The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome

by Michael Hoffman

  In other words, according to this Catholic professor, the religion of the Pharisees was the religion of the Old Testament, and Jesus’ statements concerning their teachings being not of God, but of man, and nullifying the Word of God, are wrong. Judaism’s Babylonian Mishnah and Gemara contradict the Old Testament many thousands of times. Those seminal rabbinic texts even nullify God’s sabbatical year with prozbul contracts still being issued in the twenty-first century. Rabbi Jacob Neusner: “We have already seen substantial evidence that any notion of Pharisaism (or later rabbinic Judaism) as the true and direct descendants of the Old Testament is contradicted by one Mishnah-tractate after another. These stand wholly separate from the Priestly Code…and generally contradict it!”43

  Prof. Lamont: “The Talmud permits Jews to behave immorally towards Gentiles.’ This claim is supported by quoting a number of Talmudic texts as, for example, a text that says that even the best of the Gentiles should be killed. These texts are, however, taken out of context, and their use reflects a misunderstanding of the way that the Talmud works…The nature of Talmudic discussions means that, in practice, rabbis are not trained simply by study of the Talmud, because such study on its own is too difficult. Instead, they study the standard legal codes and commentaries on the Talmud (principally those of Maimonides, Rashi, and Joseph Karo), which give an organized presentation of the conclusions of Talmudic discussions. None of these codes and commentaries make the immoral assertions that are ascribed to the Talmud, and no Rabbinic Jew is free to disagree with their consensus.”

  Lamont alleges that in the texts of Maimonides, Rashi and Joseph Karo there are none of the immoral assertions found in the Talmud! Either Lamont has read all of the thousands of pages written by these three and doesn’t know what he’s read, or he is relying on someone else he does not name for his demonstrably false statement. The texts of Maimonides and Karo are replete with numerous “immoral assertions.” Has Lamont read the uncensored Mishneh Torah of Moses Maimonides where Maimonides states that Jesus and His followers should be destroyed? Has he read the uncensored, Shlomo Pines translation of Maimonides’ volumes, Guide of the Perplexed, in which the rabbi states that Black people are subhuman?

  Lamont’s thesis is that if you’re a gentile or a Christian, Judaism is not interested in harming or dominating you. Yet, as we have already noted, Maimonides decreed, “All of the inhabitants of the world are compelled to accept the Noahide laws. If any non-Jew does not accept these laws he should be killed.”44 As for Karo, he upheld one of the most notorious halakhot in all of the Talmud Bavli: the permission for a woman to have sex with a boy under the age of nine (Sanhedrin 69b), even if she is the boy’s mother. In the Shulchan Aruch, Karo decrees that the original ruling by the ancient Pharisee Hillel, that the incestuous molesting mother was nonetheless still eligible to marry a Jewish priest, was valid.

  Catholic Prof. Lamont: “…The accusation that the Talmud was immoral and anti-Christian, through and through, originated largely with Jewish converts to Christianity of this period, such as Nicholas Donin. One may guess that these converts were influenced in these accusations by a reaction against their former religious position, and by feeling a need to prove their loyalty to Christianity.”

  Prof. Lamont assumes the best about obstinate Judaics who reject Jesus, but is willing to “guess” that the motives and truthfulness of heroic Judaic converts to Catholicism were motivated by other than honorable motives.

  How dare he calumniate Donin on no evidence, and speculate, Freudian-like, on his supposed ulterior motives? The converts who testified that the Talmud was thoroughly immoral and anti-Christian were not doing so truthfully, Lamont asserts, but, “one may guess” they prevaricated “to prove their loyalty to Christianity.”

  It should not surprise us that these aspersions on Donin, the Catholic convert from Judaism, originate with the rabbis who he defeated in debate. Is it necessary to say anything more about the historical perspicacity of this accredited authority of the Latin Mass Society?

  Catholic Prof. Lamont: “The inaccuracy of these accusations made them ineffective for missionary purposes, which, in turn, led to Catholic theologians making a thorough study of the Talmud.”

  The only ones who charged Donin with “inaccuracy” were his rabbinic adversaries. Medieval Catholic authorities did not. Lamont takes the word of the rabbis over the medieval Catholic authorities.

