Saturday, December 5, 2009

Benedict's Magick Zionist Crusader Hat

Updated with comments, Dec. 6.

... with 11 stones on each side. Note the Templar crosses.

Credit to for this find.

Original photo sources:

At a canonization of five saints, Oct, 11, 2009, Benedict wore a mitre bearing large hexagrams and 11 stones on each side. The hexagram 11, and 22 are highly significant in Kabbalah. They have no strong significance in Catholicism that I am aware of. Also, his pallium has 6 Templar crosses on it.

This taken by itself is interesting to me at most. If Benedict was an orthodox pope I might overlook this suspicious almalgam of symbols. But let's look at Benedict's fruits.

On his watch, the rightly blackened legacy of the Templars--a violent group of Zionist international bankers with occult religious practices--was rehabilitated HERE and HERE.

Benedict was the major player in the rehabilitation of the rightly blackened image of the Zionist state shortly after its savage 22 day-long rampage on Gaza HERE, HERE, HERE.

Benedict is, I think it's fair to say, a compulsive proponent of so-called 'dialogue,' a Kabbalistic sorcery utterly foreign to Catholicism also promoted by Kabbalists such as Rabbi Abraham Heschel and Martin Buber by which rabbanism has exalted itself over Christianity. Benedict has gone so far as to make 'dialogue' with 'the elder brothers' a religious mandate HERE.

His acts of approval of Kabbalist rabbis and their traditions are too many to list. He even gave a text written by the Kabbalist Jacob ben Asher the "Ba'al ha-Turim" (Master of the Pillars) as a gift during his NYC Passover Eve synagogue visit HERE.

These and the many, many other rotten fruits of Benedict XVI are far more troubling to me than some symbols on his vestments. But the fact that he does these things and also displays the relevant symbols is rather brazen. He's apparently attempting to sanctify these symbols by placing them in such a prominent place as a papal mitre during a canonization liturgy.

Also see:

Occultists to Absolve Themselves

Benedict's Hasbara Mission

Will Benedict's Pilgrimage Boost "Israel's" Image or Destroy His Own?

Pope's Speech to American Zionist Leaders, Feb. 12

Benedict Praises "Noahide Law" Commission

Benedict's Zionist Easter "Convert" Attempts Resuscitation of "Islamofascist Threat" for U.S. Presidential Election

Pope Benedict and Synod Rabbi: Like Yin and Yang

Scalia "Traditionalism"


Tony said...

Hi Maurice,

Are you a Sedevacantist? If not, why are you linking to a site run by one?

HallnOates said...

I wouldn't doubt for a second that the people who are behind making these vestments in Rome know exactly what they're doing. Bishop Fellay has mentioned the Scottish Rite in the Vatican:

I don't think that Benedict would know the significance of all the symbols with the exception of the hexagram and templar crosses. Well I think he would know what those 2 symbols are at least, but I don't think he cares about vestments that are integrally Catholic just like JP2 and Paul VI, so it should be no surprise he wears them. I would be surprised at least if he had actual knowledge and love for Lurrianic Kabbalism etc... I never heard him say the word 'Luria' at least.

That doesn't matter, though, as it has been shown that Benedict promotes the ideology and philosophy that underlies these symbols and ideologies/philosophies. Seeing the fruits, the wearing of such symbols should come as no surprise.

Taken together such symbols are an outward sign of inward spiritual, philosophical, and ideological corruption.

One day a future pope will repudiate the ideology, philosophy and the symbols.

HallnOates said...

Although, Benedict has of course mentioned and written of Martin Buber.

I mean to say that Benedict is not some hard-core occultist, but you don't have to be a hardcore occultist to cause massive devastation. If you are imbued with their philosophy and ideology, you can do even greater damage to the Church, and thereby the world, than being an actual card-carrying member of their (the Kabbalist/Talmudic/occultist) 'team'.

HallnOates said...

Likewise, St. Peter was not an actual pharisee and look at what he did to Christ. So too does Benedict to the Church.

Maurice Pinay said...

I'm not a sedevacantist. I'm giving credit to the person who first drew attention to this strange mitre.

Anonymous said...

Look, let's blast Benedict as and when needed in the substance of this thinking, but not with respect to the star of the Magi in Advent

Tony said...

