Saturday, April 18, 2015

The Traditional Catholicism that ain't

Along with us, our colleague who blogs under the nom de plume, “Maurice Pinay” has offered ample documentation of the anti-Catholic weirdness, perversity and occultism that travels under the moniker, “traditional Catholicism.” Or, as our north Idaho cowboy pal Caleb would say, “Traditional Catholicism ain’t.”

While one of those who Maurice targets as being among the ain’t Catholics is Bp. Richard N. Williamson, nonetheless we do not shy away from employing the following research from Williamson to demonstrate how “sedevacantist Catholicism” ain’t Catholic.

Sedevacantism, for those who don’t know the term, is a “traditional Catholic” faction that declares on its own non-existent authority, that certain “heretical” popes are not popes, and therefore are not owed the obedience due the pontiff.  Sedevacantist priests and alleged bishops depose these popes by stating, “They are formal heretics, therefore they are not popes.” Luther said something like that, so here we have the bipolar manifestation of Lutheran-“traditional Catholicism.” It just gets crazier and goofier as these folks descend further down the ladder of their home-made religion which is situated somewhere between Catholicism, Protestantism and the Twilight Zone.

We don't accept that parish priests or questionably-consecrated “traditional Catholic bishops" have any power or authority whatsoever to declare —  other than to their own conscience —  that a pope is not a pope and can be disobeyed. The very notion smacks more of a proclamation by a backwoods assembly of the Four Square church, than by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The actual Catholic Church has a theology that teaches that no one can depose a pope  —  that the pope has no peer on earth. According to Catholic theology he is sovereign. Williamson describes the complex Catholic process for removing a heretical pope. Patently, until the process Williamson outlines takes place, the pope elected by the College of Cardinals, whether Paul VI or Francis the one and only, is the pope of the Church of Rome until a Church Council removes him. Bishop Williamson reports:

Church Councils can heretical Popes untie,
For Christ to depose, lest the whole Church die.
The Dominican priests of Avrillé, France, have done us all a great favour by republishing the considerations on the vacant See of Rome written some 400 years ago by a famous thomist theologian from Spain, John of St Thomas (1589–1644). Being a faithful successor of St Thomas
Aquinas, he benefits from that higher wisdom of the Middle Ages when theologians could still measure men by God instead of having to measure God by men, a tendency which began as a necessity (if souls could no longer take medieval penicillin, they had to take a lesser medicine), but which culminated in Vatican II. Here, much abbreviated, are the main ideas of John of St Thomas on the deposition of a Pope:—
Can a Pope be deposed?
Answer, yes, because Catholics are obliged to separate themselves from heretics, after the heretics have been warned (Titus III, 10). Also, a heretical Pope puts the whole Church in a state of legitimate self-defence. But the Pope must be warned first, as officially as possible, in case he would retract. Also his heresy must be public, and declared as officially as possible, to prevent wholesale confusion among Catholics, by their being bound to follow.
II By whom must he be officially declared a heretic?
Answer, not by the Cardinals because although they may elect a Pope, they cannot depose one, because it is the Universal Church that is threatened by a heretical Pope, and so the most universal possible authority of the Church can alone depose him, namely a Church Council composed of a quorum of all the Church’s Cardinals and Bishops. These would be convoked not authoritatively (which the Pope alone can do) but among themselves.
III By what authority would a Church Council depose the Pope?
(Here is the main difficulty because Christ gives to the Pope supreme power over the entire Church, with no exception, as Vatican I defined in 1870. Already John of St Thomas gave arguments of authority, reason and Canon Law to prove this supreme power of the Pope. Then how can a Council, being beneath the Pope, yet depose him? John of St Thomas adopts the solution laid out by another famous Dominican theologian, Thomas Cajetan (1469–1534). The Church’s deposition of the Pope would fall not upon the Pope as Pope, but upon the bond between the man and his Papacy. That may seem hair-splitting, but it is logical.)
On the one hand not even a Church Council has authority over the Pope. On the other hand the Church is obliged to avoid heretics and to protect the sheep. Therefore, just as in a Conclave the Cardinals are the ministers of Christ to bind this man to the Papacy, but Christ alone gives him his papal authority, so the Church Council would be the ministers of Christ to unbind this heretic from the Papacy by their solemn declaration, but Christ alone, by his divine authority over the Pope, would authoritatively depose him. In other words, the Church Council would be deposing the Pope not authoritatively from above, but only ministerially from below. John of St Thomas confirms this conclusion from the Church’s Canon Law, which states in several places that God alone can depose the Pope, but the Church can pass judgment on his heresy.
Alas, as the Dominicans of Avrillé point out, nearly all Cardinals and Bishops of the Church today are so largely infected with modernism that there is no human hope of a Church Council seeing clear to condemn the modernism of the Conciliar Popes. We can only pray and wait for the divine solution, which will come in God’s good time. To follow, is a Pope not automatically deposed by his mere heresy?
Kyrie eleison.