  Catholic Prof. Lamont: “A commission of Jews approached the Council (of Trent) to request that it rule that the Talmud could be printed. The Council passed their request on to the Congregation for the Index, which again ruled that it could be printed if any anti-Christian statements were removed. This evaluation of the Talmud was more positive than that given to the works of Luther, Calvin, Peter Abelard’s Introduction to Theology, and Samuel Richardson’s Pamela—all of which were banned in their entirety by the Church…”

  We have no argument with the preceding correct observation by Prof. Lamont, which points out that the Renaissance Church of Rome censored Luther and Calvin completely (“were banned in their entirety”), while leaving the Talmud of Babylon nearly intact. This approach is mirrored in “traditional Catholic” chapels as of this writing, where priests routinely sermonize on the pitfalls of Protestantism, while hardly daring to utter a word of disapprobation for the Talmud or the religion established upon it.

  Catholic Prof. Lamont: “Rabbinic Judaism preserved much of the atmosphere and beliefs of the world of religious thought in which Christ and the apostles lived. These beliefs were often accepted as divinely revealed by Christ, and the authors of the New Testament books and, hence, it is true that Rabbinic Judaism contains elements that are of divine origin. A study of Rabbinic Judaism can, thus, illuminate, although not add to, the revealed deposit of faith that originates in Christ; this has been shown in detail through scholarly studies of the New Testament.” (End quote from Dr. John Lamont).

  These giddy assertions are all too similar to Amy-Jill Levine’s dreary opus, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus, an exegesis predicated on liberal rabbinic fantasies regarding the New Testament. It seems to this writer that Dr. Lamont, traditional Catholicism’s Talmud-explainer, may have proceeded a priori to absolve Talmudic Judaism of its Satanic malevolence toward Christ’s true Catholic Church, and then cherry-picked a few supposed “facts” to suit his purpose, for which he has gained plaudits from many corners of the “Conservative” and “traditional Catholic” world. 45

  Amid the hand-clapping, we hope we won’t be faulted for hearing, if ever so faintly, the screams of the Christian children ritually murdered by members of the religion of Judaism, as documented by Israeli Prof. Ariel Toaff, son of the late chief rabbi of Rome, in the uncensored first edition of his 2007 masterpiece, Pasque di Sangue (“Blood Passover”), 46 wherein he fully upholds the testimony of Catholic witnesses concerning the torture-execution of two-year old St. Simon of Trent, and other Catholic children killed by Ashkenazic persons.

  We can rest assured that all is well, however. The principal from the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales with whom we corresponded in March, 2016, stated that the “position paper” his group was advancing concerning the nonmalevolence of rabbinic Judaism toward Christianity, cannot be rejected by any reasonable person:

  “The paper relies on the scholarship referred to in the footnotes. This is current and respectable; we don’t expect everyone to agree, but we do expect reasonable people to accept that the position the paper takes is itself reasonable.”

  George Bernard Shaw observed that “all progress depends upon the unreasonable man.” In the context of the low quality of the material being presented as unassailably “reasonable” scholarship, we will take Bernard Shaw’s position.

  On July 29, 2016 Dr. Lamont published another troubling essay, “The Catholic Church and the Conversion of the Jews,” which appeared on a “traditional Catholic” website, OnePeterFive.com.47 In this study, Lamont
proposes the theory that the expulsion of Talmud-believers from Christian lands was mainly the result of the ascent of the theology of the antinomian Duns Scotus and the Nominalist school. Lamont asserts that Aquinas was hostile to the expulsions in all cases. Yet, the theological basis for expulsion, in some grave cases of national crisis, of unconverted Judaics, does not derive its justification from Duns Scotus. It is Biblical and truly Catholic: separation, by extrusion, of a racist, Antichrist group of people who might otherwise gain malevolent ascendance over Christians and goyim. This separation was prescribed in Canons 68 and 69 of the Fourth Lateran Council.

