Ratzinger’s theology culminates in his confirmation of post-Renaissance Catholicism’s proclamation of a new “elder brother” status for the unbelieving Judaics who reject and oppose Christ: “It is because of our common roots and from this eschatological perspective that the Church acknowledges a special status of ‘elder brother’ for the Jewish people, thereby giving them a unique place among all other religions.”
John-Paul’s “elder brothers” declaration, confirmed by the future Pope Benedict, is predicated upon the overthrow of the Biblical teaching on the Christian’s exclusive covenantal relationship with God. Once again we see a regurgitation of the Judaizing that began in earnest in Medici Florence five hundred fifty years ago. Instead of correcting these errors, Cardinal Ratzinger incorporated them into the official teaching of the Church of Rome. The myths he perpetuated are not difficult to refute, but their virulence emanates from the ecclesiastical authority by which they are propounded. Witness the mendacity of the future Pope Benedict XVI: “For Paul, Jesus’ establishment of ‘the new covenant in (his) blood’ (1 Cor. 11:25), does not imply any rupture of God’s covenant with his people, but constitutes its fulfillment. He includes ‘the covenants’ among the privileges enjoyed by Israel, even if they do not believe in Christ (Romans 9:4). Israel continues to be in a covenant relationship and remains the people to whom the fulfillment of the covenant was promised, because their lack of faith cannot annul God’s fidelity (Romans 11:29). Even if some Israelites have observed the Law as a means of establishing their own justice, the covenant-promise of God, who is rich in mercy (Romans 11:26-27), cannot be abrogated.
“Continuity is underlined by affirming that Christ is the end and the fulfillment to which the Law was leading the people of God (Gal. 3:24). For many Jews, the veil with which Moses covered his face remains over the Old Testament (2 Cor. 3:13-15), thus preventing them from recognizing Christ’s revelation there. This becomes part of the mysterious plan of God’s salvation, the final outcome of which is the salvation of ‘all Israel’ (Romans 11:26).”
Could Ratzinger have forgotten that Israel’s sin abrogated the Mosaic covenant, the only one of the covenants that is not eternal? God replaced it with a new covenant and a new Israel. Except among those Judeans (“Jews”) and other Israelites who through Faith believe that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel who died on the cross for the sins of mankind, racial Israel is no longer part of God’s covenant (Hebrews 8:7-13 and Jeremiah 31:31-34).
Employing Romans 11:29, Cardinal Ratzinger stated: “Israel continues to be in a covenant relationship and remains the people to whom the fulfillment of the covenant was promised, because their lack of faith cannot annul God’s fidelity (Romans 11:29).”
Here the future pope accuses God of being unfaithful were His covenant with racial Israel to be annulled. This level of presumption is rabbinic in its brazen accusation against God. The Holy Bible says of God, “In speaking of a new covenant, He makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Hebrews 8:13).
If we accept the future Pope Benedict’s interpretation of Romans 11:29, we have to discard the gospels of Matthew and John; as well as 1 John; the Book of Hebrews; Jeremiah 31 and the teaching of the whole of the Book of Romans itself, when taken in context.
Let us read Romans 11 from verse 26: “And in this way all Israel will be saved…as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.” Verse 29: “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”
Liberal and neocon papists and Protestant dispensationalists alike interpret this passage to mean that the election of carnal Israel is irrevocable because of God’s love for the patriarchs of Israel. Cardinal Ratzinger and the Zionists of Churchianity propose with their theory of salvation by race, two different paths to salvation, one for the Jews without Christ, and one by Christ for gentiles. This is an abomination.
Can it be regarded as prudent or edifying to take a few lines from the Book of Romans in order to contradict the entire doctrine of Jesus Christ?
This is not only a case of twisting Romans 11 — in the sense it is explained by Cardinal Ratzinger—vs. the doctrine of Jesus—it is also a case of Romans 11 vs. the doctrine strongly emphasized in Paul’s other writings. For example, in Galatians 3:7 and 28-29, Paul teaches that the Church is the true Israel of God.
