Bishop Williamson Contra Mundum

By Michael Hoffman

On Oct. 19 we reported that the Conference of European Rabbis and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith had ordered Pope Benedict XVI to drop negotiations with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) until such time as they reeducate or silence their Bishop Richard N. Williamson.

In his Eleison Comments column last week, Williamson repeated 1965 years of Catholic teaching about the responsibility for the death of Jesus Christ. He reasoned ably, citing the fact that Pontius Pilate would have never ordered Christ’s crucifixion had it not been for the demands of the majority of the Jews of Palestine.

Collective Guilt is Talmudic

We would not have published Bishop Williamson’s column had he not referred to “noble exceptions” among the Jews who did not have a hand in Christ’s death. In our own writing we have always emphasized that the notion of collective racial guilt, such as the Allied World War II doctrine that every German man, woman and child was collectively guilty of Nazi crimes and deserved death, is a reflection of a rabbinic mentality. The same collective guilt attitude is at work in the Israeli state where all Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are seen as bearing responsibility for the crimes of Hamas and deserving of death; or for example, all prisoners released by the Israelis in return for Gilad Shalit are terrorists and criminals; none of them innocent of the charges made against them. All of this is Talmudic.

Therefore, when people stoop to draw parallels between today’s Judaics and those who demanded their Messiah’s execution 2000 years ago, declaring these 21st century Judaics collectively guilty, we err grievously on the side of the Talmudic mentality and become, in a spiritual sense, rabbis ourselves.

It must be understood that rabbinic agents are in our midst. Here is a counter-intelligence secret: the rabbis wish to sow in all movements that contest Judaism and the Talmud a collective disparagement toward all Judaics without exception, leaving them nowhere to turn among gentiles and Christians for safe haven or liberation. Consequently, they step backward into the waiting arms of their rabbinic oppressors.

Contemporary Judaics only share in the responsibility for Christ’s death spiritually and ideologically if they are adherents of Judaism or a hyper-chauvinist Zionism with a strong ethnic, tribal component. A poor schmuck who was born a “Jew” (more likely a Khazar but I will not stress the point here), is not at fault for the circumstance of his birth. In the 1920s many German-Judaics wanted freedom from the rabbis. They were admirers of Bach and Beethoven, German science and literature. They had served patriotically in the Great War. They sought to progress beyond the ghetto. They desired to share in the freedom of Western Civilization. Instead, they were collectively rebuffed and told that they possessed ineradicable genetic tendencies toward subversion and degeneracy. This is the rabbinic doctrine about gentiles and it was projected, through an occult mirror, by the German nationalist leadership of the 1920, 30s and 40s onto Judaics.

Noble Exceptions Among “the Jews"

Bishop Williamson’s column eschewed that self-destructive rut by citing "noble exceptions" among the Judaics, and fingering, not their supposed attachment to the “old covenant” (the uninformed mistake Judaism for Karaitism), but to the Talmud, which nullifies from the Mishnah onward, the Old Testament. Without these two precise distinctions which the bishop made, we could not have circulated his column.

Hence, the writing at issue was free of racism, indicted the correct source of rabbinic perversion (Talmud) and otherwise repeated foundational truths that the spiritual heirs of the Pharisees in our midst today can no more bear to read than their ideological ancestors could bear to hear from the lips of Jesus Himself. 

This is a very old war of ideas. Because the allies of the rabbis have massive clout with the media of the West it was decided,  in the early 60s, that the papacy would seek accommodation ("aggiornamento”) with the modern world, and bend the entire mission of the Church away from proclaiming the radical truth of the Gospel toward avoiding giving offense to those who can’t endure its truth. 

Due to that momentous alteration, we now find ourselves on the stage of an absurdist theatre where Benedict XVI is ordered by the spiritual sons of the Pharisees to punish the bishop and his priestly SSPX fraternity for daring to say in public what St. Matthew, St. Paul and the Fathers of the early church taught and proclaimed concerning who was responsible for the crucifixion of Christ.

This is an extraordinary state of affairs in that it puts all authentic Christians under an obligation: to be considered good goyim free of the antisemitism libel, we must agree to refrain from shouting that the emperor has no clothes. Or we can choose to dare to speak truth to power in the face of the rabbinic chutzpah which presumes to censor the speech of the Church of Jesus Christ by ordering us to affirm a lie.

Decades ago the Church of Rome did just that with the document Nostra Aetate (“In Our Time”), contradicting the New Testament and agreeing with the rabbis that the ancient Jews were not responsible for the execution of Israel’s Messiah.

Auschwitz Over Calvary

Every once in a while, even in our degenerate days, a churchman of Williamson’s mettle arises and proclaims the truth irrespective of the pressure, and pays a terrible price for it, in earthly terms anyway. The propaganda system being what it is, he can’t be allowed to do so purely; the waters must be muddied and the truth-teller defamed. Mixed into reports of Bishop Williamson proclaiming the Biblical truth about the deicide were media allusions to his “conviction” in a German court for “denying the Holocaust.”

By this label we are made to think, Ah, he’s a convicted criminal; a shady character, a felon. There is always considerable shame attached to those who contest the Talmudic imperium. The Son of God was stripped nearly naked and made to appear as a felon deserving of death. No true follower of His can expect anything less.

In Germany defense attorneys can be jailed for offering too vigorous a defense of their World War II revisionist clients, and judges sanctioned for failing to convict a revisionist defendant. The western media doesn't report this because it would impugn the verdict issued by the German-Zionist kangaroo court (forgive my candor but this is a precise description of the “justice” dispensed by that judiciary).