  Moreover, in “The Catholic Church and the Conversion of the Jews,” Prof. Lamont equates the masonic-secular Enlightenment with Jew-hate, rather than with the enormous advancement of the power and influence of anti-Christian Judaics. His most egregious oversight is found in the course of his argument decrying (quite rightly) racial animus against Judaics even when they converted to Christ. A key datum that he overlooks however, is that Catholic conspirators who advanced the prestige of the Babylonian Talmud inside the Church launched savage, racist attacks on Judaic converts to Catholicism who dared to reveal the evil of the Talmud. We saw this with Nicholas Donin, and even more so in the vile, racist campaign against the Judaic convert Johann Pfefferkorn by “progressive” Catholic forces heavily invested in the rehabilitation of the Talmud. Dr. Lamont is oblivious.48

  Tridentine Judaism is not confined to the Una Voce and the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. Other groups, such as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) publish Judaizing absurdities consonant with the Neoplatonic-Hermetic gnosis and John-Paul II/Benedict XVI theology. In the SSPX article “Saint of the Sanhedrin,” 49 Hillel, who concocted methods for nullifying the Old Testament, including the prozbul to nullify the aforementioned sabbatical law on cancellation of debt, and who condoned sexual molestation of boys under the age of nine, is lauded as “an instrument of heaven.”

  To this heavenly accolade is added highly speculative conjecture which the SSPX published in The Angelus asserting the fundamental benevolence of Phariseeism concerning the patrimony of Simeon as conveyed by Gamaliel to Saul of Tarsus. This leaves the SSPX in the awkward predicament of having to explain how it was that Saul mercilessly persecuted Christians and may have had a hand in the murder of St. Stephen, when he had been taught such exemplary Pharisee ethics as a youth. The origin of the legend about Simeon being the son of Hillel, though ascribed to various Church Fathers, is actually derived from a rabbinic source, the Pirke Avoth. The SSPX essay in their Angelus magazine imagines that St. Paul was taught the Gemara (the second section of the Talmud) when he was fifteen years of age. The Gemara, however, would not be written for at least another two centuries after Paul.

  In “Saint of the Sanhedrin,” the “traditional Catholic” Angelus presents rabbinic delusions as fact and promotes the Pharisee Hillel as a virtual holy man of God. The great confusion among “traditional” Catholics concerning Judaism is only exacerbated by this type of Judaizing coming from an official organ of the leading “traditional Catholic priestly fraternity.”

  The objective of the major “traditional Catholic” organizations is to secure the growth of the Tridentine Latin Mass and all other pre-Vatican Council II rites and rituals, bells, incense, lace, processions and the whole panoply of old ceremonies. They imagine that an ingenious strategy for ensuring the success of this objective, which has Christ’s gospel hollowed out of it in true Renaissance fashion, is to offer one or more compromises on the “small matter” of Judaism; the gospel truth on that subject being considered a distant second to having the Latin ceremonies permanently reinstated.

  A Supremely Talmudic Supreme Court Justice

  Antonin Scalia, was a much-admired and extolled “traditional Catholic” as well as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. If it appears that we take joy in the sad task of debunking his record, we do not; neither do we shrink from it, however, in deference to anyone’s illusions. The process of deprogramming, i.e. disenchanting the previously enchanted is almost always painful. 50

  “Traditional Catholics” and alleged “Conservative” Protestants offered up extravagant accolades for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away at age 79 on February 13, 2016. Justice Scalia, an adherent of the old Latin Tridentine Mass, was the son of Sicilian immigrants. Through hard work and a high IQ, he rose to the top of the judiciary in America. He and his wife had nine children. He was said to be an opponent of abortion, illegal immigration and some aspects of gun control. Legend has it that he was a proponent of a strict construction (interpretation) of the Constitution as it was originally written.

  The preceding curriculum vitae is attractive indeed, and if we were fixated on symptoms, surface appearances and situation ethics we too would join the fanfare for the judge. Alas, we cannot. Perhaps Mr. Scalia’s enthusiasts don’t discern as we do the power of an evil in this world that emanates directly from the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ on Calvary. Perhaps they do not suffer as we do from that power. The ideology that wrought that evil is alive and more virulent than ever.

  It is an ideology, not a race. The racial heirs to the evil have long since been dispersed to the four corners of the earth and throughout mankind. We can no more genetically determine who is a descendant of the Pharisees of A.D. 33 than we can identify a descendant of the Caesars. The infamous statement, “Let his blood be on us and our children” refers to a few generations of Jews in the first century, not to the Khazars and mixed multitude who masquerade as Jews today. Yes, of course, there are still authentic racial Judeans (“Jews”) on earth, but in general we know them not.

