The theology of Holocaustianity denies the Biblical doctrine that there are severe repercussions and punishments for the crime of unrepentant rejection of Jesus. While Christians may not engage in vengeance or violence, when God allows or initiates these things against evil-doers would it be proper for the Christian Church to adjust its doctrine out of sympathy and solidarity with the evil-doers? The truth is that all those who reject Christ and are spiritual (not necessarily racial) heirs of those who crucified Him, are under wrath. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church from the first century A.D. until the Renaissance. In Matthew 10:14-15, Jesus declares, “And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.” Jesus is uttering this prophecy of doom upon those who reject the words of true Christians. These opposers, according to Jesus, are worse than the residents of Sodom and therefore, worse than sodomites.
Many of the Judaics who were killed by the Nazis rejected the words of Christian evangelists. St. Paul described unbelieving Jews as those “Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16; emphasis supplied).
“Wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.” By what right do popes and cardinals overthrow Biblical theology out of remorse for the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? The true Church’s way of protecting the Jews is for Jews—like all other people who desire God’s blessing and favor—to bear good fruit, cease persecuting Christians, express remorse for the murder of Jesus by the founders of Orthodox Judaism, and have faith that He is the Son of God who died on the Cross for their sake. If they do not, then Christ Himself, in His parable of the vinedressers, has prophesied a miserable destiny for them.
There is a wretched end predicted for those who killed the Son of God, both for those who had a literal, physical hand in it, as well as all of those who share in and continue the spiritual ideology that is based on the ideology of the killers. God sent to the ‘vinedressers’ prophets, and they killed the prophets. He sent them His Son and they even killed Him (Matthew 21:33-39). In our modern age, the spiritual and ideological heirs of the ‘vinedressers’ continue to teach and uphold that their murder of the prophets of God was legitimate (Babylonian Talmud: Yebamoth 49b). The vinedressers continue to teach and uphold that their murder of God’s Son was legitimate (Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 43a). These are the teachings of the religion of the Pharisees as it exists in our world today, in the form of Orthodox Judaism.
“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?” God said in Matthew 21 that He would destroy these wretched vinedressers miserably. Therefore, when calamity befalls the rabbis of Judaism and their adherents in one ‘holocaust’ or another, why do supposed Christians regard it as shocking, or an injustice?
Vile Nazis killed many innocent people, including countless Christians, and many others of ethnic Judaic descent who rejected, or at the very least were indifferent, to the Talmud and Judaism, and we sincerely mourn those deaths and condemn the murderers responsible. But facts are facts. Those who fit Christ’s description of evil “vinedressers” and who died miserably under the Third Reich, were suffering the curse of God, as foretold in Matthew 21. Many times in the Old Testament history of Israel, God sent wicked armies to chastise the equally or still more wicked Israelites. The post-Renaissance Church of Rome, when it overthrows Biblical theology in order to make amends for the Nazis having been the instruments of God’s curse on the “vinedressers,” are perpetrating a liberal humanist reversal of God’s Will.
Due to camouflage afforded by their conservative position on abortion and contraception, the papist Church is believed by many persons to be loyal to the ancient verities. In fact, Rome is smitten with a Talmud-centric hermeneutic advanced by scriptural exegetes such as Amy-Jill Levine and Bart D. Ehrman.
The latter, in his book Jesus Interrupted, judges the Church mainly by the degree to which it is either pro or anti-Judaic. This is Ehrman’s chief criterion for assessing the good or evil of the historic Christian ecclesia. Following the rabbinic party line, Ehrman claims, along with Prof. Levine and other falsifiers, that Jesus did not come to found a religion substantially different from “Judaism.” Mr. Ehrman goes so far as to claim that, “The charge of deicide first occurs in the writings of a late-second-century writer…” Apparently Ehrman has not read the gospel of Matthew and John, or the letters of Paul the Apostle.
The following could have been written by Ehrman, Amy-Jill Levine, or dozens of other Bible-falsifying liberal scripture “scholars.” But these were the words of “Saint John-Paul the Great”: “We must remember how much the balance of relations between Jews and Christians over two thousand years has been negative. We must remind ourselves how the permanence of Israel is accompanied by a continuous spiritual fecundity, in the rabbinical period, in the Middle Ages and in modern times, taking its start from a patrimony which we long shared, so much so that ‘the faith and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practiced still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life of the Church…The permanence of Israel (while so many ancient peoples have disappeared without trace) is a historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within God’s design. We must in any case rid ourselves of the traditional idea of a people punished, preserved as a living argument for Christian apologetic. It remains a chosen people, ‘the pure olive on which were grafted the branches of the wild olive which are the gentiles.” 16
These are the words of Antichrist. We will not modify this judgment with weasel words “out of respect for the Holy Father.” The idea that an evil-doer cannot be exposed, or his soul-destroying poison curbed because he is an exalted personage (“pope”), is unscriptural.
