RSS
E. Michael Jones (EMJ) in his January 9 column at Unz.com (“Wicked Imposters Scratching Itching Ears”), makes various claims about this writer’s December 19 essay, “Memo to Pope Francis: “God cannot and does not bless sin,” indicative of either gross inattention to what I wrote, or brazen misrepresentation.
I begin with his final paragraph:
“By now it should be obvious that the one thing Michael Hoffman, the Life Site News crowd and James Martin have in common is the claim that Fiducia Supplicans endorsed gay marriage in spite of the fact that FS said the exact opposite. People like this have no respect for the truth. They are, in the words of St. Paul (2 Timothy 3:1-12) ‘wicked imposters…”
One would think that to reduce a person to the degraded level of having “no respect for the truth” and a “wicked impostor” there would have to be a surfeit of evidence in support of so grave and reputation-destroying charges, otherwise they would constitute reckless calumny. Dr. Jones has furnished no such evidence.
I have not in any manner stated or implied that Fiducia Supplicans “endorsed gay marriage.” In fact, in “Memo to Pope Francis,” having discerned the papal misdirection at the heart of Fiducia Supplicans, I argued the very opposite concerning the document’s “unspoken subtext”:
“Pope Francis attempts to cover himself by saying that these ‘blessings’ are ‘not to be confused with the Sacrament of marriage.’ Yet the pope’s directive is almost universally understood as the validation of sex acts between two men, when those men are intimate only with each other; that’s the unspoken subtext. ‘Loving commitment’ is defined sub-rosa as their non-promiscuous, ‘self-sacrificing” monogamous sodomy.”
It was obvious to me that the storm of controversy over Fiducia Supplicans —the contention that it supposedly leads to a church-sponsored marriage of homosexuals —was an intentional act of distraction.
Being no stranger to the history of Renaissance papal dissimulation with regard to the incremental process of granting permission for the renting of money under a variety of pretexts, I was not beguiled by the semantic misdirection in Fiducia Supplicans. I did not succumb, as E. Michael Jones falsely alleges, to the straw man set up by papal apologists who have made the controversy a question of whether the document is a stepping stone toward the endorsement of gay marriage.
Thomas Pynchon once observed, “If they get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”
The question is not whether the promulgation of Fiducia Supplicans changes the Church’s teaching on marriage. That’s the wrong question. The controversy that follows from it is a rabbit hole. We know indubitably that Fiducia Supplicans does not alter the teaching.
Here’s the right question: Does Fiducia Supplicans tend to overthrow Biblical law and immemorial patristic dogma on sodomy? Given that those engaged in that mortal sin are to be blessed by Catholic priests, without first having confessed their transgression, repented, and resolved to desist henceforth, the answer is — yes, it most certainly does.
Jones replies: “Well, because they are in an irregular situation. Conferring a blessing on those who are in irregular situations does preclude admonitions to repent. In fact the admonition is part of the blessing.”
(EWJ conflates same-sex couples with the category of “irregular situations.” The two are distinct, as the author of the papally-authorized text, Cardinal Victor Fernandez states: “It is precisely in this context that one can understand the possibility of blessing c ouples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage” (italics added). The title of Section III of the document reinforces the distinction which Jones blurs: “Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex”).
Couples in “irregular situations” include divorced heterosexuals who have not had their Catholic marriage annulled and who have remarried nonetheless. The issue at hand is the blessing of homosexual couples.
In many if not most cases, homosexuals are coming to the Church for a blessing of a union that is sexual in nature. The key aspect obscured thus far is that these blessings solemnize sodomy.
The amnesia at work is remarkable. A mere two years ago the Vatican’s responsum correctly declared that priests and deacons could under no circumstances bless same-sex couples because “God cannot and does not bless sin.”
This has since been derogated in favor of the new line, “…a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit…there is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather to open one’s life to God, to ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness.”
With devious rhetoric similar to that which accompanied the papacy’s gradual lifting of the sacred dogma prohibiting the renting of money, we read the preceding spin-doctoring with dismay.
Nothing in Fiducia Supplicans denotes any pre-requisite that before receiving a blessing the couples being blessed are required to state their sincere intention, without mental reservation, to give up their sinful activity and live chaste lives according to the requirements of the Holy Scriptures and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Is anyone so gullible as to imagine that proud sodomites are approaching these blessings “recognizing themselves to be destitute” and “begging” for healing?
As I noted in the “Memo,” in the case of the situation ethics revolution of Pope Francis, blessings have typically been requested not by penitent persons but rather by those who defiantly refuse to distance themselves from the proximate occasion of grave sin, and who view the blessing of their sexual relationship as a bold and triumphant victory over the teaching of the Bible and the true Church, notwithstanding the Vatican’s sonorous disavowals of the obvious symbolism.
Jones writes, “Hoffmann…attempts to rescue his case by saying that ‘the pope’s directive is almost universally understood as the validation of sex acts between two men….’ without telling us who is responsible for this universal understanding. Even if everyone in the world said what Hoffmann is saying it would have to be termed a universal misunderstanding of what is actually in the text.”
What is in the text, Dr. Jones, is a minefield of deliberately sown ambiguity and a startling cynicism which sets forth ideal conditions: the blessing of sorrowful homosexuals — while omitting any mechanism for ensuring that they are indeed 1. honestly sorry; and 2. determined to avoid the near occasion of sin which, if that were the case, would often result in their parting ways as cohabitating couples. Hence, the misunderstanding is intrinsic to the document.
Blessing sexually active male couples w ithout requiring them as a condition of receiving the blessing to abstain from a sin that condemns them to eternal perdition, subverts the Vatican masquerade that the blessing “does not claim a legitimation of their own status.”
The document generated sufficient confusion that Cardinal Fernandez was compelled to issue a clarification on January 4 in which we read, “…the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice.”
Rome’s lawyerly escape clause centers on distinguishing between the category of “liturgical blessing” and an innovative Pope Francis-concocted category termed “spontaneous.” In his January 4 statement, Fernandez admits that this entails a new teaching (“real novelty”): “It is the invitation to distinguish between two different forms of blessings: ‘liturgical or ritualized’ and ‘spontaneous or pastoral.’ The presentation clearly explains that ‘the value of this document… is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings…This ‘theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church.”
If you’re conversant with the Talmud of Mystery Babylon then you’ll be acquainted with the preceding pilpul. By calling some men who cohabitate and engage in posterior coition to a priestly blessing, Rome wants us to believe it is not offering moral legitimacy to anal sex between males. The pontiff and his chief theologian assure us that “these are blessings without a liturgical format which neither approve nor justify the situation in which these people find themselves.” If you believe that then you’ll believe that my grandmother is a defensive tackle for the Buffalo Bills.
Consider the optics: sexually active gay men are being blessed by the Church. Let us imagine that Francis, with “pastoral solicitude” were to authorize the non-liturgical blessing of Catholics who are white supremacists and neo-Nazis—accompanied by the requisite linguistic somersaults explaining that the blessings in no way amount to an endorsement of racism or Nazism. Would anyone in their right mind believe it?
But who is in their right mind these days? Many of the points I’ve raised would have been patent five years ago, without need of elaboration. The conditioning process of the post-modern occult imperium continues its solve et coagula operation of alchemical transformation to such an extent that we find ourselves obliged to undertake the correction of errors that would have, until recently, been easily recognizable.
In “Memo to Pope Francis” I endeavored to provide that rarest of birds in this polemical realm: historical memory and context, so as to equip Catholics and all interested Christians with the discernment of a pattern of revolutionary situation ethics imposed by means of guile and doubletalk, beginning in the Renaissance-era pontificates.
Dr. Jones attempts to counter my thesis with a string of demonstrable falsehoods. He writes:
“Having failed to make his case against FS (Fiducia Supplicans), Hoffmann tries to bolster his argument by claiming that the Church changed its teaching on usury. Once again, Hoffmann can only make his claim by ignoring what the Church actually said. Hoffmann is forced to admit that Pope Benedict reaffirmed Church teaching on usury when he issued his encyclical Vix pervenit…”
In addition to repeatedly misspelling my name as “Hoffmann,” EMJ fantasizes that I have been “forced to admit” that Pope Benedict XVI “reaffirmed Church teaching on usury.” This is news to me.
I have never made any such affirmation. I have always said that Vix Pervenit is a dishonest document that contains “many rhetorical, anti-usury flourishes” intended to distract from its affirmation of the renting of money under certain situations. (Jones even quotes that sentence).
Here’s the crux of what I wrote about the “Vix” encyclical in my “Memo” (similar statements are in my book Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not):
“Dr. Jones promotes Vix Pervenit as the: ‘infallible encyclical of the Catholic Church’ upholding the sinfulness of usury. ‘That is the Church teaching.’
Let’s see if he knows what he’s talking about.
“In Vix Pervenit, issued November 1, 1745, Benedict XIV expanded Leo X’s ‘infallible’ 1515 Inter multiplices to include the lawfulness of interest on investment credit capital. While V ix Pervenit is often cited as a reaffirmation of the magisterial pre-Renaissance dogma on usury, such claims represent a failure to note and comprehend Vix Pervenit’s ‘fine print.’ Jones seems to be awed by the many rhetorical, anti-usury flourishes throughout Vix Pervenit of 1745. One observes the same tactic by Pope Francis in Fiducia Supplicans in 2023.”
In the face of the preceding, Dr. Jones asserts “Hoffmann is forced to admit that Pope Benedict reaffirmed Church teaching on usury when he issued his encyclical Vix pervenit…” Dr. Jones concocts any mendacity of his choosing when it suits his purpose.
He states further: “Hoffmann’s treatment of the Church’s teaching on usury is every bit as tendentious and wrong headed as his treatment of the Church’s teaching on sodomy. He brings up the case of the monte di pieta, which was a pawn shop for the poor created by the Franciscans and Dominicans in Renaissance Italy, which attempted to keep the poor from falling into the hands of the Jewish usurers. Unlike the Jews, who charged on the average 44 1/3 percent per annum compound interest, the monte di pieta charged five percent simple interest, which was the same as a fee, which meant that it was not usurious.”
The monte di pieta (“mountain of compassion”) operations began as well-intentioned, usury-free lending administered by monastics. These were not established solely to “keep the poor from falling into the hands of the Jewish usurers,” however. There were numerous predatory non-Judaic usurers plying their trade as well.
Over the years, the original intent of the montes was increasingly compromised by pressure from Catholic usurers who had been relentlessly pursuing a loophole whereby their money-renting would no longer be forbidden by the Church. Judaic usury in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries was dwarfed by Catholic usury banking on the part of the Fuggers in Germany and the Medici in Florence, among other large gentile usury operations.
Notice the situation ethics at the heart of EMJ’s support for the overthrow of the absolute prohibition on the renting of money: “Unlike the Jews, who charged on the average 44 1/3 percent per annum compound interest, the monte di pieta charged five percent simple interest…”
Is this supposed to evoke cheers? Apply this logic to prostitution: unlike Judaic harlots who charge $44 for a sex act, Catholic prostitutes are morally superior because they charge $5. Does it actually need to be stated that the law of God is violated either way, at any rate? The renting of money is malum in se (evil in itself).
Jones’ affinity for nullifying the law of God as the situation requires is also on display when he attempts to counter this writer’s point that, “The 2% of the (Vix Pervenit) encyclical which consists of escape clauses by which usury could continue to operate…” To which he replies, “Recognizing the complexity of the 18th Century European economic system is not an escape clause; it is an attempt to deal with the complexity of economic life.”