How can racial Israel be irrevocably saved by virtue of God’s love for the patriarchs of Israel when, according to Jesus, and Paul himself in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16, it was racial Israel that killed and opposed the prophets? Jesus said to the leaders of Israel, “Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets” (Matthew 23:31). God is going to save Antichrist-racial Israel for the sake of the prophets they killed? This is a gospel of occult popery, not the true Catholic Church.
If the future Pope Benedict’s’s Hermetic exegesis was correct, and God’s covenant with carnal Israel has never been revoked and can never be revoked, then we must ask, why did Israel need restoration in the first place? Why did the lost sheep of the House of Israel need Jesus Christ (Matthew 15:24), if those sheep are saved by their ethnic connection to God’s beloved Biblical patriarchs of old?
We can’t find any saved-by-racial-heritage doctrine in Romans 2:6-8: “He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.”
We can’t find any saved-by-racial-heritage doctrine in 2 Corinthians 3:10-11: “…what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.” With the arrival of the new covenant, the old covenant has no glory whatsoever. Consequently, God has brought to an end (Greek: katargeo) the glory of the old covenant.
There is another serious problem with supporting the claim that “Jews” can be saved apart from faith in Christ: what if many of these self-proclaimed “Jews” are not in fact Jews at all and are not descended from Abraham? This writer has long asked a simple question of those who accept that Judaics who say they are “Jews” should be automatically taken at their word: where is the evidence and where are the records that prove their Jewish genealogy? No one today can furnish such documentation (Titus 3:9). Yet, with hypnotic verisimilitude it is universally accepted that those followers of Judaism who self-advertise as the “Jews” of the Old Testament are to be regarded as credible.
Moreover, we discern here the clandestine operation of an anti-Judaic, diabolical trap: many Judaics who imagine that they are “Jews” destined to be saved by their alleged ethnic descent from the patriarchs will have no such salvation, since in fact they are not racial “Jews” at all. The seeding of this false racial hope is almost never factored into the struggle over the misuse of Romans 11:26-29. Who has planted this futile expectation, which leads to the eternal damnation of Judaic people? Is it not the Judaic-hating devil himself, operating through Protestant fundamentalism, post-Renaissance Catholicism and Judaism?
Scripture exegete Bob Burridge writes, “During the first century, the Jews were the greatest antagonists to the gospel. It was the apostates among the Jews who stirred up the Romans to hate the Christians by slandering them. As more of the Gentiles came into the Church, the olive tree became less ‘Jewish.’ This fulness of the Gentiles marked the end of physical Israel as God’s people. God even used pagan Rome in 70 AD to crush Jerusalem, to destroy the temple the Priests had defiled, and to mark the final end to the special privilege of the physical seed of Abraham. It is by this process that all Israel will be saved. The words describe the process by which God’s true Israel will be saved. It is not a prediction of some yet future event.
“Those who see here a future promise for the abandoned and apostate nation of Abraham,
are missing Paul’s point about what constitutes the truly good olive tree. It is not just Physical Israel. It is the outward Covenant Family of God. In the time between Abraham and Jesus, the tree was the nation of the Jews. In the time after Jesus, the tree is the Apostolic church, God’s Spiritual Israel (see Romans 9:6). As the elect from all nations are evangelized and brought in, the tree grows toward fulness. As the apostate and unbelieving are removed, the tree improves in purity. It is in this way that all of God’s true Israel will be saved. The New Testament Church does not replace Israel. The Church is Israel in her completed form…the apostate children of Israel were never more than outwardly consecrated to God. At the time Paul wrote this letter to the Romans, God was using his grace toward the Gentiles to provoke the elect among the Jews to believe.” 17
What a blessed relief is Mr. Burridge’s affirmation of Christian Truth, contrasted with the twisted perversion of it promulgated by the infallibly canonized Pope John-Paul II, and that palladin of the “conservatives,” Pope Benedict XVI.
