.

.

Friday, November 30, 2007

"Hebrew Catholics" see: Khazar Talmudists

First, let me make clear that I do not use the ethnic term, "Khazar" in a derogatory way as I've seen others do quite often. I use the term because it is accurate. Moss, Barrack, Schoeman, et al, shouldn't feel the slightest bit of shame in accepting their true ethnic identity. It is neither better or worse than Italian, Irish, German, Arab, etc., ethnicity. But "Khazar-Catholic" doesn't garner quite the prestige, nor does it offer the great potential for mischief that "Hebrew-Catholic" does, and there lies the crux of the matter.

Let's look at one example of such mischief from "Hebrew Catholic," Marty Barrack:

Rabbi Yeshua spoke and taught from a background deeply imbued with the Halakha, the whole body of Jewish law embracing both the written (Torah) and oral (Talmud) traditions.

He told Thomas, Jn 14:6 “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” Halakha means, “the way,” as on a pilgrim journey.

Literally, halakha comes from the Hebrew root HLCH, which means “walk.” It derives from halakh, “he walked,” which refers to Moses and later Yeshua leading us on a pilgrim journey to the promised land. It applies the Written and Oral Torah, the Talmud, and the rabbinic legislation and commentaries to every aspect of Jewish life. Rabbi Yeshua said, “I am the Halakha.” [parenthesis in original]

http://secondexodus.com/html/basics/centralapostolate.htm


Marty Barrack is babbling dementia here. Jesus Christ did not teach from the talmudic tradition. Jesus spoke as one with authority, the Word Incarnate, often quoting the biblical scripture which He authored. Christ condemned the man-made talmudic tradition repeatedly throughout the Gospels as the tradition of the elders which makes void the Word of God. Mr. Barrack is dragging his anti-biblical talmudic baggage with him into the Catholic fold and attempting to baptize a diabolical conjunction of opposites. But all the holy water in the world cannot sanctify what Christ Himself condemned.

Perhaps Barrack shouldn't be criticized too harshly when such luminaries as Alice von Hildebrand and high church prelates gush over "Jewish converts" of this type, bending over backwards to sponsor them and their Judaizing books, conferences and parish seders. The one Catholic writer who did speak against this outrage, other than Michael A. Hoffman in his pamphlet, The Role of the Merchants of Venom, Robert Sungenis, recently abandoned the example of Christ and the Apostles and censored himself in obedience to the demands of his Judaizing bishop, Kevin C. Rhoades, a preacher of the theology of mythical Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers.

Enough from me then:

The ... Jews ... omitting or scorning the Mosaic law and the prophets, follow certain traditions of their seniors concerning which the Lord rebukes them in the Gospel, saying: Why do you transgress the mandate of God and irritate Him by your traditions, teaching human doctrines and mandates? [Matthew 15;9]

Upon this sort of traditions, which in Hebrew are called the Talmud--and there is a great book among them exceeding the text of the Bible in length, in which are manifest blasphemies against God and Christ and the blessed Virgin, intricate fables, erroneous abuses, and unheard-of stupidities--they nourish and teach their sons and render them utterly alien from the doctrine of the law and the prophets ... (Pope Innocent IV, May 9, 1244 Letter to King Louis IX of France)


Pope Innocent IV makes reference to the talmudic tradition that Marty Barrack is attempting to put in Christ's mouth; a tradition of erroneous abuses and unheard-of stupidities, which renders those who adhere to it utterly alien from the law and the prophets, the very tradition which Christ condemned with His mouth, as Innocent IV plainly states. But today's bamboozled Catholics are so charmed by these deluded Khazars, and taken by the notion that they have some kind of magical blood in their veins that they'd toss the entire Gospel to go along with the "Hebrew Catholic" charade. After all, these are "chosen people"! What a great prize for the Church!

What a joke!

Give up your pagan Talmud and Kabbalah--like my Celt ancestors gave up their pagan traditions--and come to the true Catholic faith. Give up your delusional "chosen people" myth and accept your true ethnicity. It's time that this farce was ended.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I visited Barrack's site several years ago, and I don't remember such statements. He must have come out of the closet with this heretical Talmud/Bible hybrid since that time. It just goes to show you, you can't trust a so-called Jewish convert unless he denounces the 'traditions of the elders' just like Christ and the apostles did.

Steve Dalton

Maurice Pinay said...

Dear Steve,

I'm familiar with your insights and I know where you're coming from, but it's the Catholic enablers of this madness that deserve the bulk of the scrutiny. And we can't fall into the trap of treating all Judaic converts with suspicion as that would confirm what the rabbis tell them about us. The rabbis tell them that we hate all "Jews" no matter what they do, even if they convert. There are true converts from Judaism to Catholicism, as you are well aware. We accept such people as our own.

However, when we see the telltale Judaic signs: extreme ethnic conceit, exclusiveness, baggage from the anti-biblical Judaic tradition, then it would be a mistake not to question the "conversion" of such a person. The history of such "converts" and the damage they cause is all too well known. Less known is the history of "Catholic" enablers of such "converts."

