Michael Hoffman’s infatuation with Protestantism

By Jude Duffy
November 26, 2015 Anno Domini

Part I | Part II | Part III

Michael Hoffman, the revisionist writer, clearly regards it as one of his missions in life to shift blame for the rise of “Christian” usury from Protestantism to the Catholic Church. In many articles and books Hoffman has asserted that Protestants, specifically Calvinists, have been unjustly scapegoated for usurious hegemony in the west. Hoffman’s method of argumentation on his website and elsewhere is to simply ignore facts that don’t support his thesis of Protestants as radical foes of usury. Thus he ignores or downplays the huge and well documented role of Calvinists and other Protestants in the rise of modern industrial usurious capitalism – a role modern Protestants and philo-Protestants not only admit, but brag about (1). He also ignores, or attempts to explain away, some central facts of post-Reformation history, such as, for example, the rise of great usurious Protestant capitalist powers in the centuries after the Reformation.

For example, Britain as a fanatically Protestant polity, became the world’s leading usurious industrial power in the post-Reformation age. Moreover overseas territories settled by Protestant Britons likewise eagerly embraced usurious capitalism (2). In this context it must be noted that since the Whig sponsored Dutch Orangeist conquest of England, it has never had a Catholic monarch or Prime Minister.

Anglo-usury and Anglo anti-Catholicism went together. The United States, another capitalist superpower with a long history of anti-Catholic persecution and discrimination, only got its first Catholic president in 1960, and we know what happened to him. The all-pervasive hatred of Catholicism that characterised both the British Empire, and to a lesser extent, the U.S., makes the idea that some form of subtle or subliminal Catholic influence explained these nations’ fervent embrace of state-sponsored usury bizarrely far-fetched.

Why, in any case, would Protestants, especially radical Protestants, obediently follow the lead of the hated Papists in something so fundamental, especially since the whole point of the Reformation was revolt against Rome? The question gains even more force when one remembers the central pivot of Hoffman’s thesis: the notion that during the Renaissance the Catholic Church broke with the teaching of the Medieval Church on financial matters, and that disgust at Catholic financial corruption partly drove the Protestant “reformers”. How likely was it that Protestants who rebelled against Rome, in part because of perceived financial corruption, and who repudiated apostolic succession and many ancient dogmas of the faith, would blindly sign up to a new anti-Christian financial dispensation, simply because their religious arch-enemy had already done so? If they revolted so violently against ancient teachings of the hated Papists, and went on an iconoclastic altar and statue smashing rampage across great swathes of Europe to prove the point, why on earth would they eagerly embrace newly minted Catholic teachings – unless, that is, such alleged new teachings dovetailed with their own materialistic agenda?

In an exchange on his blog, Hoffman noted that when Calvin endorsed usury, several prominent Puritans, including John Cotton, reproved him. Far from admitting the obvious implication of this statement, which is that the founder of the most successful radical Protestant sect decisively broke with the anti-usury traditions of Christendom, Hoffman attempts to argue that it proves the anti-usury outlook of many radical Protestants.

Not only is this highly disingenuous – Calvin defined the spirit of radical Protestantism far more than John Cotton did – but it also points to a more profound misapprehension on Hoffman’s part. He seems to be believe that the tendencies of Reformation and post-Reformation radical Protestantism can be illustrated simply by citing anti-usury writings and sermons of some prominent Puritans. Thus is if a prominent New England Puritan like Cotton condemns loan-sharking, this for Hoffman proves that the Puritans cannot be blamed for the rise of usurious capitalism. This is grossly simplistic on several levels.

First of all condemnations are one thing – actions are quite another. When it comes to the Catholic Church, Hoffman attaches no credibility whatsoever to the post-Renaissance Church’s many condemnations of usurious capitalism and freemasonry. According to him, all such condemnations amounted to nothing more than cunning and hypocritical ploys on the part of Rome, to disguise its true occultist-usurious agenda. On the other hand he takes all the statements by early Protestant leaders condemning usury or Judaic corruption completely at face value – even when they come from the mouths or pens of men such as Luther, who condoned all forms of sin including lying, and enthused about occult practices such as alchemy (3). Emotionally and spiritually, then, Hoffman is anything but a detached unbiased scholar when it comes to evaluating the merits of post-Reformation Catholicism on the one hand, and early Protestant movements on the other.

Another problem with cherry-picking anti-usurious or anti-Judaic statements of early Protestants is that this type of reductionism often fails to take note of the underlying trends at work in historic political or religious movements. For example, if most 1960s liberals had been asked what they thought of same sex unions, the vast majority of them would have said they deplored such a grotesque idea, and that social conservatives who suggested otherwise were simply scare-mongering. Indeed as recently as 2012 Barack Obama claimed to be opposed to “gay marriage”. Yet when the American Supreme Court ratified this evil sham in June 2015, the U.S. President celebrated by lighting up the White House with the colours of the LGBT rainbow flag. Revolutionary movements aren’t always open about what their true endgame is, and sometimes aren’t even sure themselves, so their past statements are by no means an infallible guide to their future actions.

Hoffman himself spots subtle “gradualism” everywhere where Rome is concerned, but ignores much more glaring examples of the phenomenon in the history of Protestantism. Thus he cites Pope Leo’s Papal Bull “Inter Multiplicis” as beginning the gradual process of abandonment of the Catholic Church’s prohibition against usury, but denies that Calvin’s much more definitive embrace of usury played a decisive role in the rise of loan-shark hegemony.

Unfortunately for his thesis, the historical facts speak for themselves. Protestant and Jewish families shaped the modern financial system in Britain and its dominions (including Ireland), and in the U.S., Prussia, Switzerland, Scandinavia and elsewhere. Even in predominantly Catholic nations like France, Protestants were at the heart of usurious banking. The rhetorical hostility of certain Puritans to usury does not in any way negate the huge role radical Protestants played in the rise of the usurious state, any more than the opposition of certain traditionalist Anglicans to “women priests” proves that Protestants have had no truck with feminism.

The Reformation unleashed forces which at least some of its devotees neither encouraged nor desired, but as with early social liberals, this in no way absolves the reckless “reformers” from blame for the predictable consequences of their revolutionary pride. That pride made it inevitable that greed and the love of money would follow in the wake of their revolution.

The usurious spirit cannot be divorced from liberal pridefulness generally – it is interwoven in the fabric of modern post-Catholic culture. If love of money is the root of all evil it is because money facilitates the commission of all other sins Rebellious pride was at the very heart of Protestantism from Luther to Henry VIII to Thomas Cromwell, from to John Calvin to Oliver Cromwell. That incidentally is why Whiggish Neo-conservatives, including pseudo-Catholics like Michael Novak, are such philo-Protestants: they grasp, in a way that seems to completely elude Hoffman, that the Reformation was the beginning of the modern revolutionary capitalist age. Those early Protestants who condemned usury did so because they still lived in post-Catholic post Medieval culture, just as the 1960s liberal who condemned sexual promiscuity, or abortion on demand, still lived in a world informed by vestigial Catholic morality.

Yet another problem with Hoffman’s approach to evaluating early Protestant statements on usury is his own definition of Puritanism. There is more than a touch of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy at work here, whereby Hoffman defines a Puritan as any radical Protestant who happens to meet his definition of what a good Christian should be. Thus when objectors point out that many Protestant denominations directly descended from Puritan sects – Congregationalists, low church Anglicans, Unitarians, and so on – pioneered a worldly liberal approach to moral issues, including usury, Hoffman blithely denies that such sects have any claim on the Puritan name (4). He adopts a similar form of circular logic in attempting to address the incontestable evidence that many of the pioneering usurious banks in Britain, New England, Geneva and elsewhere were owned by Calvinists or Puritans, or their descendants. A Puritan in his parlance is simply the type of Protestant who agrees with him on religious, political questions.

For example he says that to accuse Puritans of liberal tendencies is to adopt an “elastic” definition of Puritanism.
But Puritanism WAS elastic in most matters religious – apart, that is, from its hatred of Catholicism. Modern Whigs revere Oliver Cromwell because, like them, he loathed the Catholic Church, but not so paradoxically also embraced an early form of ecumenical liberalism, and tolerated many Protestant sects – ranging from Anglicans to Independents to Presbyterians and Unitarians – sects that disagreed with each other on many things, but shared a deep hatred of Catholicism. In other words liberals find Cromwell a congenial figure because his religious views don’t differ significantly from their own, and can be summed up as “ARBC” – Any Religion But Catholicism”.

The political and social authoritarianism of early radical Protestants should not blind us to this truth: Puritans were elastic in terms of religious dogma, but nonetheless deeply inflexible towards those who challenged their spiritual and political authority. In this they foreshadowed the modern left and the modern Neo-cons, who change their mind on a sixpence, but are utterly ruthless in their repression of dissent. Not so very long ago Communists persecuted homosexuals as bourgeois degenerates; now their hard left ideological descendants persecute critics of homosexual “marriage” as hate criminals. Like communism, with which it shares certain traits, Puritanism never lacked in fervour and authoritarianism – what it lacked was any coherent concept of moral and spiritual authority.

(1.) Lagrave, Christian, “The Origins of the New World Order”, Apropos Journal, No. 29, Christmas 2011. This invaluable essay (translated from the French original), lays bare the pivotal role of British Reformation and post-Reformation Protestantism in the development of the NWO. As the late great Solange Hertz used to say: when it comes to tracing the roots of Judaeo-Masonic global tyranny, “all roads lead to London”.
(2.) Anger, Matthew, Chojnowski, Dr. Peter, Novak, Fr. Michael, “Puritans Progress: An Authentic American History”, Angelus Press, 1996. The role of Protestants in the rise of Anglo-American usurious capitalism is glaringly obvious; so glaringly obvious that it’s well nigh impossible to take seriously an argument based on denying or downplaying this central fact of American history. Furthermore writers such as the late Professor Anthony Sutton have documented just how steeped in occultism and corruption the Anglo-Protestant self-anointed “elite old-line” American families were and are. See his book, “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Skull & Bones”, Liberty House Press, 1986.
(3) Muggeridge, Anne Roche, “The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church.” Harper, San Francisco, 1985.  For more on Luther’s proto-Reichian sexual revolutionary tendencies, see also Dr E. Michael Jones 1993 Ignatius Press book, “Degenerate Moderns; Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehaviour”.
(4) In an exchange with the author on Hoffman’s blog, “On The Contrary” in May 2015, Hoffman categorically denied that any Protestant who endorses sexual libertinism can legitimately be called a Puritan. In truth at the time of the Reformation, Catholics viewed the “Reformers” as dangerously indulgent on sexual matters. Hoffman is correct in saying that the idea of  the Puritans as strait-laced dour ascetics is a distortion, but it’s a distortion that, in a certain measure, works in Protestantism’s favour – tending as it does to obscure just how much the original Puritans had in common with modern liberals. If the Puritans were “joyless”, that joylessness stemmed from their materialist rationalism, rather than from the stringent nature of their creed.
(5.) Fahey, Fr. Denis, “The Mystical Body of Christ In The Modern World”, Browne & Nolan, Dublin, 1935. Even in an overwhelmingly Catholic country like Eamonn de Valera’s Ireland (over 95 per cent Catholic in those days), all of the major financial institutions were in the hands of Protestants or Jews. The same applied to most big commercial and industrial concerns, and to the Irish media. The role of exiled French Huguenots in advancing the Industrial Revolution, and in the rise of British usurious banking is well known – although, to the best of my knowledge, Hoffman largely passes over it.
(6) Lagrave: In his aforementioned essay, “The Origins of the New World Order”, Lagrave quotes the Scottish historian/philosopher David Hume’s description of Cromwell as in practice a religious “indifferentist” when it came to the various Protestant sects – a man who sought to form a united anti-Catholic international front of all the denominations, regardless of their doctrines. Indeed, such was his indifferentism many continentals believed him to be a Freemason. Whatever the truth here, it is certain that Cromwell’s policies dovetailed uncannily with those of “the Craft”. In modern times Neo-cons and other Zionist stooges on left and right are the most ardent members of the Cromwell fan club. Tony Blair keeps a bust of the vile old hypocrite on his desk. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at one mass murderer revering another.


  1. Michael Hoffman’s No 1 problem is
    his PC compliance. And any other
    problem of his must stem from this
    former one. You might say, he’s
    got a way of painting himself
    into a corner… However, he is
    the only modern translator of
    the Jew Talmud, which should
    probably compensate for a few

    1. Yes , I agree . He also ignores what the latin vulgate shows. You would think as much as he has revealed in his Judaism discovered and other works, he would have shown this as well. Please download it from link below to see what I am talking about. That is unless you already know that all the lords, lord god, yhwh,jehova ,adonai, el shaddai, and on and on are nothing more than a bunch of dead ancestorsvand not GOD. Necromancy, pagan worship of the dead. This is the entire old testament. If anyone needs help in studying it I will show them how. It is simple and you do not need to learn latin fluently to do this. Can be reached at lolathecur@gmail.com. This is the most dangerous information that exists. It proves the old testament to be what it is and also shows the deception in the new testamant. (multiple jesus’) Deum Jesum Christum is only referred to 43 times. The nazarene is NOT the CHRIST (this is iesu christi) Jesum Christum is CHRIST. You can not see the jesus’ in english. In latin you can because of the declension integral to the latin language itself. Do this!!!! This information needs to be shown to all. Also, there are books included in the 1685 Vulgate that were removed centuries ago. They prove the protestant doctrine to be entirely incorrect. This is why they were removed by the judeofreemasonic infested church forever.

    2. I wouldn’t want to detract from the good work Hoffman’s done, or his courage. I just think he has a blind spot about Luther, Calvin, et al. I also suspect he’s let his resentment at modern self-proclaimed Traditional Catholics colour his historical and religious outlook. I see where he’s coming from in his criticism of “Trads” for ignoring the evils of Talmudism and for jumping on the “the Muslims are all coming to get us” bandwagon, but the weakness of modern Catholics is no reason to whitewash Luther and Calvin.

  2. Study this with its included bible code(Biblia Sacra Nominum Interpretatio) This is a very rare text and catholics need to understand what it shows starting in genesis 2:4. Complete 1685 Biblia Sacra (Catholic Latin Vulgate) from 1685. Contains the rare Nominum Interpretatio list for decoding the various Jewish Lords of the Hebrew/Chaldean/Greek originals which were unilaterally interpreted incorrectly as a monotheistic deity in subsequent English editions. Also contains the Esdras Apocalypse (Esdras 3 and Esdras 4) which were removed by the Vatican around 1816. Very hard to find text. Comes in 10 parts. Total file size of the 10 pdfs add up to around 1 gigabyte. https://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%221685+Catholic+Latin+Vulgate+-+Biblia+Sacra%22

  3. Calvin was Jewish. Protestantism was a movement to weaken the Catholic church. To whose benefit would that be? Jews of course. They would have taken over the world along time ago if it hadn’t been for the Catholics. Remember the 30 Years war and the English revolution happened at the same time and Judaism was tied into both movements and ultimately was victorious. This marked the beginning of what we call the NWO

  4. Hi Tim, this is the references for the first instalment of my Hoffman article. I’ll send you the rest in the next few days: God bless.
    (1.) Lagrave, Christian, “The Origins of the New World Order”, Apropos Journal, No. 29, Christmas 2011. This invaluable essay (translated from the French original), lays bare the pivotal role of British Reformation and post-Reformation Protestantism in the development of the NWO. As the late great Solange Hertz used to say: when it comes to tracing the roots of Judaeo-Masonic global tyranny, “all roads lead to London”.
    (2.) Anger, Matthew, Chojnowski, Dr. Peter, Novak, Fr. Michael, “Puritans Progress: An Authentic American History”, Angelus Press, 1996. The role of Protestants in the rise of Anglo-American usurious capitalism is glaringly obvious; so glaringly obvious that it’s well nigh impossible to take seriously an argument based on denying or downplaying this central fact of American history. Furthermore writers such as the late Professor Anthony Sutton have documented just how steeped in occultism and corruption the Anglo-Protestant self-anointed “elite old-line” American families were and are. See his book, “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Skull & Bones”, Liberty House Press, 1986.
    (3) Muggeridge, Anne Roche, “The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church.” Harper, San Francisco, 1985. For more on Luther’s proto-Reichian sexual revolutionary tendencies, see also Dr E. Michael Jones 1993 Ignatius Press book, “Degenerate Moderns; Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehaviour”.
    (4) In an exchange with the author on Hoffman’s blog, “On The Contrary” in May 2015, Hoffman categorically denied that any Protestant who endorses sexual libertinism can legitimately be called a Puritan. In truth at the time of the Reformation, Catholics viewed the “Reformers” as dangerously indulgent on sexual matters. Hoffman is correct in saying that the idea of the Puritans as strait-laced dour ascetics is a distortion, but it’s a distortion that, in a certain measure, works in Protestantism’s favour – tending as it does to obscure just how much the original Puritans had in common with modern liberals. If the Puritans were “joyless”, that joylessness stemmed from their materialist rationalism, rather than from the stringent nature of their creed.
    (5.) Fahey, Fr. Denis, “The Mystical Body of Christ In The Modern World”, Browne & Nolan, Dublin, 1935. Even in an overwhelmingly Catholic country like Eamonn de Valera’s Ireland (over 95 per cent Catholic in those days), all of the major financial institutions were in the hands of Protestants or Jews. The same applied to most big commercial and industrial concerns, and to the Irish media. The role of exiled French Huguenots in advancing the Industrial Revolution, and in the rise of British usurious banking is well known – although, to the best of my knowledge, Hoffman largely passes over it.
    (6) Lagrave: In his aforementioned essay, “The Origins of the New World Order”, Lagrave quotes the Scottish historian/philosopher David Hume’s description of Cromwell as in practice a religious “indifferentist” when it came to the various Protestant sects – a man who sought to form a united anti-Catholic international front of all the denominations, regardless of their doctrines. Indeed, such was his indifferentism many continentals believed him to be a Freemason. Whatever the truth here, it is certain that Cromwell’s policies dovetailed uncannily with those of “the Craft”. In modern times Neo-cons and other Zionist stooges on left and right are the most ardent members of the Cromwell fan club. Tony Blair keeps a bust of the vile old hypocrite on his desk. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at one mass murderer revering another.