Bishop Williamson never “denied the Holocaust.” He did undertake a very human and Biblical act -- he doubted a Judaic fable (Titus 1:14), that six million Judaic persons died and many of them perished in "gas chambers" in Auschwitz.

Odd, is it not, that anyone in Germany may doubt the Resurrection of Christ and the Virgin Birth or even the every existence of Jesus, with complete freedom and no fear of prosecution? Yet to doubt the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz is a crime punishable by five years’ imprisonment. Pope John Paul II called Auschwitz the new Golgotha and this writer has for decades argued that Auschwitz has replaced Calvary as the central and defining pole star in the western ontology of sacred suffering. Would it not be safe to say that the evidence for this revolutionary reversal can be found in the criminal penalties attached to so-called “holocaust denial” and the freedom by which "Resurrection denial” and even denial that Jesus ever existed, are promoted throughout the media, academia and the Internet?

Oh, but it is not very prudent or politic for Williamson to take on both the deicide and the gas chambers. Not at this time. He is a hand grenade! Uranium! He destroys the hermeneutic of continuity, the negotiations of the Vatican diplomatic corps, the delicate, behind-the-scenes arrangements.

And to this we say, hallelujuah! Fresh air at last. The truth at last, at whatever cost to reputation or bank account. If we had a dozen Richard Williamsons in high places we would convert Judaics and cause the rabbinic liars and masonic ADLers to back into their shuls and confine their prevarications to  the precincts of their eruv.

Modernist Catholicism Constitutes Jew Hate

But the reverse prevails for the present time and Jew-haters infest the Vatican.

Say what? Yes, Jew haters: this pope, the last three, and those who persecute Bishop Williamson, Jew haters all. Jesus Christ loved His people and that is why he retailed to them difficult truths. The demonic spirit of the modern age declares that if we love the “Jew” we will encourage him in his sins and mendacity. What is asked of loved ones: introspection, examination of conscience and self-reflection, is denied to the Judaics out of deference to their engorged egos. This is hatred.

We bow to them and thereby encourage their pride and chutzpah, intransigence, racism, and religion of lies. We sentence their women to the pathological and destructive "family purity” (sic) laws of Chazal, the halachos of niddah, with all the suffering and oppression of women which that insanity entails. We sentence their men to absolute obedience to the rabbis and thousands of rules that daily micro-manage their lives, along with the burden of institutionalized contempt for goyim and Christians.

Pope Benedict XVI requires nothing of “Jews” in the Name of Christ. No repudiation of rabbinic racism or violence. No apology for Kol Nidrei or Birkat HaMinim, just more appeasement of their megalomania. Here is the operation of occult Jew hate, so long concealed since the Renaissance and now in the open. There is more love for Judaic people in one line of a radical call to repentance and conversion from Bishop Williamson than in all the lucubrations of the Nostra Aetate Church of Rome.

Rabbinic and Zionist bigots and their Vatican enablers will go wild in the days and weeks ahead, as they always do in the face of a truth that scalds their souls. They will do their best to gibbet Bishop Williamson from the highest pole of their unending vengeance.

Where stand you in this great battle?

Copyright©2011

Hoffman is the author of Judaism’s Strange Gods, forthcoming at the end of November from Independent History and Research.

***

Coming Soon: ADDRESSING THE LONG OVERDUE NEED FOR JUDAIC SELF-CRITICISM ABOUT THE JUDAIC HERITAGE OF ANTI-CHRISTIAN HATE. WE WILL PROVE THAT THE BIRKAT HAMINIM FUNCTIONED WITHOUT QUESTION IN THE MEDIEVAL WORLD AS A RABBINIC CURSE ON CHRISTIANS.

***

Read More

Now Comes the Great Divide

1. Traditional Catholic SSPX Bishop Fellay Declares “Jews are our elder brothers in the old Covenant”

2. Michael Hoffman’s reply:
Now Comes the Great Divide
__________________________

Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay Proclaims "The Jews are 'our elder brothers' in the old Covenant"
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellay-jews-are.html

Fellay: "The Jews are 'our elder brothers'."
"Antisemitism has no place in our ranks."

Strong words of the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, against any suspicion of Antisemitism.

1. First, in a declaration made yesterday to Famille Chrétienne, the French Catholic weekly, as reported by La Croix this Sunday:

Bishop Bernard Fellay welcomed Famille Chrétienne [French Catholic weekly] on January 31, in his General House of Menzingen, Switzerland. He responded in particular to the accusations of Antisemitism cast at the Fraternity of Saint Pius X.

"We evidently condemn every act of murder of the innocent. It is a crime that cries to heaven! Even more so when it is related to a people. We reject every accusation of Antisemitism. Completely and absolutely. We reject every form of approval of what happened under Hitler. This is something abominable. Christianity places Charity at a supreme level. Saint Paul, speaking of the Jews, proclaims, 'I wished myself to be an anathema [from Christ], for my brethren!" (Rom. 9, 3). The Jews are "our elder brothers" in the sense that we have something in common, that is, the old Covenant. It is true that the acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us.

"It is very interesting to notice that the Church did not await for the Council to prescribe courses of action regarding the Jews. Since the 30s, even during the war, several texts of Rome provide a very just position: the abominations of the Hitlerist regime must be condemned! 'Spiritually, we are all Semites', Pope Pius XI had said. It is a truth which comes from Sacred Scripture itself, 'we are sons of Abraham,' Saint Paul also affirms."