In the preceding sentence lies modernism’s heart of darkness. It is the alibi for nearly every transgression of the modern world against the commandments of God. The young people who share a bed outside of marriage do so in “recognition of the complexity” of the 21st Century American cultural system. They are “attempting to deal with the complexity” of modern life.
In addition to his situation ethics, EMJ’s delusions invoke pity. He writes, “In order to accept Hoffmann’s thesis we have to ignore what the Church actually said in ‘Inter multiplices in 1515 and Vix Pervenit in 1745, and the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law,” which Hoffmann derides as ‘enchanted history’ in favor of Hoffmann’s claim that for over 500 years now ‘popes and prelates have been initiated as part of the Neoplatonic-Hermetic gnosis.”
All of the papal documents which Jones cites above as antidotes to the renting of money, actually expanded the permission for it. Under Inter multiplices the first Medici pope, Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici (“Leo X”), allowed for charging rent on a loan for the sake of the poor. It wasn’t long however, before his relatives had gained control of the monte, and were making lucrative loans to their not-so-poor co-conspirators.
The Code of Canon Law of 1917 compiled on the watch of Pope Pius X (though published after his death), decreed, “…it is not in itself illicit to contract for legal interest, unless this be manifestly excessive…”
The 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II, which is still in force, commands the commission of mortal sin. Canon 1297: “Stocks, bonds, certificates of deposit or money involved in prudent loans may belong to a juridic person as part of it stable patrimony, if they belong to special funds or endowments.” Canon 1305: ‘… goods are to be invested cautiously and profitably…’ (James A. Cordiden, T he Code of Canon Law [1985], p. 883) According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, it is even required of church administrators that they “invest for profit funds not needed to pay expenses” (Modern Catholic Encyclopedia [Liturgical Press, 1994]).
The Holy See has been putting its funds at interest for quite some time, and requires ecclesiastical administrators to do likewise. Does EWJ imagine this practice emerged out of thin air?
If one needs further evidence that E. Michael Jones is in over his head, there is this:
“At one point Hoffman claimed that priests stopped withholding absolution from penitents who continued to traffic in usury. How he knows this is anyone’s guess.”
Anyone’s guess? Dr. Jones presumes to lecture on the ecclesicastical history and theology of usury while revealing the depth of his ignorance of that history. Priests did indeed stop refusing absolution to usurers. Here’s “how I know” this:
In 1822, Mademoiselle de Saint-Marcel, a well-connected Catholic residing in Lyons, France was receiving interest income. In the course of her confession to a priest, she was refused absolution after she admitted that she intended to continue to receive the income. She boldly appealed her confessor’s refusal to the Holy Office in Rome, which subsequently ruled against the priest and in favor of the impenitent woman.
This led to further appeals by others like her, followed by more than a dozen decisions by the Congregations of the Holy Office, Propaganda Fidei and the Penitentiary (the office charged with the oversight of confessors), which declared, without allusions to extrinsic titles, that the faithful, even though they are clerics and religious, who lend money at a “moderate rate of interest,” are “not to be disturbed” (non esse inquietandos). This revolutionary corruption was formally confirmed by Pope Pius VIII on August 18, 1830, in his Rhedonensem datum in audentia.
I could say more, but I will spare the reader further excursion into the excruciating convolutions of E. Michael Jones.
For those who wish to research further, there is Usury in Christendom; as well as “The Breeders of Money Gain Dominion” (chapter 16 of The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome) and online televised lectures. There is also an exchange of letters in Dr. Jones’ own Culture Wars magazine (October, 2013, pp. 4-12), between this writer and Dr. Anthony Santelli.
Furthermore, for those who may be interested in the connection which Dante Alighieri articulated between sodomy and usury, I refer you to the essay which led EWJ to allude to this writer as a “wicked imposter” who has “no respect for the truth” —“Memo to Pope Francis.”
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
EMJ failed miserably in its attempt to defeat MH’s article with arguments. It happened that EMJ did not seem like a sincere catholic, but rather a simple publicist or lawyer for the Pope or the Church. That being said, MH’s first article was far superior to this article.
Everyone must agree on this. The world must not go bungy.
Hoffman stands as a self-admitted religionist and supportive of Constantine’s hijacking of the Great Spiritual Teacher, Jesus the Christed One and creating the Church of Rome along with the “Holy” Bible, laden with redactions and interpolations and which attempted to destroy all the spiritual Gospels such as that of Thomas; he happens to be a supporter of the JudieChristie MagickMindfuck which deracinated the European peoples and severed their connexion with the natural world of Creation and with the Cosmos to become mere serfs and slaves to the Great Double-Cross of obedience to Church and State.
Organized religion, particularly of the Abrahamic tradition, is one of the most egregious banes. visited upon the human race.
As we transit out of the Age of Pisces and away from the Epoch of Kali Yuga and its 6,000 years of devolution…these false religions, based upon imposed fear, will accelerate in their dissolution. New values will replace those imposed when Constantine, the Emperor struck back at both Greek philosophy and wisdom schools as well as against the original Jesusites who walked the Spirit Path as ordained by the Master.
EMJ is an anti-white glowie. Ask him to explain his income for the last 40 years.
I would make the argument that when administering communion, it is understood that there is no viable means of determining whether the one receiving is actually spiritually in communion with the church. That is not the Priest’s job to hold up the communion line and grill the recipient that they are not able to receive due to unconfessed mortal sin.
Indeed, communion given to one unable to receive is rendered inert, the Body of Christ disappearing at the moment of contact with the receiver’s tongue who can not receive.
It is not the priest’s job to perform an inquisition in this regard, but he knows that the benefit of the doubt be granted to all who approach him and that, with a blessing of a couple in an irregular situation, the priests’ blessing is only sanctioned by its power to point people towards God. IOW, two people snickering as they approach a priest in bad faith for a blessing are those for whom the joke is on them.
Seems like the Catlickers are blessing their own Catlicking homos
Once upon a time I pointed out to EMJ that his favored source for downplaying sexual abuse by clergy also stated that the Catholic Church had far higher rate of predation than the public school system, the Boy Scouts, and the International Olympics Committee, combined. The distinction in the data being that the IOC and schools prey on girls, while the Church and the Scouts prey on boys. His only response was that his own source must be fake because “everyone knows the Boy Scouts are the worst”.
“Solemnity for Sodomy”. That’s definitely what was going on in the Jew tunnels of New York.
Video Link
I have not read either article (what the Catholic priesthood does with its homo would-be congregants is their business), but this one seems to agree with my opinion that ‘E’ Michael Jones is an extraordinary low-value intellectual.
E. Michael Jones worships the Pope – whoever he currently is – rather than God. He therefore cannot be taken seriously.
EMJ defend The Truth ,The Logos you have written about but do not fight against those who stand for righteousness .
Have you ever witnessed The Gospel to homosexual , I did. They are not poor in spirit, they are full of themself , they called it pride. Blessings are for people who are humble.
Matthew 5:3
“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Bruised egos are very sobering experience. So let keep faith in Christ Jesus.
Catholic Church is and always have been a retarded pedo-cult run by crypto-homos.
Why does anyone need such an organization to know what’s right?
Any organization that promotes a man like Francis to the top is total garbage.
Sure, Catholics built some nice churches and patronized some good art, but that’s about it.
Let’s bring back the pagan gods.
As for homosexuality, it’s guy fuc*ing each other in the ass. Anyone with sense should know it’s gross. Okay, in a free society, let homos do their tooty stuff, but that’s about it. There should be nothing more than tolerance.
But Jewish Power… you know the story. One thing for sure, whites are wheaks, or weak putty in the hands of Zion.
Is buying US Treasury bonds or bills usury?
Since the commandment to the Jews in the Old Testament was that they were not allowed to charge usury to their fellow Jews, but could to the goyim, doesn’t this mean that usury is not “malum in se”? After all, Jews were not allowed to murder the goyim.
Jones’s glaring inability to grasp the severity of blessing couples in irregular unions stems directly from his own grievous error of entering a mixed marriage with a non-Catholic. However, your response egregiously misses the mark. The undeniable truth is that “Fiducia Supplicans” blatantly endorses gay marriage. This is so blatantly obvious, that even a child would understand it. Your conclusion that blessing homosexual couples is not an act of approval is a display of astounding illogic, shining a spotlight on your profound deviation from the true Faith. You are not a Christian; rather, you stand outside the Church, treading a direct path to hell.
What both you and Jones completely fail to recognize is the undeniable truth that ALL who act in disobedience to Holy Mother Church are NOT to be blessed, a principle unambiguously echoed in the writings of Pope Gregory VII. Consider these emphatic statements:
– “As sacred authority demands, we have omitted to send you greeting and apostolic blessing as is customary, on account of the excommunication that you have not feared to incur for your offenses.” – Pope St. Gregory VII, To The Clerks Of Romans, March 21, 1077.
– “Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Bishop Hubert of Thérouanne, greeting and apostolic blessing, if he does not knowingly resist the decrees of the apostolic see.” – Pope St. Gregory VII, To Bishop Hubert Of Thérouanne, late 1080 (Epistolae Vagantes #42).
– “Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to the clergy and people of the church of Thérouanne, and especially to the excellent Count Robert, greeting and apostolic blessing, if they are obedient.” – Pope St. Gregory VII, To The Clergy And People Of The Church Of Thérouanne, 1082 (Epistolae Vagantes #46).
– “Because we have heard that you have not obeyed our legates and your archbishop but rather have driven the archbishop out, and because we have learned that for your fault you have been excommunicated by them, we have not dared to send you our greeting and apostolic blessing.” – Pope St. Gregory VII, To The Canons Of St. Martin, Tours, 1082-1083.
Furthermore, heed the stern warning from St. Benedict:
– “A brother guilty of a serious fault is to be excluded from both the table and the oratory… He should not be blessed by anyone passing by, nor should the food that is given him be blessed.” – St. Benedict, The Holy Rule, Chap. 25.
This irrefutable stance leaves no room for ambiguity; you, Jones, and the like, by endorsing and participating in such grave errors, unequivocally exclude yourselves from the fold of true Christianity and the embrace of the Holy Catholic Church.
EMJ is a social constructionist of the lunatic variety. On Millenniyule a few years ago, he argued that athletic and musical ability have no hereditary component. How can anyone take him seriously?
All please relax . No schisms or sarcasm , please . Understand , team , theme , this is not the ladders , up down , nor an ideological dimension in our Christian Hell . Debate , but don’t defile the purity of discourse in Heaven . Unity to undo this trap to disorganise our collective vision ! Fos . Sanity . Humanity !
Grandma bought a CD that pays 5% interest.
Should she mention that in confession? If it’s not a sin, you’ve conceded that interest on a loan is acceptable.
Just as chattel slavery was once an inescapable part of the economic situation in many times and places throughout the history of the world, the collection of interest on loans is an inescapable reality. (did St. Paul tell his converts they must free all their slaves?) Even the Lord’s parable which condemns the man who buried his treasure suggests the option of taking the talent to the bankers to receive interest.
Michael Hoffman, unfortunately, is a rather tragic-comical type of Protestant enthusiast. The Church condemns usury. And we must regard this condemnation as being opposed to the current system of the international financiers. However, the Church does not condemn people for having to live in the world. To extricate morality from immorality in matters of finance must be rather complicated in many cases. It’s not always a case of a loan shark or Grandma buying a CD in the 1980s.
As for the Rainbow flag / Red flag flying imposter. He was installed by globalist Anti-Catholics (the same ones who managed to shut down the world and mandate injections over the COVID scare) to desecrate the Church. However, Michael Hoffman is trying to minimize the very real and glaring discontinuity in Church teaching on the matter of basic morality, and muddy the waters by introducing the unrelated matter of finance involving interest on loans. Miserable opportunism when this should be the chance to fraternally correct E Michael Jones for his pitiful and scandalous refusal to see things plainly.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08077a.htm
With you all the way!!!