    1. Tim sincere apologies for ignoring your queries. I only spotted them just now! I’ll send you the other footnotes as soon as I can (sometime next week).
      As for your comments about trads I think the movement has been co-opted to a large extent. For example I’ve noticed a pronounced Neocon tendency at work in the comments section of the Remnant. It’s quite subtle – the people concerned don’t come out and say stuff like “Israel is the only democracy in the middle-east, and is surrounded by enemies” – it’s more like asymmetrical rhetorical warfare, so to speak – as in constantly talking about the threat from Islam without ever mentioning the forces behind Islamic migration (and let’s not forget other non-Christian migration – anyone would think there were no Hindus or Sikhs, Buddhists or Chinese atheists descending in droves on Europe and the West). Such trolls also get in digs at Putin whenever they can, and – perhaps most tellingly of all – viciously attack anyone who dares suggest that the War on Terror is a hoax. One of the chief writers on The Remnant, Christopher Ferrara, boasts about denouncing Bishop Williamson for his “wacky conspiracy theories”. As I pointed out in a comment at the time, the old popes would clearly qualify as the wackiest conspiracy theorists of them all. I’ve since got banned from the Remnant forums by the way!

  5. This is a reply in multiple parts. Part One: The anonymous writer “Northsider” (I’m not sure why he uses a pseudonym), mostly has penned emotional agitprop and regurgitated stereotypes which then become some kind of proof text concerning this writer’s alleged crypto-Protestantism. His essay on his blog has only come to my attention today and a colleague of mine has requested that I write a response.
    Though I believe he is sincere and of fundamental good will, “Northsider’s” generalizations are so wild they do not merit a response from any professional historian. This writer is attacked often and with vitriol and in most cases I do not reply. I take that other Pope’s advice (Alexander) and “charitably let the dull be vain.”
    I don’t consider “Northsider” dull-witted however, but captive to received opinion and shallow reading (he cites in his footnotes a nonsensical “history” book [“Puritan’s Progress”] falsely attributed to three authors, but actually written by a Neoplatonic-Hermetic occultist).
    I will venture a few remarks addressing the more egregious claims of “Northsider” for the sake of the truth of the documentary record. Here’s one example from “Northsider” that is derived purely from ignorant myths that writers like Hilaire Belloc repeated in Big Lie fashion so they would be believed. “Northsider” writes:
    “Even in predominantly Catholic nations like France, Protestants were at the heart of usurious banking.”(End quote).
    In Catholic nations like France, Spain and Germany, Roman Catholic usurers pioneered interest on loans and continued to expand those usurious banking practices up to the modern era. The Jesuit scandal in France in the 18th century related to loans floated by Catholic usurers which were lost by the Jesuit mission to the West Indies resulted in exposure of hidden Catholic usury networks in that nation. In Spain Catholic usurers arose from the time of Charles V and continued to bankroll Philip II and the Spanish crown thereafter. “Northsider” knows nothing about this so he writes off the top of his head, regurgitating the classic clichés of the mythology about early Protestantism.
    Here is another example: “If love of money is the root of all evil it is because money facilitates the commission of all other sins Rebellious pride was at the very heart of Protestantism from Luther to Henry VIII to Thomas Cromwell, from to John Calvin to Oliver Cromwell.”
    “Northsider” has just pressed several emotional buttons in every traditional Catholic. The litany of Luther-Henry VIII-Thomas Cromwell-Calvin-Oliver Cromwell will elicit the requisite hisses and seal the case for most Catholics who “think” with their emotions and prejudices. This type of “argument” was anathema to the Scholastics and it ought to be anathema for any Catholic worthy of the name. In just one sentence from “Northsider” we find a palimpsest of error. “Northsider” is arguing that due to their alleged love of money, Luther-Henry VIII-Thomas Cromwell-Calvin-Oliver Cromwell became prideful.
    Henry VIII’s usury was thoroughly Romanist. His chief financier was a usurious Italian Catholic banking house and he legalized usury under Catholic auspices. Luther was a hater of money. What is “Northsider” going to do with this datum which collapses his house of cards? Luther indicted the pope for usury. He condemned every form of usury in Germany.
    This concludes Part One of my reply. Part Two follows below.

    1. I am curious, Mr. Hoffman. Do you ignore the implications of Pope Leo XIII’s condemnation of Americanism merely because he was part of the supposedly Hermetic Post-Renaissance “Church of Rome”, or do you have an affinity for this heresy? I have paid attention to your work for some time, and I can’t recall you ever addressing this issue—all the more following our recent exchange on Twitter where you whitewash Thomas Jefferson, who, perhaps not an official Freemason, definitely embraced masonic principles. Why does the focus of your Hermetic witch-hunting never shift towards the history of your own country? If not deliberate, this seems to be a huge blind spot amongst American conspiracy researchers and revisionists. I have not yet read your book Usury in Christendom, but I am skeptical that you would show the correlation between Americanism and, let’s say, the proliferation of capitalism. Perhaps, in part, this is because it doesn’t really fit your Papist narrative on usury, does it?

  6. PART TWO (continued from Part One, above):
    How was Calvin a lover of money? In his Geneva, usurers were not tolerated and all forms of mercantilism were severely restricted. Calvin could not be bought for any sum.
    Cromwell’s Judaics-to-England gambit was crushed by his own Puritan Parliament who would not have Judaics in England no matter what the financial reward.
    Calvinism and Lutheranism as designed by their founders exhibited many pernicious errors. The love of money was not one of them.
    If it is fair to blame the Catholic Church of Augustine and Aquinas for the mortal sins of the post-Vatican II Church of Rome, then it is fair to blame the Protestant church contemporary with Luther, and the Protestant church contemporary with Calvin for what revolutionary neo-Lutherans and neo-Calvinists would do after these apostates had departed from their founders’ doctrine.
    “Northsider” writes: Hoffman himself spots subtle “gradualism” everywhere where Rome is concerned, but ignores much more glaring examples of the phenomenon in the history of Protestantism. Thus he cites Pope Leo’s Papal Bull ‘Inter Multiplicis’ as beginning the gradual process of abandonment of the Catholic Church’s prohibition against usury, but denies that Calvin’s much more definitive embrace of usury played a decisive role in the rise of loan-shark hegemony.” (End quote)
    Calvin did not issue any “much more definitive embrace of usury.” What Calvin said about usury was far more candid and straight forward than Leo X’s duplicitous Machiavellian “Monte” alibi, but it was in no way “definitive” and it was derived directly from Renaissance Roman Catholic nominalism and its principles of equity.
    Calvin’s tacit approval for a 5% interest rate came from the illustrious Catholic theologian J. Eck, a creature of the Catholic Fugger banking dynasty.
    Calvin made the error of believing like Catholic Renaissance theologians, that a small profit on loans was a necessary evil in enhancing human economy in the 16th century. But Calvin regarded usurers the way Aquinas regarded whores. Aquinas believed that some prostitution had to be allowed as a necessary evil, but in the view of Aquinas prostitutes were loathsome creatures nonetheless. Calvin had a similar attitude toward 5% usury. He regarded all who take profit from loans as loathsome creatures and ordered that they be hounded out of the church. In the Renaissance the usurers were running the Church of Rome, not hounded out of it, except in rare cases where a peasant mob demanded it.
    The employment of bankers and lenders of all kinds remained disreputable in Calvinist churches until Baxter and Willard managed to batter down the allegiance to medieval Catholic anti-usury doctrine among the Puritans, so that by 1700 the pro and anti camps were about evenly divided, with those in favor gradually gaining an upper hand. Yet by 1750 the leading American theologian of colonial America, Puritan Jonathan Edwards, still taught against it.
    For further research, fair-minded persons may wish to read my book, “Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not,” and “Revisionist History” newsletter no. 74, “Right Wing Myths with an Endless Shelf Life.” Both are available at our online store: http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/

  7. I’ll reply fully to Mr Hoffman’s response when I have more time (the next few days I hope). For now I’ll confine myself to making just one point: Mr Hoffman invariably brings up Hilaire Belloc when he writes on the subject of Catholics and usury, and implies that Catholic historical misconceptions about the history of usurious capitalism are down to him (shades here of the Whiggish rabidly anti-Christian English Jewish historian Elton who claimed that “vague guilt” among Britons for the Reformation was the result of the “falsehoods” peddled by Belloc). None of this remotely applies to me, as I’ve never been a fan of Belloc. He was far too benignly disposed to Protestants – including murderous proto-capitalist French revolutionary Huguenots – for my taste. Furthermore his hyperbole about the threat of Islam is, I would argue, partly to blame for the lamentable credulity many modern traditional Catholics exhibit towards Zio-media and Neo-con narratives about the War on Terror, 9/11, the November 2015 “events” in Paris, and so on. I long ago lost count of the number of articles, comments, blog-posts, etc., I’ve seen by Trads since 9/11, arguing that the Jihadist terror threat vindicates everything Belloc ever warned about Islam. These are generally the same folk who blithely ignore the mountains of hard evidence from even mainstream corporate media sources proving Israeli, British, American, French and Turkish sponsorship of Isis and Al Qaeda. And, by the way, contrary to his “anti-Semitic” reputation, Belloc was not really a scourge of Zionism or Jewish supremacism – a fact noted by Fr. Denis Fahey.

  8. Reply to Michael Hoffman: First of all, in answer Mr Hoffman’s question about my use of pseudonym: I write with a pseudonym on other people’s blogs for the simple reason that I don’t have control of what is and is not published on such outlets. In 2002 an Irish Neoconservative philo-Protestant pseudo-Catholic (in my view) publication asked my permission to publish an article of mine, and a response to it by another writer. To cut a long and very complicated story short, this anonymous writer proceeded to systematically (and I believe deliberately) misrepresent what I had written. Not only that, but the magazine chose to headline his reply in such a way as to imply that I was a fascist (which I’m not). As I was working for the Irish Civil Service at the time, the piece by the anonymous writer, and the accompanying title, could have had very serious consequences for me professionally. Moreover, in spite of assurances to the contrary, the editor of the publication refused to give me a full and free right to reply. So I think I had ample cause to regret not using a pseudonym in that case.
    Mr Hoffman has not misrepresented me in this malicious fashion, but he has cut me off in the mid-debate on his own blog. Needless to say that’s his right, but it’s also my right not to divulge my identity – where no automatic right to reply exists. In any case, if I’m not mistaken Mr Hoffman himself contributes comments to at least one anonymous blog.
    Also, as Mr Hoffman is doubtless aware, the United States still affords far more protection for those who express politically incorrect opinions than most European countries do. In most of Europe, including my own country, much of what he writes would land him in jail.
    As in our previous exchanges on his own blog, Mr Hoffman is long on invective but short on fact based argument. For example his claims about the role of Catholics in usurious banking in France might, to the superficial reader, seem like a refutation of my statement that even in Catholic countries, Protestants were at the heart of such banking. In reality it’s not even a rebuttal, much less a refutation. Were Protestants at the heart of usurious banking in France, Ireland and Italy? Yes they were (I’ll provide citations to prove this in the next instalment of my reply), and no amount of diversionary waffle about Catholics’ role in usurious activities refutes that.
    From the very start of this discussion Mr Hoffman has attempted to shift the goal-posts. In my first comment on this topic on his blog I made it clear that my primary disagreement with him related, not to his criticisms of the post-Renaissance Catholic Church – some of which I indicated were legitimate – but to his attempts to whitewash the corruption and occultism of post-Reformation Protestantism . Any reader can check this out for himself or herself by going to his blog. I never at any point attempted to argue that Catholics didn’t engage in usury; what I DID argue was that the real driving force of modern usurious capitalist hegemony was Protestant Anglo-America and its various Masonic satellites.
    To claim that this belief on my part is the result of brainwashing by Belloc is utterly absurd. On the contrary British Whigs were bragging about the connection between capitalism and Protestantism well before Belloc was born, e.g. the pre-eminent British Victorian historian Lord Macaulay. For men like Macaulay, the role of Protestantism in the rise of capitalism was a cause for pride, not shame (see Macaulay’s Essays and Lays Of Ancient Rome). Many modern Protestants take similar pride in this connection. Modern descendants of the Huguenots, for example, frequently boast that the first governor of the Bank of England was one of their national co-religionists and that seven of the twenty four original founders of the Bank were Huguenots. Incidentally those facts alone completely refute Hoffman’s contention that radical Protestants were, in earlier times, for the most part, dedicated foes of usury.
    By the same token modern Huguenots likewise boast of their Philo-Judaism
    (“Philo-Semitism, often including an emotional identification with the Jewish people is part of the heritage of the community I was raised in: the French Huguenots, or Protestants” – The Huguenots, the Jews And Me, Azure No 26, Autumn, 2006),
    as do modern Northern Irish Protestants. Anyone who goes to Protestant “loyalist” areas of Belfast will see Israeli flags aplenty flying from buildings. Fans of Rangers, the big Protestant/loyalist soccer club in Glasgow, likewise have strong affinity for the Zionist state. The late Ian Paisley was an ardent Zionist and a supporter of all the various western interventionist wars, as is his son, Ian Paisley Jr. Unionist/loyalist Protestant paramilitaries in Northern Ireland have deep and longstanding connections with the state of Israel – as documented by Martin Dillon in his many books on Northern Irish terrorism, e.g. Stone Cold. The Loyalist terrorist groups, the UDA and UVF, collaborate with the “Russian” Zio-mafia in trafficking hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants into hitherto overwhelmingly Catholic southern Ireland.
    So, I’m not inventing some affinity between Protestants and Judaism: Protestants themselves, from John Hagee to the rabid Zionst Julie Burchill, enthusiastically celebrate this affinity. British Israelism, an offshoot of British radical Protestantism, was an early form of Christian Zionism. In fact the historical parallels between British Protestant supremacism, – including Orangesim – and modern Zionist supremacism are truly uncanny, a fact acknowledged by many modern Protestants. But apparently Hoffman, the cradle Catholic, understands Protestants’ religious heritage better than they do themselves.
    Mr Hoffman might retort that plenty of modern Catholics have likewise embraced Zionism. True enough, unfortunately, but rather inconveniently for his thesis, most of these Catholic Neocons are also ardent philo-Protestants and Anglosphere supremacists, e.g., Michael Novak, a man who dismisses traditional Catholic teachings on political economy, and argues that the rise of modern capitalism can be attributed to the Protestant liberal “English genius”. Hoffman on the other hand belongs firmly in the coincidence theory camp when it comes to modern capitalism. For him, apparently, it’s just a weird historical paradox that modern capitalism (and modern Freemasonry) took on their modern forms in Britain – a rabidly anti-Catholic super-power at the time. According to him the Protestants who embraced this economic system were for the most part just being led by the nose by the corrupt usurious papists. Never mind the fact that in almost every arena of human activity the tentacles of Protestant Masonic British culture – linguistic, literary, commercial, financial, and even sporting – spread, first to Europe, and then around the world, during the same period. In other words, the cultural, political and economic traffic travelled in precisely the opposite direction to that implied by Hoffman.
    As for pressing “emotional buttons” and “regurgitating” Catholic propaganda, this is the usual childish Hoffman gambit in this debate: dismiss inconvenient arguments as the product of ignorance or prejudice. Once again it is PROTESTANTS, and folk with no dog in this religious fight who are among the most vocal proponents of the idea of an intrinsic Protestant connection with liberalism. C.S. Lewis was no great friend of the Catholic Church, and certainly no critic of the Reformation, but he dismissed the popular notion of Puritans as rigorous moralists thusly:
    “We have come to use the word “Puritan” to mean what should rather be called “rigorist” or “ascetic” and we tend to assume that the sixteenth century Puritans were “puritanical” in this sense…But there is no understanding the period of the Reformation until we have grasped the fact that the original quarrel between the Puritans and the Papists was not primarily a quarrel between rigorism and indulgence, and that, in so far as it was, the rigorism was on the Roman side. On many questions, an especially in their view of the marriage bed, the Puritans were the indulgent party…[Sir Thomas] More thought of a Puritan as one ‘who lowed no Lenten fast, nor ligglye no fast elles, saving brekefast, and eate fast and drinke fast, and slepe fast, and luske fast in their lechery’, a person only too likely to end up in the “abominable heresies” of the Anabaptists about communism of goods and wives. And Puritan theology, so far from being grim and gloomy, seemed to More to err in the direction of fantastic optimism…More would not have understood the idea, sometimes found in the modern writers, that he and his friends were defending a “Merry” Catholic England against sour precision; they were rather defending a necessary severity and sternly realistic theology against wanton labefaction – penance and “works” and vows of celibacy and mortificationand Purgatory against the easy doctrine. the mere wish-fulfilment dream of salvation by faith”
    – Donne and Love Poetry in the 17th Century John Donne; A Collection of Critical Essays Prentice Hall 1962.
    Mr Hoffman claims that Heny VIII was a Romanist. Really? So why did the original Puritans stick with a Church that was Romanist? Why didn’t they, from the very outset, start up their own new religious denominations? If they objected so strongly to Henry’s usury, that surely would have been the logical and principled thing to do – instead of trying to “purify” what was, by their lights, an institution founded by a corrupt usurious Romanist. And why, come to that, did so many of them return eventually to Anglicanism in the USA, and elsewhere? The truth is that Protestantism is a purely negative descriptor. Henry may not have had much aesthetic or philosophical affinity with radical Calvinists, or even Lutherans, but he was in the end every bit as much a Protestant as they were – just as modern high Anglicans are every bit as Protestant as Congregationalists, whatever they may claim to the contrary. Henry rejected many of the hard teachings of the Church on personal grounds and that is the essence of Protestantism, and – in the political sphere – the essence of liberalism.
    As he is someone who likes to bandy around accusations of lack of critical rigour towards those who disagree with him (not just me – I’ve read almost identical denunciations directed at other targets of his ire) it might be a good idea if Hoffman adopted his own counsel about precision of argument. I did NOT say, as he claims I said, that the early Protestants love of money made them prideful; I said the reverse: that the revolutionary pridefulness of the original “Reformers” made the post-Reformation world more prone to embracing practices that were previously regarded as sinful, including usury. Indeed I used the analogy of 1960s left liberals who, in general, would initially have had no truck with notions such as “gay marriage”, but found themselves on a cultural Marxist express train, the final destination of which they hadn’t the faintest idea of.
    Some early Protestants were against usury and some were not. That is surely the whole point. Like most things Protestant the rights and wrongs of this practice became purely a matter of subjective personal opinion. As always, rejection of authority is the heart of the matter. Neither Luther nor Calvin had any personal spiritual authority to pronounce independently on the issue of usury, any more than Milton had authority to pronounce on the rights and wrongs of divorce. And if Protestants then or now reject the authority of the Church on usury – from either side – why should they or anyone else feel obligated to subject themselves to any form of religious authority on any matter?
    Having said all of the above I do believe that any remotely unbiased study of Reformation history clearly indicates that some of the political sponsors of Protestant movements were indeed motivated by greed and ambition.
    Mr Hoffman provides no evidence for his contention that “Puritans Progress” series is “nonsensical”. Needless to say I disagree with that description, although I don’t concur with everything in the series by any means. I cited the book simply because it confirmed something I had written in my piece – not because it is the primary source of my knowledge on the subject. Everyone who has ever written an academic essay (which my piece very obviously was not) knows this is often the way with footnotes. Furthermore I cited, as the authors, the names that appear in the published book as the authors, which is standard practice. I have no knowledge of any other author, although at the time I first read the series I did wonder if a certain north American ardent monarchist might have had a hand in it (for what it’s worth I think the monarchist thing is way overdone in Catholic Traditionalist circles – though I’m not against monarchy per se). Again if Mr Hoffman has information as to the true authorship of this series of books, I presume there’s nothing stopping him divulging it. I for one am genuinely curious.
    I’ll respond to Mr Hoffman’s other points sometime next week, please God.

