The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome

by Michael Hoffman

  Do the authors of Nostra Aetate expect us to believe that Christians are not to “discriminate” against the modern followers of the old Talmudic creed of the Pharisees who break the commands of God for the sake of their rabbinic traditions? Truly, Nostra Aetate is another gospel, and a descendant of the Neoplatonic-Hermetic theology.

  Pope Paul VI built upon Nostra Aetate and prepared the ground for the acceptance of the Israeli-Shoah theology of Pope John-Paul II. In Paul VI’s Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, published under the signature of Cardinal Willebrands in his capacity as President of the “Commission for the Catholic Church’s religious relations with the Jews,” 12 there are two instructive declarations. 1. “The history of Judaism did not end with the destruction of Jerusalem, but rather went on to develop a religious tradition. And, although we believe that the importance and meaning of that tradition was deeply affected by the coming of Christ, it is still nonetheless rich in religious values.” 2. Paul VI’s document also objects to the fact that the words ‘Pharisee’ and “Pharisasim’ have taken on a largely pejorative meaning.”

  On January 10, 1975, Paul VI gave an address to the liaison committee between the Catholic Church and world Judaism: “…as we look at history as a whole, we cannot fail to note the connections, often too little remarked upon, between Jewish thought and Christian thought. We may here merely recall the influence…of the philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas, who died…in the year 1274, there very naturally come to our mind the numerous references of our Angelic Doctor to the work of the rabbinic scholar from Cordoba, who died in Egypt at the dawn of the thirteenth century, Moshe ben Maimon, in particular his explanations of the Mosaic Law and the precepts of Judaism.”

  Pope VI played quite a joke on the Catholic world with his pretense that Aquinas was a disciple of the Maimonides who taught that Jesus got exactly what He deserved when He was executed. Maimonides also advocated the murder of Christians by stealth. Aquinas was aware of none of this. Paul VI is either ignorant or lying when he claims that Aquinas admired Maimonides for his “explanations of the…precepts of Judaism.” Aquinas knew next to nothing about Maimonides and referred to him mainly due to what he had seen of the rabbi’s arguments against atheism. There is nothing in the voluminous writings of St. Thomas revealing any sympathy whatsoever with rabbinic Judaism or any of its “precepts.” Aquinas challenged Judaism at its radix, he did not accommodate it. 13

  John-Paul II, was a subversive revolutionary change agent, like his Renaissance predecessors. Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, Archbishop of Krakow in Poland, was elected pope in 1978. His teachings are diametrically opposed to the truth as declared by the Word of God. Hence, we have a choice concerning Judaism: we can believe the Bible or we can believe the Pope-Saint. We observe Wojtyla’s Hermetic theology as early as 1980: “The Holy Father has stated th(e) permanent reality of the Jewish people in a remarkable theological formula, in his allocution to the Jewish community of West Germany at Mainz, on November 17th, 1980: ‘The people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked.” John-Paul’s pontificate also produced Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews (June 24, 1985). The pope’s document propounds the big lie put forth by Pico della Mirandola, Johannes Reuchlin and Neoplatonic-Hermetic ‘Catholicism,’ stated as follows: “An exclusively negative picture of the Pharisees is likely to be inaccurate and unjust.”

  The Polish Pope has done to the New Testament what the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism have done to the Old Testament. The New Testament was reversed and overthrown by John-Paul II, the pope of Holocaustianity, which is the religion of Judaism for gentiles, e.g. for those who do not formally convert to Judaism. Open conversion from Christianity to Judaism has a strong connotation of betrayal of Jesus Christ, to whom many people are attached by nostalgia, social status and custom. Consequently, the discreet way such people can adopt Judaism is through a Christian front, which Holocaustianity’s Shoah- Catholicism affords. A principle of this new theology is the rehabilitation of the Pharisees. If the Pharisees can be rehabilitated, then the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism regain their teaching role, and certain Talmudic and Kabbalistic dogmas gain entrance to the Church and become obligatory for Catholics. Since the Renaissance this has the objective of the Neoplatonic-Hermetic conspiracy.

  Modern Orthodox Judaism is the continuation of the ideology of the Pharisees whom Jesus encountered. Writing in his book Rabbinic Judaism (1995), Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a colleague of Pope Benedict XVI, stated:

  “This book introduces the structure and the functioning system of Rabbinic Judaism…the particular religious system set forth by sages, or ‘rabbis’ who flourished in the first six centuries C.E.”

  During the pontificate of John-Paul II, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, in a speech to Israelis, moved to suppress “anti-Semitic” portions of the Gospel of John. 14

  Bernardin was a favorite of the papal-“saint.”

  On June 24, 1985, in the pontificate of John-Paul II, Rome issued its teaching document, the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations With The Jews: “Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church.” The rehabilitation of the Pharisees was the central teaching of this Commission, which declared, “His (Jesus) relations with the Pharisees were not always or wholly polemical. Of this there are many proofs: it is Pharisees who warn Jesus of the risks he is running (Lk 13:31); some Pharisees are praised e.g., ‘the scribe’ of Mk 12:34; Jesus eats with Pharisees (Lk 7:36; 14:1).”