Oh good, Maurice. I am glad to hear you're not a Sedevacantist.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that this was a prudent move on Benedict XVI's part regardless of his reason(s) for wearing it.

Maurice Pinay said...

Mr. Hand, forgive me for not knowing of this (alleged) Catholic hexagram/Advent tradition. Would you kindly point me in the direction of some documentation of it? And anyhow, why do you suggest Benedict would be marking Advent wearing gold on Oct. 11th?

Since Oct 12, 2007 the second week of October has become, rather, the liturgical season of Templar legacy rehabilitation.

Regardless of what his intent was in wearing a hexagram mitre, in 2009, the age in which Benedict did wear a hexagram mitre, the hexagram is fundamental to and practically proprietary to Judaism, Zionism, and 'The Holocaust.'

Do you deny that Benedict has created such an association between himself and the hexagram entities of Judaism, Zionism and 'The Holocaust' to the degree that it's almost unremarkable to see him wear large hexagrams on his head?

Indeed, the point is not the symbol but the ideology and the acts. When the hexagram has no substantial significance to Catholicism and Benedict is almost daily engaged in acts of hexagram-associated treachery, it seems to me a case of self-deception to take for granted that the hexagrams on his head are a manifestation of true Catholic devotion.

Anonymous said...

Prudence is another thing, perhaps. Typology and even semiotic analysis is always a precarious perch from which to conduct judgments. Sarah Palin and others raise the "diablo" ---or is it the signing "I love you" for the deaf?

One man sees a rose in a wall on a medieval church as "proof" of the Rosy Cross of the Rosicrucians (I tried to show this somewhat tongue-in-cheek in Luther's appropriation of the symbol to Lutherans and other Protestants in light of defense of his well-known Kabbalist Reuchlin).

Yet another sees JPII's open-aired chair with the upside down cross as proof in itself of the antichristic----or is it a symbol of Peter who was crucified upside down?

Another sees in the Obelisk in St. Peter's in Rome proof of the Vatican's ties to Horus and / or the ancient mystery religions---or was it a historical symbol of Christ's conquering paganism, it being the obelisk of the 13th century BC moved to Rome in AD 37 by the Emperor Caligula to stand in the central spina of the Circus Gai et Neronis, which lay to the left of the present basilica?

One could go on and on, ad nauseum. The moral? Exaggeration assists not our more substantive criticisms.

Anonymous said...

Re: Benedict Bethleham -David star on miter

"Amongst Christians, the pentagram has been used as a protective amulet, and has been used to represent the star of Bethlehem which appeared at the time of the birth of Jesus. It was also used by the Emperor Constantine, who is associated with the popularization of the cross as a seal.

"Artifacts containing the symbol of the Jerusalem Messianic Seal have been uncovered in Mount Zion and are said to date to the first or second century CE. This symbol combines three depictions: the menorah, a Jewish symbol; the Star of David; and the fish, a Christian symbol commonly used prior to the cross. It is believed that the Jerusalem Messianic Seal is the symbol of early Jewish-Christian churches, suggesting that the Star of David in its hexagram form could have been adopted by these early followers.

See Inlay work containing it decorating old chest at The Holy Monastery of St. Nicholas Anapausas (Μονή του Αγίου Νικολάου), Meteora, Greece


Contemporary Christian example at

Maurice Pinay said...

Mr. Hand, it's strange, but unfortunately not uncommon to receive a lecture on interpretation from a person who comments on matters they haven't read closely, if at all.

Since you haven't retracted, I take it you still (mis)interpret the hexagrams on the mitre that Benedict wore on Oct 11, 2009 as marking Advent, even though Advent was not to begin until 7 weeks later.

Stranger yet is your citation of "The Jesus Tomb" website as a source on your strange hexagram (and now pentagram) theory of Advent. Are you aware that the major thesis of the website that you cited in support of your thesis is that Jesus didn't rise from the dead? Did you even read the website that you cited?

I have written on Simcha Jacobovici, the force behind "The Jesus Tomb" here:

Michael Hoffman wrote about it here:

Please, start taking these matters seriously and read on them carefully before commenting any further.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hand, it's strange, but unfortunately not uncommon to recieve a lecture on interpretation from a person who comments on matters they haven't read closely, if at all

Why the belligerant ad hominem? I thought we were simply having a little discussion here?