    1. Northsider, this statement really tops it off:

      Henry rejected many of the hard teachings of the Church on personal grounds and that is the essence of Protestantism, and – in the political sphere – the essence of liberalism.

      Well said. On another note, I had no idea Zionist-Occupied Northern Ireland and her mother were Balkanizing Ireland. At learning this, though, I am not in the least bit surprised. Looks like the Yinon Plan goes beyond the Middle East.
      The Sikhs can be just as savage and chauvinistic as Muslims, in my opinion. Perhaps they are a bigger threat to the West than Muzzies. And there are way more of them than Muslims, it seems, way more!

  9. Apologies for the delay in the second part of my reply to Michael Hoffman – I’ve been very busy over the last few weeks.
    As I’ve noted before, Protestants themselves frequently boast about their links to Freemasonry, Judaism and capitalism, and tend to portray the Catholic Church as a sanctuary for evil anti-semites (contrary to what is claimed, the Church has never been anti-Jewish in the racist sense of that term – Fr. Denis Fahey, a man usually characterised these days as a vile anti-Semite, was always careful to distinguish between opposition to what he called “organised Jewish naturalism” on the one hand, and hatred of the Jews as a race” on the other – not that this very vital distinction has saved his reputation). I’m not sure if Mr Hoffman holds of G.K. Chesterton in the same low regard he holds Belloc, but GKC’s fine book, “The Thing”, is in part a response to the philo-Judaic anti-Catholic rants of the likes of Dean Inge and (Anglican) Bishop Barnes.
    Furthermore even among Catholics themselves there’s a notable crossover between philo-Protestantism and philo-Judaism, in both the liberal/modernist and Neoconservative wings of modern Catholicism. For example, Paul Johnson, the British Catholic ardently Zionist historian and journalist, is a huge fan of Oliver Cromwell. Johnson is often depicted as an old-fashioned right-winger, but he was in fact a keen fan of Tony Blair – another Cromwell afficionado – and has, amongst many other egregious stances, supported the idea of “women priests” in the Church.
    If, as Mr Hoffman suggests, the Church has been covertly in league with freemasonry and the “cryptocracy” since the Renaissance, no one seems to have sent the relevant memo to that cryptocracy’s agents in Hollywood, the corporate media, the literary world, academia and so on. A significant proportion of Hollywood’s output in recent decades has been obsessively anti-Catholic: Philomena, The Magdalen Laundries, Pirates of the Caribbean, Angela’s Ashes, Elizabeth, and on and on. Where, I would ask, are the similar films trashing Protestantism? Even movies that don’t deal explicitly with anti-Catholic themes tend to get in jibes at Catholicism wherever possible.
    Then there’s television. Is there any anti-Protestant TV show to compare with the vile anti-Catholic, dementedly anti-Irish caricature that was/is Fr Ted? The star of this show, the late Dermot Morgan, was a member of the Workers Party/Group B – a well armed paramilitary British intelligence black operation in Ireland, which, in collaboration with the British Masonic secret state, ran a huge criminal empire of prostitution, drug-trafficking, protection rackets and so on, on both sides of the Irish border. Erstwhile members of the Workers Party morphed in the early 1990s from ardent Stalinism to equally ardent supporters of the Neoconservative Greater Israel agenda and the accompanying Anglo-American military interventionism. The two constants in their outlook were and are rabid anti-Catholicism and equally rabid hostility to Irish nationalism.
    Irish literature has been controlled by the same cabalistic freemasonic anti-Catholic forces that always dominated the Anglo-American literary scene. Hence the obsessive focus on anti-Catholic themes in Irish writing – so much so that as long ago as 1965, the Irish literary academic Augustine Martin, himself a left-liberal, lamented the fact that, since the time of George Moore in the late 19th century, anti-clericalism had been done to death “from every conceivable angle” in Irish literature – a phenomenon he dubbed “inherited dissent”. If the Catholic Church in those days was part of the “cryptocracy”, one might have expected its Masonic buddies in the publishing world to occasionally cut it some slack – but far from it. And by the way this anti-Catholic stuff formed part of the syllabus of every school child in Ireland – even in the 1960s and 1970s, so, so much for the anti-Catholic myth of an all powerful Catholic Church in Ireland during the post-War era. The enduring nature of that myth is itself paradoxical testament to both the power of the Protestant-Masonic elite in Ireland and to their unremitting hostility towards the Catholic Church.
    I’ve dwelt a bit on Ireland because it’s the country I know best, but the association between Protestantism and liberalism – cultural, political and economic – is well established in most countries, and not something most Protestants are in general at all inclined to deny: An article in the hugely influential (and partly Rothschild owned) Economist in 1998 celebrated the great power and prestige Protestants enjoy in France:
    “Today with 900,000 members, the 15 main Protestant denominations amount to barely 2% of the population, but their influence still far outweighs their numbers – in business, in the civil service and among the intelligentsia. People still talk snobbishly of the “HSP” – the haute societe protestante – of leading families who once dominated French finance and business. Protestants have been in the van of most of the great liberalising ideas and reforms in French history: the declaration of human rights, the abolition of slavery, the market economy, the devolution of power from the centre, the spread of state education, the separation of church and state, advocacy of contraception of divorce.” (The Economist – April 16th 1998).
    By the same token French Protestants are only too happy to take credit for their role in the rise of capitalism in France, as in the following:
    “The development of the 19the century banking sector in France was mostly due to personalities who came from Switzerland, Germany or Italy and who included many Protestants.”
    The above comes from an article – “Protestant Banking Firms of the 19th Century” – on the official French Protestant history website-www. museeprotestant.org. The same website, incidentally, has an article celebrating the strong connections between French Protestantism and Freemasonry.
    A review of the academic work “The World of Private Banking” (EH Net June 2010) makes it clear just how prominent a role Protestants played in post-Reformation banking in Europe:
    Kerner describes solidarity among Protestant bankers in the sixteenth century and the financial networks that started to form in several parts of Switzerland, later between various Protestant groups in the German states and between Huguenot factions in France. This said, Kerner devotes most space to the growth of Swiss (Calvinist) power, particularly in relation to France. He recounts in highly technical terms the money transfer routes of Protestant bankers who used Geneva as a hub…what is fascinating to see here is Catholic monarchs who elevated Protestant bankers to positions of social and political power in periods of interdenominational pressure. This is particularly arresting when the pattern survived in France even after the 1685 revocation of the Edict of Nantes” (The World of Private Banking: EH Net, June 2010 Author (s) Cassis, Youssef, Cottrall, Philip; Reviewer(s) Austin, Peter.)
    Let it be noted that none of the above is from Catholic sources.
    I don’t have time to conclude my reply to Mr Hoffman now – I’ll try and finish it in the next few days, God willing. Apologies for the delay.

  10. Tim: Balkanisation is no name for it. Many people who haven’t visited Ireland over the last, say, 15 years, will find it hard to believe, but Ireland has undergone an invasion of far greater scale proportionally than what the Germans are now experiencing. And they are coming from all corners of the globe, Africa, China, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Romania, even South America. Unlike the German situation there has been zero media coverage of this truly staggering influx – even in the “Irish” (really Anglo-Masonic Zionsist) media.
    Re the obsessive focus on Muslim migration – to the exclusion of others – the medical case that legalised abortion in Ireland was brought by an ardently pro-abortion Indian Hindu. Also, in fairness to the Muslims, the head mufti in Ireland urged Muslims to vote no to the SSM proposal, whereas the Anglican Church in Ireland was very much in favour.
    When people denounce only Muslim immigration I’m reminded of the story in one of Solange Hertz’s books about the guy who left his job in a munitions factory every evening, with a wheelbarrow full of rubbish such as empty coke bottles. The security men always rummaged through the barrow to see if he was smuggling out anything worthwhile, but never found anything. One of his colleagues asked him why he tried to smuggle such junk out, to which he replied: “I’m not stealing the stuff in the wheelbarrows – I’m stealing the wheelbarrows.” By the same token, all the focus on an Islamic takeover of Europe tends to obscure the fact that there are millions of non-Islamic non-Christian migrants settling in Europe and north American every year. Focussing only on Muslims may therefore be an ingenious way of acclimatising people to the general phenomenon of mass immigration.

  11. I am not going to follow-up on my initial response (which is above) because the whole thing reflects the typical mentality of sloth that is prevalent on the Internet. “Northsider” and Mr. Fitzpatrick appear to be too lazy to read the book on the subject by the man they’re attacking at some length.
    Can we truly regard as a serious scholar the guy who writes under the alias “Northsider” and actually suggests that I replicate my book’s arguments on this blog, rather than importuning him with a request to put down the Solange Hertz novels and read “Usury in Christendom”?
    Mr. Fitzpatrick and “Northsider” may snipe away. Until they read “Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not” however, there is no reason for me to offer a rejoinder to their all too familiar and shopworn “traditional Catholic” mythology about the post-Renaissance Church of Rome.
    To refute Right-wing myths with an endless shelf-life takes a book, or a book-length riposte. These fellows imagine I will be willing to personally indulge their sloth and repeat my book of 400 + pages in their blog. Let them read the book on the subject and reply to the arguments and documentation in it. If not, then they aren’t serious and no further words need be expended on what is, effectively, a huge waste of time.

    1. Mr. Hoffman, most of this debate is related to stuff posted directly on your blog as well as the comments section. The true laziness is to dismiss this debate by simply referring us to read your book! And your endless memes of “right wing myths” doesn’t become truer the more you repeat them. If you would quit being vague about your personal beliefs as it pertains to faith, perhaps we could get a better sense of the reasoning behind your stated positions. Just what are you?

  12. This is the third part of my reply to Mr Hoffman (apologies once again for all the delays).
    Max Weber’s thesis about the link between Protestantism and capitalism has been widely disputed, but for me the argument about whether or not Protestant religious beliefs are more in tune with the capitalist spirit than Catholicism is something of a red herring. The real issue is not so much Protestant dogma, as the absence of Protestant dogma. It is the very subjective individualistic nature of Protestantism that made Protestant cultures such ripe territory for capitalist expansion. When dogma goes out the window, materialism inevitably comes in. Non-Christian lands like Japan, India, and China embraced full-on capitalist materialism, not because they were fans of Melanchthon or Calvin, but because they had no substantial Christian culture to counter the natural tendency in man towards greed and materialism. The same applies to formerly Catholic countries such as Ireland and Spain. The predominantly Catholic populations of those countries became capitalistically inclined at precisely the point when Catholic belief and practice went into steep decline. Materialism inevitably fills the void left by the dissipation of authentic Christian belief.
    Protestantism isn’t just devoid of any form of universally binding authority: it also rejects the incarnational and traditional devotional elements of Christian belief and practice . Generally speaking, the more Protestant a denomination is the more hostile it will be towards sacramental theology, and towards veneration of the Blessed Virgin, devotion to the angels and saints, formal liturgy and religious iconography. Some Protestants even deprecate the notion of prayer itself as unscriptural – as evidenced by at least one regular contributor to the comments section of this blog. As the late traditional Catholic writer, Anne Roche Muggeridge, wrote in her book on the post-Vatican devastation of the Catholic Church, “The Desolate City”: “There are no empty spaces in Catholicism”. There are, on the contrary, quite a lot of empty spaces in Protestantism – empty spaces that can be, and often are, filled by worldly preoccupations, such as making money and acquiring human respect.
    The minimalism of Jewish and Protestant religious doctrines and practices is mirrored in the barren secular art and architecture (“giant Kleenex boxes” as Normal Mailer used to call Bauhaus style skyscrapers) of modern times – itself concrete visual proof of the triumph of the Judaeo-Protestant spiritual sterility. By the same token, as the institutional Catholic Church became more benignly disposed towards Protestantism (and modernist capitalism, its liturgy, and the architecture and design of its churches inevitably became more attuned to the capitalist materialist weltanschauung. The philo-Protestantism of modern post-Vatican II Catholicism shows itself not just in stripped down liturgy and church buildings, but also in the de facto embrace of capitalist modernism.
    As philo-Protestant ecumenism waxed in the post Vatican II Church the critiques of capitalism (and socialism) of Catholic writers as diverse as Fr Denis Fahey, Fr Edward Cahill S.J., Chesterton, Shumacher, Fanfani, and yes, Belloc (he got some important things wrong, but he go many things right as well), began to be portrayed as embarrassingly old hat by the new breed of leftist and Neo-liberal ideologues who insinuated themselves into positions of power and influence within the Church. The leftists and neo-liberals had of course much more in common with each other than they had with advocates of traditional Catholic approaches to political economy. So even the evidence from within the Church itself completely refutes Mr Hoffman’s thesis: contrary to what would be expected if Protestantism was more hostile to capitalism than post Renaissance Catholicism was, the more pro-Protestant the Catholic Church became, the more pro-capitalist it became too.
    Another largely unremarked area of confluence between Protestantism and Judaism is ethnocentric supremacism. Many “white nationalists” (and I know Mr Hoffman is not one of their number) dwell on the ethnocentric chauvinism of modern Jewish tribalists. Some of them, like David Duke, even posit a genetic predisposition towards ethnic megalomania in the Jewish race. But for all the undoubted truths such activists tell about the racism, double standards and crass self-righteousness of Jewish tribal supremacists, they’re usually much less eager to dwell on parallel forms of ethnic supremacism that flourished and still flourish among so called White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Anglo Protestants justified much of their aggression towards the Irish and other nations on grounds of a racial supremacism, which they explicitly linked to their own Protestantism.
    The modern acronym WASP itself hints strongly at the bogus nature of this supremacism – suggesting as it does some inherent link between “whiteness” and Protestantism. As a matter of biological fact indigenous English Protestants are considerably less “white” than indigenous Irish Catholics – in terms of skin colour and so on. Even the Anglo-Saxon part of the WASP moniker is highly dubious – a recent Oxford University study confirmed what many historians and ethnologists have known for years: the English share more genetic heritage with the French than with the Germans. Now, lest I be accused of indulging in a form of racial supremacism myself, I should add that I greatly admire the French people and don’t see French genetic heritage as anything to be ashamed of. My point is that English Protestants mimicked the racial supremacism of Jewish racial tribalism, by inventing a bogus “northern” version of their ethnic heritage. What is more, their notions of ethnic chosen-ness derived explicitly from their own cherry picking and distortions of Bible verses – specifically the Old Testament.
    Even supposed proto-liberal Anglo Protestants such as Ralph Waldo Emerson embraced this form of British ethnic supremacism (see “A Candidate For Truth”). In essence the whole WASP lexicon of “Boston Brahmins”, “Blue Bloods” and so on was simply a gentile imitation of Jewish racial exceptionalism – an exceptionalism that, not so paradoxically, usually goes hand in hand with the promotion of multiculturalism. The racial supremacist, by his nature does not respect the right of other races to maintain their own ethnic and cultural integrity, because he sees himself in competition with other ethnicities – a competition that for him must end with the outright destruction of the nations in question. This ultra-competitive approach to ethnicity motivated British Protestant supremacists to plant Ireland and elsewhere, just as it motivates Zionist proponents of mass immigration to western nations today (As I’ve already noted, British intelligence sponsored Protestant paramilitary gangs in Northern Ireland such as the Ulster Volunteer Force collude with the “Russian” mafia and Chinese triads to traffic huge numbers of migrants to the Republic of Ireland).
    As Henry Makow has observed, many in the “white nationalist” movement tend to avoid talking about the Freemasons and other secret societies . I’ve even seen such folk dismiss talk of Freemasonry’s role in modern ills as “Kosher ghosts”. David Duke and his colleagues tend to dismiss even talk of Rothschild Zionism as a deflection from the main business – the evil of the Jews. But there’s nothing “ghostly” about the Freemasons – they exist and they number many prominent and ostensibly powerful figures in their ranks. And they are, by their own admission, disproportionately Protestant – see “Freemasons Are Just a Bunch of Regular Guys” – Liam Collins – Sunday Independent – 13/9/15 – (by the way the Irish newspaper in which this glowing celebration of Irish Freemasonry appeared is fanatically anti-Catholic, fanatically Anglophile and fanatically pro-Israel in equal measure).
    Likewise there’s nothing ghostly about the Skull and Bones; two recent US presidents and a current Secretary of State belong to it, as do many other ostensibly powerful figures. And this nefarious group came to be in what was a Protestant university. Duke and Co. say that the “Jewish extremists” wield the real power and that the Bush clan and the rest of the gentile elite are simply their servants. Maybe so, but even if true, that still does not explain how such folk came to be servants of Zion, and why they remain so in spite of everything. Simply boiling it all down to Zionist political donations, as Duke tends to do, will not wash, since many of the folk who do the bidding of Zionists are not politicians. The obvious source of much of Zionist power and influence within the gentile community is secret societies.
    If you leave such societies out of the equation, you’re left with huge unexplained holes in modern history. How – to take a random example – did association football (aka Soccer) spread around the globe so rapidly, from the date of its foundation by British freemasons? Why has the English language achieved such hegemony – to the point where it is now being imposed everywhere – in the way it was once imposed on Wales, Cornwall, Ireland, and the highlands of Scotland? Why do the world media pay such disproportionate attention to the not especially interesting or charismatic Protestant British royal family – a family steeped in Masonry for generations? Is it all just coincidence? There IS a nexus between Judaeo-supremacism and Protestantism – most especially Anglo-Protestantism. The Protestant Freemasons may be the junior partners – or even the gillies – of Jewish supremacists – but no reasonable person can doubt the concrete and abiding nature of the relationship.
    None of this is to deny that many Protestants oppose the New World Order very valiantly. If I have to choose between the Lutheran Mark Dankof and the “Catholics” Michael Novak or George Weigel, I’ll choose Dankof every time. In fact I’m not even sure I wouldn’t prefer him to self-styled Catholic traditionalists such as Michael Matt – who, especially since being targeted by the SPLC some years ago, has become a reliable mouthpiece for the Neo-con Lite tendency within Catholicism. But subjectivist movements like Protestantism will always throw up great men like Dankof – because great men will always transcend the subjectivism. That, however, does not alter the inherently corrosive nature of subjectivism.
    I’ll reply to Mr Hoffman’s most recent posts when I have more time – the next few days hopefully.