2. Also by an e-mail message sent this Sunday to the Rev. Dr. Alcuin Reid (forwarded to several blogs):

Statement by Dr Alcuin Reid:

On Friday BBC Radio asked me to discuss recent events concerning the SSPX on 'The Sunday Program' this morning. Following that request I asked the SSPX for comment on the issues to be discussed. Unfortunately Bishop Fellay's reply reached me only after the program aired. His reply, written for publication, states:

"The position of Bishop Williamson is clearly not the position of our Society. Antisemitism has no place in our ranks. We follow fully God's commandments on justice and charity and the constant teaching of the Church. Antisemitism has been condemned by the Church. So do we condemn it. I fully agree with Fr Schmidberger's statement about Bishop Williamson's words. (www.fsspx.info)"

God bless you
+Bernard Fellay

Now Comes the Great Divide

By Michael Hoffman | Aug. 30, 2011
www.revisionisthistory.org

Now comes the Great Divide in the Roman Catholic Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), not between Bishop Richard Williamson and Bishop Bernard Fellay, but between the SSPX founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Fellay.

This “antisemitism” canard is used as a Pavlovian instrument of auto-suppression ­ to taint any critical study of Judaism. The SSPX rejects antisemitism, Bishop Fellay says. Fine! But what does that have to do with the issues at hand? Is it “antisemitic” to ask if Judaic persons were gassed to death in Auschwitz? Are these gassing allegations now holy Catholic writ, a new gospel? Where is the forensic documentation that St. Edith Stein was “gassed” in Auschwitz-Birkenau? How is it that one hates “semites,” if one dares to ask questions about secular history?

To what extent has the religion of Judaism for gentiles, that some of us refer to as Holocaustianity, supplanted the religion of Jews and gentiles known as Christianity? To what extent is Holocaustianity used to occlude the history of Judeo-Bolshevism’s mass murder of millions of Christians in Russia and Eastern Europe? These distinctions do not concern Bishop Fellay. He defends against the charge of “antisemitism” with the broadest strokes of crude generalities, as if the Patriarch Abraham and the Apostle Paul were all partisans of Zionism, liberalism and the Allied history of World War II.

Why is the statement from Pope Pius XI, “Spiritually we are all semites,” supposed to be some ultimate means for shaming into silence critics of the Talmud, and persons who question Judaic tales of homicidal gassings in Auschwitz? When we dare to ask such questions in the face of rabbinic and Vatican outrage, we are fulfilling our rights as Christians and the imperative bequeathed to us by St. Paul himself: “Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth" (Titus 1:14).

“Spiritually we are all semites.” Indeed!  And when objective and unbiased genetic testing at a high level of scientific verification is performed in the future, we will find many Arabs who are semites and many so-called Jews who are not (Rev. 2:9 and 3:9).

Bishop Fellay seems to endorse Pope John Paul II’s perverse declaration that, “the Jews are our elder brothers in the faith,” although Fellay uses the term “Old Covenant.” Which “Jews” ­ -- ancient or modern? Does Fellay mean to say, the “Jews” of the Israeli state? The “Jews” of Chabad-Lubavitch? Does he refer to “Jews” like Maimonides, the Alter Rebbe, the Chafetz Chaim, Joseph Karo as our “elder brothers” in the “Covenant”?

The religion of Orthodox Judaism is a complete betrayal of the Old Testament. Those who follow it are not our elder brothers in the Old Covenant of the Bible. Their faith consists of the Talmud and worship of themselves, not worship of God (Babylonian Talmud: Bava Metzia 59b and Mo’ed Kattan 16b). Contemporary Orthodox Judaism is a blasphemy, many hundreds of times more corrupt that it was at the time the Pharisees persecuted Jesus Christ.

What then does Bishop Fellay’s phrase actually denote, “our elder brothers in the Old Covenant”? Does it denote that because today’s Israelis and Zionists allege that they are physically descended of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, we Christians have a solidarity with them based on their race? If that is the case, what then does the bishop make of the words of St. John the Baptist, when he said, in response to the racial brag of the Pharisees: “Do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Matthew 3: 9-10.

The ancient Pharisees had the same prestigious idea about their racial heritage as does Bishop Fellay. But what did Christ say to them in response? “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God” (John 8:39-40).

“Do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father...

“If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did...”

This is a radically different doctrine from the one put forth by the recent popes and the SSPX Superior General. Both St. John and Our Lord Jesus Christ defined the Jews’ connection to Abraham on the basis of their “fruits” and their “works.”

What are the fruits and works of the Christ-hating rabbis?

On what basis, other than racial prestige, can they be termed “elder brothers in the covenant”? Such a statement is liberal nonsense, concocted to curry favor with counterfeit-Israel and the Vatican that has become its most pernicious servant.

Is it “antisemitism” to reject this modernist palaver about Christianity’s supposed “elder brothers”? We adhere instead to the traditional Biblical and Catholic standard ­that the members of the synagogue of Judaism constitute the Antichrist.

We hear a great deal of thunder from Bishop Fellay about “Antisemitism,” and not a whisper about the Judaic Antichrist. What does Scripture say? “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father.” 1 John 2:22-23.

To deny this fact, by spreading confusion concerning what is the “covenant” of “the Jews,” and claiming that the covenant of “Jews” in general, without qualification, precedes and is the elder brother of Christianity, is a scandal, a source of grave confusion, and an abdication of the prophetic voice of warning which Marcel Lefebvre desired that his successors would embody.