I read your jottings --- you try to prove too much, which is my point.

Criticize Benedict where he must truly take the hit, namely in his historicist reduction (e.g., Pius X's teaching was good for his time only) which sees traditional dogmas as yielding to new, novel interpretations unheard of before in Christian theology (if so why should we take Benedict's own teachings as anything but ephemeral, on route to becoming obsolete before the ink dries?)

Hit him (and call for corrections) with respect to the evolution of dogmas (the very essence of Modernism) wherein some of his opinions / teachings appear to mutate from one meaning to another. But your Merlin's Hat precarious perch I don't find conclusive of anything.

Anonymous said...

Are you aware that the major thesis of the website that you cited in support of your thesis is that Jesus didn't rise from the dead? Did you even read the website that you cited?

You assert that I am dumber than I even look? Yes, I am very aware. I was in my Freshman year that to use truths found in the opponents chest (box) is the most useful / cogent of truths.

Any way "Maurice," thanks for the "dialog".

Anonymous said...

The mitre that Benedict wore on Oct 11, 2009, seven weeks before the beginning of Advent, does not mark Advent as you claim.

Since you insist, yes, I mistook the date of the photograph based on the date of the post (Dec 5th?).

But this does not affect my point that symbols (Nativity-Christ-messiah) vary and even change in meaning over time (and depending on who's using them), and are conclusive of almost nothing; moreover it doesn't help (and often aids scoffing historians) when it comes to serious criticism of Benedict's theology and praxis.

My Christmas tree or easter eggs (and the like), while traceable to pagan precursors, is altogether different in meaning from the ancients.

The very days of the week are named after pagan concepts---Monday (Moon), Wednesday (Mercury), Friday (Venus), Sunday (Sun), Tuesday (Mars), Thursday (Jupiter), and Saturday (Saturn) etc., etc. the very word "God" too, and, in latin, "deus," also numina, even El or "Elohim" in the Old Testament etc.

Knowing all this should move us to more solid criticism and apologetics, which is precisely my point.

Maurice Pinay said...

The mitre that Benedict wore on Oct 11, 2009, seven weeks before the beginning of Advent, does not mark Advent as you claim.

There is no credible evidence establishing the hexagram as a symbol of any real significance in Christian tradition in general, much less Advent specifically. The hexagram is fundamental and proprietary to Judaism, Zionism and 'The Holocaust' today.

And yes, I have been critical of Benedict's philosophical errors for many years now. Yet, I find it strange that you circumscribe allowable criticism to this area alone. There is much else to protest in Benedict XVI. His treacherous acts are legion.

I'm sorry that you dug yourself into this hole. Please read before commenting in the future. Uninformed 'dialogue" is almost as worthless as Judeo-Catholic 'dialogue.'

Maurice Pinay said...

Since you insist, yes, I mistook the date of the photograph based on the date of the post (Dec 5th?).


Is it unreasonable to expect that an invalid criticism be retracted?

You apparently had a point to make that didn't apply to the topic at hand. Sure, I admit, interpretation of symbols can get out of hand. Are you willing to accept that making rationalizations for the inexcusable can also get out of hand? Are either of these responses better than the other? I would like to offer this pope the benefit of the doubt, but as far as I am concerned he lost the right to that long ago by his countless treacherous actions.

Why do you see it as inadmissible that Benedict's hexagram mitre could be in any way related to his association with the Zionist state of 'Israel' which he warmly embraced as Gaza was still smoldering, or related to rabbinic Judaism which he continuously outrageously claims Christians have a common tradition with, or related to 'The Holocaust' which he has practically made an article of faith?

This isn't hyperbole. I'm not trying to shock you. I'm trying to air news that is itself so outrageous that most people are unable to process it. Obviously, this isn't for everyone. But it's documented here thoroughly. You apparently haven't really read it and done secondary research.

If you want to challenge me, fine. Challenge me on what I've actually written. You'll have to read it to do that.

HallnOates said...

This also occurred 2 days before October 13th. October 13 is not Fatima for these people. It's the "feast day" of Jacques de Molay.

Anonymous said...

