac’s positions and proposals. Upon Bea’s recommendation, John XXIII mandated that the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity should facilitate “reflection” on “the Jewish question” during its preparation for the Second Vatican Council. The fostering of a spiritual, theological and catechetical revolution became the objective. Nathum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress and co-chairman of the World Conference of Jewish Organizations was advising the Vatican at this time. Goldmann and Cardinal Bea met in the latter’s private quarters three weeks before the Secretariat’s first plenary session. 7
The Vatican II Kabbalist-sage Rabbi Abraham Heschel candidly admitted that his dialogue with Catholicism was really about attacking Christians’ souls with ‘Holocaust’ guilt. Heschel actually said, “I want to attack their souls.”
“In Spiritual Radical, the biography of the Hasidic change agent, Rabbi Abraham Heschel (by Edward K. Kaplan, Yale University Press), is an account of an interview Rabbi Heschel gave during the time the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, which Heschel collaborated on, was being deliberated.
The interview reveals an attitude of remarkable hostility to Christians, which should come as no surprise to those knowledgeable of the rabbinic tradition. What may surprise some (but shouldn’t at this point) is that such a hostile character would be invited by Vatican officials to participate in the writing of a Church council document.
“First some background: in Heschel’s many meetings with Vatican officials (as a representative of the American Jewish Committee) regarding Nostra Aetate, mostly with Augustin Bea, but including a secretive meeting with Paul VI, Heschel was most adamant that the document should clearly proclaim his belief that it is unacceptable for Christians to seek the conversion of ‘Jews.’
Heschel’s chutzpah in peddling this absurd idea (which consequently would undercut Christ’s incarnation, evangelical mission and sacrifice), went to the extreme of appealing to the non-Biblical, relativistic, Talmudic anti-principle, mipnei darchai shalom8 during his meeting with Paul VI.
“During the deliberations, a draft of the Nostra Aetate document was leaked to the press which did not include the prohibition against converting ‘Jews’ which Heschel desired. This infuriated Heschel, and in response he wrote an editorial published both by the New York Times and Time magazine in which he proclaimed, ‘As I have repeatedly stated to leading personalities of the Vatican, I am ready to go to Auschwitz any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death.’
“Heschel’s biographer Kaplan (citing Schuster’s notes on record at AJC/Paris), writes that the American Jewish Congress’s European director, Zachariah Schuster, warned Heschel that this outburst had been embarrassing to their Vatican collaborators, but that Heschel replied undauntedly, ‘I had my own private reasons for making this remark.’
“Heschel later revealed to a female Stern Gang terrorist, Geula Cohen, what those private reasons were, in an interview for the Israeli newspaper, Ma’ariv. In interviewing Rabbi Abraham Heschel, Cohen made reference to his hysterical ‘ready to go to Auschwitz’ statement, saying she was proud of it, but that she would have handled it differently. She wrote:
“This statement of yours made me proud. Yet, I would have written it differently, saying: ‘if this were the only way in which I would be permitted to live, I would have endeavored to send them (Christians) to Auschwitz.’
“Cohen relayed that Heschel was not shocked by her words, but explained that his statement was stronger than
hers…Heschel further clarified, explaining the private reasons he earlier said he had for making the ‘Auschwitz’ statement: “(Christians) correctly understood that I was comparing them to the Nazis. If I had made the statement in a straightforward fashion saying ‘you are Nazis,’ it would have sounded ridiculous. My style of writing is by hinting, because truth is in the depths. There are those who would like to attack their bodies. I want to attack their souls. Today, there is no longer any place for religious wars as such. Today there is occasion for conversation and discussion. Do you consider the desire to discuss a sign of weakness?” 9
There we have the motivation behind “dialogue” with “elder brothers” succinctly summarized by one of the esteemed pioneers of interfaith “dialogue,” who participated in the writing of a Church Council’s document, Nostra Aetate. Rabbinic warfare against Christian souls is not fought with guns and bombs as often as with “conversation” and “discussion.” Here we see the subtlety of rabbinic warfare…” 10
Nostra Aetate (“In Our Time”)
Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions
Second Vatican Council, October 28, 1965.