Friday, April 17, 2015

Media supported the worst crime of this century

Seung-yoon Lee: Also, regarding the specific incident of Charlie Hebdo, do you think the cartoonists lacked responsibility?

Noam Chomsky: Yes, I think they were kind of acting in this case like spoiled adolescents, but that doesn't justify killing them. I mean, I could say the same about a great deal that appears in the press. I think it's quite irresponsible often. For example, when the press in the United States and England supported the worst crime of this century, the invasion of Iraq, that was way more irresponsible than what Charlie Hebdo did. It led to the destruction of Iraq and the spread of the sectarian conflict that's tearing the region to shreds. It was a really major crime. Aggression is the supreme international crime under international law. Insofar as the press supported that, that was deeply irresponsible, but I don't think the press should be shut down.


Read more here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seungyoon-lee/noam-chomsky-twitter-interview_b_7064462.html

***

Monday, April 13, 2015

Success in Michigan: Hoffman lambasts usury before a crowd of 60

Last Saturday April 11 in the Lansing, Michigan area we addressed what the organizers of our speech said were sixty people, on the subject of our book, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not.

Our speech included new research not in the book on Florentine bankers and their growing control of the Renaissance papacy in 16th century Italy. We spoke for 90 minutes, after which listeners remained in their seats as some ten or twelve people lined up for a lively question-and-answer period.

Christian economist Daniel Krynicki, author of History of Money and Usury in America, was on hand to field questions on usury and inflation, and usury and hard money (gold and silver). He gave learned replies to both queries. We regret having had so little time to converse with him after having corresponded for the past two years. Daniel is the altruist researcher who provided an index to Usury in Christendom, which appears online here.

Our book table did a flourishing business, offering for sale our texts, CDs and DVDs. The entire event ran from roughly 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., after which some fifteen people and this writer repaired to a local diner for lunch and further conversation.

The meeting’s organizer, the courageous Christian activist John Mangopoulas, the father of five, subsequently videotaped two interviews with us for his Michigan “public access” cable television program. Over the years Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Otto Scott, Sam Francis and other conservative thinkers have appeared on John’s show. We are grateful to him and his family for the smooth operation of the meeting.

The highlight of the day was our conversation with a man from Grand Rapids, who informed us that as a result of hearing our talk, he had contacted a woman to whom he had loaned several thousand dollars in the past, to inform her that he was returning the $400 in interest he had charged her. Hallelujah!

We have been told that a DVD of the speech may become available in the near future. Watch this blog for details.

***


Sunday, April 05, 2015

Easter 2015: NY Times Ritually Defames Christ

Just Like the Judaic-owned newspaper did in 2014

By Michael Hoffman
Truth Campaigner • www.revisionisthistory.org

"…An assortment of inscriptions that led some to suggest Jesus of Nazareth was married and fathered a child and that the Resurrection could never have happened.”
  Israeli reporter Isabel Kershner, NY Times, Easter Sunday, April 5, p. A4

Judaic bigotry and hate speech against Jesus Christ manifests ceremonially in the Zionist-controlled media at Christmas and Easter, the holiest seasons for Christians. Anti-Christianic bigots at the New York Times are particularly persistent in massively publicizing pseudo-archaeological "evidence  attacking the central tenet of the Christian Faith, the Resurrection of Jesus: “…if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain. (1 Corinthians 15:14).


In 2015 the ritual hate speech is disseminated as an Eastern Sunday report on p. 4 of the New York Times, “Findings Reignite Debate on Claim of Jesus’ Bones.” It is written by Isabel Kershner, an Israeli. The 2015 Times article states, “There is the notion that burial remains, including bone matter, of Jesus of Nazareth would suggest that there could have been no bodily resurrection.”

A multi-millionaire non-Judaic movie mogul, James Cameron, is deeply implicated in promoting the heinous lie that Jesus did not resurrect from the dead. The deep pockets Hollywood director is joined in his anti-Christianic campaign by the Discovery Channel, the aforementioned NY Times, and Israeli Judaics, among them Simcha Jacobovici, Aryeh Shimron, as well as the Israeli government’s "Antiquities Authority,” which "provided some technical assistance” to Cameron and Jacobovici. Here is an excerpt from the Times article, published April 5, 2015:

JERUSALEM — ...(T)wo ancient artifacts found here have set off a fierce archaeological and theological debate in recent decades.  At the heart of the quarrel is an assortment of inscriptions that led some to suggest Jesus of Nazareth was married and fathered a child, and that the Resurrection could never have happened. 