Anonymous said...

Maurice, I'm of Sephardic Marrano descent myself, so I know that there are sincere converts from the tribe. Incidently, I didn't know I was of Jewish origin until I started to look into my family's history by reading the stories of my ancestors and having DNA testing done to test my suspicions.

You are right about the Catholic enablers needing greater scrutiny than the 'converts'. If it wasn't for them, these false brethern wouldn't make any headway. After all, Christ warned us to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. One only has to read Acts 15, and Galatians to see how it worked.

Steve Dalton

Anonymous said...

If we compare some of the high profile jewish converts from the pre-vatican 2 church( Edith Stein, David Goldstein, Isreal Zoller) will that give an indication of where the trouble originates?

Anonymous said...

Dear Maurice,

A comment posted above brought up St. Edith Stein. Are Catholics to accept this canonization or is it rather another "intricate fable"? And such an investigation into this topic would be incomplete without also considering Dietrich von Hildebrand?

These philosophers above were both disciples of Husserl. And Michael A. Hoffman briefly discussed him in a recent newsletter analyzing Moses Hess-- Karl Marx's "rabbi".

So we've had it beaten into us that Dietrich von Hildebrand was a "lion of tradition" and "staunch defender" of the immemorial Latin Mass? And it certainly would appear this way on the surface to the casual observer.

But I wonder if there is more to the story considering the fact that alarm bells go off when von Hildebrand's philosophy of "phenomenological realism" comes up in discussion. Now I am quite handicapped in terms of ability to give any adequate treatment of his philosophy, but I do wonder if there may be something Kaballistic about it? Is my suspicions justified? At any rate, a serious exploration of him and St. Edith Stein seems justified.

Von Hildebrand does seem to distinguish his philosophy
from it's atheistic progenitor, one advocated by Husserl,
by calling it phenomenological realism. Through it he
seems to formulate the same logical conclusion of St.
Thomas Aquinas with possibility of "penetrating truth more deeply". At least that's what the late Dr. William Marra implied.

I once sought an expert opinion from a friend, I received the following:

"I believe it is true to say that Thomists emphasize being, esse, as the central reality to be
studied in philosophy, with metaphysics (ontology), the study of being as being, therefore being the central branch of philosophy and the branch on which all the other branches (including ethics) depend. Von Hildebrandian Phenomenologists emphasize "the dignity of the human person" and "reverence for the human person." I think that being is not considered to be the central study in their school. In fact, one may hear it stated that in Phenomenology, being is "bracketed." It may be claimed that some sort of "intuition" is necessary to truly appreciate the Von Hildebrandian position. I believe that one would have to admit that Von Hildebrandian Phenomenology appears to be a more
"devout" philosophy than Thomism, but the more devout philosophy is not necessarily the more solidly
grounded in reality. Back in the late 15th century, Nominalism appeared to be more devout than Thomism, yet Nominalism laid a philosophical groundwork for
Luther's thought."

So the question is could phenomenological realism be a
pious philosophical deception just as nominalism was in Medieval times? Furthermore, could there be a Kaballistic plot at work here?

With these people and their work, do we see merely an enchantment with Judaism, or could they be working in the same vein as Malachi Martin?

It's difficult to unravel the truth here. Please help!

Thank you.

- a loyal reader

Maurice Pinay said...

I haven't investigated Edith Stein enough to have an educated opinion on her philosophy. I read some things about her a while back (I can't even recall where) that seemed to indicate cause for suspicion, but I never followed it up.

With Dietrich von Hildebrand I have a bit of familiarity. He has deconstructed dialectical reasoning in a way that is convincing to me (Trojan Horse in the City of God, Chapter 3 "Thesis-Antithesis"). Yet I do see what your colleague mentions in terms of "devoutness." So I read von Hildebrand carefully, yet, I haven't seen anything wrong with the limited material I've read. But I don't claim to be an expert philosopher, either. So take that as you will.

Alice von Hildebrand, on the other hand, has gone down a path of extreme confusion at least and treachery at worst. I don't know what has happened there, but it's causing great harm. May God have mercy on her and those that have been lead astray by her "Hebrew Catholic" tangent.

Anonymous said...

You are a Racist.

Anonymous said...

http://hebrewcatholic.org/AboutheAHC/AHCArticles/arejewishconvert.html

"Yes. Let me state the question as it has been asked of me: “Can I, a Jew, become a Christian without becoming a Gentile?”

" I already mentioned our primary aim that is focused on preserving the People Israel within the Church. With the establishment of a Hebrew Catholic Community, the other major aim will begin to develop, that is, restoring the heritage of Israel to the life of the Church."


Zionism and talmudism at its bests. It is basicallly another racist organization.

He probably became "catholic" without observing that:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

These words probably sound like a blasphemy to the likes of David Moss.

I don't know how organizations like these are allowed to exist.