While Bishop Richard Williamson’s remarks in the past have sometimes been intemperate and poorly timed, his views on Judaism do not differ from those of Archbishop Lefebvre. Therefore, is Bishop Fellay suggesting indirectly that Archbishop Lefebvre was “antisemitic?” Is this why some of Lefebvre’s speeches have been suppressed by Fellay?

Another of the four SSPX bishops, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, is well aware of the truth about Judaism. It is unfortunate that out of a mistaken sense of diplomacy he remains silent while Bishop Fellay continues to publicly batter a mostly defenseless brother bishop (Williamson) for supposed “sins” of Hitlerism and antisemitism of which he is not guilty.

Bishop Fellay states concerning Judaic persons: “Christianity places Charity at a supreme level.” Yet he has no charity toward Bishop Williamson. He repeatedly drags his name and reputation through the mud and uses him as a scapegoat.

In fact, Bishop Fellay has managed to sufficiently bully Bishop Williamson into avoidance of the truth. Williamson has in recent weeks more fervently denounced the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, than any rabbi. In his last column he attacked “Protestantism and liberalism” as the great evils of history. He omitted Judaism. His self-censorship is patently in deference to the lynch mob atmosphere Bishop Fellay has stirred against him. The silence of the other two SSPX bishops in the face of Fellay’s scurrilous campaign of calumny has no doubt emboldened Fellay.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is presiding over a two-day “Kingship of Christ” symposium in Kansas City in October that studiously avoids any serious or sustained study of Judaism or its disastrous infiltration of the modern Church. Of course, he is “just being diplomatic.” In this emergency, at five minutes to midnight on the clock of destiny, such avoidance is a dereliction of the duty incumbent upon the office of bishop.

How is it that clerical Catholic fellow-travelers with Judaism are so bold as to proclaim their liberalism from the housetops, while those who know the truth dare not? How does God work His will on earth if not through his human instruments on earth? And if those instruments are too enamored of timidity in the name of diplomacy, then what?

The Catholic Church has witnessed the current and past pope visit synagogues several times ­-- not to admonish the sinners and instruct the ignorant in those places ­ -- which would be a salutary missionary activity to undertake, in the spirit of the apostles and St. Vincent Ferrer ­-- but rather, the two popes encouraged the enthralled in those synagogues to remain in their sins!

Bishop Fellay has cut his suit to fit the pattern of the modern Vatican, wherein the ancient weed of Neo-Platonic Kabbalism and Talmudism has emerged in full bloom in two pontificates, to the ruination of countless souls. If the salvation of souls is not our highest objective, then what is? If souls are being lost to eternal damnation because Archbishop Lefebvre’s successor believes he must play the part of the consummate politician in order to save the SSPX from the wrath of the Roman curia and the Zionist government of Germany (where the SSPX has schools and a seminary), what then?

To Bishop Fellay, we say, if your Excellency truly loves the “Jews,” then you will tell them the truth which the Church of Jesus Christ has always proclaimed to them: they have no faith and no covenant without Christ. They abandoned the Old Testament religion of Israel when they abandoned Jesus. They are not custodians of the Bible; neither do they honor it, or the Patriarchs. In their texts, they denigrate Noah, Isaiah and even Abraham. They use a Pharisaic and Kabbalistic exegesis of Scripture with multiple levels of alleged meaning, which degrades the Word of God into a mere totem, whereupon man’s fantasies are projected and institutionalized.

This fantastic Talmudic and midrashic exegesis has been taken up by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI and incorporated into the Catholic hermeneutic. We will give but one example. On Holy Name Sunday in both Novus Ordo (diocese of Spokane) and even traditional pulpits (Fraternity of St. Peter), which we have heard with our own ears, in 2010 and 2011 respectively, it is taught that the Name of God (YHVH) was so holy it was to be pronounced only once a year by the high priest. This teaching is put forth with the strong implication that we are to imitate this “Biblical” example concerning the Name of God.

This is not Biblical, however. It is false doctrine -- a counterfeit human tradition about the Name of God nowhere to be found in the Word of God. The God of Israel repeatedly demanded that His people be known by His Name and that His Name be invoked by them (Exodus 3:15). The superstitious proscription against pronouncing God’s name, except once a year, is from the written record of the once oral law of the Pharisees -- the Mishnah -- which, with the Gemara, forms the Talmud.

On June, 29, 2008 the "Letter to the Bishops' Conferences on the Name of God," a document promulgated by the "Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments," ordered, at the direction of Pope Benedict XVI, God's name is "neither to be used or pronounced" in Catholic liturgy, hymns or prayers. Pope Benedict is promulgating the word of the Pharisees in Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1, in preference to the Word of God in Exodus 3:15 and Psalm 145:21 (Jerusalem Bible translation). This is how serious are the inroads of Talmudism into Catholicism.

Will Bishop Fellay resort to invoking the tiresome device of crying “antisemitism” as a way to silence vigilance and protest over the fact that Pope Benedict prefers to obey the Talmud rather than the Old Testament? Christians are indeed children of Abraham. How then can they be children of a Talmud in which Abraham and the God of Abraham have no part?

Where God is, there is the Truth. The truth about Pharisaic Judaism, of which today’s Orthodox Judaism is the direct descendant, was declared by Jesus Christ, recorded in the New Testament, taught by the early Church, the Fathers of the Church and all the saints canonized before 1970. Yet, suddenly the modern zeitgeist has determined that Truth is “antisemitic”!