  13. Mr Hoffman has an unfortunate habit of misattributing statements to those who contradict him – a tendency that doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the punctiliousness of his own scholarship. Contrary to what he implies above I never claimed to be a “serious scholar”. I DID challenge him to provide evidence to refute my claims regarding the leading role of British, American and continental European Protestants in the rise of usurious Protestant capitalism. This he has not done – in spite of several exchanges between us. If Mr Hoffman has some “killer facts” that refute what I said, he can produce them here, and he certainly doesn’t need me to read his book in order to do so. He can quote the relevant passages from his books, or he can paraphrase the arguments from these books that refute, not only me, but the many Protestant and non-Christian scholars who document the decisive role Protestantism played in the rise of modern capitalism and modern liberalism generally.
    Mr Hoffman writes frequently on his blog on this subject, but never once have I seen him adduce any facts to contradict the evidence of these scholars. So the boot is really on the other foot: if Mr Hoffman is so confident that his books refute the Protestant-capitalist thesis, why does he not cite this evidence in his own blog writings? Is HE so slothful that he can’t be bothered to search out the relevant passages in works that he himself has written?
    The truth is of course that there ARE no killer facts to refute what I’ve said. It’s a matter of public record that Huguenots were leading figures in the foundation of the Bank of England, just as it’s a matter of public record that Huguenots played a hugely disproportionate role in the rise of French usurious banking. In fact even Italian Protestants in France got the banking bug, and were objects of suspicion in France on that account. It’s a matter of public record that Protestants dominated banking in the Republic of Ireland – a state that was until the 1990s overwhelmingly Catholic. None of this information comes from Hilaire Belloc, or Solange Hertz, or the mysterious unidentified Hermetic Platonist Mr Hoffman claims wrote “Puritans’ Progress” (is the identity of this chap also only available to those who shell out for Mr Hoffman’s oeuvre?). It comes from impeccably Protestant sources; sources I’ve cited in my previous replies to Mr Hoffman.
    Nor do Protestants deny the vastly disproportionate representation of Protestants within the Freemasons. The book “Previews of the New Papacy”, by Attila Sinke Gumaraes and Marian Horvat, contains photographs of a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, and two Swedish Lutheran bishops in Masonic regalia. The Orange Order, the Purple Arch and the Black Preceptory are all closely allied to both Masonry and to the mainstream Protestant churches. The Protestant royal houses of northern Europe are steeped in Freemasonry.
    The role of Protestants in the sexual revolution is equally undeniable. Protestant northern European countries were pioneers in the adoption of feminism, the culture of illicit co-habitation, and general sexual liberalism. Formerly Catholic continental European nations only adopted these norms in the late 1990s as Catholic influence began to wane very dramatically. Protestants in the Republic of Ireland have generally been very active supporters of the socially liberal agenda of divorce, birth prevention, and abortion – not to mention “gay marriage”. The Irish Times is widely regarded as the flagship media outlet of liberal Masonic Ireland, and it only got its first nominally (very nominally indeed) Catholic editor in the mid-1980s.
    I’m guessing that in his attempts to whitewash radical Protestantism, Mr Hoffman is himself a captive of romantic prejudice. He seems to be emotionally attached to the idea of Reformation Protestantism as a passionate cleansing force, determinedly purging the west of decadent Romanist corruption. It’s an alluring myth – in much the same way as the idea of the Bolsheviks as an austere avenging force purging Tsarist Russia of bourgeois degeneracy has a certain romantic appeal. Unfortunately however the facts don’t correspond to the myth in either case

  14. Mr Fitzinfo, you conveniently to leave out the part that Catholics are the ones who voted in “gay marriage” in the Supreme Court. 3 were Jews, and 6 were Catholics. It’s seems your doorstep needs sweeping. you always blame Jews for everything. Who’s in control of the biggest pseudo Christian cult, that consists of 1.2 billion people? Who, when asked is gays will go to heaven said “who am I to judge”, while in the next breathe calling anyone in favor of a border wall “unchristian”? Doesn’t your “vicar of christ” hide behind walls himself in the Vatican? Why is it you never hear him volunteer one of the thousand rooms in his “holy” compound to a “refugee”? Why doesn’t he sell the many jewel encrusted scepters, and “monstrances” to feed the poor, but expects others to? Hell definatly awaits those (plural) reprobate antichrists.

  15. Mr Hoffman retorted the way one would expect a Christian to. Good for you mr Hoffman. These shills are propagating these insane beliefs for a reason. The next thing coming from them will be the inquisition never happened. It’s common sense, that since Rome ruled Europe for a thousand years, they rule the banking as well. I forgot, it was the Jews.

    1. Jeremy: I don’t know whether you are a lapsed Catholic, a Protestant or a Jew, since you take care not to reveal your hand on that point. But the fact that you are clearly hostile to the Catholic Church and rush to defend Mr Hoffman, tends to prove Northsider’s point about Mr Hoffman.
      Mr Hoffman didn’t respond as a Christian should, he responded as an anti-Catholic Protestant would.
      Most of what you write can be summed up by the logical fallacy known as begging the question.
      You say that 6 of the supreme court were Catholics. Clearly they are not Catholic or they wouldn’t have voted for ‘gay’ marriage. Being Catholic requires more than having a Catholic background and calling yourself Catholic. They are putting their careers before their faith thereby giving the lie to their Catholic claims. Also, in a country with an extremely tiny Jewish population, why the heck are 1/3 of Ireland’s Supreme Court Jewish. Something wrong there, methinks. I bet that the number of Jews, both on the Supreme Court and in the wider Jewish population voting for ‘gay’ marriage was 100%!
      You sneeringly call the Catholic Church a ‘pseudo Christian cult’. Really, Mr Hoffman needs to question his claims to Catholicity if he attracts followers like you.
      Can you point to a place on this site where anybody has defended Bergoglio? Bergoglio is, himself, hostile to the Catholic Faith, as his many blatherings indicate. If you’d paid attention, you would clearly have seen that he is in awe of, and probably owes his place as ‘pope’ to, his Jewish masters. My own view is that, since a pope has to hold the Catholic Faith and Bergoglio certainly doesn’t, he isn’t a true pope. Although, I think Northsider and I would disagree on that point.
      Everybody with a beef against the Church brings up that trite ‘why doesn’t the pope sell off the Vatican treasures and distribute the proceeds among the poor’ whinge. 1. They are not the pope’s to sell, he doesn’t personally own them. 2. What do you imagine that would achieve in the grand scheme of things? The whole unjust Jewish Rothschild world banking system needs to be demolished. Besides, the Catholic Church has always been at the forefront of alleviating poverty worldwide. 3. In contrast to the Puritan, Calvinist culture of ugliness, the Catholic Church has always held the view that we should give the best and most beautiful that man can offer to God. That’s perfectly Scriptural. Didn’t Jesus rebuke Judas Iscariot for opining that the woman who anointed His feet with costly ointment should have sold the ointment and given the money to the poor?
      The only shilling and insanity comes from you ‘Jeremy’. Not even Michael Hoffman has suggested that because Rome once had a powerful empire, it is ‘common sense’ that ‘they’ (sic) control the banking system today. Firstly, ‘Rome’ is not the Catholic Church, secondly, the British had a bigger, and much more powerful, empire within living memory. Why not argue that they control the banking system. Well, in fact, through Rothschild, they still do. Many believe that the City of London, rather than Wall Street, is the real hub of banking control.
      As to the Inquisition, another hoary old chestnut; no, we do not deny it ‘happened’ (it didn’t ‘happen’, it was an institution, not an occurrence, like the Second World War). What we deny is Jewish, Protestant, Masonic and atheistic claims and exaggerations about its purpose and scope.
      So, ‘Jeremy’, before you sanctimoniously consign others to Hell, you might want to look to your own spreading of disinformation.

  16. One final point: It’s not through sloth that I decline to read Mr Hoffman’s books – it would stick in my craw to contribute financially to his cause. There’s more than enough anti-Catholic propagandists out there, without me supporting them. And yes, I’m afraid I do regard much of his output as explicitly anti-Catholic – not because it criticises the Church, but because the criticisms are distorted and hypocritical . For instance, Hoffman, like many modern Catholic traditionalists, is more than happy to unquestioningly accept the Zio-media version of the Catholic sex abuse scandals. When self-styled anti-Zionist revisionists and Catholic traditionalists faithfully parrot Zio-media narratives about Zionism’s greatest enemy, the Catholic Church, the triumph of the Full Spectrum Dominance induced circular firing squad strategy is surely there for all to see..
    Furthermore Hoffman blocked my replies to his falsehoods about Luther, Calvin and the Puritans, but not before engaging in some fairly infantile personal abuse – sadly his trademark response when contradicted on points of fact. If he wanted to put me – or anyone else – straight on misconceptions about radical Protestantism he had plenty of opportunities to do so. At a rough guess I’d say his anti-Catholic diatribes on his blog easily run to 400 pages. Yet none of this output that I’ve seen comes anywhere close to factually refuting the idea that Protestants were heavily involved in the usurious banking trade from the very start.
    Most importantly of all, I don’t need to read Mr Hoffman’s books to call him out on points of fact. To suggest that I do is akin to arguing that one is debarred from pointing out the many false statements about Iraq and Afghanistan made by, say, Richard Perle in his journalism, unless one has read “The End Of Evil” and the rest of his atrocious literary output. Hoffman doesn’t want a readership: he wants a fan club.

    1. Hoffman is an unlikable, pompous, unprofessional “scholar”. And his arguments are borderline infantile when it comes to debate. Sick of trying to get a straight answer out of him. He dismisses every question he does not want to answer. That’s called intellectual dishonesty, is it not?

  17. Tim, I hope I don’t sound sycophantic here, but I thought your questions to Hoffman about his admiration for the Masonic American revolutionists demolished him in one fell swoop. As to his personality, sadly I think you have a point. The guy clearly has bags of courage and has done a lot of excellent work – I wouldn’t deny that. For instance I thought his demolition of Michael Matt of The Remnant over the Bishop Williamson holocaust controversy a few years ago was brilliantly argued. However for me his views on Protestantism seem to be motivated by a certain romantic affinity for rebels – regardless of their cause. It’s a weird analogy I know, but I’d make a parallel with those kids in the late 1970s and beyond who embraced punk rock because it was supposedly an alternative to the commercial manufactured mainstream pop music of that era – when in reality it was just another form of corrupting drivel – and every bit as manufactured as Abba or whoever – if not more so. By the same token, just because the Prods denounced the corruption, real and alleged, of Renaissance Romanists, doesn’t meant they weren’t corrupt themselves. We all know that one of the best methods of portraying one’s cause as noble is to make a song and dance about the alleged corruption of those you seek to depose. The utterly corrupt Masonic establishment in Ireland are past masters at it. And all the colour revolutions and Arab Spring uprisings were sold to the western sheeple as noble revolts against corrupt tyrannical regimes – when they were really Neocon/Soros directed black ops.

  18. Mary Louise: Excellent points re the City of London. Many well-meaning opponents of the New World Order in the UK tend to see Britain as a lap-dog state of the U.S.. but much of the evidence suggests something close to the opposite. By that I don’t mean that the British people rule the American people, but rather that the City of London rules them both.
    As for Francis, I’m an agnostic on the subject of whether he is or is not pope. As you probably know there has already been a book written in which various cardinals more or less boast of having engineered his election. If such a conspiracy were proved, it would, as I understand it, automatically nullify his election.
    One thing I’m fairly sure of is that that the NWO (for want of a better term) engineered Benedict’s removal in the expectation, if not certainty, that Francis would replace him. And how fortuitous to have such a figure as pope (or ostensible pope) at the time they planned to unleash their huge “refugee crisis” psy-op.
    Just to be clear I don’t disagree with traditionalist criticisms of the post-Vatican II Church at all – what I DO object to is the way many traditionalist publications save all their radical zeal for attacking the Church, but are, by contrast, quite servile and credulous towards the secular media and establishment. This type of stance is a win win for the enemies of the Church, in that not only do such Trads provide a Catholic right-wing cover for anti-Catholic Zio-media hate campaigns, but they also serve as gatekeepers for the NWO – issuing decrees as to what is and is not acceptable discourse within “the Traditionalist Movement”. A few months ago I got barred from the Remnant forums for criticising that newspaper for treating allegations of abuse against Catholic monks that appeared on the Mail Online website as fact. As I pointed out, not only did the article, and Michael Matt’s commentary on it, assume the guilt of men who had not even been charged with any offence, much less convicted – it also appeared, on a website notorious for its “clickbait” pictures of semi-naked young women and teenage girls, and its unbelievably sleazy commentaries to accompany these photos. And of course this is the same Daily Mail, which – in common with most of the rest of the British media – has viciously character assassinated those who accuse Leon Brittan, Greville Janner and Ted Heath of sexual crimes.
    Remnant comment forums are in my view heavily infiltrated by pseudo-Trad shills, who specialise in character assassinating “conspiracy kooks”, and in subtly promoting the NWO War on Terror and anti-Russian narratives. I’m guessing the aim of such folk is to steer the Trad movement into a zone of sterile Catholic self-hatred – where all the ire is directed at the Church itself, and the enemies of the Church get off scot free.
    Other Trad publications are also a bit problematic in my view. For instance Christian Order, the British Trad magazine contains a lot of good articles, but there’s plenty of dubious material thrown in as well. The editor seems to me to have a rather unhealthy affinity for Anglo-American political “conservatism”, and has been known to praise ghastly anti-Catholic Neocons such as Michael Gove and Sarkozy.

    1. Northsider: I agree with your points about some traditionalists. They seem to think that all this media attention given to sex scandals concerning Novus Ordo priests and bishops doesn’t harm the Catholic Church and that the media is doing the Church a favour. To the vast majority of people in this world these priests represent the Catholic Church. The media doesn’t distinguish between Trads and Novus Ordites. It’s all just the Catholic Church as far as they’re concerned.
      There is one particular traditionalist site, Traditio, that revels in these scandals and never misses an opportunity to report, with glee, on the secular media’s stories. The same site has a strong Americanist slant. It perpetuates the ‘Islamic terror’ myth, supports the neocon wars in the Middle East and apparently believes that George Washington converted to Catholicism on his deathbed!
      As for the Mail; what a disgusting rag! It is pulling out all the stops to keep a lid on the scandals involving politicians, one of its tactics, besides libelling the alleged victims, being to keep re-visiting ‘paedophilia in the Catholic Church’ at every opportunity. It only proves that the Mail, and the media in general, couldn’t care less about abused kids, they just want to destroy the Church’s credibility and maintain the county’s elite, masonic hegemony. I have left comments in the Mails comments boxes pointing out the comparative discrepancies and hypocrisy in their reporting of the paedophilia issue. Of course, my comments weren’t published.

  19. Mary Louise: You’re bang on the money. Sometimes I do wonder what parallel universe trads inhabit, especially when they come out with this absurd drivel about the need to be “grateful” to the media for “exposing” the scandals (I’m talking here, needless to say, about sincere trads – that Traditio website you mention sounds from your description like it could be an Neocon psy-op, though I’ve never visited it before). For a start there’s a huge contradiction at the heart of everything such trads say on this subject. On the one hand they denounce the bishops as evil modernists and facilitators of the homosexual agenda, but on the other they unquestioningly accept it at face value when these same bishops hand over billions of dollars/sterling/euros of Church funds in compensation for the alleged crimes of priests – many of whom are no longer around to defend their reputation – without any real investigation of claims. As someone wrote on an American Conservative comment forum a few years ago, once you make an accusation against a Catholic priest or religious, you don’t really have to do much more than turn up at your local diocesan office and collect your millions.
    It never seems to occur to trads that far from it being a case of bishops shielding criminal priests, and then being exposed for this by the noble media, something closer to the opposite is afoot, i.e. compromised bishops and diocesan bureaucrats are in unholy alliance with the media and political establishment to destroy the Church’s reputation and impoverish her into the bargain. In other words in throwing the good name of priests to the wolves without any proper investigation of most allegations – the bishops and bureaucrats may really be protecting themselves.
    You’re also right to say that trads delude themselves if they think this relentless media hate campaign benefits the traditionalist cause in either the long or short term. It actually does it great harm because not only does the average person not distinguish between traditional Catholics and the modernist variety, he or she has been brainwashed to believe that the more “conservative” or old-fashioned a Catholic priest is the more likely he is to be a “weirdo”. The logic here is very simple, but trads, for some utterly unfathomable reason, refuse to grasp it. The average Joe’s response to traditionalist arguments about the problem of clerical abuse being a result of liberal and modernist tendencies in the post-Vatican II Church will usually be: “So how come much more liberal Protestant and Jewish denominations don’t have clerical abuse? Of course they DO have such abuse, and often at far greater levels than in the Catholic Church , but the media suppress the information, and Catholic traditionalists tacitly collaborate with this suppression, by slavishly adhering to the media version of the Catholic scandals.
    I think it’s fairly obvious that Francis wouldn’t be pope (or anti-pope) were it not for the Catholic masochistic reaction to this hate campaign, and I think it’s equally obvious that “gay marriage”, trans-genderism and so on wouldn’t have flourished either. In fact I think it’s even arguable that the Soros directed mass immigration crisis afflicting the west is linked to this anti-Catholic hate campaign as well. The scandals have certainly bred a dangerously self-hating mentality among western Catholics, so to believe that the media have been de facto allies of trads in cleansing the Church or society is utter fantasy.
    Even on the level of specific high profile cases, trads have been remarkably gullible – to put it very politely. For instance Christian Order went big a couple of years ago on the case of a Chilean bishop who was accused of tolerating abuse by priests his diocese, and true to form, took the allegations of this man’s accusers completely at face value. That trad periodical neglected to mention that these accusations occurred at a time when abortion and euthanasia bills were both going through the Chilean parliament, and also failed to mention that the “Catholic faithful” outside the cathedral demanding the bishop’s head were in reality hard-left anti-Catholic rent-a-mob activists.
    By the same token after Cardinal George spoke publicly about the anti-Christian content of the Talmud, he very quickly became the target of a media inspired hate campaign over his alleged cover-up of the crimes of priests. Why can’t trads do the maths?
    By the way I notice some of those on the Remnant forums and elsewhere who are most keen to promote the “we should be grateful to the media” line tend to cite the “evidence” of proven Zionist agent Malachi Martin. All in all it looks like the trads’ justified angst over the post Vatican II Church and clerical perversion is being skilfully weaponised in the cause of full spectrum dominance.