Note the hexagram or pentagram on Washington's Masonic apron here

HERE (lower right hand corner of apron)

Washington was no Jew, but he was an early Mason and they have always claimed him as their "father". Different context, different meaning to the sign-symbol. Thus its meaning is different for Christians, Masons and Jews. Benedict's theology of ambiguity should be our focus.

Anonymous said...

Pentagram too was used by the Hebrews, is a "universal symbol"

Maurice Pinay said...

Mr. Hand, this is not a case of the symbol having a possible innocent meaning and also a sinister one as the other examples you've listed which have no bearing here since I never mentioned any of them here.

If there was credible evidence establishing significance of the hexagram to Catholic tradition you would simply cite it instead of floundering about with these convoluted arguments conflating hexagrams with pentagrams; basing your strange theories on the authority of the pseudo-scholarly anti-Christ propaganda of Simcha Jacobovici who for whatever reason you apparently find more credible than myself.

Admit the obvious: the hexagram is as proprietary to Judaism, Zionism and 'The Holocaust' today as the cross traditionally is to Christianity. The hexagram has no traditional significance to Catholicism, yet the hierarchy is attempting to draw us to it and even more so the anti-Christ Judaism, Zionism and Holocaustolatry for which it stands.

If you spent a little time reading here instead of scoffing and dismissing, you'd know this is true.

Since there are plenty of self-anointed trad pundits dedicating their formidable mental powers towards Benedict's 'theology of ambiguity' and nary a handful that will even mention Benedict's theology of Holocaustolatry, I will decline your very bad advice.

Anonymous said...

Even if Benedict shared a common symbol with Israel, from which the NT itself proceeded, that would be no scandal in itself. It's your own overweighted self-appointed polemic against the Jews apparently which seems to govern here and prejudices you with copious sarcasm on that basis alone.

--Finis (here at any rate)--

Anonymous said...

Private: Listen, let me address your arrogance, Hoffman --- if you can read, you would see I have not spared the Jewish role at all for their part in financing much of the NWO (See Labels" Jewish, antisemitism, etc). But there are many currents flowing into the poisoned ocean. Your overweighted mono-lens needs to be exposed. I've copied this exchange and can add to it effectively. Maybe I'm now beginning to see why other scholars who have treated of the Jewish revolutionary role (without neglecting other non-Jewish currents) keep you at a distance. Maybe this exchange was good for that much.

Maurice Pinay said...

Mr. Hand. I am not Michael Hoffman and I am under no obligation to keep your threats private.

You have my prayers.

Anonymous said...

I have been informed by Michael Hoffman that I was misled by a third party into thinking that this was a Michael Hoffman blog, under a pseudonym.

Since I thought I was having an exchange with Michael Hoffman (an exchange which was becoming curiously arrogant---your arrogance I now find), you should remove all posts, since I wouldn't have given this bizarre topic a moment's notice had I known. If you do not, I'm hardly surprised and will lose no sleep.

As for the "threat," that last post was clearly marked "private," not a threat at all, but rather a promise to answer more fully elsewhere. You did not respect that request to keep a post private, which only shows you are exactly as you appeared.

Maurice Pinay said...

Mr. Hand, this evening I assisted at the Mass of the Immaculate Conception which I offered for your intention.

For the sake of the people who you presume to teach (whose well being is of far greater importance than your self-wounded pride), all of your posts here are most instructive, so they will stay. I hope that you will take what you publish on the internet more seriously in the future.

I wish you well.

Anonymous said...

I don't suppose any of us should hold our breath that Mr. Hand will provide evidence exonerating Benedict that the hexagram is an ancient Catholic symbol of the-last-2-months-of-Ordinary-Time—you know, before Advent.

Dare we ask? Mr. Hand, do you have evidence that the Templars should be absolved because they only engaged in "unwitting" sodomy—shades of Sanhedrin 54b?

Anonymous said...

Mark (on December 8, 2009 9:39 PM) writes:

"Mr. Hand, do you have evidence that the Templars should be absolved because they only engaged in "unwitting" sodomy—shades of Sanhedrin 54b?"