Now, the earth may have yielded new secrets...A Jerusalem-based geologist believes he has established a common bond between them that strengthens the case for their authenticity and importance. The first artifact is an ossuary, or burial box for bones, bearing the Aramaic inscription “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus,” that the Israeli collector who owns it says he bought from an East Jerusalem antiquities dealer in the 1970s. 

...The second artifact is a tomb unearthed at a building site in the East Talpiot neighborhood of East Jerusalem in 1980 and thrust into the limelight by a 2007 documentary movie, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” The film was produced by (Hollywood director) James Cameron (“Titanic”) and written by Simcha Jacobovici, an Israeli-born filmmaker based in Toronto. It was first broadcast on the Discovery Channel in 2007.

The burial chamber, which subsequently became known as the Talpiot Tomb, contained 10 ossuaries, some with inscriptions that have been interpreted as “Jesus son of Joseph,” “Mary” and other names associated with New Testament figures. The group of names led Mr. Jacobovici and his supporters to argue that this was probably the tomb of the family of Jesus of Nazareth, a sensational claim rejected by most archaeologists and experts, who said that such names were very common at that time.....Mr. Jacobovici and his supporters say that if it could be proved that the so-called James ossuary, whose provenance is unclear, originated in the Talpiot Tomb, the names on it, added to the cluster of names found in the tomb, would bolster the chances that the tomb belonged to the family of Jesus of Nazareth.

Enter the geologist, Aryeh Shimron. He is convinced he has made that connection by identifying a well-defined geochemical match between specific elements found in samples collected from the interiors of the Talpiot Tomb ossuaries and of the James ossuary. When the Talpiot ossuaries were discovered, they were covered by a thick layer of a type of soil, Rendzina, that is characteristic of the hills of East Jerusalem and was apt to impose a unique geochemical signature on the ossuaries buried beneath it. ...An unlikely Indiana Jones, Dr. Shimron, 79, was born in the former Czechoslovakia and is an expert in plaster. Now retired as a senior researcher of the Geological Survey of Israel, a government institute specializing in earth sciences, he has been involved in archaeological geology for the last 20 years.  Dr. Shimron based his research on the theory that an earthquake that convulsed Jerusalem in A.D. 363 flooded the Talpiot Tomb with tons of soil and mud, dislodging its entrance stone and, unusually, covering the chalk ossuaries entirely.

“The soil created a kind of vacuum,” he said. “The composition of the tomb was simply frozen in time.” For the last seven years, Dr. Shimron has been studying the chemistry of samples from chalk crust scraped from the underside of the Talpiot ossuaries and, more recently, from the James ossuary. He has also studied samples of soil and rubble from inside the ossuaries. In addition, for comparative purposes he has examined samples from ossuaries from about 15 other tombs. Mr. Jacobovici, who has been documenting the research for another movie, said “the production” financed the lab work.

The Israel Antiquities Authority provided access to most of the ossuaries and carried out the major part of the sampling under the direction of Dr. Shimron. A spokeswoman for the authority said that it had provided some technical assistance for Mr. Jacobovici’s movie… Today the Talpiot Tomb is sealed underground beneath a concrete slab in a courtyard between nondescript apartment buildings on East Talpiot’s Dov Gruner Street, and its ossuaries are under the custodianship of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The James ossuary is back with its owner, Oded Golan, the collector, who lives in Tel Aviv and keeps the box in a secret location. Yet Dr. Shimron’s findings seem likely to reawaken the controversies of the past.

There is the notion that burial remains, including bone matter, of Jesus of Nazareth would suggest that there could have been no bodily resurrection. Moreover, speculation that one of the bone boxes found in Talpiot may have belonged to Mary Magdalene, while another bore the inscription “Judah son of Jesus,” has only added to the general contentiousness of the finds.  ...Shimon Gibson was among the Antiquities Authority archaeologists who entered the newly exposed Talpiot Tomb in 1980. He said recently that it was clear that the underground entrance to the tomb had been open since antiquity and that the tomb had filled with soil abruptly as a result of a single quick event — possibly an earthquake. Dr. Gibson and other archaeologists concluded that tomb raiders had probably been there during the Byzantine period. But he discounted any possibility that the James ossuary had been spirited away when the tomb was uncovered. ...Dr. Gibson said, the scholarly community was eagerly awaiting the publication of Dr. Shimron’s results in a scientific journal for peer review

End quote from the NY Times. Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/world/middleeast/findings-reignite-debate-on-claim-of-jesus-bones.html 

For further research:

The Revolutionary Betrayal of the Crucifixion:

It’s the Christian Holy Week: Time for Talmud TV

Larry David’s Talmudic mentality and urinating on an image of Christ


_____________________

If you want it to disappear from the Internet, do nothing.