And you, Bishop Fellay, do you still claim to be the guardian of the traditional Catholic Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, or have you become the paladin of the politically correct lucubrations of the modernist heresy?

Michael Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered (Independent History and Research, 2008) and Judaism’s Strange Gods (forthcoming in 2011).

To receive these columns by e-mail send an e-mail to hoffman[at]revisionisthistory.org with the subject header: Subscribe me. You will receive an invitation to "The Hoffman Wire" by e-mail. You must reply to the invitation in order to subscribe.

For further research:

Revisionist History Newsletter no. 58: "Tracking The Occult Infiltration Of The Roman Catholic Church From The Renaissance To The Present"
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com

Revisionist History Newsletter no. 52: "Judaizing Protestantism’ and Neo-Platonic Catholicism in Legend and Reality”
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com

Revisionist History Newsletter no. 50: “They Who Say They are Jews and Are Not”
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com

Revisionist History Newsletter no. 47: “The New Catholic ‘Shoah"’Theology: Alibi for the Revolutionary Overthrow of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com

Revisionist History Newsletter No. 41: “A Christian Theology of World War II History”
http://tinyurl.com/3mc8wk2

"The Catholic Church and the Talmud in the Renaissance" (Audio CD)
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/2010/03/hoffmans-revisionist-history-store.html

"World War Revisionism: Frequently Asked Questions"
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/revisionist4.html

***

Read More

The Apostle Paul has been kicked out of the Roman Catholic Church

The Excommunication of St. Paul the Apostle by the Inmates of the Asylum known as the Post-Conciliar Roman Catholic Church

By Michael Hoffman • www.revisionisthistory.org

Catholics "cannot hold" to  St. Paul's declaration in 1 Thessalonians 2: 14-16 "without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church"

— United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), May 24, 2011

*****

USCCB News Release

Media-Relations@usccb.org

11-109

May 24, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Jewish-Catholic Dialogue Examine Sources of Authority, Beatification of John Paul II, Middle East Uprisings

http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-109.shtml 

WASHINGTON (May 24, 2011)—The National Council of Synagogues and the Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) discussed “Sources of Authority in Catholicism and Judaism” at their semi-annual consultation in New York City on May 17. Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta, Chairman of the Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, and Rabbi Alvin Berkun of Pittsburgh, Chairman of the National Council of Synagogues, presided.

Father James Massa, executive director of the USCCB Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, spoke on the “sources of authority” in the Catholic theological tradition. He noted both similarities and differences between Catholic and Jewish ways to interpret sacred texts and pass on religious beliefs and practices.

“One of the obvious differences between our two faith communities is that while no one rabbi or religious body can speak for all Jews, the Church has a ‘Magisterium’ made of bishops in communion with the pope, whose interpretation and application of the word of God can be binding on all Catholic believers,” Father Massa said.

His presentation highlighted the levels of authoritative teaching in the Church, to which are owed corresponding degrees of assent. Father Massa noted that some teachings on Jews and Judaism found in Nostra aetate, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, reaches the level of dogma or defined doctrine. “One cannot hold to the charge that the Jewish people, either in the first century or at any other time, are responsible for the death of Jesus (the so-called charge of deicide) without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church. It contradicts both Vatican II (1962-1965) and the Council of Trent (1548-1563), not to mention a proper reading of the New Testament,” Father Massa stated. 

Father Massa suggested that when Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI affirmed that for Catholics the Jewish covenant remains a living and positive reality today, they were not speaking on the same level as an ecumenical council like Vatican II. “However, their teaching reflects the deeper impulses of the council, which were directed at laying to rest the teaching of contempt (that God had rejected the Jewish people) and at putting Jewish-Catholic relations on a new course of friendship and shared commitment to healing the world. Such authentic teaching could achieve—God willing—an even more authoritative and solemn expression by some future pope or council,” he noted.

Rabbi Avram Reisner, professor of ethics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, presented on sources of religious authority in Judaism. “Everything begins with the Torah, viewed as the revealed word of God,” Reisner said. When it comes to normative religious practice, the interpretations of prophets, sages, and rabbis whose judgments gave rise to the Mishnah (2nd century C.E.), and later the Talmud (completed in the 7th century C.E.), would be decisive in mediating the word to subsequent generations, he said.

At only one point in Jewish history did Judaism ever have a body of authoritative teachers that approximates what Catholics mean by a Magisterium. Reisner pointed out that this was the period of the Sanhedrin (200 B.C.E.—70 C.E), the Pharisaical council that ruled on matters of the Torah from Jerusalem. “Is it any coincidence that the Christian community emerges from Judaism precisely at the time when such a body of authoritative teachers is in place for the parent religion?” Reisner asked.

Throughout the medieval period and into the modern age, authority in Judaism resides in majority practice and in the judiciary. Reisner spoke about the importance of the responsa in forming schools of interpretation. Local rabbis would make a ruling on a particular religious ritual or obligation, and then solicit a confirmation of the ruling or a better opinion from other legal scholars. Over time the “responses” to these inquires were collected and formed the great legal codes of Maimonides (d. 1204) and Joseph ben Ephraim Caro (d. 1575), which remain classic sources of religious rulings till this day.

Reisner also examined different contemporary approaches to religious law and ethics within the various denominations of Jewry. The Orthodox view the first five books of Moses as “God’s literal word” having divine authority, he noted; whereas the Conservatives place the Torah within a tradition of unfolding interpretation that includes modern historical perspectives. For the Reform and Reconstructionists, Jewish history and law inform religious practice but in a manner that allows for a wide degree of interpretation based on contemporary needs.