I am not directing my comment at Mark specifically (or at the Pinay/Hand exchange). I'm only using Mark's question to bring up a point. Criticism of the Talmud has increased thanks in large part to Michael Hoffman and blogs such as Maurice Pinay's, but you really don't want to examine its absurdities too closely without risk of incurring similar guffaws inspired by moments in Catholic moral theology. I will refer specifically to the Pre-Vatican II text Moral Theology, by Fr. Heribert Jone. On page 539 in the Tan edition, Item # 757.3, "The Sins of Married People" we read the following under the heading of "Imperfect Sodomy":

"Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution."

Now, if this isn't evidence of talmudic/rabbinic hair-splitting in Catholic teaching, I really don't know what is.

Maurice Pinay said...

December 10, 2009 2:55 AM writes:... you really don't want to examine [Judaism's] absurdities too closely without risk of incurring similar guffaws inspired by moments in Catholic moral theology.


Thank you for this lead, I was unaware of this book, which it seems has been widely distributed for centuries and remains a reference for many traditionalists.

Talmudism is Talmudism, whether its expositor is Hasidim or Jesuit. I will not be cowed into silence or complacency by the self-referential bafoonery of an 18th century priest: "Sodomy is not sodomy. Why? Because I say so." No citation of scripture, popes or Church doctors; no logical argument. His 'moral teaching' rests purely on the 'authority' of himself.

I am well aware that the rot in the Church existed long before Vatican II. It was subversive works such as this that prepared 'the faithful' for Vatican II. What is there in the Vatican II documents that could offend a soul who has bought into this rubbish?

Catholics who accept this immoral 'moral theology' are no better than the followers of the rabbis. Evidently, they've been cursed with pastors just like the rabbis.

HallnOates said...

Dominic Proemmer, OP and his Handbook of Moral Theology should be the right direction for instruction rather than this Jone book.

This is not the first gaff that TAN books has made. Their publishing of Yves Dupont's Catholic Prophecy, who spliced quotes of Anne Catherine Emmerich to out forth a "prophecy" of her, is another moment of intellectual shoddiness.

Maurice Pinay said...

TAN preserves in print a book which presumes to recreate how Jesus said the first Mass by way of the Talmud!

Anonymous said...


The book you cite is called "How Christ Said the First Mass." I know. I have it -- as well as the Moral Theology text by Jone I cited above.

Anyway, in the former book's early chapters you will be assailed with the usual mysticala bullshitica judaica (like the introduction of Adam's other wife, Lilith, etc) -- and this from a book written in the very early 20th Century! (The supposed glory days of The Church).

However, you make a point that I think is worth expanding upon, especially in light of the Moral Theology quote from Fr. Jone's text, namely a potent and spiritually deadly legalism infecting the Church well before Vatican II.

Just as Vatican II produced its own heteropraxis, so did Trent. Understandably, the rigors of the Tridentine rite's rubrics were necessary to keep Reformation shenanigans in check; however, this rigidity spilled over -- in an excessive manner -- in all matters of Church discipline and pastoral practice. Mind you, I do not buy into the popularized notion of the Church being wicked and the cause of the West's ills; I merely point out the insanity of Jone's text is a byproduct of this practical schizophrenia (a schizophrenia that was fertile soil for talmudism to take hold). There were many straight, heterosexual men driven out of seminaries -- not by homosexual machinations -- but by a spiritual formation that was psychologically brutal and intolerable (there are written testaments to this, by the way). Additionally, I personally know an elderly woman who suffered a nervous breakdown in her youth (and who, by my estimation, has clearly never recovered) because she was told by her cousin (a monk at the time) that if she married her Protestant fiancee she'd go to hell. Well, she took her brother's advice, had the aformentioned breakdown and is now a depressed spinster.

So, yes, it could be argued -- since semper ecclesia reformanda -- that an aggiornamento was needed. I distinctly recall Montini's reasoning for his decree Paenitemini, in which he lifted (or unbound, if you will) the penalty of mortal sin for eating meat on Friday. He said it was to tone down the legalisms that had entered the Church. On that point (and relaxing the restrictions on Catholic/Protestant intermarriage) he was right.

Actually, Maurice, if you want another lead, I'd strongly recommend "The Pope Speaks: Dialogues with Pope Paul VI" by Jean Guitton (it's long out of print, but you can find a copy). In the recorded discussions between Paul VI and his philosopher friend you will find an extremely orthodox Pope whose vision of ecumenism was precisely the opposite of what it devolved into. In fact, I'd say that this book more than any other serves as a counterpoint to the original Maurice Pinay's (Fr. Arriaga's) the New Montinian Church.
***end of Part I***

Anonymous said...