  20. Mary Louise: Since my last comment I’ve had a look at the Traditio site, and I think one could be forgiven for being tad sceptical about its bona fides. For instance it suggests that Bishop Williamson is suffering from dementia – a vicious smear straight out of the Alinskyite “destroy your enemies” playbook. It advertises its support for Fr. Fahey, but anyone with two brain cells would know that that priest would have had no truck with Zio-wars, or with promoting false flag terror narratives. I notice too that it boasts about being recommended by that treasure-house of Masonic falsehoods, the Encyclopaedia Britannica – hardly a cause for Catholic pride I’d have thought.
    Let’s face it, it would have been extremely illogical for the secret state merchants to have gone to the trouble of infiltrating the hierarchy, the Jesuits, the seminaries and so on, but then to have left the Trads in peace. One of the tactics used by the secret state to undermine militant groups is to manufacture ostensibly even more militant front groups to outflank them. These pseudo militants deploy a language of super hard-line confrontation in order to sow confusion, rebellion and distrust amongst the targeted faction. The original militants are gradually steered into a scorched earth outlook, whereby they more or less completely forget their original enemy and focus all their ire on the corruption of those in the institution they originally came together to defend. I would argue that this strategy has worked very successfully in the Catholic traditionalist movement. Whether Traditio is a victim of this manipulation or a perp I’m still not sure, but either way it’s clearly promoting dubious attitudes among traditionalists.

    1. Exactly, the Judeo-Masonic agents of subversion are not going to say: ‘look at those nice Catholics who just want to practise their faith in the traditional way. We’ve done enough damage through our infiltration of the Church. Let’s just leave them alone.’

  21. I’m not a Jew, Protestant, or Catholic. I’m just a bible believer. I responded to mr fitzinfo, because he wanted to bring up the issue of “gay marriage”, but for some convenient reason, he left out the part that it was 6 Roman Catholics, and 3 Jews who gave queers that unbiblical “right”. I could understand if it was 1,2, or maybe even 3 of the “Catholics” who voted yes, but all 6 puts the excuse of “rouge Catholic” out the window. There’s no doubt they were following orders. Could it be from the same man who said “who am I to judge”, when asked if queers will go to heaven? This reprobate must have not read Romans 1, or the entire book of Jude. What’s even worse, is some people still claim these men are “the vicar of Christ”. Did Jesus ever tell any of the apostles to try their hand in politics? It was this same Jesus, who when the people wanted to make him king, fled. It was this same Jesus, who said “my kingdom is not of this world”, and said one must “worship God in spirit, and truth”. He denied this temporal earthly world. And no, you are a Catholic if you’ve been baptized, cathecized etc into the church. Is the pope not Catholic when he said “who am I to judge”?

    1. What is it about anti-Catholic Protestants and philo-Protestants that makes them so unreliable when it comes to basic facts? Is it their inherent subjectivism – their belief that their impressionistic “feelings” are all that really matter? Contrary to what Jeremy asserts, only two of the six “Catholics” on the Supreme Court voted in favour of “gay mirage” – Kennedy and Sotomayor. All three Jewish judges voted for it – but for some reason Jeremy doesn’t mention them. I wonder why.
      According to Jeremy you’re a Catholic if you’re baptized and catechized. Interesting logic. That makes Luther and Calvin Catholics.
      By the way Jeremy, you wouldn’t by any chance be related to “James” or “Jimmy”?

    2. Well, Jeremy, the Bible is a Catholic book. If you’re not a Catholic, you are no Bible believer.
      However, you are very irenic when it comes to the Jews. Maybe you are adherent of the dispensationalist heresy.

      1. Mary. I didn’t know Catholics wrote the holy scriptures. I thought the apostles did? Did they write the Old Testament, and apocrypha too? How is this possible when the first universal bishop was Boniface III, and was given this title not by Jesus, or Peter, but by the temporal Roman emporor Phocas in 606 AD. Before this date there was no man on earth who claimed Jesus, who ever claimed this title. You have the Roman ceasers who claimed the title “pontifex Maximus” long before the universal bishop did. Wonder if there’s any relation there? How come no one in the early church gave “Mary” an exalted role, or title until the “collyridians”?. Hmm. Whatever. Dispensationalism isn’t in scripture, therefore I don’t believe it. The same with purgatory, or any other Catholic doctrine, and that includes “transubstantiation” (read John 6:63). I speak with plenty of Roman Catholics. All of them believe when Jesus said “this is my flesh I give for the world”, they believe he’s referring to the Eucharist, not the literal death, burial, and resurrection (gospel). How can anyone be saved unless they believe the gospel? You do believe in salvation don’t you?

    3. …if “queers” accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and ask for forgiveness for their sins(of which male/male sex and sexual promiscuity are) than they will be going to Heaven. There are plenty of things to criticize anti-Pope ‘Francis’..gay ‘marriage’ being one of many. But suggesting all homosexuals are damned or beyond redemption is anti-Christian, imho. Only God can judge and determine who goes to Heaven. But the “Earth” is Satan’s domain..the Liar who leads all men astray…and his rule is becoming absolute as the Bible said it would..

  22. Minor correction – when I said “Jeremy” didn’t mention the Jewish judges support for “gay mirage”, I meant he didn’t dwell on this support the way he dwells on the supposed support for this decision by the Catholic judges.

  23. To the fella who claimed “Calvin was a Jew”. If one reads real history, instead of conspiracy “history”, one would know that John Calvin, and ignatius Loyola went to the same Jesuit university. As Calvin was leaving, Loyola entered. all 5 of Calvins points on “TULIP” are easily proven wrong with scripture. He ran his “colony” the same way Rome was ran. John Calvin put to death around 50 people he termed “heretics”. I wonder where he got those ideas. I don’t know if Calvin was once a Jew or not. What would that matter? John Paul II was a Jew, but I don’t hear anyone on here making a big deal about that.

    1. Your comment implicitly condemning Calvin for his attitude towards “heretics” and suggesting that this stemmed from his Catholic background, indicates to me that you’re not a Bible believer at all – you’re really a modern liberal. If you WERE a Bible believer, you wouldn’t condemn the idea of heresy, which is absolute intrinsic to the Bible. The same might be said about your sneering reference to “conspiracy history”.

  24. Northsider. If you want to believe that putting “heretics” to death is something that Jesus, or the apostles taught, then that’s an opinion since it’s not backed up by any type of scripture in the New Testament. Did Jesus go around burning heretics at the stake? Rome killed “heretics” that denied the “presence” in the Eucharist. The problem is that the “presence” isn’t a biblical doctrine. Transubstantiation didn’t become official “Catholic” doctrine until 1215 at the fourth Lateran council. The ritual of “the mass” was invented around the same time. The first “universal bishop” was not Peter, it was Boniface III, who was given that title after it was rejected by the bishop of Constantinople, by the temporal Roman emporer Phocas in 606 AD. The first pope was Boniface III. That was the start of “Catholicism” as we know it today.
    Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament. So you claiming I’m a “judaizer”, or whatever will stop now. I’m sure you think that everyone who doesn’t agree with you, or Rome is a Zionist or a liberal. This is a conspiracy website, but you still promote the liberal vs conservative part lines? It seems you’re too worried about Jews, and are blind to everything else (assumption). The Jews own Hollywood, and the music industry, while Rome runs the country. They gotta have a scapegoat. Rome has ran the banks for over a thousand years, but I’m sure you believe it’s the “rothchilds”. When did Rome stop running those banks, and give it all up to the “rothchilds”? During the crusades thousands upon thousands of people gave the church all their belongings in exchange for indulgences, before they marched to the “holy land”. Their whole fortune was built on indulgences. Hell, if you follow the pope on Twitter (CBS news) he’ll shorten your term in the lesser hell known as purgatory. Now that’s what you call usary.

    1. Er, ‘Jeremy’, honey, I suggest that you read some real history instead of conspiracy history.

    2. Jeremy, Is “CHRIST” God ? What is it you actually believe? Is Jehova God? Is the one you call “Jesus” the son of Jehova? Is Jehova incarnate in Jesus? Do you worship CHRIST or Jehova or possibly Jehova in the name of Jesus? What do you actually believe? Do you put your faith in the bible? What bible do you study? Why do you choose the bible that you reference?

      1. Northsider. Yes I had to respond. I couldn’t help myself. I don’t erase any comment I make, so I didn’t even try to erase the first one.

    3. Whatever involvement the Vatican has in usury or banking, it’s under the aegis of international Jewry, not in and of itself. However, it still hasn’t been adequately demonstrated by anyone how the Vatican is the world’s money power. Just like gentiles provided the veneer for the Jewish-run 20th century intellectual movements in America, seemingly gentile banksters have provided the veneer for Jewish banksters. In my opinion, Protestants don’t count as gentiles but as philo-Semites—in on the bankster fraud as much as the Jews.

      1. Lola. There is no original Hebrew New Testament in existence. The earliest copies we have is written in koine Greek. People still speak koine greek in some churches in Greece today. Most, if not all bibles in English has been compared to those original koine greek manuscripts, and the king James was basically the same. I have a 1611 original, and the only differences is the letter “j” wasn’t in the English language in 1611 Jesus was spelled “Iesus” compared to the koine Greek “Iesous”. Jew is spell Iew. Etc. that and capitalization, and punctuation changes. I believe God when he said he wil preserve his word. If the bibles you claim were the word of God, then that version would be in most languages for people to read. Good talking to you.

        1. The only difference is “J”? Think you better rethink your position there, Jeremy. The Catholic Bible contains more books than the Protestant, the Orthodox Bible contains even more books yet. The 1611 and most all Protestant Bibles have conveniently removed these books because of its conflict with their agenda. They turned Canon on its head. The 1611 creates the illusion of being authoritative because of its use of olde English and its eloquence.

          1. Fitzinfo. I have a 1611 Kjv. It has the apocrypha, but it sates in the bible, that it’s there for historical purposes only. You are referring to the apocrypha right? It’s interesting that the apocrypha WASNT considered inspired until the council of Trent. That’s when Rome started hurling “anathemas” against all (Protestants) who deny that it is the inspired word of God.

  25. Jeremy: “I won’t respond to an accusation, or insinuation.”
    You just did.

    1. Northsider: I think our friend Jeremy has finally parted company whatever slender grasp of reality he had and gone over the edge.

  26. Mary. The inquisitions never happened? You should have emailed your “pope” to tell him that, before he spent his time going on an “apology tour”. He apologized for the “waldensian massacre”, amongst others.

      1. Lola. (Sorry if that’s not your name) I am interested in Roman Catholic theology. Not in the same way you are though. I read on the subject to find out when Rome went wrong. I’ve read the council of Constance, and Trent. I’ve also read into the first four Lateran councils. Like I stated above, I believe Rome quit being an actual church of God when Boniface III accepted the title of “universal bishop”. Peter in his epistle told the other elders (he was an elder amongst elder) not to be lords over Gods heritage. God promised in the book of psalms to preserve his Word, I believe there’s a proper bible in most, is not all languages. I trust the king James, because of the process that was used in translating it. It wasn’t just one group of people, or people who were subject to the king that were involved, it was linguistic scholars, who were believers, from around Europe. I don’t trust the Douay Rheims, because Jesuits translated it. It was first known as the Jesuit rheims, the name caused backlash from the laity, so the name was changed. It bothers me a lot that the Douay Rheims has edited a lot of verses where faith is emphasized. Ephesians 2:8 in the DR is basically the same though. “For by grace are ye saved by faith, it is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast”. I’m not bashing anyone. I just want to have dialogue with Roman Catholics. I love all Roman Catholics, I dislike Catholicism. You wouldn’t believe the things I’ve heard some professing Catholics say about scripture. Not saying anyone on here does.

        1. Jeremy, do not misunderstand me. I am not claiming the original Douay is a good translation. It is not. I only mention it as it is a very hard publication to find and comparing it to later editions shows the changes.They got worse with every edition. This is why I study all these different bibles.All of the revisions in english translated bibles go in the same direction. My major point is this though, english bibles tell a completely different story. Bibles come from two lines, Paleo Hebrew or Masoretic hebrew revisions. There is no reason to trust the talmudic scribes and pharisaical revisions. Are you interested in knowing what a real bible says? It is not good for you I assure you. The most important thing you will learn is that the one you know as “CHRIST” is only mentioned in 43 places. The name is “Jesum Christum”. The Jesus in the gospels is Iesu Christi. There are nine Jesus’ in the bible between old and new testaments. This can not be seen in english bibles. It is able to be seen in latin because of thecdeclension that is integral to the latin language. In english though, Jesus is Jesus is Jesus. Do you understand? Many who believe they have found “CHRISTUM” or in english”CHRIST” have been deceived through translation. Would you like a list of the 43 verses where “CHRISTUM/CHRIST” is found? This a very deep and spiritual subject. If it matters to you(and it should) you should look at what I am trying to show to you. I was not raised catholic. I come from a very long line of southern baptists. They are deceived though and I know you are as well. Most here in this thread are as also. I would be happy to provide you with scanned, page by page, cover to cover copies of these rare texts to see for yourself. I will show you how to study these texts and critical areas of study to understand. You will not need to even go through three books of the old testament before you realize that it is pure necromancy/worship of dead ancestors, pagan veneration of the dead. GOD does not exist in it , not even genesis chapter 1. This is not important to you as a follower of “CHRISTUM/CHRIST ” though. What you do need to know though is the deception in the new testament. This is important to you. Stay outof churchez, they are ALL synogogues of satan. You will understand why after two months of solid study. What do you say? Take my offer? I am going to help you find CHRISTUM/ CHRIST here. There is only one way, study a complete and uncorrupted latin vulgate. You will be amazed, I promise you will be glad you did this exercise.By the way, my name is jeff. Lola is my dog.

    1. You twist my words in your typical protestant fashion to suit your own agenda. What I said is that the Inquisition didn ‘t ‘happen’ like the WWII happened. It was an institution, not an event.
      I’ve told; he is not ‘my’ pope. He’s not even a pope. He has no right to apologise. The Church is the spotless Bride of Christ and has nothing to apologise for.

    2. Jeff: this whole obsession of finding the ‘perfect’ translation of the Bible, stems from the Protestant error of Scola Scriptura. I recommend this video refuting the King James Onlyists:

  27. Lola. Yes I believe John 1 where it says “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, and Jesus being God (Word) in the flesh. I read a King James Bible. I read that particular bible, because most, if not all modern bibles seem to remove the deity of Jesus in some verses. What are your beliefs, and what bible do you read, and why?

    1. Jeremy, Iwould agree with you in your comment on modern bibles. I have many versions that I compare to each other. I compare them using very old latin vulgates. The vulgate has an index. It is called the Biblia Sacra Nominum Interpretatio.(Bible Sacred Name Interpretation). The oldest vulgate I have dates back to 1400’s. It is called The Gutenburg Bible. I also have later copies from 1500’s and a 1685 vulgate.They all concur up until this point. I have several others printed later and also the original Douay. These are very rare texts and would cost a fortune to obtain. I compare them to KJV and variants. I trust a vulgate because of two entries in the jewish encyclopedia. It tells us that the vulgate is the only translation in existence from the ORIGINAL PALEO HEBREW TEXTS. It also praises Jerome and the quid Hebraeorum(many hebrew scholars) for its accuracy and authenticity.When you learn what a vulgate teaches compared to what you read in english you would understand that lying on this topic would be self defeating as a vulgate is not very complimentary. It tells quite a different story than you are reading. Would you interested in studying it? Trust me when I tell you that your soul depends on it if you are a believer in “CHRIST”. I said CHRIST for a reason rather than Jesus. You would not understand at this point though.

    2. jeremy, my last response to you was censored. The information I would like to show to you is very dangerous for every church be it the protestant or catholic church. No where will allow me to post whatvit is Ivhavecto show you as the truth on this is this dangerous. In thus alledged catholic forum I am being censored from showing what a latin vulgate actually proves. This is not a true catholic forum or this would not be the case. This may not even pass the moderator here. If it does though and you would like to continue with me uncensored, contact me a lolathecur@gmail.com

  28. Mary. You have to have a grasp on reality in the first place, before you can lose it. (Meaning you) I don’t want to get into a “pissing match”. I like having discussions, but could we please leave out the childish personal attacks by saying people “have gone over the edge etc” it’s not a proper way to have a discussion, and only proves you have nothing to bring to the table in terms of said discussion. Remember this was a retort.

    1. We don’t want to get into to a ‘pissing’ match. Remember it was you who came here sounding off.Your tone has been aggressive from the getgo. I seem to recall you suggesting that we were shills and insane.
      I stand by what I said; if you genuinely believe that the garbage you write – which would make Jack chick blush with embarrassment – is true history, then your grasp on reality is tenuous to say the least.

  29. Mary.I was meaning that comment toward the writer of this “blog”, and northsider. Now you. The reason I started commenting was that the writer denied Vatican usary. Indulgences is the worst usary imaginable. Usary is taken to another level when people start believing their souls are at stake. That’s more along the lines of mind control. All I hear are your opinions, which is fine, but I don’t hear you correcting me where you feel I’m wrong. Correct me with proof if you feel I’m wrong, if you can’t then please leave the discussion. Also I’m not a Protestant like I said before. Jack chick, is right on some things, and wrong on others. Please tell me where he’s wrong, and the subject he’s wrong on, and prove it. Until then you’re just another angry person with an opinion who doesn’t like what someone says. I apologize for being snotty, but when I see a believer who was falsely accused (Hoffman), I get offended. Mr Hoffman has lead a lot of people to see the truth about the evil that is Judaism.

    1. Jeremy: you don’t understand anything about indulgences. They have nothing to do with banking or usury. You are just parroting the typical protestant fundamentalist claptrap.
      It doesn’t matter whether your snarkiness was aimed at Tim, Northsider or me, you have no right to preach to me about name calling when you have been doing exactly the same yourself.
      Jack Chick is wrong about everything. In fact, when I feel like a good laugh I go and read one of his stupid tracts.
      You haven’t proven that anything Northsider has said about Hoffman to be wrong. Northsider is an Irish citizen, I’m British of Irish descent and we have experienced the shakedown which the Protestant/Jewish/Masonic elite have wreaked on our respective countries. So don’t give us your ‘Vatican/Jesuit’ nonsense. You accuse us of being blind. It is you, Jeremy, who is so blinded with hatred for the Catholic Church that you can see nothing else.

      1. Mary. When someone offers you an indulgence from a theology they concocted, in exchange for your money, is it not usary. Usary is not just lending people money at an inflated interest rate, it can be as the name implys using people to gain money. Why would this even have to be explained? Yes I know all about indulgences. It’s what pope Leo x used to renovate St. Peter’s basilica. Rome claims a different definition now, but it’s always the same. It’s a license to sin thinly veiled with theological jargon.