The group also discussed recent uprisings in the Middle East. Members expressed concern for the large Christian minorities in Egypt and Syria, where the situation is volatile. Regime change in many of these countries poses particular challenges for Israeli security and peace efforts with Palestinians, they noted.

The beatification of the late Pope John Paul II on May 1 was acknowledged as a cause for celebration for both Catholics and Jews. The late pope made extraordinary gestures of friendship, culminating in the historic visit to the Wall in Jerusalem where he asked pardon of God for past sins committed by Catholics against Jews. 

Catholic participants at the consultation also included  Bishop Basil H. Losten, former bishop of Stamford for Ukrainians; Auxiliary Bishop Denis Madden of Baltimore; Christian Brother David Carroll, former associate director at Catholic Near East Welfare Association; Atonement Father James Loughran, Graymoor Ecumenical Institute; Msgr. Guy Massie, Ecumenical Office of the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York; Father Dennis McManus, special assistant to Archbishop Dolan; Father Robert Robbins, Ecumenical Office of the Archdiocese of New York; and Jesuit Father Drew Christiansen,America Magazine.

Jewish participants included Rabbi Jerome Davidson, Rabbi Emeritus of Temple Beth El, Great Neck, New York; Rabbi Lewis Eron, Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Judith  Hertz, NCS Advisor; Rabbi Richard Marker, chairman of the International Committee for Jewish-Christian Consultation; Rabbi Joel Meyers, executive vice-president emeritus of the (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly; Mark Pelavin of the Reform Action Center, Washington; Rabbi Jonathan Waxman, Temple Beth Sholom, Smithtown, New York; Rabbi Jeffrey Wohlberg, past president of the (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly; Rabbi David Straus, Central Conference of American Rabbis; Rabbi Gilbert Rosenthal, National Council of Synagogues; Jack Fein, United Synagogue ofConservative Judaism; Rabbi Richard Hirsh, Reconstrucionist Rabbinical Association; Rabbi Moshe Birnbaum, Rabbinical Assembly.
---
Keywords: National Council of Synagogues, Commission on Relations with the Jewish People, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, USCCB, “Sources of Authority in Catholicism and Judaismm,” dialogue, Archbishop Wilton Gregory, Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, Rabbi Alvin Berkun, Father James Massa, Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, Rabbi Avram Reisner

(End quote from the USCCB. Emphasis supplied)

The following New Testament Scripture has been nullified by the the Second Vatican Council, two popes (one "Blessed" and the other still reigning), and the current bishops of the United States, in a manner similar to the way in which the rabbis have nullified the Old Testament:  "...the interpretations of prophets, sages, and rabbis whose judgments gave rise to the Mishnah (2nd century C.E.), and later the Talmud (completed in the 7th century C.E.), would be decisive in mediating the word to subsequent generations."

"For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved — so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them to the utmost.” 1 Thessalonians 2: 14-16

***
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2011/05/apostle-paul-has-been-kicked-out-of.html
***

Read More

Archbishop Bustros under siege for speaking the truth about Judaism

by Michael Hoffman

On Oct. 23, at the Roman Catholic synod on the Middle East in Rome, Cyril Salim Bustros, the Lebanon-born, Melkite Archbishop of Our Lady of the Annunciation in Newton, Massachusetts, made completely traditional Christian statements about Judaics and Judaism that are thoroughly consonant with the historic truths of apostolic Christianity prior to the rise of “Judeo-Christianity” and the subsequent infiltration of rabbinic ideology inside the Church.

In the current environment of near universal apostasy, Archbishop Bustros’ basic reaffirmation of fundamental New Testament teaching on Jews and Judaism has ignited the familiar firestorm of hysterical anathema and hyperbole from 1. The Israeli Foreign Minister. 2. The Chief Israeli Rabbi. 3. The ADL. 4. The Simon Wiesenthal rabbis. 5. The Israeli ambassador to the Vatican, along with a host of crypto-rabbis masquerading as “Christian” professors, pundits and periti.

Why are the truths articulated by Archbishop Bustros so explosive? Because we have for so long dwelled amid the suffocating bipartisan bonhomie of Judeo-Churchianity that when the authentic Gospel is actually preached as St. Peter and St. Paul preached it, it becomes a source of howling outrage to the New Sanhedrin, who have grown accustomed to an almost complete betrayal of Jesus Christ by “Christian” leaders.

In age when nothing is pushed harder than “equality,” we see that the declaration of equality by Archbishop Bustros that, “the Biblical promise that the Land of Israel is for Jews, as the Chosen People, was abolished by the presence of Christ... There is no longer a favored people, a chosen people; all men and women of every country have become the chosen people by virtue of believing on Jesus Christ” --wounds the modern Pharisees in their inner being, predicated as that being is in racial pride and arrogance.

A statement of Gospel fact becomes a species of evil hate speech among those whose ears are accustomed to hearing only soothing platitudes from Fundamentalist Protestant preachers and modern popes. Gospel truth is regarded by Judaism and Zionism as “a libel against the Jewish People” (Israeli Deputy Minister Danny Ayalon, Oct. 24) and an “anti-Semitic" theological position (Jerusalem Post editorial, Oct. 25).

Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, dean and founder, and associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center respectively, stated that the Catholic leader’s declaration is a “political stunt, wrapped in theological garb...(which) insults every Jew..." (How it is that these two rabbis polled every “Jew” on earth and then presumed to speak for them is not disclosed).