Passed by a vote of 2,312 bishops pro, and 88 con.
“Sounding the depths of the mystery which is the Church, this sacred council remembers the spiritual ties which link the people of the new covenant to the stock of Abraham. The Church of Christ acknowledges that in God’s plan of salvation the beginnings of its faith and election are to be found in the patriarchs, Moses and the prophets.
“It professes that all Christ’s faithful, who as people of faith are daughters and sons of Abraham (see Gal 3:7), are included in the same patriarch’s call and that the salvation of the Church is mystically prefigured in the exodus of God’s chosen people from the land of bondage. On this account the Church cannot forget that it received the revelation of the Old Testament by way of that people with whom God in his inexpressible mercy established the ancient covenant. Nor can it forget that it draws nourishment from that good olive tree onto which the wild olive branches of the Gentiles have been grafted (see Rom 11:17-24).
“The Church believes that Christ who is our peace has through his cross reconciled Jews and Gentiles and made them one in himself (see Eph 2:14-16). Likewise, the Church keeps ever before its mind the words of the apostle Paul about his kin: ‘they are Israelites and it is for them to be sons and daughters, to them belong the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race according to the flesh, is the Christ’ (Rom 9:4-5). It is mindful, moreover, that the apostles, the pillars on which the Church stands, are of Jewish descent, as are many of those early disciples who proclaimed the Gospel of Christ to the world.” (End quote; emphasis supplied).
Nostra Aetate is sometimes defended in the following terms: “It lifts collective guilt for deicide off the shoulders of the Jewish people.” This fact is supposed to be a conversationstopper which 1. proves Nostra Aetate is consonant with scripture and tradition, and 2. acts as a rebuke to “anti-Semites.”
The problem is that Nostra Aetate is a great deal more than just a single declaration. Its defects are to be found in its other, mostly unexamined declarations. There is nothing particularly sinister in the portion of Nostra Aetate which we have quoted, except for the ominous racial emphasis on the “stock of Abraham.” From here onward in modern Catholic theological pronouncements, we encounter the lineaments of what this writer terms Ku Klux Judaism.
The Neoplatonic-Hermetic papacy proclaims to the world that “the Jews” among us are still the Holy Race. This is occult Jew-hate, not love. Observe the demonic insinuation (for it is never stated openly), that contemporary Judics are saved—or at the very least—rendered sacred in God’s eyes, by their alleged descent from Abraham.
Catholic liberals and conservatives imagine that this proposition is some sort of lofty and radical challenge to craven “anti-Semitism” and a “prophetic call” to humility on the part of Christians.
In truth, this proposition is Jew-hate par excellence, for it encourages the deadly race pride that has blinded Judaics to Jesus Christ across the centuries, and thereby consigns them to eternal perdition. But to speak this paradoxical truth is forbidden (I Thess. 2:16).
In a few respects Nostra Aetate makes valid points. For example it says to the proponents of the Wagnerian/neo-Nazi theory of a non-Judean “Aryan Christ,” and to the Manichaean and Mariconian haters of the Old Testament, that Jews and the Old Testament are integral to the Church and form its root. This is true.
Nostra Aetate: “As holy scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize God’s moment when it came (see Lk 19:42). Jews for the most part did not accept the Gospel; on the contrary, many opposed its spread (see Rom 11:28). Even so, the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made. Together with the prophets and that same apostle, the Church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and serve him shoulder to shoulder (Soph 3:9; see Is 66:23; Ps 65:4; Rom 11:11-32).”
The misuse and distortion of St. Paul is a keystone of Holocaustianity. We have here the emphasis on the implication that the Apostle is sanctioning a saved-by-race happy ending to the Judaic drama of rejection of their Messiah. All that Paul has ever said on this subject amounts to Jews being saved at the end of time because they will be numbered among the Christians.