    1. Where do I start: it is all a bunch of falsehoods, half truths and misrepresentations.
      I’ll take just one example: if I tell you that the doctrine of Transubstantiation wasn’t ‘invented’ in 1215, it had always been there. The term Transubstantiation was coined at the fourth Lateran Council to describe the process by which the bread and wine becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. Will you accept that you were wrong? that’s what a discussion is. You have to be open minded. You, however, seem to hate the Church and are convinced by all the old slanders spread by the Church’s enemies and refuse to hear anything different.

    2. Jeremy. You are working from a faulty premise. Indulgences aren’t offered in exchange for money.

      1. Mary. I mixed the issue of the Oxford movement, and Plymouth brethren to prove that Rome always has something up its sleeves. They invented dispensationalism, and puseyism to change the way of thinking of people in the past.

    3. Where do you get the notion that the Plymouth Brethren cult, which is rabidly anti-Catholic has anything to do with the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church certainly did not invent dispensationalism.

      1. Mary. The Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera wrote a book in the 1500s on the subject that would later be known as dispensationalism. The term wasn’t used then, but that man was the first to write about the doctrine. It was passed to the Plymouth brethren through a Jesuit who claimed to be a Jewish biblical scholar. John Nelson Darby, who was part of the Plymouth brethren, along with an Irish preacher named Irving, gave it to England. There’s plenty of resources that are not of the conspiracy kind. Reading on Francisco Ribera would be a good place to start.

    4. Francisco Ribera was an excommunicated priest. He did posit some kind of futurist scenario, but it isn’t official Church teaching and it has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the modern day ‘Christian’ Zionist movement which had its beginnings with John Nelson Darby.

      1. Mary. Wether Ribera was “excommunicated” or not really doesn’t matter. The fact is that a Catholic Jesuit invented futurism, and he invented preterism (all bible prophesy has been fulfilled) as well. The Roman church still holds on to his preterist teachings as mention by someone above. Now you’ve read about Ribera, look into Manuel de lacunza (Emmanuel lacunza) and his relationship to Irish preacher Edward Irving. Then read where John Nelson Darby got his dispensational ideas from. Dispensationalism, futurism, and preterism are all doctrines from Rome. I hear a lot of Roman Catholics bash so called “Protestants” for their belief in dispensationalism, most of them do not know where those ideas first originated.

    5. Jeremy: This sounds like Protestants trying to pass the buck for their own errors onto the ‘Jesuit’ and the ‘Roman Church’. John Nelson Darby was extremely hostile to the Catholic Church and would be highly unlikely to adopt anything from it.

  30. Fitzinfo. There’s no owenership, or “member” list for the federal reserve, but that doesn’t keep most conspiracy buffs from claim the rothchilds own, and control it. You can’t find any true history about the rothchilds. And the stuff you do find never mentions them owning all the worlds banks. I may be wrong, because I never dug deep, because all I can find is a mention of them here and there in old history, and of coarse 20th century conspiracy books. I read an old newspaper article where it said they were involved with “buying” Palestine. If Catholicism had its own country that all Roman Catholics lived in, that country would make up 1.2 billion people, and in no doubt be the richest country in the world. There are plenty of history books that state the vastness of Romes wealth. It leads me to believe that Rome may be involved in the whole promotion of the Rothschild conspiracy to get people to believe they’re not what they use to be. The same way the Jesuits concocted dispensationalism, and futurism through the Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera, Emmanuel lacunza, the Irish preacher Irving, and finally the Plymouth brethren, and John Nelson Darby. (I’ve read the writing of Ribera, and Emmanuel lacunza). This isn’t nothing new. Read about “puseyism”. The puseyites, the Oxford movement, the then preacher Newman, later known as Cardinal Newman. That whole movement was an invention of Rome. It’s what was used in its “counter reformation” campaign. “Before” Newman became a priest there was not much difference in his doctrines, other than he denied the pope. He still claimed to be a “Protestant” though. Puseyism and Cardinal Newman was always a tool of Rome, and there were folks in the Plymouth brethren who were also. That’s how the world got dispensationalism. Rome wanted to distance themselves from the book of revelation, and the pope being called antichrist (Rome is the seat of antichrist). There’s a lot more history on those matters than the Rothschilds owning the worlds banks. All are tools of Rome.

    1. Banking is a Jewish ideology. It matters not about memberships, ownership, lists, etc. Protestantism falls completely inline with this dominating, exploitative ideology. It’s the same with freemasonry. It matters less about who is officially a member of the masonic lodge than those who actually live and promote masonic principles. I tried to illustrate this point to Hoffman, who has a suspicious like for the U.S. founding fathers, but he played dumb and dismissed it all.

  31. Mary. I am open minded. Like most white people in this country, I have close family that’s Catholic. I know all about its theology. When Jesus said to his disciples who were offended by what he said previously in John 6:51-57, in verse 63 he says “the flesh profiteth nothing, the WORDS I say unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” 5 chapters previous in chapter 1 it sets up the whole gospel by telling us Jesus was “the Word made flesh”. Is that what he meant in verses 51-57? When one reads verses 51-57 it does seem like he referring to cannibalism, but when read in context it’s obviously not so. His disciples were offended by what they thought was cannibalism. Jesus gave his explanation in verse 63. Those who didn’t understand, and were following him for other reasons ended up leaving him, and being his disciples no more. Earlier in the chapter when he was performing the miracle of the fish, and loaves, people were following him, not because of the miracle, but because they wanted free food. Were those some of the “disciples” that later ended up leaving because they were offended by what they thought was a teaching of cannibalism? Mary. I’m not purposefully trying to offend people. But the truth is the truth. I don’t care what a doctrine, or a theology is, or wether my news is fair and balanced, I just want the truth. And if one believes scripture. What I told you is the truth.

    1. You are mixing up all kinds of different issues such as Catholic doctrine and whether the Catholic Church holds all the worlds temporal power and wealth.
      As a British citizen, I can reassure you the Catholic Church has no power or influence in my country whatsoever. The Jewish elite, however………..

  32. Mary. Every time in history when the Vatican had money problems, that’s when monetary indulgences were brought out into the open. They must not need money these days. Like I pointed out, St. Peter’s basilica was renovated (maybe built. Not sure) on monetary indulgences. They certainly didn’t except the materials needed for the renovation as payment for the indulgence. I don’t see people strapping blocks that way a ton on their back, and dragging them to the coffers. A famous coffer once said “every time the bell rings from the coffer, a soul is lifted from purgatory”. Is that not usary?

  33. I’m on here not to dispute that there are ties between masonry, and Judaism, and that Modern Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament. I first started commenting on mr Hoffman, and the issue about usary.

  34. Mary. I don’t really care if you believe me or not. I set out to prove to you that the Jesuits invented futurism, and preterism, and I’ve done just that. If you wanna believe that freemasonry is something that plauges “Protestant” only, then thats your right. You’d be wrong though. Like I said, the “famous telepriest” Fulton j sheen was a 33 degree mason. Masonry was supposedly founded by the Templars. What religious institution started the Templars? Who harbored, and protected the Templars during the crusades? The Templars was a Roman “secret society”.

    1. One Jesuit (singular) posited some futurist theory, which bears no resemblance to the ‘Christian’ Zionist version, and that translates as ‘the Jesuits’ inventing dispensationalism.
      The Templars were not Masonic. They’re purpose was to defend the Holy Places in Jerusalem. Listen to the show I posted, the Church condemns secret societies.
      What is your source for your claim about Archbishop Sheen. It sounds like more Protestant slander to me.

      1. Northsider. So I’m a undercover spy now? Not everything is a conspiracy. Snap back into reality. Did you ever hear me say anything about the Soviet Union, or British intelligence? Satan is the accuser. You are an odd fellow to say the least. I live in a small town compared to NYC or LA. I can literally walk a quarter mile, and throw my fishing pole in the river. I’m poor compared to a lot, and now I’m a British spy. I have to admit, the thought does sound intriguing. I kinda fond of the older James Bond flicks. My “reality” was questioned by someone on here, and your jargon will get brushed aside. Some people really do live in a dream world. I believe the Internet truly does warp some people’s minds. One does have to be susceptible to brainwashing to be a Roman Catholic. How else will one believes a fellow sinner (priest) is in charge of another mans salvation.

    2. Jeremy, the catholic church is entirely infiltrated and run by secret societies now and has been for centuries. The protestant church isand always has been heretical from its inception as well.The freemasons are the protestants and have taken control. Freemasonry is judaism. Any rabbi will tell you this truth.Freemasonry goes back much further than most realize. Comes out of egypt:phree messen. The judaics have been infiltrating CHRISTUM’ church from its inception. They are spoken of even in the english translated bibles and are known as judaizers. They compass land and sea to make one proselyte and when they do they become twice the child of hell as yourself(Iesu Christi). There is not an alledged christian church on the face of this planet in present day that is not heretical. The evidence to understand this is in the vulgate itself.

  35. Mary Louise: I notice our friend “Jeremy” didn’t deny my “accusation/insinuation” that he was the same person as “James”/”Jimmy”. He reminds me uncannily of another chap I’ve come across on various sites, who changes his name more often than Boris Johnson changes his opinions. In fact the guy to whom I refer has a bespoke approach to pseudonyms. On Irish sites he’ll call himself Seany Boy H, or some other variant of the very common Irish name “Sean”. On British sites he’ll often call himself WASP. I must say “Jeremy” shares many uncanny traits with this character:
    Bandying around outlandish anti-Catholic allegations, in the hope that they will go unchallenged, and thus gain a certain currency? Check – “Seanyboy” comes out with all kinds of ludicrous nonsense, such as “Stalin was a Jesuit” and “every member of the Bush administration was Catholic”. Ditto “Jeremy”.
    Deny that you’re a Protestant, so that you avoid having to discuss the sins and heresies of Protestantism? Check – “Seany-boy”, under his many aliases, usually claims to be “non-denominational”, but it doesn’t stop him spouting panegyrics to Cromwell and other Judaeo-Protestant Masonic stooges, when the mood takes him. Ditto “Jeremy”.
    Posture as a Bible fundamentalist, but attack the Church on modern secular liberal grounds? Check – “Seany-boy” will often recycle anti-Catholic propaganda about the Church’s “persecution” of the Cathars and so on, glossing over these groups’ violent campaign against the Church. Ditto “Jeremy”.
    Claim that you have close family who are Catholics, and who suffered abuse at the hands of priests, nuns etc.? Check. The great thing about this line of attack is that it personalises the anti-Catholic polemic, whilst simultaneously avoiding the need for specifics. Someone who is Catholic himself or herself might be expected to know something of Catholic culture – as opposed to Catholic theology: someone who has “family members” who were Catholic need have no such knowledge.
    By the way the character sometimes known as “Seanyboy” has also been known to defend the Soviet Union in unguarded moments, not to mention divulging that his father worked for British intelligence!
    I’m not saying that “Seanyboy” and “Jeremy” are the same person – I don’t know that for sure – but there’s definitely a truly uncanny pattern to anti-Catholic polemics on both alternative and mainstream media comment forums. And the pseudo-trad shills we’ve discussed before are simply another bespoke variant of that. Their technique is to weaponise justified anger at infiltration and corruption in the Church, and turn it back on the Church – instead of on those pulling the strings of the infiltrators – with the result that everyone, from the most hardcore atheist to the self-styled militant traditionalist wing of the Church, ends up, wittingly or unwittingly, singing from the same anti-Catholic Masonic songbook.

  36. Northsider. I like how the word “shill” is brought up. You’re the biggest shill on here. My only agenda was to show mr Fitzinfo that Roman Catholicism is the biggest promoter of usary in the worlds history. Your agenda as a gate keeper is to criticize all comments that don’t jive with the writers ideology. Are you and Fitzinfo the same person? You offer no proof on anything to counter my comments. All you have is accusations, and comments that try and change the subject, or steer blame somewhere else. That is the very definition of a “shill”. You blame someone of the exact thing you’re guilty of. You’re a hypocrite to the very least.

    1. Jeremy: “My only agenda was to show mr Fitzinfo that Roman Catholicism is the biggest promoter of usary in the worlds history”
      With that comment you’ve proven that your agenda is to lie and shill.

  37. Lola. Yes. Both institutions are riddled with Masons. This is my personal opinion, but I believe they are luciferians.theres no such thing as “protestantism” anymore. It seems Romes counter reformation worked, as no one is protesting anymore. That’s why I brought up the Jesuits Francisco Ribera, and Manuel de Lacunza. Ribera did invent preterism (currently a Roman doctrine), and futurism. He invented the thesis, and antithesis. It’s a stated fact that the Jesuit orders creation was to bring the lost sheep back to the fold. What all of Ribera, and Lacunzas theology did was get the idea of Rome being the seat of antichrist (in place of) out of the thoughts of Protestants, and get them looking for a future sharp, charismatic “world leader”. It worked brilliantly.

    1. Jeremy I agree with you there. I also agree that Sheen was baphomet two finger saluting, old testament lord god worshipping infiltrater as clearly shown here : THIS IS THE MASS (1944-1958)
      Written by Freemason Bishop Fulton Sheen, Approbated by future Antipope, J.B. Montini. Anyone understanding the subject can clearly see the heresies layed out in this work by him.

      1. Lola. Jesus Christ is The Lord of the Old Testament. What mr. sheen was doing with his “baphomet” hand sign has nothing to do with the God of the bible. It has everything to do with the god of this world.

        1. Jeremy, I would agree with your statement on the handsign as well. I am not certain about the rest of it though. What is it you actually believe? Is the old testament lord god in fact GOD? Is the old testament lord god incarnate in Jesus? Is CHRIST the son of the old testament lord god? Please give to me a better understanding of what it is you believe. Thanks, jeff

          1. Mary. Now read about collyridianism and the council of Ephesus. For you to believe transubstantiation was believed by followers of Christ since Jesus walked the earth, and Rome never wrote it down “as an article of faith” before 1215 AD. Takes a lot more faith than is required for salvation (mustard seed). you take that into account, and the fact scripture doesn’t teach such things, then you have a religion that is man made. I read a book by Cicero, where he is arguing that Roman pagan worship is silly. In it he made the quote of a belief among Roman pagans, something like “who would really believe theyre eating their own god”. So yes that idea has been around since before Jesus. It’s of pagan origin. Just like the statue of Peter who has his toe almost kissed away, was a recycled statue of Jupiter.

    2. I’ve asked you twice before, Jeremy, I’ll ask you again: why do hold scripture to be true?

      1. Mary. The WORD trinity is Catholic. It simply means three in one. The doctrine is biblical, and the bible, and Catholicism is a oxymoron. I guess you’ll say God was invented by Rome next? They do, when referring to transubstantiation say they are “creating the creator”, so that type of depravity wouldn’t surprise me. Scripture calls it the Godhead. I’ll answer your question when you answer mine first. Why do you hold traditions over scripture?. I have no problem answering your question, but don’t like it when people demand me to do so. You first. Also the Godhead of scripture, and the Catholic trinity are not the same, only because of who/what Rome teaches he is.

    3. the Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorius’s heresy, it didn’t make Mary the fourth person of the Trinity!
      Scripture clearly teaches the doctrine of the Eucharist. The fact that you need to turn for endorsement for your own views from a pagan,Cisero, is somewhat bizarre.
      As for a statue of Peter being a recycled statue of Jupiter; that’s beyond moronic.

    4. The word ‘Trinity’ is used to describe the Three in One Person Godhead. Anything true which Protestants believe, in the midst of all your heresies, you have stolen from the Catholic Church.
      The Church DOESN’T describe Transubstantiation as ‘creating the creator’, I don’t know where you get your nonsense from.
      As to your question about scripture and Tradition, you are once again falling into the logical fallacy known as begging the question.

  38. Mary. Yes, the Templars were the “forefathers” of the Freemasons. Also, did you hear Rome make a big deal about the master mason Fulton J Sheen? No. They endorsed him, and made him a poster boy of Roman Catholicism. Get a grip.

    1. Medieval “Masonry” were guilds of stonemasons. They were not a secret society and bore no resemblance to modern Masonry which was based on “Enlightenment” principles and extremely anti-Catholic. The first modern Masonic lodge was founded in Protestant England.

    2. Also, you still haven’t told us were you got the information about Archbishop Sheen.

      1. Mary. Quit being lazy, and do a Internet search. I found the info on the Internet, why can’t you? I done that research a few years ago, and it’s there if you look. What Lola posted would be a good place to start. Also knowing Masonic handsigns, and watching people do them on TV is eye opening to say the least. It seems you want your research handed to you, just like you want your biblical “doctrine” handed to you. Read, and I’m not talking about apologetic doctrine, and websites. Also you want people to believe that Templars, and early Mason’s weren’t a secret society, but modern masonry is? You wouldn’t be saying those things, because you want to distance Catholicism, and masonry in the worse kinda way, would you? Now who’s the shill?

    3. It has nothing to do with ‘laziness’. The only sources that I could find are the usual Catholic-hating Protestant fundie sites. I couldn’t find any credible sources.

    4. The Catholic Church has always condemned Freemasonry. No other heresy has received more Church condemnation. It’s you, not me, that wants to believe falsehoods.

    5. That’s an idiotic statement! How can the Church condemn something that doesn’t exist yet!

      1. Mary. Obviously masonry would have to be around before they could “condemn” it. I never said that they did so beforehand, that would be a dumb statement. What I’m trying to say is that they’re not telling the truth. Just like all their traditions, they tell the laity that they’ve been around since Jesus walked the earth, when most date from the Middle Ages.

    6. Jeremy: it’s you who doesn’t tell the truth. You clearly know nothing of Church history or Church teaching.
      The most worrying thing is your attempt to whitewash the crimes of the Jewish elite and heap it all on “Rome”. You sound as big of a shill as Eric Jon Phelps.

      1. Mary. I’ve read a lot of Roman councils. I have some notes jotted down to prove my point. I’ll post them tonight. If I’m not booted first.

    7. And what is wrong with Michael Collins Piper? He knew what he was talking about. If I’m even remotely like MCP, I take that as a compliment.

  39. “Jeremy”: Still haven’t denied that you’re “James” and “Jimmy” I see – or that you’re “Seanyboy” for that matter. Nor have you responded to Mary Louise’s challenge to prove your claim that Archbishop Sheen was a Freemason. If you’ve got information that proves this as a fact, why not divulge it? And by the way, I also notice that now that you’ve been backed into a corner, you’ve started regurgitating anti-Jesuit disinfo, in a style completely indistinguishable from “Seanyboy/”Wasp”/”Sid” et al”. I on the other hand can state categorically that I’m not Timothy Fitzpatrick, and that I only post here under one pseudonym – “Northsider”. Why can’t you do the same?
    Some folk might be sceptical of the notion that someone who can’t even spell the word “usury” could be a shill, but for me the weird congruence between the styles and substance of all these Catholic bashers on various forums is a cause for suspicion. Let’s face it, there are plenty of anti-Catholic denominations out there, yet in my experience these “non-denominational Bible believer” characters always seem to lead the anti-Catholic charge on the net. This is very convenient, because their non-denominationalism means they don’t have to defend either the theory or practice of their “faith”, since this “faith” is theirs and theirs alone – if it exists at all.