***Part 2***

Moroever, having had a dalliance with Eastern Orthodoxy, I can say without reservation that many of Vatican II's decress were essentially "sales pitches" directed towards winning over Orthodox converts. The decree on collegiality not only expanded the definition of the teaching Church, but by doing so it acknowledged the vehement Orthodox reaction to Vatican One, and posited by inference that if the bishops share infallibility with the Pope (the Ordinary Magisterium exercised in union with Peter), then the Orthodox Patriarchs and Metropolitans could share in that power if they reunited. The "new" rite of Confirmation is not new -- it's the Byzantine Orthodox form of Chrismation. Even referring to the Mass as the Eucharist is a nod to Orthodox teaching on that sacrament. Paul VI wearing the ephod was his sales pitch towards the jews. All the conciliar decress and behaviors are sales pitches towards gaining converts.

In fact, Pope John Paul II's (in)famous line that; "By the Incarnation Jesus Christ has united Himself with every man" (a line that makes traditional Catholics curdle) is actually taken directly from Eastern Orthodox theology. Of course, there's a bit more to the Orthodox position than that one sentence, but you get the drift.

Personally, I feel that the magen stars on the Pope's mitre is Benedict XVI's equivalent of Montini's ephod. It's a visual sales pitch in a politically correct, "touchy-feely," "dialogue-y" world. I can't ascribe the same malice to it you do, but even if we disagree on that point, get the Guitton book.

“Has not our modern world created its own idols? Has it not imitated, perhaps inadvertently, the pagans of antiquity, by diverting man from his true end, from the joy of living eternally with God? This is a question that all people, if they are honest with themselves, cannot help but ask. What is important in my life? What is my first priority? The word “idol” comes from the Greek and means “image”, “figure”, “representation”, but also “ghost”, “phantom”, “vain appearance”. An idol is a delusion for it turns its worshipper away from reality and places him in the kingdom of mere appearances. Now is this not a temptation – the only one we can act upon effectively? The temptation to idolize a past that no longer exists, forgetting its shortcomings; the temptation to idolize a future which does not yet exist, in the belief that, by his efforts alone, man can bring about the kingdom of eternal joy on earth! Have not money, the thirst for possessions, for power and even for knowledge, diverted man from his true destiny?"
-- Pope Benedict XVI, September 13, 2008, at the Esplanade des Invalides, Paris

Anonymous said...

Paul VI quote on ecumenism from Guitton's "The Pope Speaks":

"There is only one Church, axis of the convergence, one only Church in which all the Churches should reunite. It is our duty to recall continually this basic truth. One flock, one shepherd. Ecumenism presupposes that. But charity impels us to respect every liberty, every conscience, every dealy, every ripening. Conscience impelled Cardinal Newman to the absolute witness, very near martyrdom. And sometimes martydom is asked of us. I would even say that martyrdom, that form of witness, is always virtually demanded of us; that we should all, whoever we are and even if we have no belief, be ready to give our blood in order not to lose our reasons for living. As a pagan poet has said: 'Bellieve that the worst thing is to prefer life to honour. And to keep life at the cost of the reason for living.' We should always be prepared to climb upward. It is here that Newman's example speaks to every one of us. A conversion is a prophetic act. Abraham ushered in a nation. Luther lived in solitue the tragedy of separation. Nemman lived the story of future reunion, of that recapitualtion in Christ Jesus whose time is hidden from us, but to which we all aspire."


"The law of which St. Paul speaks there is legal observance, social law, the letter of the Pharisees, dead and static law. But faith in Christ is a living law, a dynamic law, a law which limits and constrains us only to give, as I told you, more abundant life, the fullness of life."

HallnOates said...

I distinctly recall Montini's reasoning for his decree Paenitemini, in which he lifted (or unbound, if you will) the penalty of mortal sin for eating meat on Friday. He said it was to tone down the legalisms that had entered the Church. On that point (and relaxing the restrictions on Catholic/Protestant intermarriage) he was right.

No. He was wrong. You are wrong. You aren't Catholic.