In a telephone interview with Catholic News Service Oct. 25, the Israeli ambassador to the Vatican called Bishop Bustros' comments "outrageous" and said, "the Vatican should take a clear distance from them because it will give every Jew a reason to be suspicious of rapprochement with the Catholic Church."

“In a letter to Cardinal-elect Kurt Koch, the newly-appointed president of the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, ADL national director Abe Foxman wrote: ‘By stating that God’s covenantal promise of land to the Jewish people ‘was nullified by Christ’ and that ‘there is no longer a chosen people,’ Bustros is effectively stating that Judaism should no longer exist.” (Jerusalem Post, Oct. 26, 2010).

Memo to Abe Foxman: Exactly! Christ came to replace Pharisaic Judaism, the demonic incarnation of self-worship by which the Jewish elders had subverted the Hebrew Covenant. Here was Good News from the Messiah of Israel, that all men could be saved through Him,  no longer having to observe either the ceremonial law or the much larger corpus of man-made rabbinic halacha that would soon be committed to writing in the Mishnah.

Since the 1960s, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has conspired with the rabbis to overthrow the mission of Israel’s Messiah and embrace, in the language of Machiavellian doublespeak, a two-way route to God: saved by Christ and saved by race. Gentiles can be saved by Christ, on that the Vatican concurs, but “Jews” can be saved on the basis of their alleged descent from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Of course if contemporary Judaics are saved by their supposed genetic descent from the Patriarchs, then it must be concluded that Jesus Christ came only for the gentiles, which is a ludicrous falsification. In the first part of His ministry Jesus proclaimed the very opposite -- that He came only unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Matthew 15:24).

Jesus sought first to free the Jewish slaves of sin, and after them, all people, if they would have the grace and good will to surrender unto their Messiah. Instead, many chose to stubbornly cling to the black cloud of Babylonian superstition, eventually codified in the Talmud, that is known as Judaism. True disciples of Christ rightly ask Abe Foxman and every pompous thought cop, why a religion of Babylonian paganism deceitfully posing as a Biblical creed, need exist at all? The notion that “Jews” are exempt from conversion to Christ based on their claims to unique racial descent is a demonic lie (Matthew 3:9).

The “hate” is mostly on the side of the Zionist racists who imagine that race is the mandate whereby they may rule Palestine. The modern West rejects racism in every other nation and ideology, why do they submit to it when the rabbis rule by means of it?

The most arrogant and outlandish of all the Zionist liars who attacked Archbishop Bustros was the Israeli Chief Rabbi:

“Israel’s Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger said, “The priest doesn't have to teach us about interpreting the Bible. We don’t teach them how to interpret the New Testament,’ Rabbi Metzger told European Jewish Press Monday (Oct. 25) in Berlin where he is attending a conference of the European Council of Jewish Communities (ECJC).”

Notice with what contempt Chief Rabbi Metzger refers to Bustros, merely as “the priest,” not as archbishop. He then proceeds to say that a Christian is not to teach Judaics about the Bible. Why not? Jesus did. Christians are commanded to do as Jesus did.

The chief rabbi of counterfeit-Israel has no jurisdiction over what Christians may teach concerning the Bible, which Judaism destroys by rendering it subordinate to the anthropomorphic Talmud. Judaism undoubtedly falsifies and denigrates the authority of the Bible (see http://talmudical.blogspot.com/).

Chief Rabbi Metzger’s most risible statement comes next: “We don’t teach them how to interpret the New Testament.”

But of course you do. The Talmud teaches that Jesus worshipped a brick, led Israel into idolatry and that He deserved to be killed. Orthodox Judaism teaches that the New Testament should be burned. The Rambam (the esteemed Rabbi Moses Maimonides) taught that Christians should be killed, when possible.

Judaic academics, such as Amy Jill Levine, Professor of New Testament at Vanderbilt University and the author of “The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus,” leads a movement that seeks to portray Jesus as a rabbi who colluded with the Pharisees and taught according to rabbinic methods of epistemology and pedagogy.

Pamela Eisenbaum, professor of Biblical studies and Christian origins at Colorado’s Iliff School of Theology teaches that the Apostle Paul was not a Christian. Daniel Boyarin, professor of Talmud at the University of California at Berkeley, seconds this hogwash. He states, “Pamela Eisenbaum's (book) ‘Paul Was Not a Christian,’ is a clear and effective presentation and extension of the view... that Paul remained fully identified with Judaism and the Torah throughout his life.”

Talmudists do indeed endeavor to “teach” Christians about the New Testament. Surprise, surprise, the Israeli Chief Rabbi is a liar.

Now let’s see whether or not Archbishop Bustros is made to recant the truth and thereby absolve himself of the capital crime of insulting the Master Race and perpetuating the most damnable sin of the cosmos, “antisemitism.”

Hoffman is the author of "Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit."

URGENT -- THESE COLUMNS CANNOT CONTINUE WITHOUT DONATIONS FROM READERS.

We thank S.R. in England, Paul and Nancy in Europe, Ed and Janel in the U.S. and Bill B. in Pennsylvania for their assistance.

WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE THOUSANDS OF OTHERS WHO BENEFIT FROM THESE COLUMNS -- OR THIS SERVICE WILL END. IT TAKES MONEY TO ENGAGE IN CONTRARIAN JOURNALISM - A SIGN OF CONTRADICTION TO THE WORLD AND A SOURCE OF EDUCATION TO THE PEOPLE. 