  Let us evaluate each of these “proofs” provided by Pope “Saint” John-Paul’s theologians.

  1. “Pharisees who warn Jesus of the risks he is running.” This is a reference to Luke 13:31: “At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, ‘Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.”

  John-Paul II’s theologians want us to believe that these were friendly Pharisees who were trying to save Jesus’ life. Where is the evidence for this spin? All of the evidence is to the contrary. Christ’s true ecclesia always faithfully taught the following regarding this passage: “…our Savior was at this time in Galilee, for that was the tetrarchy or province of Herod Antipas, who is the Herod here mentioned. Whether these Pharisees came of their own heads, or as sent by Herod is not so plain…If they came of their own heads, it is certain they came not out of kindness, for the whole history of the gospel lets us know, that the Pharisees had no kindness for Christ, but were his most implacable enemies, and continually consulting on how to destroy him…they either came to scare him out of Galilee…or to drive him into the trap which they had laid for him in Judea…it is most probable that they came as secretly sent by Herod…This opinion looks more probable because in verse 32 our Savior sends them back with a message to Herod (“Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course”).15

  2. “…some Pharisees are praised e.g., ‘the scribe’ of Mk 12:34.” This passage in Mark reads: “And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.” There is no proof that this scribe was a Pharisee. For the Pope-Saint’s Vatican to assert definitively that the scribe was a Pharisee is a falsehood. Moreover, this passage is not an indication of benevolence toward Jesus on the part of a supposed Pharisee, but rather of a loosening of the hold of the scribal mentality over this man, and his willingness to begin to move toward embracing the doctrine of Jesus Christ, as did the Apostle Paul. As such, this scribe foreshadows the convert Paul, rather than serving as an indication that a committed Pharisee exhibited some kindness to Christ and was praised for it.

  3. This is the most familiar—and threadbare—of all the apologies for the Pharisees: “Jesus eats with Pharisees (Lk 7:36; 14:1).” Yes, indeed our Lord did so because He came for sinners and as He said, sinners need a physician. Jesus sought to convert them by dining with them. The need for conversion
is the underlying motive for sharing the meal. Luke demonstrates what John-Paul II’s Vatican denies, that Pharisees (and their modern rabbinic heirs) are in need of conversion. Let us see what actually came of one of these supposedly “non-polemical” dinner engagements:

  “While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first (ritually) wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, ‘Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without knowing it.” (Luke 11:37-44).

  These are the words spoken by Christ at the meal which was, according to the pope-saint’s devious theologians, not “wholly polemical.”

  Next, the canonized pontiff’s theologians teach: “Jesus shares, with the majority of Palestinian Jews of that time, some pharisaic doctrines: the resurrection of the body; forms of piety, like alms-giving, prayer, fasting (cf. Mt 6:1-18) and the liturgical practice of addressing God as Father; the priority of the commandment to love God and our neighbor (cf. Mk 12:28-34).”

  What a clever ruse—to attribute to the Old Testamentnullifying Pharisees what are in fact Old Testament doctrines. If the Pharisees cling to a few vestiges of the Old Testament, these did not exonerate their own man-made traditions from being wholly evil. How dare the Vatican under the papal “Saint” claim that Jesus believed in some doctrines of the Pharisees! They are disseminating a blasphemous fable which makes a liar out of Jesus Christ.

  In Luke 12:1 our Lord speaks of their doctrines as the “leaven of the Pharisees.” What did Jesus mean by this? How does leaven work? Silently, and the smallest particle of it, when spread to other dough, will ferment the whole of it.

  What then, is Jesus warning of? He was exhorting us to beware of the smallest particle of the doctrine of the Pharisees, lest it infect the whole of the community of believers. Yet under John-Paul’s pontificate we were taught to believe that Jesus did indeed “share…some pharisaic doctrines.”

  The pope’s theologians also cite Acts 23:8: “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.” True. But the Pharisees denied the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, so what is the benefit of holding to a Biblical concept theoretically, and rejecting the most obvious, and compelling example of resurrection—by the Son of God?

  This denial makes them more guilty than the Sadducees, since the latter could not even entertain the idea of resurrection, whereas the Pharisees professed belief in it and then obstinately denied it with regard to Jesus. What is there to praise in this?

  The 1985 “Saint” John-Paul Commission document continues: “Paul (cf. Acts 23:8)…always considered his membership of the Pharisees as a title of honor (cf. ibid. 23:6; 26:6; Phil 3:5).”

  In Acts 21-23 Paul is facing a violent Jewish mob and a Sanhedrin that seeks to kill him. As a divide-and-conquer tactic he identifies himself as a Pharisee in order to sow discord between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The passage, when taken in context (Acts 23:6-7) reveals this: “Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.”