God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34) and neither is any Christian. The notion of immunity for the lies and deceit of a supreme religious leader is priestcraft. This “John-Paul II” Judas wants us to “rid ourselves of the traditional” Catholic-patristic doctrine concerning the unbelieving Jews, who have been preserved throughout history to be punished as a “living argument for the Catholic apologetic.” We are to eradicate the wisdom of the Catholic saints and patriarchs who, before the Renaissance, always taught and always believed these truths. John-Paul II’s revolutionary teaching that rabbinic Judaism has a continuous “spiritual fecundity” is of a piece with the cries of the Renaissance heresiarchs on behalf of the fecundity of the Talmud and Kabbalah. But never was the cry so effective in alchemically processing humanity as when it was uttered by the “pro-life, conservative” Papal Saint.
On March 12, 1998 the Vatican issued the pontiff’s declaration, The Tragedy of the Shoah and the Duty of Remembrance concerning the cosmic suffering of the “Jews” under the Nazis. Nothing approaching this document has ever been issued by Rome concerning the Communist holocaust against millions of Christians. Conforming to the Talmudic belief that only Jews are fully and completely human, the Church of Rome elevates the sufferings of the World War II-era Judaics far above that of Christian mass murder victims. In his epochal adoption of the innovative creed of Holocaustianity, The Polish Pontiff declared:
“The 20th century…has witnessed an unspeakable tragedy which can never be forgotten: the attempt by the Nazi regime to exterminate the Jewish people, with the consequent killing of millions of Jews….Before this terrible genocide… no one can remain indifferent, least of all the Church, by reason of her very close bonds of spiritual kinship with the Jewish people and her remembrance of the injustices of the past. The Church’s relationship with the Jewish people is unlike the one she shares with any other religion. However, it
is not only a question of recalling the past…we ask all Christians to join us in meditating on the catastrophe which befell the Jewish people and on the moral imperative to ensure that never again will selfishness and hatred grow to the point of sowing such suffering and death…
“While bearing their unique witness to the Holy One of Israel and to the Torah, the Jewish people have suffered much at different times and in many places. But the Shoah was certainly the worst suffering of all…such an event cannot be fully measured by the ordinary criteria of historical research alone. It calls for a ‘moral and religious memory…
“The fact that the Shoah took place in Europe, that is, in countries of long-standing Christian civilization, raises the question of the relation between the Nazi persecution and the attitudes down the centuries of Christians towards the Jews…
“In the Christian world—I do not say on the part of the Church as such—erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility towards this people…
“Such interpretations of the New Testament have been totally and definitively rejected by the Second Vatican Council Despite the Christian preaching of love for all, even for one’s enemies, the prevailing mentality down the centuries penalized minorities and those who were in any way ‘different.’ Sentiments of anti-Judaism in some Christian quarters and the gap which existed between the Church and the Jewish people led to a generalized discrimination, which ended at times in expulsions…”
The pontiff’s 1998 declaration is a regurgitation of the cliches of rabbinic nullifiers of the New Testament. He declares the Judaic people to be what they see themselves to be, through the warped lens of their own egotistical narrative: the “unique witness to the Holy One of Israel and to the Torah.” But Talmudic Judaism is nothing of the kind. How can those who falsify the Word of God with their Mishnah, Gemara and Zohar, and deny that Jesus is the Son of God, “bear witness to the Torah”? Pope John-Paul II preached the doctrine of the Talmud, in line with Pope Leo X, the Talmud rescuer and publisher.
Observe John-Paul’s mystification of history: “the Shoah…cannot be fully measured…by…historical research alone…It calls for a…religious memory.” In other words, where research conflicts with a “religious memory” of World War II, research is discarded. This is why scientific research cited by revisionist historians will not be countenanced. In fact, it is a sin to do so. This sort of procustean superstition is a step backward to the worst excesses of the Inquisition. As for loving one’s enemies, where does that interfere with guarding against their sins? John-Paul’s crack about “expulsions” is a dig at Queen Isabella, who ruled Spain, and whose canonization has been obstructed, perhaps permanently, in deference to the protests of the rabbis, while the Polish pontiff who fulfilled the dreams of the Neoplatonic-Hermetic Kabbalists, has been canonized.
John-Paul II’s lead theologian and the “prefect” of his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was Joseph Ratzinger, who succeeded him as Pope Benedict XVI, before resigning. Benedict confirmed the Holocaustolatry of his predecessor and expanded upon it, rendering it more oppressively rabbinic than it was under John-Paul. As Cardinal Ratzinger he had a formative hand in its infiltration of the Church and its development therein. Ratzinger was a theological prodigy who blasted a beachhead for Holocaustianity inside Catholicism, based on his gravely distorted interpretation of the Bible.