Maurice Pinay said...

Dear anonymous, you make some noteworthy points. I can't respond to them all. As I have said, I would like to give the post-VII popes the benefit of the doubt, as you appear to do, but I can only close my eyes to their growing mountain of rotten fruits for so long until the smell makes such avoidance impossible. Yes, they all have been capable of speaking and acting in orthodox ways when it is expedient. But what are their fruits? It always comes down to the fruits. This is the test that our Lord has given us.

Has Paul VI's initiatives resulted in masses of Orthodox converts to Roman Catholicism? Even if the 'converts' did materialize would it be possible to say that a conversion took place, or rather, a meeting in the middle?

Has Benedict's pontificate effected a turning away from idolatry? I've witnessed Benedict himself, on numerous occasion, both figuratively and literally bowing to monuments of 'The Holocaust' and encouraging the same in his flock.

If Benedict's hexagram mitre was to draw Judaic 'conversions,' what would they be converted to? A 'Catholicism' that welcomes the occult baggage from their religion. This puts aside the grave scandal to Catholics caused by these stunts.

No, they haven't brought true converts but they have scandalized countless Catholics.

Ironically, your argument against legalism comes full circle--back to legalism: "a living law, a dynamic law." This is one of the defining elements of rabbinism, and today's corrupt legal profession. Is this not what Jone has done with what he must have viewed as a dead, rigid law against sodomy?

Anonymous said...

See the picture of Mary, Our Lady of Concourse, here

Anonymous said...


Please accept my apology for the late follow-up. You frequently mention that the fruits of the Popes you criticize in your “Talmudic infiltration” thesis determines your outlook and that these fruits are evident for all to see (and that they are bitter). I would contend that your perspective determines your perception and that unless you focus the lens of your mind’s eye on a different focal plane, your estimation of the fruits is distorted. Having returned to the Church after being a sedevacantist and, later, a Lefebvrist for many years, I can tell you that these Popes are yielding many good fruits and my view “from the pew,” so to speak, confirms a vastly different reality than what you’re attempting to present. In the past two years since returning fully to the Church I observe a Mystical Body that is healthy and which is characterized by converts to the Catholic faith – something I never saw in the “traditionalist” milieu. In these two years, my local parish alone has baptized about twenty new converts (the catechumens are introduced to the congregation during the liturgical year). The majority of converts were former Protestants (one was Jewish, another one, Orthodox).

You claim that the Church has suppressed the Gospel or that it has been forsaken. Objectively, that is not true – indeed, the new converts to the Catholic faith I mentioned would find that notion very difficult to swallow. I suppose one is only a Catholic in your thesis if they’re a revisionist, or if they have some Talmudic tell-alls in their bookshelf, or if they live on a farm, or if they’re a traditionalist (or a combination thereof). As I indicated in my earlier post, there was a heteropraxis born of Trent that led to the insanity I cited from Fr. Jone’s Moral Theology text (a text that had an Imprimatur, by the way). Did you ever think for a moment that there is a congruence with an improper, excessive use of the Scholastic method and Talmudic methodology? The scholastic tendency to theologically parse everything down to the smallest detail (and to attempt to answer and dissect every possible permutation) can lead to a neurotic hair-splitting (evidenced by Fr. Jone’s allowance for sodomy). It could be claimed that a heteropractic scholasticism is fertile soil within which an affinity for the Talmudic methodology can grow. This brings me back to Orthodoxy and their criticism of the “Latin method.” The Orthodox contend that there are certain mysteries about God that cannot be articulated or explained, and they have consistently resisted the scholastic approach (which, by the way, I’m not condemning – Fr. Garrigou Lagrange’s work on Predestination is an exquisite presentation of the topic). It could very well be that the Orthodox rejection of the Latin approach allowed them to develop a greater distance from the Talmudic method.
*** (end of Part 1) ***

Anonymous said...