I think EMJ is off the rails. Neither did I appreciate his cheap shots at Bishop Barron in his Jan 9 article.
„Why does anyone need such an organization to know what’s right?“
Indeed. It was quite a coup for the Jew when he came up with a belief system that would keep YT divided into countless sects and constantly arguing and martyring each other.
Blaming „modernity“ for regarding morality as „complex“ is pretty rich, given 2000 years of theological pin-dancing. Almost as rich as claiming to be inspired by… Love!
In this argument I think of the parable of the “ten lepers” who came to Jesus. They wanted to be “healed” , (blessed ?) is it up to us to determine their motive? Only one seemed grateful.
What’s wrong with Papal blessings of “Catholics who are white supremacists and neo-Nazis” ? Hoffman has just gone too far off the deep end.
Seriously, Hoffman’s rebuttal was a win on all counts.
The only issue I have with Hoffman, though, is his naive endorsement of Louis Farrakhan. Sure he has said some courageous criticisms of Jewish Power, but he also celebrates blacks involved in freemasonry. So is he really on the side of truth and Jesus Christ? https://new.finalcall.com/2019/10/02/brotherhood-of-black-masons-bestow-honors-recognition-on-minister-farrakhan/ Methinks Hoffman has some blind spots in his discernment as well.
Fiducia Supplicans came to be exactly because some Catholics pushed acceptance of homosexual unions, which the church can never do, and instead she took the wind out of their sails with FS. The blessing is not formal to avoid similarity to the blessing of marriage, and is not to be said at a mock marriage between two people of the same sex. It is a giving thanks to God and a plea for being able to conform to His will.
It seems that homos and their supporters try to force it into a blessing for gay marriage, and some traditionalists try to whip their listeners into hysteria. EMJ is the sober one.
In the Roman Catholic church, there is as much or sometimes more, of division, as in denominations of the Reformation, it seems.
Already we have in the comment-section, a third Roman Catholic voice, condemning both combatants!
Is Hoffman Catholic too? I am not clear on his background. He seems to be a Protestant, which would be an even worse form of heresy than whatever Pope Anus says or does. Protestants embraced homosexual marriage long ago already.
FS was issued on Dec 18, a week before Catholics celebrate the Innocent Incarnation, the Purity of Mary and the Sanctify of the Holy Family.
Gee, what could have been the intent ?
“The blessing is not formal to avoid similarity to the blessing of marriage”
And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
And now, O ye priests, this commandment is to you.
If you will not hear, and if you will not lay it to heart, to give glory to my name, saith the Lord of hosts: I will send poverty upon you, and will curse your blessings, yea I will curse them, because you have not laid it to heart.
We could break it down step by step, piece by piece, why THIS IS WHAT IT IS. But that is playing the game of a sophist who has abandoned the use of reason. This doesn’t have to be proven to someone with a modicum of Catholic sense.
Suffice it to say, we all know this is an “innovation.” This is not the religion of our ancestors. That should be sufficient for any true Catholic. It is a blasphemy.
When heretics attempt to muddy the waters regarding their denials of articles of Faith, it counts for nothing. It is an evasion. When Francis said “There is no Catholic God” – there is no valid explanation in saying “he means God is not a member of the Catholic Church the way baptized Christians are.” There is no explanation whatsoever for such a remark. It is open apostasy.
The people who make excuses for this are at best pitifully deluded. Unfortunately, for most, no. These people do not have the Catholic Faith. If they ever did since childhood.
The enemies of God love Francis, because he is their “Pope” – the man they put in the Vatican.
https://novusordowatch.org/2013/09/naral-thanks-francis/
Because you can’t move a finger until you’ve figured out what sect is right. Otherwise, you are serving Satan.
Video Link
Any normal person, reading these two essays, would find it hard to believe that two, presumably mature, rational, adults would spend a moment of their time on this gibberish, rather than, you know, feeding the hungry, clothing the nekkid, and dare I say it, housing the homeless.
“Stop that caterwauling, you starving urchins! I’m completing my refutation of the sede vacantist heresy!”
“Mostly they are unproven assertions pulled out of thin air, and at the same time, rest on artificial subtleties, which demand the finest distinctions and the most abstract concepts, laboured combination, heuristic rules, propositions that balance on the point of a needle, and stilt-legged maxims from the heights fo which one can no longer see down to real life with its tumult.” — Schopenhauer on German moral philosophy post Kant
“Nobody outside a madhouse… could take seriously a single phrase of this conjectural, nugatory, deluded, tedious rubbish…. His thinking all this without having defiled and set fire to the typescript only made hin appear to himself as more of a hypocrite and fool.” — Kingsley Amis, Lucky Jim.
I tend to agree with Hoffman’s arguments, but can see why Jones makes his disingenuous points.
As one catechised much post-V2, but the Brothers at the school concerned having stayed with pre-V2 mass, even though it was many years later, I love the traditional form.
One form of entertaining reading in English to me now is Catholic controversy. One has the sedevacantists, two main varieties, those saying all post-V2 popes and the pope setting up V2 were all false, and lately those saying that Benedictus XVI was the last true pope and that Francesco is invalid.
He is an anti-Pope not in the sense of the old anti-Popes whose schism was based mainly on secular power politics, and were as Catholic as the popes from the time now recognised as popes.
However, in terms of trying to normalise very serious heresy, Bergoglio is an anti-pope.
Then again, any kind of sedevacantism leaves an intellectual Catholic in a somewhat indefensible position.
So, EMJ has to defend Bergoglio’s games, whether he likes them or not.
“Sure, Catholics built some nice churches and patronized some good art, but that’s about it.”
If you truly believe this is the extent of Catholicism’s contribution to western civilization then you are borderline retarded.
You know these “blessings” bring to mind Peter O’Toole playing the angels in that Dino de Laurentis Bible movie.
Unfortunately, within the past 20 years, the traditionalists started to make “rejecting sedevacantism” their first and primary doctrinal position. And of course groups like Opus Dei were even worse. Many of these people are in abject subjection to their cult leaders.
Of course, it wasn’t always that way. The traditionalists leader Archbishop Lefebvre made many remarks showing his openness to the possibility of sede vacante.
2. “Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 asserts matter-of-factly:
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.
Regarding the the Antipope Anacletus II, the Catholic Encyclopedia states:
Both claimants were consecrated on the same day, 23 February, Anacletus in St. Peter’s and Innocent in Sta. Maria Nuova. How this schism would have been healed, had the decision been left to the canonists, is hard to say. Anacletus had a strong title in law and fact. The majority of the cardinals with the Bishop of Porto, the Dean of the Sacred College, at their head, stood at his side. Almost the whole populace of Rome rallied around him. His victory seemed complete, when, shortly after, the Frangipani, abandoning what appeared to be a lost cause, went over to him. Innocent sought safety in flight.
And yet Anacletus II is not regarded as a Pope of the Catholic Church.
For those of us who believe in the Catholic Faith, we are not troubled too much by “Francis,” given the world as it is today. We are well aware that Christ-hating Jews and “former” Communists dominate the world today, and they will not leave a Catholic Pope in the Vatican in peace. What is sad is the blindness of the vast majority of those raised in the Catholic Church. This is a time of great apostasy.
There’s absolutely no doubt that FS is Francis’ first step toward homosexual “marriage”. I’m told this is exactly the first step taken by the Anglicans and other non-Catholic sects. Ten years from now everyone will be saying of course these sodomite “marriages” are acceptable, they always have been.
The usury argument is interesting. I haven’t heard about it since I was a kid, when it actually was a topic of conversation, priests, nuns and even Protestant ministers said it was wrong. My understanding is that interest is still forbidden in Moslem countries, but I could be mistaken. Since a moderate amount of usury is allowed, is Francis saying a moderate amount of sodomy is allowed, too?
Glad to see Mr. Hoffman engage EMJ. I own books by both and follow their articles. It would be good to have them in a live exchange instead of just printed words.
Excerpts: “I have not in any manner stated or implied that Fiducia Supplicans “endorsed gay marriage.”
“Here’s the right question: Does Fiducia Supplicans tend to overthrow Biblical law and immemorial patristic dogma on sodomy? ……. the answer is — yes, it most certainly does.”
—–Michael Hoffman
HUH? You can’t have your Fiducia Supplicans and your sodomy cake too.
Most people when they grow up come to realize how impractical and even — let’s be frank — foolish some Christian teachings are. Religion is hard to shake off, however. To begin with, the Christian religion is passed on from parents to their children. Shaking it off has a disagreeable connotation of going against one’s own parents — of disavowing them, really. No one likes to admit that one’s own parents taught them something untrue and even deleterious. Even if, oddly enough, the Christian religion itself commands one to free oneself from one’s own parents (Luke 14).
The other factor which constrains people to remain in a faith, even when one does not really have any real faith, is one’s children: what is a parent supposed to teach a child, regarding our finite life, the injustices of the world, and so on? The Christian faith has some answers to all that. When they reach adulthood, many parents no longer deem those answers satisfactory, but children are naturally receptive to anything that is taught to them (as those parents were when they were children).
Thus the cycle repeats indefinitely.
This imaginary conversation represents the substance of what is going on:
“Father, this is my dearly beloved catamite. We’re a longstanding couple, in search of your blessing!”
“And do you have any chlldren, my son?”
“Yes, we’ve adopted several boys. and a little girl too!”
Bless our family Father!”
“Well of course I will bless you!” – “Just understand, this isn’t “officially” a marriage according to the “official” Catholic doctrine (wink wink nudge nudge not yet!), but God loves all of his children no matter what they do! We don’t let rigid bigots usurp the see of Peter around hear, NO SIR – this is rainbow flag / Zionist flag / red flag occupied territory and those bigots will be SWIFTLY EXCOMMUNICATED if they do not recognize OUR LEADER FRANCIS as head the THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST” (they’ve even used the expression “Christ’s successor”)
https://the-american-catholic.com/2018/10/30/popewatch-successor-of-christ/
Blessings for polygamists, polyamorists, pimps and their hoes, junkies and their dealers. Pizzagaters and their sacrificial victims? Chabad Jews and their tunnels?
The eastern rite Catholic priests are allowed to marry (only if they did so in the old country and then when they immigrate here can stay married) and if they do so, I wonder if that bunch have a lower rate of going after young boys.
Not quite, in the U.S.A. alone it seems there are thousands of Reformation and holy-roller derived churches, and the bigger ‘mainstream’ ones are splintering along lines that will kill the liberal ones (e.g. who wants to go to an Episcopalian church with a dyke ‘priest’, or worse, a ‘married’ couple of dyke ‘priests’)?
The rot there set in long ago, F. Scott Fitzgerald used ‘Episcopalian’ as a euphemism for ‘Jewish fake convert’ in his writing.
Within the U.S.A., too, the Churches of Mormon, Scientology, and Satan are not churches.
Why is a pre-Christmas nativity scene on the White House lawn now banned but giant Hannukah candle displays (menorah) now obligatory, it seems, there and everywhere else in that country?
Why no court challenges against that non-separation of religion and state there? Everyone knows that the same people who fought years of lawfare to eliminate nativity scenes and even displays of the cross there are the same ones who support big menorah displays there. What is that about?