•••

Monday, March 30, 2015

Christian Holy Week: Time for Talmud TV

It’s the Christian Holy Week: Time for Talmud TV

By Michael Hoffman

What is it about the word “Rome” that has the same effect on many people which the utterance of “Niagara Falls” had on the Three Stooges? (Frenzy and apoplexy).

The rabbis despise Rome. Is it any wonder that Protestant Fundamentalists have followed suit? Modern Catholics are also conforming. A few years ago I endured a Jesuit sermon in the course of which Pontius Pilate was termed a “thug.” The homilist cast no such opprobrium on the anonymous “leaders of the people” (no further identification is permitted), who had howled for Christ’s blood.

We get mail from Protestant Roman-haters who are taken aback when we point out that the legions of Rome were chosen by God to fulfill his Son’s prophecy and obliterate the corrupt system of Temple worship in AD 70. It was the finest moment of the greatest army that had ever marched. Much of the history of that divine victory remains unknown. For example, in Revisionist History issue no. 77, we point out that at least one documentary source indicates that Roman General Titus refused credit for the victory, saying that it had been the work of the “God of the Jews,” and not him!

The Talmud is not pleased with this Roman commander. The Talmud has Titus in hell. The punishment which he suffers for eternity is to be burned to ashes, reconstituted, and burned again. 

Rabbinic hatred is equally eternal. The first leader of the Israeli state, Ben-Gurion, took the name of an anti-Roman rebel, and the contemporary Judaic terror group Betar is named for the headquarters of anti-Roman zealots.

On March 31 of this Holy Week, which leads to Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday, the CBS television network will broadcast a two-part, four hour miniseries, “The Dovekeepers,” which, needless to say, glorifies the Jews who rejected their Messiah, and portrays the Romans as unrelievedly vile and despicable. American “secular” television is indistinguishable from Judaism’s Babylonian Talmud. 

In all of the New Testament there is no one who Jesus praises more highly than the Roman Army Centurion, whose faith, Our Lord says, is greater than anyone in Israel. But Jesus doesn’t write television scripts, and His faithless people, the heirs of those who screamed “Crucify him!,” will be the ones celebrated and idolized on “The Dovekeepers” in this week that is most sacred to Christians. Is this mockery a coincidence? We think not.

Every year during Lent the controlled American media broadcast or publish ritual degradation of Christ timed to coincide with Christianity’s holiest season. Last year it occurred in the form of a widely circulated news report, initiated by the New York Times, concerning the discovery of a papyrus said to “prove” that Jesus had a wife. “Harvard University experts” were invoked. Later, after the damage was done, the Times quietly admitted it had all been a hoax.

These perennial Talmudic rituals by the mainstream media are the ceremonial fulfillment of an undying, sub-rosa rabbinic malice for Jesus Christ and the Romans. 

The hypno-patsies in the pews of the steeple houses of Judeo-Churchianity are of course, oblivious.  

Mike Hoffman is the editor of Revisionist History newsletter and the author of eight books of history and literature, including Judaism Discovered (softcover, 1100 pages). His columns are made possible by donations from readers.



***

Friday, March 27, 2015

Former Talmud student exposes Talmudic evil

WORLD HISTORIC TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE TALMUD AND RABBINIC JUDAISM

Israeli citizen Yossi Gurvitz, a former Talmud (yeshiva) student confirms the racism, homicide and child molestation-advocacy in the Babylonian Talmud and subsequent authoritative rabbinic legal texts authored by Rabbi Moses Maimonides and Rabbi Joseph Karo (“Shulchan Aruch”). He reveals Judaism’s sympathy for Islam and its undying hatred for Christianity.




Testimony of Yossi Gurvitz, July 15, 2012

Mr. Gurvitz points out that exceptions to bigoted Talmudic injunctions are permitted where Judaics are in subjection to the goyim (gentiles), and where news of Judaism’s discrimination toward the goyim, would cause an uprising of “potential animosity” (mishum eivah) toward Judaics. 

Therefore, to avoid a rebellion by the goyim if the truth were known, devious disavowals of the rabbinic law are made in public for the sake of pacifying ("mipnei darkhei shalom") the gullible goyim

Mr. Gurvitz asserts that where Judaic supremacy reigns supreme (where ‘Israel' is mighty), as in the Israeli state, no such diplomatic niceties need be observed, and the full force of Talmudic/rabbinic halacha, with its institutionalized contempt for, and discrimination toward non-Judaics, can be fully exerted. This testimony confirms the thesis of Michael Hoffman in his book Judaism Discovered.

Also see: The Truth About the Talmud (blog)
________________