This is the meaning of the authentic reconciliation referred to in Ephesians 2:14-16: Jews are reconciled with gentiles through the Cross. Jews who are not saved by faith in Christ are, according to St. Paul, “under wrath…contrary to all men.” (1 Thess. 2:14-16). Nostra Aetate omits this harsh truth. In the lexicon of the Neoplatonic-Hermetic papal subversives, “reconciliation” between Christians and Jews connotes the appeasement of rabbinic Judaism and its unscriptural11 claim to having a divine relationship with God the Father while rejecting his Divine Son.
Nostra Aetate: “Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (see John 19:6), neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion.”
The first statement is true, the second is conditional. Anyone, be they “Jew” or gentile can be charged with crimes “committed during his passion” if they share in the spiritual ideology of the Pharisees who railroaded Him to His death. This includes blond British Freemasons and dusky, curly-haired Hasidim. No one is guilty solely by virtue of being of a particular ethnicity. But there can be no immunity for Antichrist Judaics (or gentile sinners, which includes us all—Romans 3:10), from bearing spiritual guilt for the Crucifixion, even in the present age.
Nostra Aetate: “It is true that the Church is the new people of God, yet the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy scripture. Consequently, all must take care, lest in catechizing or in preaching the word of God, they teach anything which is not in accord with the truth of the Gospel message or the spirit of Christ.”
An ambiguity is being manipulated and exploited in this paragraph. How is the Vatican Council defining “Jews” — by race, or by religious ideology? It is entirely Biblical to regard the adherents of contemporary Orthodox Judaism who perpetuate the beliefs of the Pharisees, as exactly what Jesus said they were (and are), “accursed.” (Matthew 21:19).
The accursed fig tree was carnal Israel, which gave the appearance of fertility but was actually barren (Hosea 9:10). Galatians 1:8 states that those who come preaching a false, modern gospel are “accursed.” It is entirely within the right of the Catholic to employ this term accursed as Jesus and Paul applied it.
Nostra Aetate has no power to cancel a Scriptural warrant, except by the same power that the Talmud uses to cancel the Old Testament. Furthermore, it is politically cor
rect modernism in extremis to suggest that “preaching or catechizing” Judaics must be limited or modified.
Nostra Aetate: “Indeed, the Church reproves every form of persecution against whomsoever it may be directed. Remembering, then, its common heritage with the Jews and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, it deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of antisemitism directed against the Jews at any time or from any source.”
From correct denunciation of racial animus, Nostra Aetate branches out to extrapolate a Neoplatonic-Hermetic conclusion for which, once again, there is no basis in the Scriptures:
“…deplores all…persecutions…directed against the Jews at any time or from any source.” Here is the great departure from historic Christian teaching, and a repudiation of all Christian saints throughout history who exposed rabbinic Talmudic-Phariseeism, from Vincent Ferrer to Queen Isabella of Spain.
And what of those Christians who were persecuted by Judaics? Do their persecutors come in for the Council’s sweeping condemnation “for all time” and from “any source?” In the face of the Judeo-masonic holocaust of Catholics in the Vendee region of France and of the Cristeros in Mexico; and of the Judeo-Bolshevik holocaust of Orthodox Christians in Russia, the pontificating moral conscience of Nostra Aetate is silent. The post-Renaissance Vatican’s memory of those other holocausts is blank. This too is a fruit of the religion of Holocaustianity: amnesia concerning the history of the persecution of Christians by Judaics. The smoke of Talmudic immunity and entitlement has entered the Church.
Taking Nostra Aetate to its logical conclusion, the enemies of Christ, call them Freemasons, rabbis, Communists or neocons—if they happen to be of Judaic descent—cannot be exposed. Saints who did so in the past were mistaken and are now rebuked and repudiated. “The Church…reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against people…on the basis of their…religion.” How is this foreign to the thinking of Jesus when He called the followers of the religion of the Pharisees the “children of hell”? (Matthew 23:15).
The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome Page 60