Two points:
1) This statement “Jones replies: “Well, because they are in an irregular situation. Conferring a blessing on those who are in irregular situations does preclude admonitions to repent. In fact the admonition is part of the blessing.” says the exact opposite of what I meant by omitting the word “not.” It should read “Jones replies: “Well, because they are in an irregular situation. Conferring a blessing on those who are in irregular situations does not preclude admonitions to repent. In fact the admonition is part of the blessing.”
2) Nothing Hoffman said by way of rebuttal changes the fact that his interpretation of both Fiducia Supplicans and Vix pervenit ignores the plain text of each document in favor of a hidden grammar known to Hoffman alone. Fiducia Supplicans upholds the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage and blessings, and Vix pervenit upholds the Church’s traditonal teaching on usury. One example does not substantiate his claims about what “priests” discuss in the confessional.
The speech that Hoffman gave to the NOI was embarrassing to watch, the way he kowtowed to them.
However, there was some good information that he passed on to his audience. The NOI, by the way, is a bunch hard to figure out.
Indeed. I suspect that the German bishops were faced with the prospect of their governmental authorities eventually forcing their priests to celebrate gay weddings, the full sacrament of matrimony, with the sanction of cutting off the subsidies all churches in Europe get, if they didn’t. The equivocations of the new document are such that the authorities can ignore the angels dancing on the pinhead aspects of it and leave the Catholics alone.
As we transit out of the Age of Pisces and away from the Epoch of Kali Yuga . . . these false religions . . .
Have you ever considered you’ve got the shoe on the wrong foot?
You’re part of that rainbow flag constituency, no?
The Kali Yuga isn’t ending anytime soon. We’re only in the very beginning of the cycle – many thousands of Millenia until the boot of Satan is off our descendants’ necks.
Nonsense. FS is categorically a blessing of two men because they are in a homosexual union. They come before the priest in no other capacity. As MH points out, there is no corresponding requirement that would justify your point of view such that those seeking the Church’s blessing renounce their homosexuality or at least acknowledge that it is a grave sin which they hope to break free of.
Imagine a couple whose association is bestiality asking the Church’s blessing on the same grounds permitted in FS. Why not? But it’s OK if anal sodomy is between two men but not if its between man and beast? Moreover, ‘homosexuality’ is a fig leaf for coprophilia, an abomination the Church is being asked to bless as an expression of piety.
“homosexual couples” aren’t part of the Catholic lexicon. Unrepentant sodomites aping families are being blessed because they are bound by their relationship of sodomy. This is in response to the demands of the homosexual lobby who are pushing the rainbow flag agenda on society. The “finger-crossing” disclaimers are just proof of the equivocation by those who seek to bless the sodomite relationship. (oh we aren’t “officially” doing it – so they are “unofficially” doing it!)
Your Catholic grandparents are turning over in their graves in shame! You will burn in Hell. “Oh but I was submitting to the Pope” – a man who denies everything Catholics have ever believed!
“It was obvious to me that the storm of controversy over Fiducia Supplicans —the contention that it supposedly leads to a church-sponsored marriage of homosexuals —was an intentional act of distraction.”
That is where it leads,though. Don’t get me wrong. It’s not “The Pope does this gay celebration blessing and then the next step is gay marriage”. That’s where people get bogged down. But it DOES LEAD there.
It doesn’t lead away from there. You don’t do this and then you’re one step FARTHER AWAY from the Catholic Church doing gay marriages.
This is an introductory salvo against straight marriage. A trial balloon.
There was this same kind of thing when Lincoln freed the slaves. A lot of people said “That’s it,then. This is going to lead to miscegenation,blacks being judges and cops,etc” and a lot of people at the time said “Don’t be stupid. The Emancipation Proclamation Proclamation doesn’t say any of that. No one is going to let a black dude have sex with his daughter,etc”.
But it DID LEAD to those things. And because it led to those things, and not farther away from those things, they eventually happened,didn’t they? It didn’t say any of that in the Emancipation Proclamation,and it wasn’t the very next thing that happened. Most people alive during the Civil War didn’t live long enough to have a quadroon grandchild. But it led there.
And whether the Pope said the Catholic Church is doing gay marriage now in his writ or not. The Catholic Church is going to be doing gay marriage 50 years from now for certain. Because nothing it is doing is leading away from them doing that.
This is meant to condition people to go,”Oh, well he already blessed the gay luncheon, why not bless the gay marriage venue? Oh, he blessed the gay marriage venue? Why not bless the gay vows of love or whatever? Jesus was about love. Oh,the Pope already blessed everything except for the gay marriage ceremony? Well,this is stupid, let’s bless the ceremony,why are we condemning two people who love each other?”
That’s what this is designed to do.
Catholics and Christians of all types are welcome within the faith. This does not negate the need or desire for Christians to establish their own racially or culturally separate communities. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Christians who desire to do so.
Many people have the mistaken assumption that Christianity demands that racial or cultural boundaries be abolished. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes, there are Christian sects that preach (and desire) “multiculturalism and diversity”, much of this attitude being driven by outside (jewish) interests, in order to destabilize Christian and other cultural and societal preferences.
THAT is the jewish way–reserving social and cultural exclusivity for themselves while spreading their “multiculturalism and diversity” poison demanding that “the rest of us (gentiles)” give up social and cultural exclusivity.
All one has to do is see what jews did to Catholicism with the imposition of their “mandates” on the Vatican II Ecumenical Council. It is when jews got their “get out of jail free” card, being “forgiven” for the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ, despite their hatred of Jesus Christ and Christianity that exists to this very day.
Let’s not forget the “slide” towards “anything goes” when it comes to sexual matters. The promotion of homosexuality by jewish interests has led to other sordid perverted practices being legitimized. From homosexuality and LGBTQXYZ perversions imposed on civil societies and on vulnerable children to pedophilia which is about to be “normalized”, even the Catholic Church is not immune from such sinful practices and heresy.
Normalizing what was once considered “mental illness” at the behest of jewish interests has only one solution…
The “Austrian painter” had the right idea–expulsion…
The “problem” remains…expulsion to where?
Does it anywhere in FS say in explicit language that those prior to receiving the so called blessing must have stopped engaging in sodomy, be truly penitent and in process of atonement? If not, FS is asking priests to give God’s favor to sin and a sinful lifestyle. That “hidden language” resides in what was not said.
The debate over particulars, such as Fiducia Supplicans and Vix Pervenit, whether for or against, is a clever way to distract people from recognizing a pattern. It is an illusion, like a magician who does something with one hand, to prevent the audience from paying attention to what the other hand is doing. The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church values power more than truth. It changes its teachings to avoid alienating any large groups. As a fisher of men, Catholicism casts its net wide.
Just as Protestants went from being schismatics to Catholics that happen to be out of communion with Rome, so too did Jews go from being Christ-killers to our elder brothers in the faith. The Pope has also been a leading advocate of the Muslim invasion of Europe. Is it any surprise that the Roman Church’s view on same-sex relationships is now being rehabilitated?
Rome views itself as Christ’s substitute (vicar), and the only thing that it will not tolerate is losing its place at the pinnacle of power. Being an entity that produces no product, its power is derived from the number of its followers, lest it become like the Orthodox Church, an irrelevant relic from the past. Doctrine is malleable, to be reformed as necessary to absorb additional groups of people.
The New World Order that our leaders are so diligently pursuing requires a one world religion, and Rome is positioning itself to fill this role. To achieve this goal, the eternal city (or constant city) is adapting to today’s world. Yet to focus our attention on any one adaptation, in isolation from others, is a sleight of hand that distracts us from seeing the bigger picture and overall pattern
Probably not. Men who are attracted to 12 year old boys don’t stop being attracted to 12 year old boys if they sleep with an adult woman every night.
After having written so many books exposing the truth about the Jewish religion via the Talmud, the founding role of usury in the Papacy and the Talmudic/pagan infiltration of Catholic Church in renaissance, he was probably didn’t have many friends left except Louis Farakhan. I didn’t have a problem with his views until he wrote that nonsense about Hitler not having a intelligent plan and valid reason to invade Russia (op. Barbarossa) Anyone familiar with David Irving’s work knows this to be false.
When you display your ignorance on a public forum, it’s akin to throwing mud on your own face. Obviously, you know nothing of Kali Yuga, as that historical cycle has no cultural resonance with decorating satan with a capital letter.
Have you ever self-evaluated your own ignorance?
E M Jones has done admirable work on the tribulations the jew has caused humanity. So the reason I have departed the EMJ bandwagon is his twisted view of the white race. He has betrayed the race of his ancestors. His Logos has become a genocidal LOGAS chamber for white people. His Jewniversal interpretation of the Babel leads him to say that the white race does not even exist. Even the repugnant, demonic hatred that the jew Synagogue of Satan has for the white race does not go that far.
On the extermination of all white people by the massive Zionist Globalists organized and funded non white military age invasion of all white countries, his only concern is that it is going too fast. He prefers a slow genocide.
The second stage of the jew plague is to misceginate whatever remnants of the white race still existing.
EMJ worships the Mexican mestizo saint, the Virgin of Guadalupe and wants that to be the model for a brown West. He is the Barbara Lerner Specter of suicidal white “catholics. Try selling your perversion of Catholicism to Gemma O Doherty. Even she would renounce your demented LoGAS.
E M Jones has done admirable work on the tribulations the jew has caused humanity. So the reason I have departed the EMJ bandwagon is his twisted view of the white race. He has betrayed the race of his ancestors. His Logos has become a genocidal LOGAS chamber for white people. His Jewniversal interpretation of the Babel leads him to say that the white race does not even exist. Even the repugnant, demonic hatred that the jew Synagogue of Satan has for the white race does not go that far.
On the extermination of all white people by the massive Zionist Globalists organized and funded non white military age invasion of all white countries, his only concern is that it is going too fast. He prefers a slow genocide.
The second stage of the jew plague is to misceginate whatever remnants of the white race still existing.
EMJ worships the Mexican mestizo saint, the Virgin of Guadalupe and wants that to be the model for a brown West. He is the Barbara Lerner Specter of suicidal white “catholics. Try selling your perversion of Catholicism to Gemma O Doherty. Even she would renounce your demented LoGAS.
He is also an idiot anti-racist
, the doppelganger of e.m. Jones
Curious: Does JPS happen to be an acronym for Jesuits Prefer Satan?
I waver back and forth between traditional Catholicism (driven largely at this point by emotion) and atheistic materialism (materialism in the philosophical sense). But I have to say that this papacy has done tremendous damage to my ability to hold on to my Catholic belief.
Yes, Rome-loyal conservatives and non-sedevacantist traditionalists can, as they always do, point to strained and technical ways to say that this or that appalling new innovation pushed by Rome is not as liberal as it seems on face value, does not actually formally contradict historic Catholic doctrine, etc.
But each such thing undermines the Faith as a whole, and my faith in particular. It was bad enough before Francis; now it’s catastrophic.
And there is no possibility that sedevacantism is true. If the Pope is truly promulgating doctrine that is contrary to Catholicism, it’s game over. The jig is up, and Catholicism is false.
Just as there’s no possibility that Protestantism (and its derivatives like Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc etc) is true, since it’s merely a rebellion against Catholicism, made up in the most recent one-fourth of Christianity’s existence. Protestantism depends on the ludicrous claim that God would have let Christendom languish in heresy and apostasy for one thousand five hundred years until a flatulence-obsessed monk motivated by a desire to shack up with a nun, and various northern European monarchs’ desire for more power and money, made up a new “Bible” Christianity that ripped entire books out of the Bible that it didn’t like, and despite the fact that Bible exists because the Catholic Church itself put together the Bible, deciding which of the many religious texts and writings floating around the Eastern Mediterranean at the time are canonical, based on its own authority.