  The virus of the mind that killed Jesus Christ can, however, be readily identified. It is a spiritual force that radiates from within Orthodox Judaism and its Kabbalistic offshoots. Among Republicans, conservative Protestants and “traditional Catholics” there is alarm over the supposed “imminent threat of the imposition of Islamic Sharia law on America” Meanwhile, there is little evidence of awareness that Talmudic halacha (rabbinic law) has already been imposed on the United States; a grievous transgression against the Gospel of Christ which the late Justice Scalia aided and abetted, as his numerous activities on behalf of Talmudic training for American lawyers and his own statements testify, such as his March 9, 2001 letter written on Supreme Court stationery, to Rabbi Noson Gurary of the Chabad Lubavitch sect of Christhaters.

  It was perhaps not a coincidence that Scalia wrote his letter to Gurary on Purim, the rabbinic festival of revenge against gentiles, which was marked in 2001 on March 9 (14th of Adar 5761). In his letter he recommends Marshal Breger, vicechairman of the extremist Neocon, war-Zionist Jewish Policy Center, and a teacher of Talmudic halacha at the Catholic University of America, in helping Rabbi Gurary discover “what works” in disseminating “Jewish law” at the University of Buffalo.

  These facts are public knowledge, as an informed reading of Scalia’s dissent in the Supreme Court’s Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal ruling, will show. There he refers to the “Babylonian Talmud” as a “divinely inspired text.” The Talmud-ignorant will argue that Scalia is referring not to the Talmud but to “Scripture” as divinely-inspired. We are however, in the precarious realm of rabbinic word play here and scholars would do well to carefully scrutinize their terms.

  The Talmud tractate cited by Justice Scalia, Aboth, is referring to rabbinic scripture, which is the Mishnah, chapter V, not the Bible. When we examine Mishnah Aboth 5:21, the verse that precedes Mishnah Aboth 5:22, we see that it contains a reference to the primacy of the Mishnah as scripture. Hence, the text that advises one to “turn over and over” is not in fact “with respect” to Old Testament “Scripture.”

  The context of the rabbinic quotation which Justice Scalia employs is a reference to “turning over and over” the Mishnah, a sacred rabbinic scripture of supreme authority in Judaism.

  Scalia’s claim to fame among Conservatives is tha
t he was a “strict constructionist.” Yet Scalia championed the bane of our American court system—the making of law not by the legislature, but by judicial decision—which is the fundamental principle of the law-making ideology of rabbinic halacha. This is Judaism 101, and it is almost impossible that a lawyer of Scalia’s erudition and intellectual gifts would be unaware of it. How was the abominable crime of conferring “marriage” upon sexually active homosexuals made the law of the land?

  It was accomplished by a Supreme Court engaged in legislating through judicial decision—which happens to be the foundation of the Talmudic method of law-making. Justice Scalia consistently failed in his duty to alert the American people to the rotten rabbinic root of a judicial process that rendered “gay” marriage the law of the land. He did not support the “gay” rights law itself, only the rabbinic legal philosophy that made it possible, which is a distinction without a difference.

  Justice Scalia approved and participated in the training of a generation of American lawyers in the halacha of legislating through judicial decision. No aspect of Sharia law has had any impact on America anywhere near comparable to the impact of halachic law on our nation. Mr. Scalia’s vast fan club howl their outrage at “gay” marriage, to zero effect. They battle the dragon’s fire but leave the dragon intact, as did their darling, when he voted against legalizing the marriage of sodomites while refusing to reveal the halachic modus operandi that effected it.

  He was not only guilty of cooperating with rabbinic halacha and the Babylonian Talmud, Justice Scalia, like many of Rome’s intellectuals who are concerned with this issue, was an active participant in burnishing the reputation of those dark doctrines and spreading their diabolical influence. He openly worked for what his handlers termed the rise of “Synagogue and State.”

  This “traditional Catholic” Latin Mass worshipper and supposed “great friend of the Republic” directly assisted with the Talmudic training program for future lawyers at numerous Talmudic institutes, such as the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, which is part of the Talmudic Yeshiva University in New York. On November 6, 2013, at the “Synagogue and State” conference at Yeshiva University’s Zahava and Moshael Straus Center, Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik, director of the Straus Center, introduced Justice Scalia, along with Yeshiva alumnus Nathan Lewin, “whose extraordinary legal career is a source of great pride to our University.” Scalia and Lewin then proceeded to laud Talmudic halacha as a system of justice for America.