    1. Northsider. I don’t owe you an explanation on anything. I can tell you I’m not wasp or sea boy, but would you believe me? Either way I don’t care. I see now you’re a grammar teacher as well. If that’s the only thing you can refute, then what’s the point in commenting. I’m not interested in your opinions, we all have those. I can see you never denied being a shill, or gatekeeper, because those facts can’t be denied. My name is Jeremy James. I have no problem using my name, because I’m not trying to fool anyone. I’m sure mr Fitzinfo has my email address, and it my name. My “practice of faith” is the bible, and I don’t see you refuting that either. You say there’s plenty of anti Catholic denominations out there, so who are they? I love it when the the worse offender trys and reverse the role, and act like the victim. I know you’re a shill, gate keeper, stooge etc. you never steer from the party line, you’re always around for damage control, and you always change subjects or place the blame elsewhere. I won’t respond to you unless you have something to bring to the table in terms of a discussion, and not accusations of being someone else. You’re a hypocrite, a shill blaming others of the same. I guarantee it’s not by accident either. If you think I’m telling the truth, then prove me wrong. I,like all men have been wrong before, and have no problem admitting it.

  40. Northsider. My name is Jeremy James. I’ve never went by jimmy, sea boy, or any other name. I use my real name every time I post. I really don’t care what you think of me. It’s obvious you’re the blogs gatekeeper that tries to administer damage control by accusations, changing subjects, and being an annoyance. You are bringing nothing to the table as far as a conversation goes. I didn’t read Marys post about wanting proof on anything, in fact I just scrolled up, and still didn’t see that post. Are you sure that northsider isn’t the one asking for proof? I also see your a teacher on grammar as well. If all you can do is criticize my grammar, then why waste your time posting? Does it make you feel good to know you just corrected someone? I feel the spelling doesn’t matter, because my point was made, and that’s, that Rome is the biggest offender of USURY (like that?), and that point I don’t see you refuting, prolly ( I know) because you can’t. Did you get your purgatory sentence reduced by following your vicar of “Jesus” on Twitter? I don’t know if that offer still stands though. That’s USURY. A monk standing outside a church with a box accepting money for a reduced sentence in lesser hell is USURY. You condone that being the hypocrite you are. You brought up me being someone else because you don’t like me saying these things. It’s an issue when others do it, but OK when it’s done by the institution you hold dear. the Roman Catholic view is blame everything on everyone else, and deny it when the blame can’t be shifted. I’m done speaking with you unless you have something you want to discuss that doesn’t involve accusations, or the shifting of blame. I’ll talk scripture ( I know it probably foreign to you), politics, or almost anything.

  41. Northsider. I’m sure you and Mary done some sort of Internet search on wether Fulton sheen was a Freemason. You wouldn’t believe it unless he admitted it himself, then you still wouldn’t believe it. There’s no doubt he loved to be seen of men on TV in his fancy “priest” garb.

    1. Jeremy: you don’t offer any arguments, so do please stop saying that people aren’t responding to your imaginary “arguments”. Not only can you not spell usury: you clearly have not the slightest idea what it actually is. Usury isn’t economic exploitation or indulgences, or fraud or false accounting: it’s something very specific: money made from loansharking.
      You bandy around ludicrous accusations against honest contributors to this blog, but then start whining when I point out the uncanny similarities between your drivel and that of obvious shills on other sites. And by the way I’m guessing the other Jeremy James probably doesn’t read this blog – given his political and religious views – but perhaps I owe him an apology: for all his faults, his work is far more literate and informative than your incoherent diatribes.

    2. Northsider: who was who said never to argue with a stupid person; they drag you down to their level then beat you through experience.

      1. Mary. Rome has a lot more in common with Judaism than you will ever be willing to admit. Not in an earthly sense only, but also in a spiritual. History truly does repeat itself, and there truly is nothing new under the sun…….Matthew 15:7 “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
        8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
        9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”. When you teach tradition as though it’s Gods word, your worship is in vain, as Jesus clearly states. You do believe Jesus, don’t you?

        1. Jesus was referring to Satanic writings like the Talmud and Kabbalah as the traditions of the elders and commandments of men. The traditions of the Church Fathers, in contrast, completely line up with Scripture. And why wouldn’t they, these same men decided the Canon of Scripture.

  42. Jeremy: I didn’t correct your grammar: I noted your (repeated) incorrect spelling of the word “usury”. Most of us make spelling and grammar mistakes aplenty, but to repeatedly get the spelling of a fairly basic word like “usury” wrong – when everyone else in the discussion is spelling it correctly it seems a bit odd. You wouldn’t be making deliberate mistakes here in order to pose as an idiot savant, by any chance? The reason I ask is because I’ve come across a fellow called Jeremy James on the net before, who also writes about the type of issues we’re discussing here. He has perfect spelling and grammar, and never uses “your” when he means “you’re”, or makes other basic errors of that kind. In fact he’s written a rather sophisticated critique of C.S. Lewis, and an informative piece on the “Dublin Masonic Grid”. Are you this Jeremy James? Oh, by the way, I almost forgot to mention: this Jeremy James is rabidly pro-Israel and believes the Early Church went off the rails by rejecting Judaism.

    1. Northsider. I done a search on the man you’re speaking of, and I assure you that him, and I are not the same. He’s from Ireland, and I’m from the USA. Jeremy James is a common name. I’m not and idiot, and certainly not a “savant”, I fall somewhere in between. My mistakes are genuine. I’m not using a computer, but an iPad, so spellcheck does mess me up sometimes. That’s my excuse for the “your”, and the “you’re” mistakes. I mispelled the word usury out of just plain not knowing how to spell it. I’ve never had to use, or spell the word, but on here. I also type fast without proof reading, and that’s my fault. I do not believe that Judaism is of God, if it is, then Jesus Christ died in vain. If there’s any other way to salvation, other than faith in Jesus Christ finished works for the remission of sin, as scripture states, then Jesus died in vain. I speak out on Judaism as well. I know that the Babylonian Talmud states that “Jesus is in hell boiling in a vat of hot excrement”, and he’s the “bastard son of a Roman centurion named pantera”. I know all about the evil of “Judaism”, and that it is in fact modern day Phariseeism by admition. I’m not denying that Judaism is evil. I just didn’t like the expose on usury being a Jew thing only, especially when the party that has the most guilt of said subject is the very party that the writer follows. Just seemed very hypocritical to me.

  43. fitzinfo. I don’t remember if I stated in my first post about the king James that punctuations, and capitalizations were changed also. That and the letter J is all I can find, compared to modern printings.

  44. Northsider, Mary, lolathecur, if you haven’t already, have a listen to this 1987 lecture by Michael Hoffman regarding his psychological warfare book. https://ia700405.us.archive.org/10/items/MichaelA.Hoffman-TheOccultPhilosophy/TheOccultPhilosophy-MichaelHoffman-1987-AnaheimSpeech.mp3
    Pay close attention to starting about seven-and-a-half-minutes into the lecture. Is it just I, or is he calling the divine liturgy pompous and vainglorious? What hypocrisy! He sounds like no Catholic at all.
    By the way, Hoffman now considers me a “troll.” More fruits of his alleged professionalism.

    1. Fitzinfo. I just got done looking through a 1611 King James Bible. The only books in it are the same exact one that are in modern KJV, plus the apocrypha. You’re either misinformed, or purposefully lying.

        1. Fitzinfo. The issue of a bible being a “pseudo canon” is a Catholic issue only. No religion on this earth wrote scripture. It was written by the apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. is the Douay Rheims a “pseudo canon” in your eyes as well?

    2. Fitzinfo, Hoffman has put out much good work. I must give credit to him for this. His doctrine (he believes the old testament lord god to in fact be GOD) and views of the bible (regardless of which version) I do not agree with though. It appears he may never have studied an uncorrupted vulgate. Then again, I do not think anyone here has either. If they did then they would know what I know. I hear no mention from anyone here on it though. Early on in this thread I posted a link to Internet Archive(Fordham University Library) where one can downloadthe entire 1685 Biblia Sacra in ten parts. Within it is what is known as the “Biblia Sacra Nominum Interpretatio”. This is key to understanding the old testament. What it shows is this: God does not exist in the old testament. Plain and simple, end of that subject. All of the divine sounding names found in the old testament are dead ancestors, men not God at all.I have several older vulgates as well , one going back to 1400’s (Gutenberg Bible). They all concur. The old testament is useless if one is seeking God. It is pure pagan necromancy. The KJV as well as the Douay (I have the original as well and so does Princeton University however Princetons is incomplete, Hmmmmmm) as do all english translated bibles hide this fact by way of semantics. The interesting thing is that the deception does not end in the old testament but continues right into the new testament. Any traditional catholic knows that the latin name for the Christ is Jesum Christum. Translating this name to english (Jesus Christ) is part of the deception. Jesum Christum is God. He is only referred to 43 times in the entire bible. This can be seen very easily by using the Clementine Vulgate search tool online. The online clementine vulgate is corrupted and incomplete though but the search tool will show this FACT. The Jesus of the gospels is not the Christ/Christum. This is Iesu Christi or in the clementine vulgate Jesus Christi not Jesum Christum. The name of CHRISTUM/CHRIST was preserved in this corrupt online version of the vulgate however which is commendable in my opinion. One can use this search tool and find the 43 verses where CHRIST GOD/JESUM CHRISTUM is referred to. I will post them if someone would like. People that refer to a KJV or variant generally do not use lexicons or know the critical areas to study in order to unravel this deception. Nobody reads a vulgate. I am trying to get you all to read it but it will destroy everything you believe you know on this subject therefore cognitive dissonance and false pride preventvpeople from doing it. I come from a long line of protestants I could never understand their doctrine. It is very easily disproven even using their bible(KJV or variant) and the Sola Scriptura homily I put together many years ago prove this and is bulletproof. It has never been refuted, only deleted everywhere I post it. It has been submitted to international ministries only to be removed and myself banned for what it shows but never even attempted to be refuted. I will post that here as well if you allow. As we know Sola Scriptura is a juvenile protestant game. Well I play their game by their rules and they still lose everytime. Here is the problem with english translated bibles: they rob CHRISTUM of HIS divinity. I can not prove with an english bible the divinity of JESUM CHRISTUM/CHRIST. There are too many contradictions to disprove and put it into question. I can however prove without being refuted who is not GOD. This is why my Sola Scriptura teaching is so dangerous and can not be allowed to be viewed by the world. Please allow me to post it without censorship. You would doing the entire world a favor and Our Lady (who is GOD The Mother, THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION and not to be confused with mary of the bible), Jesum Christum(who is GOD The Son, not to be confused with Isue Christi) and Spiritum Sanctum(The Holy Ghost, not to confused with the holy spirit who is spiritus sanctus) would thankful if you would allow this. Feel free to use however you wish, just do not alter it in any way short of removing my family members names from it which is who I put it together for. Altering it may defeat its purpose. Obviously I myself am a catholic. You folks here may not agree with what I have just posted above but I promise to you that you will never be able to prove me incorrect and I care less what Rome/vatican would say either. The above Trinitarian Theophany was given to Sister Lucia at Fatima. This has been hidden from catholics by Rome as it does not align with modernist teachings and corrupt english bible promoted now by an entirely infiltrated catholic heirarchy . Rome has no authority over the fatholic faith since 1944 when OUR LADY ordered authority transferred to Fatima. It was officially done in 2004 by antipope John Paul 11. The reason for the transfer is simple, Rome entirely lost the faith by changing the last name of the Trinity(Spiritum Sanctum) and introducing the heretical name of the holy spirit into the baptismal rites and mass. You people can believe what you like but everything I say here can eadily be proven to be true. I will post my Sola Scriptura homily seperately in next comment and hope it passes the moderators here.

    3. Ironically Michael Matt, one of Hoffman’s bête noirs, called me a troll when he blocked me from The Remnant site a few months ago. A troll, in their lexicon, is someone who asks them a few hard questions. Many of those who post on the Remnant forums go in for vicious character assassination of prominent figures in the Church, but apparently in Remnant land only folk who question corporate crass media narratives qualify as trolls. You can bash the hierarchy and the clergy all you like, but don’t you dare query what the nice respectable people at the Daily Mail, CBS or the BBC tell you.
      By the way thanks for the info re Jeremy posting from the US. I’ll take it as read that he most likely isn’t the Irish Jeremy James. The thing that made me think he might be was when he said “like most people in this country I have Catholic relatives”? That would apply to Ireland, (or would have up to recently anyway) but surely not the US?
      Anyway I notice neither he nor Lolathecur have provided any hard evidence for their claims that Fulton Sheen was a Mason, despite repeated requests to do so. As it happens I’m not a huge fan of Archbishop Sheen – he was far too liberal and ecumenical in my view, but I think allegations of Masonry always need to be validated with hard facts. Sometimes those facts aren’t as difficult to come by as might be imagined: for instance, as I’ve noted here before, there are plenty of photos of various Protestant bigwigs in Masonic regalia in Attila Sinke Gumaraes book, Previews of the New Papacy.

    4. Northsider: I, too, am not much of a fan of Fulton Sheen, for the same reasons as you. However, I’m not prepared to accuse him of being a Freemason without solid proof.

    5. Very well spotted Tim: It seems to me Hoffman’s words exactly imply what you say – especially when viewed in the context of the whole talk, where he repeatedly implies that Church “tyranny” and modern post-Renaissance “cryptocratic” liberalism are BOTH evil systems. The Church, according to Hoffman, may be more honest than the cryptocrats in her oppression of humankind, but that’s all he’ll really say in her defence; no one would come away from this talk thinking that Hoffman believed Catholicism, even Medieval Catholicism, is the antidote to cryptocratic subversion.
      In other words Hoffman wants it to have it both ways – he wants to oppose occult subversion and the “anything goes” culture, but he’s obviously not crazy about the concept of infallible Christian authority either. And as you’ve pointed out, he apparently has no objections to American revolutionary Masonry – which is really just a sub-sect of British Masonry.
      And if he disapproves of alchemy, why does he spend so much of his time defending Luther, a man whose own son was an alchemist? One could argue that a man is not necessarily to blame for the sins of his children – except that in the case of the Luther clan, the father was also something of an avowed fan of this vile practice.

      1. Thus the uncertainty of Hoffman’s religious/church identity goes on. Why doesn’t the man just come right out and say it? Perhaps his mission is to spread general disillusionment with established Churches. You will also notice in his dialect the frequent use of “Churchianity”.

  45. Fitzinfo. Yes I agree on your statement on Protestants following the 1611. If Roman Catholics followed scripture period, they wouldn’t be called “Catholics”

      1. Fitzinfo. If they went by Ephesians 2:8,9 “for by grace are ye saved by faith, it is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast”, they’d be the sons/daughters of God.

  46. Mary. Here’s some of my notes I took last year………..the veneration of the blessed Virgin,and the invocation of saints was first publicly taught by the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 754 ;
    The use of relics, and images in religious worship, was first publicly affirmed, and sanctioned by the second council of Nice in 787.
    Celibacy of the clergy started at the first Lateran council in 1123 AD
    Auricular confession was ordered, and started by innocent III in the fourth Lateran council in 1215 AD
    ” I speak it confidently, that whosoever calleth him-
    self universal bishop, or desireth to be so called in
    the pride of his heart, he doth forerun Antichrist.”—Gregory, Epistle xxx.
    Transubstantiation wasn’t introduced into the Church of Rome until 818 AD, and didn’t become an article of faith unto 1215 AD in the fourth Lateran council.
    Withholding the cup to the laity started in the council of Constance in 1414 AD
    ” The Garden of the Soul,” p. 6) ” a full pardon of all their sins,”
    and ” an augmentation of eternal blessedness
    at the retribution of the just, is promised and granted to
    all the ‘ faithful, who shall, in their own persons, or
    by others, aid in the extermination of heretics”
    Purgatory was first set forth by the general council of Florence in 1438 AD

    1. Jeremy: you have proved beyond all doubt, not that there ever was any, that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Firstly, mix up doctrines and practices as if they are the same thing. Secondly, during councils doctrines are either reiterated, usually in the time of heresy, or formally defined. That doesn’t mean that they haven’t always been there and that there’s scriptural basis for them. I demonstrated this when I corrected your howler about Transubstantiation.

    1. I have. They were a group of, mainly women. who worshipped the Virgin Mary as a goddess. They were not Catholics nor recognised by the Church as such.

  47. Fitzinfo, as I have stated here already the things I am saying can only be seen in an uncorrupted, complete latin vulgate.If you want to be deceived on these subjects then just continue to refer to an english translation. The bible is a jewish deception to fool the catholic or christian believer into questioning who is God. By doing this and referencing an english bible one is directed back to the old testament lord god(who is elias) , a dead jewish elder. A man Iesu Christi (not to be confused with JESUM CHRISTUM/CHRIST) prays to before giving up his ghost and the english bible translates this into “My god, My god , why have you foresaken me. This is shown true even using a lexicon when studying this very critical area. All one needs to do is take the two accounts in the gospels where this is spoken of and read these verses using a lexicon. (an original 1890 and not a revision which obscures this). Now you could always retort that the latin vulgate is incorrect and not a very good translation of the old testament. We have a problem with this theory though. Let me explain. The jewish encyclopedia itself in two entries “Jerome and Vulgate” clearly shows us that the vulgate is the only translation in existence from the ORIGINAL PALEO HEBREW TEXTS. It praises the work of Jerome and the quid Hebraeorum(many hebrew scholars) for its authenticity and accuracy. Then you may retort “but the jews are liars”. I will not try to argue this point. The problem however would be as follows: with what the vulgate shows, saying it is accurate and praising it as it does would seem rather self defeating. The vulgate proves that the old testamentvlord god by his many different names is not GOD at all. So why lie about it in this manner? Understand?

    1. Trinitarian, sir. I believe in the Trinity shown to Sister Lucia. Why? Study events at Fatima. The problem is that many seem to believe the bible. Worship of GOD needs no bible. People that have been brainwashed by these texts tend to continue claiming “well that does not agree with the bible” .Which bible would that be? Who cares? The bible was written by jews for jews. It is a subversion of the truth. The entire world , even modern catholics believe this old testament beast to be GOD. A child with elementary reading skills that has not been brainwashed can read the old testament and tell anyone here that this can not be GOD and if it is then I want no part of this god. This requires brainwashing to get one to believe something so ludicrous. I do not believe that adults can not figure out something that a child can. Why does one care what the bible says? If you want to study a bible then study a vulgate. It tells quite a different story. If people would study the vulgate they would understand why I say F#&%$#@ck the bible. I have posted it here already, there is no reason for the over 400 of the worlds most noted rebbi who put together the jewish encyclopedia to lie and say the vulgate is accurate simply because of what the vulgate reveals. It would be self defeating to do so.