Eastern Orthodoxy might have had some credibility, but given its extensive collaboration with Islam, and then with Communism, it no longer has any. Nor has it engaged in any serious intellectual effort to grapple with modernity and science; it’s as if the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution and the massive advances of science had never happened. You can’t hide and pretend it’s still 1750; you have to confront the stark realities of evolution and such.
Relevant link:
https://www.unz.com/book/james_j_omeara__the-homo-and-the-negro/
Video Link
Video Link
Rome views itself as Christ’s substitute (vicar), and the only thing that it will not tolerate is losing its place at the pinnacle of power
Here’s the problem with your reasoning. Bergoglio doesn’t really exercise any power over non-Catholics. The only people who are really subject to his disapproval are those who believe the traditional Catholic Faith. He leaves the rest of them alone, per his orders. In Sixty-Five years the Catholic Church has lost the overwhelming share of its influence on society, and is even losing in the perception of the ignorant masses of the West, a coherent identity. This is why they trial-ballooned rebuilding Notre Dame as some sort of Disney-space-needle-green-house-green-space. Because the goal is to erase the Catholic religion from the minds of men. Of course that will fail, but they are bringing down many baptized Catholics who otherwise might have known and practiced the Faith.
Your straw-man conception of “Rome” seeking power above all else doesn’t account for this complete loss of political influence and power. When the Pope was Napoleon’s prisoner, he held immensely more power than the Bergoglio holds. The only thing Bergoglio can do is browbeat and humiliate the members of sects like Opus Dei who appear to be masochists deliberately seeking out torture by cognitive dissonance. And frankly, that’s what he was put there to do. He wasn’t put there to influence evangelical Protestants, although there is no doubt that the collapse of the power of the Catholic Church has led to evangelicals taking up some Catholic teachings they would have formerly regarded as “too Catholic” – while also giving them permission for a kind of laxity in belief and practice that no longer even resembles what anyone born in a traditional home would recognize as the practice of Faith.
It’s difficult to go more than a week without hearing some news account of Bergoglio deriding and denying Catholic teaching. The man disavows the Catholic Faith as if it is an uncontrollable compulsion- he truly despises Catholics and the Catholic religion disgusts him. He’s particularly known for refusing to kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament. He’s there to be the fake Pope – literally – he doesn’t want anyone thinking he’s a Catholic. If they thought he was really a Catholic they wouldn’t be praising everything he does.
Factor/andrea thinks he is a profond thinker ( and goyim are stupid ) but he is a profond ignoramus.
Collaboration? Cue Adam Sandler’s voice from The Waterboy, because you are getting into satire again, Carney. Eastern Orthodoxy “collaborated” with Islam and Communism in the same way that a woman getting raped collaborates with her rapist
Degenerate brahmin speak of extraordinary long periods of time but the Yugas are based on the procession of the equinoxes, and we are at the end of the kali yuga.
There’s an ancient wordplay in Portuguese which summarizes this situation by mimicking a chemistry formula:
(2 fornicating, 1 blessing it).
Bravo.
EMJ is not dumb. However, his reasoning is distorted and crippled by his being in the Roman Catholic church, and hence having to vow obedience to the Pope and to the Magisterium. By definition, the Roman Catholic Church can never, ever be in error or deceive in matters of dogma or morals. Nor can their teaching ever change.
Except when they are in error, and do deceive, and their teaching does change.
The doublethink, the blindness, the hypocrisy, are inevitable given the Chuch’s history and position.
Rome is by definition unable to admit that the Church as fallible political institution can err, can deceive – and can fail, decay and die. Confusing spiritual and political, worldly power is a deadly mistake, and the Church has made that mistake for over a thousand years, going back prior to the Great Schism.
You, Mr Hoffman, can speak clearly and reason clearly on this subject because you stand outside of the political authority double-bind that has EMJ trapped. Thank you for your writing.
Thank you for your feedback, but you’ve got to look at the long game. Remember, Roman Catholicism is a thousand years old. It is concerned about consolidating power in the future. At present, traditional Catholics are expendable, because they are disdained by the hierarchy in the same way that Biden speaks of ultra-MAGA supporters.
It’s like an investment. Rome is willing to dispense with several hundred thousand followers now, in return for several hundred million followers in the future. You may know that in the Quran, Jesus Christ is considered a great prophet. Rome could forget about all that Son-of-God stuff, and elevate Muhammad to the same level as Christ, thereby creating a Unitarian faith that would have very broad appeal–diluted enough to be a one world religion, yet still bolstered by the gravitas of the eternal city.
If the Second-Person of the Holy Trinity is a stumbling block, then get rid of Him. Roman Catholicism is slowly becoming a faith without creeds or doctrine. This is in accordance with the vision of the Lucis Trust and the model of The United Nations Mediation Room. The room is fairly unadorned, except for a large, black, iron block. The room’s founder said:
“We may see it as an altar, empty not because there is no God, not because it is an altar to an unknown god, but because it is dedicated to the God whom man worships under many names and in many forms.”
https://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/dag/meditationroom.htm
Remove the mechanism that was developed solely for the purpose of control of people. If only we could devise a system that uses voluntary means instead of force.
http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/index.html
If Jesus had been ‘Pope’ Francis, he wouldn’t have healed those lepers at all. He would have just blessed their diseased condition.
EMJ: “a hidden grammar known only to Michael Hoffman.”
It calls to mind a recent Russian Orthodox criticism I read regarding American ROC bishops: that they are so unread!
Has EMJ read Mr. Hoffman’s many books? 122 newsletters? I have, actually. I’ve often tried to read EMJ but have always felt let down, somehow. Let’s look at a single term that Mr. Hoffman uses in the above article, “semantic misdirection.” This is huge and involves centuries of hoodwinking by the Catholic Church (full disclosure: I was a practicing Catholic for much of my life).
Let me quote from Hoffman’s book, “Judaism Discovered” about “word pollution”: “the misuse of words in this digital age has repercussions far beyond the academic. Precision is of crucial importance and the failure to select the accurate word or term for a thing can mislead whole nations for generations.” p. 210. As we have seen in both church and government for centuries. (Please read “Usury in Christendom” and “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”.)
“Semantic misdirection” — could be straight out of the talmud. It is used by intelligence agencies (blatant reduction of the word intelligence, btw) as a directive, “admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations.” Sounds like priestcraft to me.
Usury. When is a little bit of sin ok? Sodomy. When is a little bit of sin ok? In Dante’s Inferno (Hell), we find the usurers and sodomites grouped together in the 3rd ring of the 7th circle (at the very edge of Nether Hell — sins of the Wolf — great reading!
Dorothy Sayers comment on the Usurers and Sodomites: “These, as we have seen, are the image of the Violent against Nature. . .the Sodomites and Usurers are classed together because the first make sterile the natural instincts which result in fertility, while the second make fertile that which by its nature is sterile — i.e. they make money breed. More generally, the Usurers may be taken as types of all economic and mechanical civilizations which multiply material luxuries at the expense of vital necessities and have no roots in the earth or in humanity.”
Semantic misdirection. There are marvelous sections in “Judaism Discovered” on the cunning practices of fooling people with how you say things. Not to be missed is “Permissable Dissimulation through Dispensational Revelation.” Not to mention the hatred of humanity on the part of the foolers.
Truly sad that we’ve become so illiterate and easily fooled as we stand at the threshold of nuclear war. I’m so heartbroken that our popes in the last few decades have found so many “hedges around the law.” The fallen angels are laughing.
Well said.
Hoffman 1, Jones 0 on this issue.
One must seriously consider “Pierre de Craon’s” blistering comment from yesterday claiming that Jones has chosen Authority over Faith, without properly noticing that Vatican II effectively divorced them, as Archbishop Lefebvre argued back in the day.
Francis says that people should embrace their illness. It calls to mind that Krishnamurti quote:
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
“the long game” – the “Rome” will not come back from this nadir by instituting some sort of neo-pagan worship. Pachamama isn’t the plan for the future. It’s the Jews and Freemasons announcing what they believe to be the death of the Church.
It’s impossible to “play the long game” when you’re totally controlled by outsiders. There seems to be little doubt that the Jews surrounding Obama had a role in the precipitous departure of Benedict and the elevation of Bergoglio.
If you had said the Baltimore Ravens it would have dispelled any lingering doubts.
But on a more serious note, the record is clear that EMJ places religion above race. He even goes so far as to deny the existence of race.
Excerpt from The Logos of E. Michael Jones:
Interesting to learn if Michael Hoffman shares EMJ’s views on the lack of importance of race.
And there is no possibility that sedevacantism is true.
There is no reason for believing Catholics to doubt Christ’s promises to the Church, and there is no reason to believe that Bergoglio is anything but a notorious heretic and therefore not a Pope.
There really is no difficulty whatsoever with sede vacante. Theologians and Canonists have made all sorts of speculations about what is possible and impossible but no Catholic of the past would have accepted Bergoglio. So if sede vacante is true the Church is defunct?
Sounds like nonsense to me. Those people (trads who MAKE MONEY BY ASSERTING THEY ARE UNDER THE POPE) are playing on scruples of people who never had a firm grasp of what Catholicism teaches.
Nope. Orthodox leaders could have embraced martyrdom. Instead, they collaborated. The Russian Orthodox Church in particular was riddled with KGB, smeared the West, praised Soviet Communism, fawned over and mourned butchers like Stalin, etc. For years, decades, generations, they prostituted themselves, going along with the enemy in order to obtain prestigious positions in the hierarchy and an easier life than the collective farm or the factory or the GULAG or the grave. There’s no excuse for that, given the many examples of saints who laid down their lives rather than give into the pagan Romans, etc. I get that this is easy for me to say, living in freedom in America and not faced with that nightmare choice, but the standard I am holding up is not my own invention, but that of Christianity itself, and applies especially strongly to ordained clergy, the more so the higher up in the hierarchy one goes.
Similarly, for hundreds of years the Orthodox let the Ottoman Sultan (and Caliph of Islam) dictate to them who would be the Ecumenical Patriarch. Shameful.
As for your constant insinuations or accusations that I’m a Jew, it’s just stupid and tiresome.
From a Christian perspective, Judaism is an outdated religion, having served its intended purpose in being the predecessor to Christianity. Continuing to practice Judaism, then, is like clinging to the eggshells of an already-hatched bird — not just useless but pathetic.
From a materialist perspective, Judaism is as false as any other religion, and has much to condemn it in terms of being a mere tribal religion.
Finally, clearly, the Jewish religious authorities in the Soviet Union (those that kept their lives and jobs) collaborated systematically as well, in a shameful contrast to the many stories in the Old Testament of those who died rather than give into pagans and other enemies. But the point of my post was solely about Christianity; whether Judaism was valid wasn’t even considered.
Ancient history no one listens too anymore. The US barely knows yesterday.
One of those funny moments…
I’ll take it upon myself to solve this seemingly intractable theological dilemma.
The blessings shall be appended for each homosexual party to simply say, yes, to the priest’s affirmation that the said same sex couples are “wicked sodomites, that will hopefully have their hearts changed, or come back for no more blessings.”
My understanding is EMJ also agrees, that when people start equivocating on usury, it’s time to stop equivocating, since it’s people trying to transgress the limits eventually.
It is not the priest’s job to perform an inquisition in this regard
Of course not!
1 Corinthians makes this completely clear yes? If people want to suffer and die that there’s business ultimately. We do believe that don’t we? That the one coming to the Communion table understands what St. Paul meant by the words:
For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.