Donate by Paypal (paypal.com) to: rarebooks14@mac.com

By check or money order to: 

Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816

***

Read More

Justice Scalia Cites the Talmud: An Exegesis by Hoffman

Justice Scalia Cites the Talmud: An Exegesis by Michael Hoffman

Supreme Court Opinion: Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co

In a 5-4 decision released on June 8, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution can require an elected judge to step aside in a particular case based on campaign spending in state judicial races. The majority ruling in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22, was written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Joining Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in dissent were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In his dissent Scalia wrote:

"A Talmudic maxim instructs with respect to the Scripture: “Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein.” The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Aboth, Ch. V, Mishnah 22 (I. Epstein ed. 1935).

"Divinely inspired text may contain the answers to all earthly questions, but the Due Process Clause most assuredly does not.

"The Court today continues its quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution.

"Alas, the quest cannot succeed—which is why some wrongs and imperfections have been called nonjusticiable. In the best of all possible worlds, should judges sometimes recuse even where the clear commands of our prior due process law do not require it? Undoubtedly.

"The relevant question, however, is whether we do more good than harm by seeking to correct this imperfection through expansion of our constitutional mandate in a manner ungoverned by any discernable rule. The answer is obvious."

Hoffman's Analysis

Rabbi Ben Bag Bag in the Mishnah passage cited by Scalia is allegedly referring to constant rabbinic analysis of the Torah. Scalia claims that the rabbi is saying it is necessary to analyze the Torah over and over; by doing so one will discover all truth and wisdom therein. Scalia seems to be stating one can't say the same about a single clause of the Constitution.

The majority of the justices from whom Scalia dissents have ruled that it is their understanding of the “Due Process Clause” that a judge who is obligated to a donor in some circumstances must recuse himself from a case involving the donor.

Scalia "seems" to be saying (one can't be absolutely certain because his writing, far from being "obvious," suffers from the legalese that lawyer-priests routinely use to obscure their judgments), that certain judges treat the Constitution as if it were Scripture. They search a single clause in the Constitution for truth and wisdom like rabbis search a single verse from a "Divinely inspired text."

Scalia's ruling seems to be a species of liberal anarchism: one can't find truth and wisdom in too close a study of the Constitution. He appears to be stating that unlike the Bible, the Constitution is not so authoritative that it contains everything necessary to reach a correct legal decision, and unlike rabbis, who are right to “Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein," Supreme Court justices are wrong to put this emphasis on the Constitution.

There are other significant problems with Scalia's employment of the Talmud text in this context, including but not limited to his abysmal ignorance of the Talmud, which probably is due to the fact that he is a goy who studies the Talmud with Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis who are not exactly paragons of integrity when it comes to parsing the mysteries of the Talmud for the sake of the goyim.

1. Within the context of Scalia's opinion we must ask, if the Constitution cannot be relied on to this degree, to what degree can it be relied on and what are the limits of its authority?

2. Since the rabbis falsify the Bible with their Talmudic exegesis, and since their self-ordained mandate to "repair all imperfections" ( tikkun olam) is based on the intervention of Judaic brain power to "improve" and "correct" God's supposedly flawed creation, Scalia's analogy fails as a model dichotomy of proper and improper attitudes toward enshrined texts.

3. Based on Scalia's past utterances and the prestige he lends to rabbinic gatherings by his uncritical presence at their meetings, we feel certain that Scalia does not understand how tikkun olam is actually perceived and implemented in the rabbinic universe. He has accepted the rabbinic cover story at face value.

4. Scalia's choice of the obsolete and opaque 1935 Epstein English translation of the Mishnah as his citation for the quote he uses, rather than Jacob Neusner's vastly superior 1988 Mishnah translation (Yale University Press), tends to indicate how atrophied is his knowledge of the Talmud and its variant texts.

5. In point of fact, the particular Mishnah passage cited by Justice Scalia is a description of the "traits of the disciples of Abraham" as compared unfavorably with the "traits of the disciples of Balaam" (cf. Mishnah Abot 5, III; Neusner pp. 688-689).

In the Talmud, Balaam is a codeword for Jesus (see my book Judaism Discovered, pp. 392-395, though this is hotly denied by the ADL and similar Zionist and rabbinic thought police). Consequently, Justice Scalia is quoting what the Mishnah says are character traits which are the opposite of those of the wicked Jesus ("Balaam").

If one does not wish to join the Christians, i.e. the "disciples of Balaam" who "inherit Gehenna and go down to the Pit of Destruction" (Mishnah Abot 5:19), one must, declares Rabbi Ben Bag Bag: "Turn it over and over because everything is in it and reflect upon it and grow old and worn in it and do not leave it" (Mishnah Abot 5:22; this is a complete quotation of the fragment cited by Scalia).

If we examine the verse that precedes Mishnah Abot 5:22  (Mishnah Abot 5:21) we discover that it contains an allusion to the primacy of the Mishnah and the Talmud. Hence, it is not at all clear that the text that Rabbi Bag Bag advises one to "turn over and over" is in fact "with respect to the Scripture," i.e. the Bible, as Scalia implies. It is just as likely, and in this writer's view, more likely, that the rabbi is referring to turning over and over the "Torah" (sic) derived from the oral traditions of the Pharisees (Torah SheBeal peh), such as the Mishnah itself. In which case, whether consciously or unconsciously, Supreme Court Justice Scalia is stating that the U.S. Constitution does not have the authority of the Talmud and does not merit the kind of intense study which the Talmud merits, and this in an anti-Christian context.

Copyright 2009 by Michael Hoffman

Mr. Hoffman's research is funded by donations

***

Read More