In studying Ratzinger’s document we discover an assertion that is startling. In addition to claiming that St. Paul taught the doctrine of salvation by Israelite ethnicity, we come across the future Pope Benedict’s identification of Paul as someone not fully converted to Christianity from rabbinic Judaism: “In his writings, as was mentioned above, we find not only continual references to the Old Testament, but many traces of Jewish traditions as well.”
Notice the distinction made between the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. Is this accusation against Paul—of being under the influence of non-Biblical traditions—based on arcana from the Vatican archives? The “many traces” of “Jewish traditions” alleged to be present in the writings of Paul would be the “traditions of men” which Jesus condemned in Mark 7 and Matthew 15, because they nullify the Word of God. Cardinal Ratzinger’s assertion that Paul’s writings reflect “Jewish traditions” is a reference to doctrines not found in the Old Testament.
In other words, the future pope is indicating that Paul’s teachings reflect the doctrines of the Oral Law of the Pharisees. This atrocious attack on the Apostle Paul, as being not fully converted to Christ, and still clinging to proto-Talmudic beliefs, accounts for the Church of Rome’s emphasis on him as a teacher of race-based salvation, since racism is a fixture of Pharisaic Judaism. Cardinal Ratzinger’s theology in The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible would seem to lend new support to the old accusation that Paul founded a new religion contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
If St. Paul is indeed guilty of teaching salvation for ethnic Jews independent of Jesus Christ, “for the sake of God’s love for the Old Testament patriarchs,” then he was not teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, but rather the race pride traditions of the Pharisees. In Matthew 3: 9-10, John the Baptist, in line with Jesus, teaches that in order to inherit the promise of God it is not enough to be a descendant of Abraham. One must also bear good fruit or be cut down and thrown into the fire. No misinterpretation of the words of the Apostle Paul can possibly nullify this truth.
From the annals of the Fathers of the early Church we learn that, “Before Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.), no patristic writer apparently commented on (Romans) 11:26. Those of the first three centuries who know of Paul’s teaching fail to mention a coming salvation of the Jews.” 18
Let us recall St. Peter’s warning, which we would do well to apply to the distortion of Romans 11:26-29 by lawless, post-Renaissance popes and cardinals: “Our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters…There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.” (2 Peter 3:15-17).
“Our Elder Brothers in the Faith”
“Our Elder Brothers in the Faith.” This slogan would appear to be an occult mockery. By classifying as our “elder brothers” those who cling to the religion and heritage that rejected Jesus, Popes John-Paul II and Benedict XVI were nullifying the Bible and appealing to fallen natural man’s family and clan structure. Whereas the Mafia and the pagan order teach, “Don’t ever go against the family,” throughout the Bible, God demonstrates that He represents a radically different order, in which truth often predominates over family ties and hierarchical succession. This truth is so important that God gives us a reminder of an evil elder brother immediately at the start of the New Testament, in the geneology of Christ Himself, in the gospel of Matthew, where four women appear in the list of the ancestors of Jesus: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba. It is Tamar with whom we are concerned.
As we have already observed, Tamar was the widow of Judah’s evil firstborn son, who God had killed (Genesis 38:7). After that son’s death, Tamar was married to Judah’s next eldest son, Onan, who practiced contraception in his marital relations with Tamar and who God did therefore also kill. Another son, Shelah, was promised to be Tamar’s husband by Judah her father-in-law, but Judah broke his promise. Tamar then disguised herself as a roadside prostitute and Judah, not recognizing her, asked to pay her for sex. She complied, after which Judah left her, not knowing she was Tamar. Then Tamar put away the disguise of a harlot and resumed her life as a widow. Three months later, when Tamar’s pregnancy from her union with Judah became obvious, she was accused of harlotry, and Judah ordered her to be burned. But she kept documentation of his coupling with her (his signet, cord and staff), and when confronted with these, Judah admitted what he had done with her, thinking her to be a prostitute. Judah confessed, “She has been more righteous than I” (cf. Genesis 38: 13-26).
Here we encounter an example of evil elder brothers creating the conditions that led to Tamar’s sordid predicament.