So if you end up sick and dying in a hospital ward maybe be discerning enough to realize why and no i doubt repentance and confession at that point will help one any! As a believing Christian one should know better. But alas maybe the priest administering the communion wants to play God and be in control. I was once under a control freak like this and despised him because he thought me not smart enough to understand the plain teaching of St. Paul. So I returned the favor and left!
I’m not running some racket telling conservative or traditionalist Catholics what’s convenient or lucrative. Quite the contrary. When I say sedevacantism can’t be true, I’m not saying that to bludgeon sedevacantism-curious Catholics into line, into full communion with Rome. I’m saying something far harder to accept: that if the Pope and the church he leads aren’t really Catholic, then Catholicism was never true. That the Faith that inspired countless martyrs and saints, some of the most beautiful art in our civilization, that did enormous good, that in many ways is still at the heart of the West’s legacy, was just an elaborate, communal fantasy. That the enormous intellectual effort and spiritual reflection involved in the many schools of thought in Catholicism was as empty as the endless disputation between Hasidic debaters, schools of Buddhism, etc.
In case they delete all video evidence of what transpired, here’s a transcript of that segment of the debate for posterity’s sake.
Starting @ 2:09:45, Vincent James, of America First, put the following straightforward question to the Ultra-Orthodox Jew, Adam King:
If you had to get rid of one religion and it was Islam and Catholicism which one would you get rid of?
Adam King: Catholicism, duh!
Gavin McInnes (Adam King’s debate partner): What did you say?
Adam King: Catholicism.
Gavin McInnes: What?
Before King could finish responding, McInnes got up and left.
Yes, it is dangerous when too much power is concentrated at the top. Enemies of the faith need only to influence a few people, and the subversion trickles down to everyone. That’s why Jesus warned us about large ecclesiastical institutions. He said, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
Daily prayer, fasting, good deeds, and temperance is not easy. Roman Catholicism is one of the wide gates and broad paths. While the buildings, rituals, and garments are very alluring, by allowing the Church to do all the hard work of salvation for us, this way leads to ruin. The strait and narrow path that leads to life is when we take responsibility for our own salvation and follow Jesus Christ without the hierarchical structure.
Palmm,
What I forgot to add is Sayers’ comment on absolution: “Contrition is necessary if the absolution be valid; but a man cannot be contrite for a sin at the same time that he is intending to commit it,. . .therefore the absolution obtained in these circumstances is invalid.”
I do believe we’re talking about eternal life and the saving of souls here, tho’ that’s so unmodern, and the Usurers and Sodomites join the larger group of Frauds, who are condemned to the deepest part of Hell, which is also unmodern.
“Usury cannot be reformed or palliated,” says Hoffman. Catholics have been absolved “of the desperate need to study the actual history of the subversion of the Church, which was perpetrated, then as now, by Churchmen themselves. Only when Catholics take an axe to the root of the evil existing in their own ecclesia, rather than imagining that the root lies elsewhere, can they advance the restoration of the original and authentic Catholic teaching on interest on money, and seriously impede the financial monster now plaguing humanity.” p. 42, “Usury in Christendom “.
By the way, I think the 2nd target of Israeli bombs on Gaza in early October was the Islamic Bank, for which usury is outlawed.
“…these false religions, based upon imposed fear, will accelerate in their dissolution.”
Let’s hope acceleration is swift for Scientism, the most dangerous of the false religions.
Several years ago, I was invited to a faux “wedding” for a faux “marriage” between two gay perverts…hoping to be faux “husbands”.
Naturally and appropriately, I happily declined the invitation to witness such vile, deviant, degenerate perversion.
“EMJ is an extraordinarily low-value intellekshul”
s’truth. It’s a special kind of stupid to assert, as EMJ does, that the problem with the Jews is “Judaism” and ideas derived thereform. When if fact Judaism is simply an ideological artifact of genetic Jews.
I’ve known Russians who had family that lived under the Bolsheviks. They do not describe it as collaboration.
Even today, there are Turkish laws governing who is eligible to be the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Archbishop of America. Constantinople is held captive.
Are you familiar with the meaning of the word ‘collaborate’ as it is commonly used?
Also, for the record, I’ve never accused you of being Jewish. I compare you to Adam Sandler because he’s a comedian and you say some hilarious things.
I’m not running some racket telling conservative or traditionalist Catholics what’s convenient or lucrative.
No, but the arguments that we abandon belief in the Catholic Church if there’s an imposter in Rome, that sede vacante means the Church is defunct, these are bogus arguments playing on people’s scruples, put out by those who want money by playing the Pope question two ways. (decrying heresy while denying that heresy means loss of office). I do not accuse you of being financially interested. But many are influenced by those who are. Many “traditionalist” clergy would lose a large percentage of their income were they to endorse sede vacante.
that if the Pope and the church he leads aren’t really Catholic, then Catholicism was never true.
Anacletus II was in Rome with a “strong claim and title” to the Papal Office. And yet the Catholic Church does not accept him as having been a Pope. (although I can’t say what Bergoglio thinks about that) So how is it that his not being the Pope (despite possibly being Catholic, or possibly a crypto-Jew), despite being widely accepted as such, does not invalidate the institution of the Papacy? As a non-Pope in Rome he could have conceivably attempted to abolish the Church. (although Catholics of the time would not have tolerated it, because they had the power to prevent it and held the Faith whereas most modern people are more in line with the Christ denying views of Francis) So how does it follow from such potential actions that the Catholic religion would not be true if he could commit them?
St. Robert Bellarmine considers the possibility of the heretical Pope. Nowhere does he say: “and if this situation ever arose, we would have to give up our Faith in Christ and the Catholic Church, because there’s no solution”
https://ia803400.us.archive.org/19/items/de-romano-pontifice-saint-robert/De%20Romano%20Pontifice%20Saint%20Robert.pdf
Catholic doctrine is that if the Pope isn’t Catholic he isn’t the Pope. That isn’t circular. As Catholics we are able to know what Catholic teaching is, and what heresy is ( it is the willful departure from that teaching). We have the Doctors of the Church, and the history of the Church. And it is not possible for a man to have the authority to abolish the Church or corrupt its doctrines. This notion that by the very fact some or even most Catholics recognize Bergoglio as Pope, that therefore there can be no Church if he is not legitimate, is simply baseless.
To say that if an imposter is “accepted” then this proves there is no reliable way to know who is Pope and who is not, well, not according to St. Bernard and St. Norbert. They did not say “Anacletus has won, we must accept him, otherwise, Catholicism is a mirage, a myth!”
These arguments against sede vacante really say that the existence of a false Pope or anti-Pope installed by the enemies of the Church in Rome nullifies the Catholic Faith.
So to disprove Catholicism, the Jews around Obama and the other globalist directors only had to browbeat Benedict into a forced resignation, ensure the election of Francis as a Counter-Pope and POOF Catholicism goes up in smoke? You see I just don’t see this as a good-faith Catholic view. I think it’s the view of people who are looking to ditch Catholicism and aren’t willing to admit that Catholics could lose the Vatican or most Catholics could defect into following a heresiarch. (and the main reason the traditionalists do is because they are told there is no option but to accept Francis!)
If Bergoglio is not Pope all it means is that the legitimate clergy were bullied out of Rome and an invalid election with the intention of ratifying an Anti-Christian imposter was held. That’s all it means. One cannot reason from that that the teachings of the Church are not valid or “just a mirage.” And to take that invalid line of reasoning would anyway be to reject the Faith. We have Christ’s promises to the Church. Christ promised us Shepherds, not wolves. If we have Faith then Bergoglio being in Rome is not really a problem.
During the times of the Roman persecution there extended periods without a Pope.
We cannot very well expect there to be a legitimate Pope if the powers if the Anti-Christian powers in the world have established a counter-Papacy and prevent a legitimate restoration.
No, the “union” is the opposite of sexual.
You obviously don’t know much about Protestants. Some of them embraced gay marriage and female priests. Some of them did not. My church does not accept gay marriage or female priests. I have talked to people that belong to a church that does accept such things but they claimed their congregation does not accept it. I would say that many Christians are at odds with what their leaders are doing. When making comments such as yours you should specify whether you mean the Church organization, the doctrine or the beliefs of the members. Just as many Catholics don’t accept everything the Pope is doing, many Protestants don’t accept what their leaders are doing. Hope for the world can only be found by good people doing what is right no matter what those in power say they should do. The Light of Christ will guide all good people if they heed that Light.
You’re saying Jews would still exist as distinct and exclusive ethno-religious group without their religion/ideology?
Ecclesiastical acceptance of sodomy has a secret inner issue, of shirking of the responsibility to protect children’s innocence, because each life of sodomy begins with the rape of a child; and so, each act of sodomy is the replay of that first act of rape. (Specialist on the effect of divorce upon children, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead notes the lack of distinction between violent and statutory rape: the younger the age of sexual initiation, the more likely force is employed by the aggressor; now we hear that the display of pornography by older children against younger is a de facto means of grooming and involuntary sexual initiation.)
The author’s expertise in ecclesiastical infidelity in “Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not” has implications for charity: There was once the presumption of the obligation to give economic support, albeit not necessarily in money, to one’s poorer brethren, that was overthrown in the unleashing of usury, so that the “betters” of the poor became their officially sanctioned exploiters. And the expectation that those even of modest means will be expected to engage in philanthropy is undercut by taxation and income redistribution as involuntary “philanthropy”.
So with social security, as shown by Hillsdale Professor Emeritus Paul A. Rahe as an abandonment of adult children’s duty to support their aged parents, institutionalized in the Administrative Entitlement State. While Monsignor John A. Ryan opposed Federal attempts in the 1920s to institute contraception programs targeted at the poor and minorities, his support of social security is considered to have contributed in this way to breakup of the family.
The dominance of the Administrative Entitlement State’s effects became most pronounced during LBJ’s “Great Society”, when “we’re not setting up welfare to pay minority women to have illegitimate children” was given lie by the discouragement of self-reliance of former entrepreneurs, the archetypal Fred Sanfords of “Sanford and Sons” junk business, and the ejection of fathers from Black families; whereas, during the great depression, there was a higher rate of intactness of biological families with the father in the home by African-Americans than among European-Americans. (Fred Woodson Sr., 50th Anniversary Symposium on the Kerner Report of the 1967 race riots, Heritage Foundation.) “Papa Was a Rolling Stone” as the agonized anthem of generations of Black neighborhoods at the mercy of fatherless young men was not possible before this governmental and non-profit foundation interference in the self-determination of a whole people.
EMJ is an errand-boy for an imposter “Pope”
I disagree, usury is palliated/reformed through bankruptcy law (usurers get hosed) and “security conversion.” (that guy you lended money to? he’s your business partner now! surprise!).
The only difference between debt and shares is time, really, so you convert a debt to a share, this is the way most Islamic banks reform/palliate usury. Is this all legal subversion? It could be, trying to avoid the “spirit of the law.” Another step is “non-profit,” or banning shareholders altogether. “Charities” are rife with corruption, so it’s why “productivity” is used as a measure.
I cannot disagree, except to say that 99.99% of men seem to “need” sex in the most desperate way and if they becomes priests out of a sincere calling to do so, but cannot have a wife, they will start looking at the altar boys and the kids in catechism class. Some of these priests do go after young girls.
Otherwise, you are right in what you say, but we don’t know if they were homeaux prior to entering the priesthood or not.
Who were the Jesuits to whom the current Pope Francis belongs?