Cardinal Ratzinger’s landmark, 200-page theological statement, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, was published in 2001 by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
This official document, composed by the cardinal and twenty-three Vatican scholars under his direction, in addition to being rife with apostasy, demonstrates the future Pope Benedict XVI’s thorough knowledge of the basics of the Talmud, so that it cannot be said that he promulgates errors about Orthodox Judaism from ignorance. He had a good grasp of the Mishnah and the “seven middoth” that form the rabbinic exegesis of scripture.
Cardinal Ratzinger mirrors with considerable fidelity the influential modern fulfillment of the occult Renaissance contention that Jesus was under the influence of the Pharisees. To sow this confusion is essential because it is an effective way of shaking the believer’s confidence in the existence of an unambiguous condemnation in the New Testament of a rabbinic gnosis which, beginning in the late fifteenth century, covertly steered the sotto governo of Catholic Italy.
To achieve this end, mitigating factors must be marshaled which present Jesus as thinking like a Pharisee. Hence, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the use by Jesus of “analogy” and “a fortiori argument” (a corollary implied by a stronger claim), demonstrates the influence on Jesus’ thinking of the “first two middoth (rules) of Hillel the Pharisee, ‘qal wa-homer and gezerah shawah.”
The assignment of the latter gezerah shawah (more commonly spelled gezera shavah) sophistry to Jesus Christ, is a blasphemy against Him, since the rabbinic gezera shavah entails the attribution of a grotesquely falsified meaning to scripture; a transgression of which Jesus is obviously innocent. As for analogy and a fortiori argument, these are found in the pure Word of God in the Old Testament, uncontaminated by the human imaginings of the traditions of the Pharisees.
To establish a proprietary relationship between these methods and the proto-Talmudic middoth of the Pharisee Hillel, is a fallacy intended to dilute the Truth of Jesus by watering it with the imputation of a Pharisaic influence. Cardinal Ratzinger dared to say that in Jesus’ words can also be discerned the influence of “rabbinic midrash.” The Midrash is accurately described as a book of old wives’ (bubbe-meises) tales, as well as outlandish fables such as claiming that Noah was sodomized on board Noah’s Ark, and other equally pornographic fables. This is what influenced Jesus Christ?
Ratzinger sought to associate the words of Jesus with this mad heritage. The claim that Jesus used the reasoning methods of the Pharisees is a degenerate libel. The truth is that Jesus’ used the reasoning methods imparted to Him by His Father in Heaven, and not the depraved lawyer’s entrapments and salacious fables that were the specialty of the successors of the Pharisees.
It gets worse: Cardinal Ratzinger argued in The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, that in the wake of the “Holocaust,” Christians can learn much from the Talmud. In conjunction with the positing of this doctrine of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Johannes Reuchlin, Cardinal Ratzinger contradicted it in passing, and by so doing, provided himself with a loophole:
“Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jews do, in order to show proper respect for its Jewish origins? In answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons. For to read the Bible as Judaism does, necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.”
Ratzinger’s loophole serves as an escape clause that offers an alibi to double-minded papalolaters who argue that the pope is not a Hermetic agent and that we are misquoting the “Holy Father.” Many people want to be deceived (2 Thess. 2:9-12). They seize on one half of modern papal double-talk, the orthodox half, and ignore the Kabbalistic half. Cardinal Ratzinger’s Pontifical Bible Commission document reflects the confusion of the insane. After saying we shouldn’t read the Bible as Judaism does, the Commission document states: “Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period.”
The Vatican is sunk so far down in the thick mud of the Hegelian dialectic that they don’t know which end is up. Straight talk is foreign to them. They can’t set pen to paper without lying. They tell us we shouldn’t read the Bible as Judaism does, but the Jewish reading of the
Bible is a “possible one.”
Here is a bipolar mind for all who have a sufficient love of the truth to readily perceive. The future Pope Benedict, in his text, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, then proceeds to make the following astonishing statement: “Christians can, nonetheless, learn much from Jewish exegesis practiced for more than two thousand years.”
Jewish exegesis of two thousand years: the Talmud, Midrash, Kabbalah, Mishneh Torah, Shulchan Aruch, Mishnah Berurah, etc. From 2,000 years of an enormous heap of delusions, lies and blasphemy against Jesus and Mary, Christians can “learn much.”
Wrapped in the mantle of the “struggle against Holocaust denial and antisemitism,” Holocaustianity becomes the alibi for the completion of that which was launched in the Renaissance, the revolutionary overthrow of the authentic Catholic teaching on rabbinic Judaism and the Talmud. At the same time, it nearly completely smothers the gospel call to unconverted Judaics to obtain freedom from the bondage that oppresses them.
Cardinal Ratzinger’s document, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, presented a long and convoluted analysis of the St. Paul’s statements on the Jewish people, twisting his words to make it appear as though the Talmudic doctrine of the racial prestige of the Jews is valid. The future pope ignored the Biblical warning in Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 about counterfeit Israel, and the critically important fact that Jesus did not believe that the Jews who confronted Him qualified as authentic descendants of Abraham: “They answered him, “Abraham is our father.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth” (John 8:39-40).
The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome Page 62