  Nowhere does Scripture denote, suggest or imply that Paul considers the title of Pharisee to be “honorable.” Reading from Acts 21-17 to Acts 23:35 we see that St. Paul is not relaxing on a seaside veranda teaching disciples while at his ease. He is in peril of his life. Nonetheless, no matter what duress he is under, Paul’s intention is not to deceive anyone by his statement. Instead, he is humbly informing the sinful Pharisees that, as you are now, I once was. In his public confession in Acts 22:3-5, he convicts himself of Pharisaic sins: “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day. I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women, as the high priest and the whole council of elders can bear me witness.”

  Does the Vatican expect us to believe that the Apostle Paul regards it an “honor” that he “persecuted to death” those of the “Way” (of Christ)? Paul’s statement in Acts 23:6 that, “I am a Pharisee” must be read in the context of his statement that precedes it in Acts 22:20: “And when the blood of Stephen your witness was being shed, I myself was standing by and approving and watching over the garments of those who killed him.” Where is Paul saying there is honor in being a Pharisee?

  In support of their claim, John-Paul II’s theologians also cite Acts 26:6, which is irrelevant and contains no reference to the Pharisees. They also cite for support Philippians 3:5. An analysis of this passage reveals the extent of the rabbinic-like deceit by which the Pope’s Vatican falsifies the Bible. Let us take the passage in context (Philippians 3:4-6): “If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the Church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.”

  Would even a school child adduce the preceding passage as support for the claim that for Paul “membership in the Pharisees” was “a title of honor”? Paul in this section is addressing the Judaizers in the Church, attempting to persuade them of the errors of their ways. He is making his statement not on the basis of the disingenuous Vatican proposition that he was showing forth the honor of being a Pharisee, but to demonstrate that in opposing the Judaizing of the ecclesia of Christ, he himself did not lack a Jewish pedigree.

  Pope “Saint” John-Paul and his magisterium were applying midrashic and Talmudic exegesis to the New Testament. Yet this tendentious hair-splitting and outright falsification will not avail the post-Renaissance, Neoplatonic-Hermetic Church in its objective of reducing and softening the opprobrium with which the New Testament brands the Pharisees and their oral traditions.

  Since 1965, when it comes to the Pharisees, the papacy won’t stand for any strictly good-versus-evil dichotomy. Toward the Pharisees the Vatican under “the saintly pontiff” harbored a morally ambiguous, shades-of-gray attitude: “If in the Gospels and elsewhere in the New Testament there are all sort of unfavorable references to the Pharisees, they should be seen against the background of a complex and diversified movement… An exclusively negative picture of the Pharisees is likely to be inaccurate and unjust…”

  Who is the Vatican accusing of being unjust and “inaccurate”? Is this not a covert dig at Jesus Himself?

  Christ must be the one who is “unjust” and “inaccurate” since His unrelievedly negative characterization of the Pharisees as the children of hell (Matthew 23:15) who are doomed to eternal damnation (Matthew 5:20) demolishes Neoplatonic-Hermetic theology. The two cannot coexist. The teaching issued in “Saint” John-Paul II’s pontificate is covert Talmudic denigration of Jesus.

  From 1965 onward the Catholic Church succumbed to the post-modernist notion that after the Nazi massacre of Judaics it is incumbent on the Church to modify the politically incorrect truths of the New Testament and through distortion and misrepresentation, make them appear to blend with the dogma of Holocaustianity. For the World War II theology to supplant the New Testament theology, it was necessary to invoke “The Holo
caust” as inaugurating an era in which many Biblicallyderived Christian verities are suspended, or indicted as having been accessories to the supposed cosmic crime of the “Shoah.” All of history and all of humanity must henceforth make every other martyrdom and victimization secondary, including Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary, while submitting to the universally enforced dogma that declares that protecting Judaics from being victimized by yet “another Holocaust” is the highest duty of the Church of Rome.

  To promulgate this revolutionary alteration of the mission of the New Testament, extreme Leftist hermeneutics common to the modern humanist theology of mainline Protestant churches have been adopted by the Church of Rome. The Talmud decrees that the Old Testament does not mean what it says. The Catholic Shoah theology of John-Paul and his successors suggested rather than declared (through omission and distortion), that the New Testament does not mean what it says.

  This error is much more dangerous when it manifests in the Church of Rome than in Protestant congregations which are free to reject it, since among Catholics it is advanced within a structure of authoritarian obedience demanded of the faithful, who are subject to the pope and the authority of the “magisterium.”

  The unstated axiom of the Church of Rome’s dogma of Holocaustianity is fundamentally Talmudic: a higher value is placed on Judaic life compared with the lives of non-Judaics. The advancement, edification and protection of Christians and Christianity is made subsidiary to the advancement, edification and protection of Judaics who reject Jesus Christ. This is Renaissance humanism married to Talmudic particularism. Scripture-quoting is the mask by which the intellectually dishonest infiltrators cloak their Talmudic theology in order to give it a Christian facade.