(Part 2)

However, in the traditionalist milieu any criticism of Trent or scholasticism is met by melodramatic charges of heresy and blasphemy. It really is very simple: there is a great plurality of theological thought – and individuals like Fr. Arriaga, Archbishops Lefebvre and Thuc, and even Roman Amerio – who were all nourished on the milk of the excesses of Trent and its characteristic Roman rite and scholastic prejudices were unable to recognize valid theological elements from the East. The Orthodox methodology is far more experiential in nature (indeed, the Orthodox pride themselves on this). Yet, this is foreign to the heteropractic “Spirit of Trent” that those aforementioned clerics (and others) imbibed on in their narrow seminary training. Consequently, their rigid minds (it’s the Latin Church and all it’s trappings or bust) were unable to process what was really quite natural for the Eastern Churches to understand. However, this experiential approach is found in the early Church, and the notion that Trent’s pastoral policies lasted too long was held by the fathers of Vatican 2, and is held today by the vast majority of bishops. The fathers at Vatican 2 made that judgement and it was a good one (just as the Fathers of Trent established efficacious policies and directives for the Church at that point in time). Vatican 2’s pastoral approaches are not really new and ecumenism is nothing more than a very Pauline approach at evangelization. The symbols on the Pope’s mitre are, like I said before, just a visual sales pitch. Nothing more. Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger have been proclaiming the eternal and primary truths, but because you want them to correct secondary causes in the temporal realm (which is not the Popes function) you close your eyes to what is right in front of you and you would swallow a camel yet choke on a gnat.
*** (end of Part 2) ***

Anonymous said...

(Part 3)

If anything the Gospel is suppressed in places like St. Mary’s, Kansas, where salvation is reserved exclusively for a minority of Talmudic Catholics whose phylacteries consist of quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre or Bishop Williamson. The “Talmudic infiltration” thesis reduces the Church to a fearful Catholic ghetto indistinguishable from David Koresh’s Branch Davidian compound (“only we have the truth”), and ironically makes Catholicism just as paranoid and schizophrenic and insular as Talmudic Judaism is. Your reaction to Talmudism is ironically making you Talmudic. If you don’t think the Church knows about the Talmud, you’re incorrect. The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s text “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible” cites it occasionally. And here are two quotes from that document: “Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jews do, in order to show proper respect for its Jewish origins? In answer to [that] question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons. For to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, that authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.” And: “The fact that the New Testament is essentially a proclamation of the fulfillment of God’s plan in Jesus Christ puts it in serious disagreement with the vast majority of the Jewish people who do not accept this fulfillment. The New Testament then expresses at one and the same time its attachment to Old Testament revelation and its disagreement with the synagogue.” So much for the Church being hoodwinked by rabbinic alchemy! Ecumenism presupposes a return to a theological center – and a God-based center excludes any sort of rabbinic equality with God. The Catholic Church has made tremendous advances in its recent history (a large body of Protestants entering the Church and all of their apologetics efforts, the Traditional Anglican Communion reuniting with Rome, the alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church). All these good fruits would not have been possible without Paul VI or Vatican 2. I have not seen any Catholic leave the Church and embrace Judaism because they were mentally programmed by Paul VI donning the ephod or alchemically hypnotized by Benedict XVI’s new mitre. Nor have I witnessed any Catholics leaving the Church because a Pope entered a mosque or a synagogue. Very few Catholics are scandalized by the things you find so pastorally reprehensible. And you find them so because you are not thinking with the Church. And by not thinking with the Church you presume to declare other Catholics theologically watered-down (or somehow less Catholic than you) because you feel they’re somehow tainted as a result of the Church hierarchy’s pastoral efforts. Worse, you believe the Synagogue has entered the Church and so all of its members aren’t Catholic anymore. This is objectively not the case. The Talmudic obsession in Traditional Catholicism is blinding many to larger realities and is, sadly, making many Catholic communities just as tribal as a Judaic one. Having left two Trad communities, I can attest to the attitudes of fear, paranoia, schizophrenia, persecution and the general lack of charity towards fellow Catholics that is pervasive in that world.
*** (End) ***

Maurice Pinay said...

Dear Anonymous, there is far too much here to address. And most of it, being misunderstanding and misrepresentation, doesn't merit a response anyhow.

Whatever distortion it is that allows your perception to see no wrong in Benedict's upcoming visit to a rabbi who has republished the Jesus-mocking "Toledoth Jeshu," and identify this rabbi as a brother in the faith, I want no part of it.

From the beginning, Christians identified such behavior as treachery--long before there was Scholasticism, Trent, or a traditionalist movement.