They are one of the notorious papal monastic orders founded by the Spaniard Ignacio Loyola in the sixteenth century, with the motto, “Ad maiorem Dei gloriam” (“For the greater glory of God”). The main goal of the work was the restoration of Roman Catholicism, threatened by the Protestant Reformation. For this purpose, Loyola set absolute obedience to the Pope and the spirit of papism as the basic principle of the order (although, in fact, the order had a great influence on the popes and was a kind of “church within a church”). A Jesuit, by order of higher authorities, could be sent anywhere and at any time to preach; he, as Loyola claims, had to consider that white is black, and vice versa, to recognize the authority of a wordless animal over himself, if God “appointed” him as an elder.
The Jesuits spread very quickly throughout Western Europe. By establishing many secondary and higher schools, they greatly influenced the development of the European intelligentsia; trying to dominate people’s consciences through their confessions, they managed to gain sympathy in a short time. Also, they were allowed to lie and do other similar things, which should serve “for the greater glory of God”. Since they proved to be unscrupulous in the realization of their intentions and characterless in their supposed pleasing to God, the saying “the end justifies the means” was attributed to them, and to tell someone that they were a “Jesuit” meant to tell them that they were hypocrites and scoundrels, masked by the face of humanity.
The Jesuits got involved in the work of the Inquisition, and with fire and sword they tried to spread papism in North and South America, among the local Indian population. The Pope gave them the right to sell indulgences (forgiveness of sins), which they used abundantly, so people who helped materially were given the order of forgiveness of all sins twice – once during life and once upon death.
Usury and Sodomy are both contra natutum.
Its Apostasy plain and simple, like a Priest showing up to give last rites to a sick person, but instead blesses the desease that is killing the patient. He has turned away from our faith.
This popes closet is full of sins anyway, Apostasy was predicted in Revelations and many other sections of The Book as being done by the anti christ, whose role this pos is fulfilling.
And Wrong running this garbage rebuttal on the day his peeps are condemend at the Hague for the murdering genocidal scumbags and cowards they are is no surprise for the king of cut outs!!!
Jesus said apostasy would precede the Day of The Lord. 2Thessalonians 2:2
St Malachy predicted the last Pope would be called Peter the Roman, the current popes dad is Peter from Rome.
And no surprise the Lawyer for S Africa today was an Irishwoman who ran the Bloody Sunday Enquiry had the Brits finally admit to murdering innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday in Derry 72.
I love Unz. Not a sexual thing, but not a non sexual thing.
So Hofman vs Jones. Um who’s the dick?
Obviously no one. These guys are intellectual alphas.,
So, what are we to believe?
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=fQKf6rVpVq4&si=_BQQxa9CspdNrFkH
… The Council of Trent legalized the confiscation of property from non-Catholics. By the 14th c. the Catholic Church had thoroughly cleansed Orthodoxy in Western Europe and England, and those Orthodox are today known under the disguised names of “Patarens” as the half-believers called the Orthodox. In the 15th c. a new goal was set, the denationalization and Catholicization of Serbs and Russians, which continues to this day, and has various forms.
Concerning the sins of usury and homosexuality:
Aside from friends, family and philanthropists, why would anyone
loan money without making a profit, and not taking into account
the chance that the loan may not be repaid?
Sexual desire is hard-wired, virtually impossible to change and
only a few are capable of true celibacy of thought and acts.
Attempts by the Church to grade homosexuals on their degree
of repentance are laughable.
I’m new to the usury debate because I never really cared for it. So no doubt there are gaps in my knowledge. More dubious is that I have any knowledge at all on the topic. That said, as someone who just fell off the turnip truck, if I had to bet $100 I’d bet that “usury” actually means “compound interest”. Just like “name a thing, there’s porn about it”, “name a term and it can be used to gore Jews.” It even extends to punctuation like (((faggots who think this is clever))). Personally I’d rather not pay compound interest but I find myself involuntarily as if under some compulsion voluntarily entering into contracts to pay compound interest. Those damn’ed Jews! (((!))).
3000 words of sectarian Yahwehism minutiae.
Yikes!
I can take or leave Bishop Barron, but EMJ has lost his fastball. I would thank Hoffman for doing Unz readers a service in exposing this, but EMJ’s article was sufficient for that purpose.
Jesus did not write Deutero-Thessalonians, and there exist excellent arguments that neither did Paul.
The Church’s teaching on marriage? Who cares about some pedo-Pope and his homosexual underlings teachings on marriage? I sure as hell don’t. The frauds in their holy robes violate every decency imaginable, and now they endorse globohomo, no surprise because they have always been sellouts. The current pedo-Pope is probably being blackmailed like all the rest. The Vatican is a house of sin, not qualified to lecture anyone on morality. The Vatican is loyal to power and money, and couldn’t care less about morality, and the proof is the endorsement of homosexual marriage. They mock themselves and their own history and Bible teachings.
Let’s be clear about all of this religious stuff. There is not one lick of proof of God, Jesus, resurrection, sin, judgment, afterlife, heaven, hell or even your soul. No god judges us, no god cares what we do, no god gave us any commandments. People care, if you violate rules then you can be judged by humans in a human court. Heaven has nothing to do with how we behave. If you want to be a Jew and commit genocide, you can, and no god will ever stop you. You can even be Pope, murder, kill, rape, and no god even cares.
No apostles either, the 12 houses of the Zodiac are not real people, the NT is heavily based in astrotheology. The 12 apostles is just as fake as the 12 tribes of Israel. Neither existed. Abraham never existed, neither did Saul, Solomon, or King David. The holy Bible is greatest literary hoax of all time, yet here we are in 2024 still arguing about dogma. Why? The story is not real and the rules arbitrary, changing with the latest ethos of the day. Homos in vogue, homos despised, pick a century.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are all pen names for the Roman court writers who wrote the NT. The apostles all fiction too. The primary author of the New Testament is Josephus, a Jew who used his own name to create the Jesus character:
J o S E p h U S = J E S U S
No one can walk on water, make the blind see by magic, raise the dead, or raise themselves from the dead, When you are dead, you are dead, no amount of belief in some magic god man is going to change that fact. There is not one piece of evidence that humans survive death in some form and go to another life. No matter how much you believe, or even if you have perfect faith without doubt, you get the same ending, death. And there is nothing you can do or believe to change that. This promise of afterlife is the biggest scam of all time.
I was raised Catholic myself, I was an altar boy for 6 years, attended Catholic schools for 12 years, I went to mass every Sunday, my parents to this day are still devout believers. But when my mind evolved and matured, it became obvious that religion is a hold over superstition from older pre-scientific times – when men had superstitious ideas about how the Universe worked. Science triumphed over the angry sky god and his tortured son on the cross. Christianity is a death defying cult, it is not true, none of it, no one survives death, and if you care to read ‘Caesar’s Messiah’ Joseph Atwill PROVES that Jesus never existed.
https://www.youtube.com/@caesarsmessiah
If I work hard, live modestly and put some cash aside, why should I lend it to anyone at all, including a neighbor, charity or even a never-do-well relative, without charging interest? The paying of interest is a sign of appreciation.
“Usury” & “interest” are terms which AFAIK have not been agreed upon. I think that most credit cards rate of interest are excessive but then I don’t have to have a card or buy on credit.
The problem of acceptable rates arises only with central banks lending to govt. Or is that an oversimplification? Over to you…
OT (well, sort of).
This video is a perfect example of why Identity Politics was created in the first place, to help Supremacy Inc. destroy each and every part of Western Civilization.
In this case the Catholic church.
Put bluntly, Jews hide behind Identity Politics so as to attack whites, the West, etc. etc.
Infiltration, subversion, destruction and death, might be methods of acquiring power, but not for sustaining it. That would explain why everything they control is falling apart.
The “Great Society” was a disaster, ill-conceived and poorly executed as was almost
everything done by Lyndon Johnson.
The cause(s) of homosexuality is still disputed but I would tend to disagree with
“each life of sodomy begins with the rape of a child.” Some years ago I worked with
psychologists and psychiatrists in the treatment of teen boys who had been
committed to state care, mostly for violence, and including a variety of sexual crimes.
A number of the teens had sexually assaulted younger boys, and as you suggest , it was
documented that a few of the boys had themselves been sodomized when younger.
When asked about the cause of homosexuality an eminent local psychiatrist told me,
(paraphrase): Homosexuals are looking for love and acceptance, just like everyone else.
Somehow, they got their wires crossed and they can only receive that love from a man.
We used to think that their fathers rejected them, and they are still seeking his love,
but that’s not always the case since often the fathers rejected them only after becoming
aware that the sons were gay.
And, then there is the theory that they identified with their mothers, and that seems to
have some validity when applied to the more effeminate homosexuals, who look for
relationships with dominant, “masculine” gay men.
In the age of consumerism, the idea of living modestly is an anachronism,
and there is a blithe ignorance about things that could go wrong. Not to be
overly pessimistic, but it is prudent to consider the worst case scenario of
health, employment, accidents and finances. Those who don’t will have to
borrow money, if they can, and will have to pay the going interest rate,
without usury protection by the Church.
”In fact, the admonition is part of the blessing”.
That can be correct, traditionally, in hindsight.
But in the process, the admonition to repent must come first.
Then, if repentance has come, then and firstly then, the blessing can be given!
And what is blessed? The continuance of sodomy?No!
The blessing is to the repentance, which is the intention not to practise sodomy.
The FS, it seems, is making a soup of a traditional concept.
It is unnecessary and in this confusion of due process, evil.
On the Jesuits:
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) lost his mother when he was 14 months old. At the age of ten, the frail, brainy, impressionable boy was enrolled by his father in the new Jesuit college founded by Henry IV at La Fleche (France). (The Jesuits having been founded 56 years previously.)
Because of his frail health and precociousness, he was given into the care of one Father who kept the boy with him in his room and focused special attention on him.
You may draw your conclusions given church history.
And thank Descartes for giving us the most tremendously reductionist, materialistic scientific “philosophy” in western history.
Did he win his very real battle with demons? We are certainly brainwashed with Cartesian straightline thinking, to our own ruin it would seem.
Just saying.
Not that EMJ will argue, but Hoffman picked the worst time in history to deploy this dig. Sure, it’s easy to grasp. Like the 59 other harpoons of falsehood driven into me and hanging from my ribs.
After the 2020 summer of Burn Loot and Mayhem — instigated by MSM lying about the George Floyd overdose tragedy — and still during the Covid 19 hype, lockdowns, mass censorship, and vaccine mandates, JP and Joe Biden have the audacity to tell the world ~”the greatest terrorist threat to this country is White supremacy”. Again and again they pound this serrated wedge, issuing this blank check to all who would cash it, and declare war on all people and things of European ancestry.
Of course Francis should come out and say “Yo, JP Joe, White Lives Matter, Catholic or not! We did not share this universalist faith with the entire human race only to be pushed into the dog house.”
Once, as a token of my great admiration of your work, I sent you a copy of a wonderful book about the life of Jesus, He Was One of Us, beautifully illustrated by Rien Poortvliet. When asked if you received it, you replied you had given it away = tossed it… Well do I know how you are the master of how to slap the face.
Moving on. Perhaps yours is the better argument in this case with EMJ. Certainly your concern about the evil of usury deserved much broader discussion. But where is the fleck of grace on your part? I could not locate it. For several years now I have been wondering what do Michael Hoffman and E. Michael Jones think of each other? They are both outspoken Christian authors who seem to have a lot in common. I wanted to believe you two would get along famously. And now this…
No surprise. But the disappointment is great indeed. You two have just been demoted down to captains. Of course Archbishop Vigano remains THE DEAN. Follow his lead.
Thanks, I will look into that, the fact that not all homosexuality is occasioned by rape.
(My Mother grew up in Fairhope, Gulf Shores.)