There is more: Tamar becomes pregnant with Judah’s twin sons. At birth, the elder brother, Zerah, is passed over in favor of the younger brother, Perez (Genesis 38: 27-30), a switch of momentous consequence, for God chooses the younger brother Perez, to be the ancestor of the royal house of David, the root of Jesse, the line of descent of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Ruth 4:18-22). Thus does God overthrow elder brother customs for the sake of His Divine Will. Why then do the recent pontiffs render the “Elder Brother” a special theological category of divine endearment, and spread this misbegotten concept throughout the Church?
The figure of the evil elder brother is not an isolated case. Abel is preferred to his elder brother Cain who persecuted him, Jacob is preferred to his elder brother Esau, who persecuted him. In Galatians 4:28-30, St. Paul identifies Christians and freedom with the younger brother, Isaac. He identifies enslavement and persecution of Christians with the elder brother, Ishmael: When Hagar conceived Ishmael, “she looked with contempt on her mistress” (Genesis 16:4).
Regarding Talmudists and Zionists, the papal coining of the phrase “Elder Brothers in the Faith” is most ominous in light of what we have demonstrated from the Bible about certain elder brothers. Rabbinic texts are full of commands to yield to the elder brother. Hilchot Mamrim (6:15): “It is mid’Rabanan that one must honor his older brother just as he honors his father.”
Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior-General of the Society of St. Pius X, the “traditional Catholic” fraternity of priests, adopted the papal mantra in a January 31, 2009 statement to the French Catholic weekly Famille Chrétienne: “The Jews are ‘our elder brothers’ in the sense that we have something in common, that is, the old Covenant.” Bishop Fellay then added an escape clause: “It is true that the acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us.”
This compels us to query Bishop Fellay as follows: is the arrival of the Messiah a mere detail, and hence the “separation” a minor one, or is it a definitive break in our alleged relationship with these “elder brothers”? If it is the latter, why bother to use this post-Conciliar Newsp
eak at all, except as an equivocation intended to curry favor with the papacy by being seen to parrot its post-Renaissance Judaizing?
The subterranean processing of humanity is worked partly by means of the Hermetic-Kabbalistic/alchemical distillation of the conjunctio oppositorum (“conjunction of opposites”), which was weaponized in the dialectical epistemology of G.W. Hegel in the early 19th century.
In Hegel’s dialectic, allegiance to eternal truth is considered an anachronism, a species of naiveté. The rabbinic theology of the “Holocaust” and its Shoah Newspeak were incorporated into the post-Renaissance Church of Rome to appease rabbinic and Zionist power and complete the magical mandate of Hermetic-Kabbalism, in conformity with the dialectical model which mandates the institutional accommodation of change for the sake of changing times.
This change is almost always accompanied by the imposition of mystifying language (“Holocaust” and “Shoah”) that seriously undermines the clarity that comes from literal language which denotes or represents something precisely. “Holocaust” and “Shoah” constitute the Hegelian jargon of mystification—they are deliberately vague and emotion-laden; they connote many different things to different people. In the dialectic, language becomes “speculative,” the embodiment of the “dynamic process” of “double usage.”
John Rees, a leading Hegelian, states in The Algebra of Revolution, “Ordinary language assumes that things and ideas are stable, that they are either ‘this’ or ‘that’…the fundamental discovery of Hegel’s dialectic was that things and ideas do change—empires rise and fall, likewise religions and schools of philosophy….of ideas and concepts which we tend to regard as ‘absolutely firm and fast,’ Hegel said, ‘We look on them as separated from each other by an infinite chasm, so that opposite categories can never get at each other. The battle of reason is the struggle to break up the rigidity to which the understanding has reduced everything.’ It is to this end that Hegel deliberately chooses words that can embody dynamic processes: ‘The double usage of language, which gives to the same word a positive and negative meaning, is not an accident…We should…recognize in it the speculative spirit of our language rising above the mere Either-or of understanding.” 19
The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome Page 63