Where Hoffman and Michael Jones agree is their undying love for Islamists, Palestinians, and neo-Soviet Eurasianists like Vladimir Putin. They are just throwing love jabs at each other.
Sounds like something a jew would say.
Many summers, my family rented a house on the beach at Fairhope,
and a cousin owns a house on the Bon Secour River. Beautiful area.
I know a family which has three “out” homosexuals, in two
generations. That would seem to suggest a genetic component.
Another psychiatrist thought there was an unusually strong
association between homosexuality and alcoholism, but without
implying that one caused the other.
Some marriage counselors believe that latent homosexuality is a
fairly common underlying cause of marital discord. That would
appear to be a no-brainer, but since the subject is repressing or
suppressing his or her actual sexual identity, it takes a very skilled
and experienced therapist to manage such a sensitive issue.
Jew domination to the point of practical ownership of governments of the West is all based on their overwhelming wealth gained via Jew u$ury.
Jesus came to void Jew u$ury and did so in His first recorded public statement, Luke 4:16-30.
Michael Hudson persuades that to the ancients “usury” meant “interest” whether simple or compound.
So the accuracy of the quote above explains why the Jews were happy with Jesus’ reading of Isaiah 61 until he explained it applied to (((their))) loans extended to the goyim as well.
https://www.unz.com/article/a-2000-year-old-rabbinical-psyop-did-jews-invent-christianity-to-deceive-gentiles/?showcomments#comment-6258407
Amazing that this is a subject in 2024 – and doubly ironic when E Michael Jones looks as if he has been rimming without mouthwash for decades.
It is regularly the case that women collaborate with their rapist.
Martyrdom is also a form of collaboration, though. It is also regularly true that homicide victims collaborate with their murderer. E.g. in America, almost every homicide victim wasn’t carrying a gun. They just let themselves get killed.
When you’re dead you can’t continue to fight.
Despotisms such as the USSR or USSA are weak. You don’t even need to fight. Even pacifists like the Amish can repel their blandishments.
If you are affected by the Empire of Lies, it is through your active collaboration.
Ah, time for a song
Hoffmans mealy mouthed prose is almost unreadable…it’s like sloughing through a vat of porridge..no doubt due to his academic pretensions.. and inability to form a coherent sentence…
It’s good to see these Catholics slugging it out though…trying to rationalise the irrational nonsense they choose to ‘Believe’…
Of course ‘belief’ is for imbeciles.. posited on the needs of the immature psyche and often mistaken for ahem..faith..
..because of course Wisdom is the real goal.. which of course will never be attained with all this jewish Yawee nonsense…which was cobbled together as a form of ‘identity politics’ for criminals..way back when..
and Who of course was a Fire Demon commonly worshiped by many goat herders in the diddle east…
and still is…
..Many of them Poofters and cross dressers… and many still are… you could say it defines them..
By the way the donation of constantine was an accepted forgery..
Admonition isn’t correction or reproach. I can admonish them to go forth and be gay disco fanatics.
Blessing is blessing, it has nothing to do with admonition or correction or reproach. It’s reward, aid, request for divine aid, or prayer.
There is no “situation”. There are no children, there is no pregnancy, there is no confusion “I didn’t know he was already married”, and the cost of a separate apartment is not a real obstacle, it’s an excuse to pretend they’re continuing to do what they’re doing because of finances. With housing, if you care you quickly find a way. The only “situation” is that they have no intention of stopping the sinning, and want their mockery unions blessed by real priests.
If they want a blessing to stop sinning, let them come separately from each other rather than exemplifying their disrespect. There’s no blessing to be had for a couple that neither does nor can exist.
Having read and summarized Vix Pervenit repeatedly, it has what would be called “flat rate interest” as a foregone conclusion, otherwise it wouldn’t mention that people “nearly always” make a profit off of loaning money.
I don’t care what name they want to call the rose by. Requiring more than you lent in recompense is usury. I don’t care if you have a loan contract for it or not, lending is lending no matter what you contract it as. I also don’t care if you’re going to claim that the loan has an interest-free contract… that you only offer as a bundle with another contract or contracts(“in parallel”) which have a fee or fees attached. It’s all still usury no matter what kind of fa****ry you try to hide it behind.
Legitimizing usury because the church failed at some point to keep it out of society doesn’t make the church competitive, it only chains that church to the wheel, to be ground to paste as it turns through the generations.
At best, Vix Pervenit is legal advice. At worst it’s a rationalization and pointed ignoring of ongoing sins. It does not uphold the Church tradition, rather it snubs its nose at it while paying lip service to the words.
Oh, and hillaire? Pretending you believe nothing when you simultaneously don’t understand what the word believe means, and don’t even acknowledge the entire array of things you believe, is not a product of a “mature psyche”. It’s a product of a pathological liar and/or ignoramus.
F. Dostoevsky:
( ) … Roman Catholicism also made bigger turns: once, when it proved necessary, without thinking much, Catholicism also sold Christ for glory and power on Earth. Proclaiming, in the form of dogma, that “Christianity on Earth cannot be maintained without papal secular authority”, he thus proclaimed a new Christ who has nothing to do with the earlier one; he proclaimed a Christ who accepted the temptation of the devil’s third temptation – the earthly kingdom: ” Everything will be Yours if you bow to me!”
Oh, I listened to passionate objections to this thought; they objected to me that the faith and the image of Christ are still alive today in the hearts of millions of Catholics in all their former truth and purity. That is undoubtedly true, but the primary source is clouded and poisoned irreversibly. Among other things, Rome has quite recently declared that it agrees with the third temptation of the devil in the form of a firm dogma, and we have not yet been able to see all the immediate consequences of such a decision. Interestingly, the declaration of that dogma, that revelation of the “whole secret”, was made at the very moment when a united Italy was already knocking on Rome’s door. Many of us laughed at that at the time: “He’s angry, but he’s not powerful…” Only, it’s unlikely that he’s not powerful. No, people like this, people capable of making decisions like this and making such changes, do not die without a fight…
There was always a secret: for centuries, the pope gave the impression that he was satisfied with his tiny empire, the papal domain, but it was all just an allegory – the basic point is that in that allegory, the seed of the basic idea has always been hidden, that constant and centuries-old papal hope that that seed will germinate and that a powerful tree will grow from it, whose branches will in the future cover the entire Earth with its shadow. And here, at the moment when the last inch of his earthly empire is taken away from him, the head of Catholicism, seeing his imminent death, suddenly stands up and tells the whole truth about himself in front of the whole world: “You thought, didn’t you, that I would be content only with the title of lord Papal States?
Know that I have always considered myself the master of the whole world, the master of all earthly kings, and not just a spiritual master, but a true one – I have always been a true master, ruler and emperor. I am the king of kings, the lord of rulers; all human destinies, times, and days belong to me alone on earth, and here, I announce it to the whole world through the dogma of my infallibility.” No, that is force, that is imposing, and not ridiculous – it is a revival of the ancient idea of world unity and world dominion, which was never dead in Roman Catholicism; it is the Rome of Julian the Apostate, but not the defeated one, but the one who defeated Christ in the new and last battle. This is how the real Christ was sold for the earthly kingdom. (…)”
(March 1876, Fyodor Mihajlovič Dostoevsky, “V Dead power and power of the future”, pp. 103-104)
We consider the papal ‘Non-possumus’ so serious that we believe that the life and death of religion itself in Europe depends on it. (…) The Roman church declared it loudly, thus admitting that its kingdom is of this world and that Christ “cannot be maintained in the world without an earthly kingdom”. (…) However, the Catholic Church will never give up that power for anything in the world, nor will it leave it to anyone: it is ready for Christianity to collapse completely if only to preserve its secular power. (…)”
(January 7, 1874, p. 275)
The FS is a completely unnecessary document, and as such only a step downhill, and in itself confusing and thus evil.
Preach firstly the Law, then the Gospel.
It is all that simple.
Very nice, thanks.
“The “truths” of this “perennial wisdom” [to say it in a poor paraphrase, the talmudic texts of “the eternal pagan psychodrama” against God] are almost always conveyed gradually to a privileged elite, under secrecy. [you could think Grand Inquisitor here]…This is the conceptual foundation of virtually all occult organizations and secret societies in the West, and of the syncretic theology which
Rest of the comment!!!
“Syncretic theology which has clandestinely ruled the papacy with an iron hand inside a velvet glove since the late fifteenth century.” Hoffman, p. 105, Occult Renaissance Church of Rome.
Dostoevsky: Demons lies are copied [inversion] from sacred truths and introduce a dreadful buffoonery into the world.
A reminder that Michael Hoffman promotes the idea that ‘Nazis’ and ‘Zionists’ were not in fact, as they seem, Jews and manifestations of ascendent Judaism’s messianic plans – but were rather, in spite of all evidence, a plot by invisible Secret Aryan Ascended-Masters of Occult Theosophy.
And that therefore naive Jews are the real victims here.
…very much appreciate Mr. Hoffman’s fine research – but want to point out something very interesting he referenced in this piece, that the “The Code of Canon Law of 1917 compiled on the watch of Pope Saint Pius X (though published after his death)…” – the suspicious death of whom, has been relegated to ’conspiracy nuts’, but now seems that Hoffman may have supplied a motive for his untimely passing, particularly ’if’ Pius X was to promulgate or rescind previous ambiguous/contrary teachings on usury.
p.s. – keep up the great works and thanks again
Re: Pope Pius X:
To amplify the quote I gave above from p. 105 of Occult Renaissance Church—
“The god of what was officially condemned by the sadly compromised Pope Pius X as “modernism” in his 1907 encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, held dominion over his predecessors for 400 years. About this fact he said nothing. His concealment in itself constituted the crime of misprision.”
What we “know” has been so crudely diminished and misdirected, I’m sad to say, by legions of our spiritual fathers. I recommend Rene Guenon, “The Crisis of Modernity”.
Grazie sempre a M. Hoffman
Kali Yuga= Pagan BS….Hindu “gods” – people like you pretend to be geniuses, believe that you are in you’re own mind, when in fact you pimp lunacy
Very perspicacious of you Mr Odyssey…and I trust you have.. Many good men had noted the ruse in the 19th century..
One can only wonder at these Jesuit moles burrowing through the ruins of West..
and take note..
Re songs and rituals:
Isaiah 1:11-19: ” … Bring no more vain oblations. Incense is an abomination unto me. The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies; I cannot, away with it. It is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth. They are a trouble unto me, I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you. Yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean, and put away the evil of your doings before mine eyes. Cease to do evil. Learn to do well. Seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord … ”
Micah 6:8: “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good. And what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”
References to Hindu concepts should be used sparingly. First, it is absolutely not the ancient religion it claims to be : it took a recognizable form long after the Muslim invasions, that were later on to form the reference corpus for the New Age movementm about the 15th century. What there was before has but disappeared except regionally and not availably to tourists. The older Shiva religion was a kind of Medieval Catholicism more or less. Moreover modern Hinduism is together with Judaism the other great usury-extolling religion of the world : the present-day doctrine of karma is but a banking system projected on the supernatural realm. The Brahmanical scholars are compulsive disinformers by religious duty. The doctrine of yugas with its official dates is something that came very late when the Brahminical caste, which up to then had left decimal arithmetic to the merchant caste and had considered numbers above 1000 unworthy of a spiritual person’s attention, took up all the profitable intellectual trades such as accounting and started adding a lots of zeroes to the numbers given in the sacred legends. The West’s interest for India is something contrived by Kabbalistic Jews so as to teach college-goers some Kabbalistic concepts useful to make them malleable without opening them the gates of Jewry proper.