    2. Fitzinfo, do not be confused by my Sola Scriptura post. It is a lie. How do I know this? Because it is put together from a false bible. However, christians make me play this juvenile game by their rules. You can not arrive at truth when the foundation is a lie to begin with. The point of my Sola Scriptura is to prove that yhwh/ jehova is not GOD. The most important thing that can not be done with english bibles is show that CHRIST is GOD. There are too many verses that counter the argument. So my point now, I can not show beyond argument with a KJV or bible from this line translated from the MT who is GOD but I can show who is not. With a vulgate though, one will not have to read past genesis 2:4 , this would be the third page, before they know that lord god is not GOD providing they refer to the Biblia Sacra Nominum Interpretatio index. At this point there really is no reason to read any further into the old testament unless you are looking to be amused. As I said earlier though, the deception by wordplay does not end in the old testament but continues right into the new testament. You want to actually find JESUM CHRISTUM then you need to study the vulgate otherwise you will follow a false CHRIST. So knowing this, why would the jewish encyclopedia claim the Vulgate accurate? I beg of anyone here to give me a reason that makes any sense. Why is it that no one here dares respond to anything I post of importance? The only translation of the jewish bible that I can prove without being refuted that JESUM CHRISTUM/CHRIST is GOD would be an uncorrupted latin vulgate. The reason for this is declension of the language that is integral to it. It is why latin is very accurate and can not be manipulated the way many other languages can be by doublespeak or statements that can have multiple meanings or intetpretations depending on if your ears “tickled” or not. Partial truth is in a KJV but you must know it already from studying the vulgate or you will never find it.

  48. There are only three theological currents that I know of in the christian faith. One of them claims that Jesus and Jehovah are the same person( this is a protestant doctrine held by most Christians). Another claims that Jehovah is the father, and Jesus is the son(another protestant doctrine held by many who claim Christianity). Yet another claims that Jehovah is a strange being who has elected himself, testifies of himself, suffers uncontrollable attacks of fury that are only appeased with blood: an odious and vindictive being, designer of evils and plagues that are incompatible with the Father revealed by Jesus, full of love, grace, forgiveness, who does not condemn anyone ( my position and the position of the original christian movement/ church etc.).  First position wil be discussed now. If Jesus and Jehovah are the same person, their works in both the New and Old Testaments cannot be conflicting. If Jehovah were the father, and Jesus were the son, they could not have different plans for men, for Jesus declares that he and the Father are one (John 10:30). Let us observe them to see if there are spiritual affinities between the actions of Jehovah and Jesus:
    Jehovah is the god of the rich: “Jehovah’s blessing brings wealth, and he adds no trouble to it” (Prov. 10:22). David declares that riches come from Jehovah (1 Chr. 29:12; 1 Kings 3:13; 1 Chr. 29:26-28). The God whom Jesus revealed as Father chose the poor to be heirs of the celestial kingdom (James 2:5). And Jesus advises not to gather treasures on earth (Matt. 6:19-20). Jesus told a rich man who wanted to follow him to sell everything he had, first, and then follow him (Matt. 19:16-21). Excluding the gifts of Jehovah, Jesus excludes Jehovah.
    Jehovah commands the swearing: “You shall fear Jehovah your God; and you shall serve him, and shall swear by his name” (Deut. 6:13). And Jehovah prophesies that in the future every knee shall bow, and affirms: “to me every … tongue shall take an oath” (Is. 45:23). Jehovah declares that in the new heavens and the new earth he is going to create men will swear by the true god (Is, 65:16-27). Jesus, on the contrary, declared: “Again you have heard that it was said to them of old time, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall perform to the Lord your vows,’ but I tell you, don’t swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shall you swear by your head, for you can’t make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’ Whatever is more than these is of the evil one” (Matt. 5:33-37). Excluding the swearing, Jesus excluded Jehovah from the plan of the Father.
    Jehovah killed little innocent children. In a moment of unrestrained fury against his people, Jehovah declared that he was going to wipe them out with mortal darts, and that they would be destroyed by carbuncles and by bitter pestilence, devoured by wild animals, bitten by poisonous serpents, and also killed by the sword: young men, maidens, old men, and suckling children would die (Deut. 32:22-25). And Jesus proclaimed out loud: “They were bringing to him little children, that he should touch them, but the disciples rebuked those who were bringing them. But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said to them, ‘Allow the little children to come to me! Don’t forbid them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.’” (Mark 10:13-14). When he saved the ones that Jehovah killed, Jesus excluded Jehovah.
    When he delivered the people of Israel from the Egyptian slavery, Jehovah took them to Mount Sinai and said to them: “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:6). And he declared to his people: “I am Jehovah, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King” (Is. 43:15). Jesus, on the contrary, declared to Pilates: “My Kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The declarations of Jehovah are compounded by the fact that John registered in his gospel the words of Jesus, saying: “He who hears my word, and believes him who sent me, has eternal life, and doesn’t come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (John 5:24). Therefore, Jesus excluded Jehovah, who founded the kingdom of the dead. When a Jew, member of the bankrupt kingdom of Jehovah, at the time when he believed in Christ, asked permission to go bury his dead father, Jesus told him: “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead” (Matt. 8:21-22).
    At the time when the Law was given at Sinai, the law of vengeance was established, which says: “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise” (Ex. 21:24-25). When Jesus established the law of forgiveness, he excluded Jehovah. The law of Jesus is: “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you don’t forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:14-15). Jesus is excluding the law of the eye for eye through the law of forgiveness; therefore he excluded Jehovah.
    Jehovah sold his people because of their sins against the law. When they took possession of the Promised Land, as Jehovah did not fulfill his promise to cast out the perverted people from the land, the people of Israel mingled with the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, Perizzites and Jebusites by taking their women for their children and giving their daughters to their sons, and served their gods. Then the anger of Jehovah was kindled, and he sold them into the hands of Cushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia. Israel was sold seven times, in just the period of the book of Judges (Judges 2:1-8, 12-14; 4:1-3; 6:1; 10:6-8; 13:1). The psalmist declares that Jehovah sold his people for a small price (Ps. 44:12). And Jesus bought them with his blood, the very ones whom Jehovah had sold; therefore, the cancelled the work of Jehovah (1 Pet. 1:18-19).
    Moses asked Jehovah, saying: “Please show me your glory.” Jehovah answered: “You cannot see my face, for man may not see me and live” (Ex. 33:18,20). And Jesus declared: “This is the will of the one who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40). Those who see Jehovah, die; and those who see Jesus, live. Jesus was always excluding Jehovah.
    There were good and bad in the kingdom of Jehovah, clean and unclean, righteous and unrighteous. Jehovah sent rain over the good and the righteous, and withheld from unrighteous and bad (Amos 4:7-8). And the Father of Jesus sent rain over righteous and unrighteous, clean and unclean (Matt. 5:45). Therefore Jehovah loved less than the Father. With this declaration Jesus left Jehovah out.
    Jehovah is considered as God, and founded his kingdom in this world (Ex. 19:6). Jesus, however, declared: “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (Luke 16:16). In another occasion Jesus said: “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come to you” (Matt. 12:28). Jesus declared by this that the kingdom of Jehovah is not the kingdom of God; therefore he leaves out Jehovah.
    Jehovah made himself known to the men in the Old Testament, according to the prophet Ezekiel: “And say to them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day when I chose Israel, and lifted up my hand to the seed of the house of Jacob, and made myself known to them in the land of Egypt” (Ezek. 20:5). If Jehovah declares that he revealed himself, no one can say the contrary. When the people ignored that, Jehovah insisted in make himself known.  “Therefore behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know my hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is JEHOVAH” (Jer. 16:21). He said this to his people. And, if even the strangers knew him, how much more Israel! Here is what Jehovah declared: “I will record Rahab and Babylon among those who acknowledge me” (Ps. 87:4). Let us consider now the declaration of Jesus: “All things have been delivered to me by my Father. No one knows the Son, except the Father; neither does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and he to whom the Son desires to reveal him” (Matt. 11:27). When Jesus declares NO ONE, he means no one. Neither men nor angels. No one has ever known him before Christ. Neither Israel, nor Rahab, nor Babylon. John said: “No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him” (John 1:18).
    By these declarations Jesus excluded Jehovah, who made himself known through plagues, pestilences, curses, wars, captivities, vengeances and deaths. Jesus, however, revealed the true god, the God and Father, loving and savior of all (1 Tim. 4:10). He is this Father whom we know, worship, serve and glorify.                    Next we will address the second position, yhwh/jehova is the “FATHER” the texts refer to in the new testament. First off understand that my verses being shown to substantiate ALL THREE positions is not even close to exhaustive and all inclusive. I could do this all day. Here I will address the second doctrinal/ theological position; jehova/ yhwh is the ” FATHER”. Those who believe that Jehovah is the only true God say that the New Testament does not contain arguments that prove the contrary. I am to present various clear proofs that Jehovah is not the true God or “Father” that is spoken of in the New Testament. Let us be reminded that all verses are from KJV and I am playing by the protestant rules…….Sola Scriptura( if it is not printed in the bible, it is not valid argument. I beg you to respond using your own protestant rules here. Otherwise, you expect one to play by your rules, but refuse to follow them yourself…….that would be also known as rigging the game, like the casino, government or other undesirable institutions do….even the church. Let us continue:
    1. Jehovah elected Moses as a mediator between god and men (Ex.3:12-18). Paul tells us, though, that there is only one mediator between men and God, Jesus Christ, a man (1 Tim.2:5). Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, which is established in better promises (Heb.8:6). Being Moses the mediator of the Old Covenant, that Covenant could not be the Covenant of the Father. Moses was then the mediator between angels and men, and not between God and men (Gal.3:19). It is obvious that Paul’s revelation is that Jehovah is not the Father, but that he is a false God.
    2. Jehovah called himself king of this world and king of Israel, in the following portions of the Bible:Ps.47:2,7-8; 22:28; 96:8-10; 99:1; 1 Chr.16:31; Jer.10:7; 43:15. Now, Jesus and the Father are one, that is, whatever the Father is, Jesus equally is. But Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36; 10:30). Therefore, Jehovah was from below, and Jesus, from above, as we read in John 8:23. Jesus was revealing here that Jehovah was not the Father.
    3. Jehovah manifested himself in darkness, on Mount Sinai (Deut.4:11-12; 5:22-24). “So the people stood at a distance, while Moses approached the thick cloud where God was” (Ex.20:21). Jesus manifested himself in light, on a mountain (Matt.17:1-2). Whoever came near where Jesus was, came near the light, not near the darkness (John 8:12; 12:46). John also says that there is no darkness in the Father (1 John 1:5). It is obvious that both Jesus and John were revealing that Jehovah is the angel of darkness, or the “domain of darkness” of Col.1:12-13.
    4. Jehovah bore sons to the flesh, as the following verses register: Ezek.16:20; 23:37; Deut.28:53; Ps.127:3. Jehovah begot Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Samson, etc. (Gen.21:1-2; 25:19-23; Judges 13:3-5). Those born of the flesh were sons of Jehovah, as we have read in Deut.14:1; 32:18-20; Is.1:2; 30:9; 63:7-8, etc. Paul, however, reveals that those who are born of the flesh are not children of God(Rom.9:8). John taught from God the Father, saying, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but God” (John 1:12-13). Jehovah also declared himself “the god of the flesh” in Jer.32:27. So, the children of Jehovah are not the children of God the Father, nor of Jesus, but of a stranger.
    5. Jehovah personally dictated the Ten Commandments, as Moses says in Deut.4:10-14. The people, then, saw Jehovah (Ex.24:9-11). And Jesus said that his people had never seen nor heard God, inJohn 5:37. Abraham saw Jehovah (Gen.18:1-7). Isaiah saw Jehovah (Is.6:1-3, 5). Paul states that no man has ever seen God, nor can see Him (1 Tim.6:16). It is obvious that Paul was revealing that whatever Abraham and the others had seen was not the Father, but a usurper.
    6. Jehovah sent Moses to say to Pharaoh, king of Egypt: “Let My people go, that they may serve Me”.This sentence repeats itself seven times (Ex.4:23; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3). Jehovah demanded that men served him. The Levites formed a priestly family to serve Jehovah. In the book of Malachi, the last prophet of the Old Testament, we read: “So you will again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him” (Mal.3:18). Paul, though, strongly declares in Acts 17:23,25 that God is not served by hands of men. Paul reveals here that the one who is being served by the hands of men is not the true God. The people of Israel believed that they were serving God, while they were really serving Jehovah. Paul, though, continues:  “However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? (Gal.4:8-9).
    7. Jehovah had only one family. “For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God; and Jehovah has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth” (Deut.14:2). “You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2).Paul, in order to make it clear that Jehovah is not the Father, tells us, “For this reason, I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name” (Eph.3:14-15).
    8. Jehovah declares to be the devouring lion of Israel. “So I will be like a lion to them; like a leopard I will lie in wait by the wayside. I will encounter them like a bear robbed of her cubs, and I will tear open their chests; THERE I WILL ALSO DEVOUR THEM LIKE A LIONESS” (Hos.13:7-8). There are more scriptures where Jehovah calls himself “lion” (Hos.5:14; Lam.3:10; Amos 3:4-6, 8; Hos.11:10).Peter brilliantly uncovers the mystery of Jehovah as a lion: “Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet.5:8).
    9. Eli commanded and fire came down from heaven twice, and killed one hundred and two soldiers. The fire came from Jehovah, as it happened in Sodom, and also to the sons of Aaron (Gen.19:24; Lev.10:1-2). James and John wished to repeat the feat, but Jesus rebuked them, saying: “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of”. With that, Jesus revealed that his spirit is not the same as that of Jehovah. And he also said, “For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them”. With these words, Jesus declared that Jehovah was and is the destroyer of souls (Luke 9:51-56). Jesus could not have been clearer in this revelation than he was.
    10.  Jehovah has always sought his own glory, a bad thing for a god, for, if, to a man, exalting himself is to reveal arrogance, to God, as a model that he is, he should not exalt himself. Jesus was born humbly, in a stable, and was always poor and despised (Is.52:14; 53:2-3). Jesus did not have a place where to lay his head, being so poor as he was (Matt.8:20). Jesus declared, “BUT I DO NOT SEEK MY GLORY; THERE IS ONE WHO SEEKS” (John 8:50). And he also said, “If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true” (John 5:31). Jehovah did nothing but to testify about himself and to seek his own glory (Is.43:11, 13; 45:5; Deut.32:39; Is.14:27). We read about his glory: Is.43:7; 42:8; Is.48:11. Jehovah spoke so much on his name, on his glory, and on his power; and Jesus speaks back with the following words, to whomever has ears to hear, “He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the one who sent Him, HE IS TRUE, and there is no unrighteousness in Him (John 7:18).                  Now we will cover the logical position , the one that I hold so close in my heart and know to be true; GOD THE FATHER AND CHRIST are ONE and has nothing whatsoever to do with the deity known as jehova/ yhwh/ yahu adonai, shaddai or any other name you would like to refer to him as. Remember now, if this deity we are discussing (old testament lord god) is shown to be a false god, then by default, all of his prophets are also false prophets and therefore nothing they say concerning subject can be trusted, basically putting an end to this deception and putting the pagan old testament scripture where it belongs….. trashbin along with protestant doctrine(CHRIST is yhwh/ jehova incarnate or he is the FATHER spoken of). All protestant denominations;ALL of them, no matter what sect believe one of these two doctrines. If you know of any denomination that does not hold one of these two doctrines, please make me aware of them and provide statement of faith from said church/ denomination. OK, my position here: Jesus declared in John 10:30, “I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE.” What does that mean? Was Jesus’ intention to reveal that He, the Father, and the Spirit are only one person manifested in three different forms? This absurd doctrine was invented by a heretic of the third century by the name of Sabelius, who did not accept the doctrine of the trinity, that is, that there are three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, according the teaching of Jesus himself in Matt. 28:19. Sabelius declined because he did not have biblical support. The Father cannot be tempted, (James 1:13), and Jesus was tempted (Heb. 4:15; Luke 22:28). There are many texts that prove that the Father and Jesus are two distinct persons(John 11:40-42; Acts 7:56; John 20:17; Acts 2:36; 5:30-31; 13:27-33). These are a few texts among hundreds.
    What did Jesus teach, though, when he said: “I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE”? Jesus taught that the love with which He loved is just like the Father’s love (1 John 4:8). Jesus taught that, He and the Father, from eternity, have always agreed. They both want to save, and never to kill. Both want to help and never to oppress. Both want to absolve and never to condemn, or to accuse. Their eternal purpose is the same. The goodness and mercy of them both is eternal and unchangeable. In face of this reality expounded in the New Testament, we register here contradictory aspects between Jehovah, the god of Israel in the Old Testament, and that which Jesus taught:
    Considering that one can only go to God the Father through Jesus Christ, according to John 14:6,why could Jehovah be found without Jesus? “And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart” (Jer. 29:13; 1 Chr. 28:9; 2 Chr. 15:15; Ezra 8:22, etc).
    If only Jesus knows the Father, and only Jesus reveals the Father God to men, why did Jehovah reveal himself through Moses, and that before Jesus? No one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matt 11:27; Ex. 3:7-15; Ezek. 20:5).
    If we accept Jehovah as the God and Father of Jesus, and Jehovah gave the law at Sinai, why did Jesus change the law? In Ex. 20:1-7 we read that Jehovah gave the Ten Commandments, and inHeb. 7:12 we read that the law was modified. And in the same chapter we read that the law was weak and useless (Heb. 7:18-19). The Son and the god of the Old Testament were not one, according to these texts.
    If only Jesus can save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15), and this salvation is linked to the resurrection, for Paul taught that, if Christ had not been raised all men would be eternally lost, (1 Cor. 15:12-18),why did Jehovah save without the mediation of Christ? Jehovah said, “I, even I, am Jehovah; and there is no Savior besides Me” (Is. 43:11).
    Jesus declared that the eternal life resided in knowing the only true God, and also in knowing him, Jesus, whom God had sent (John 17:3). The Jews and the priests were faithful to Jehovah and to the Torah, and they did not accept Jesus. For this reason they killed Him on the cross by the hands of the Roman soldiers. They remain loyal to the law of Jehovah till today, and they do not accept Jesus. The question is, “Are they, who know Jehovah and reject Jesus, saved?” If they are, how do we understand Acts 4:10-12?
    If God the Father is love, according to 1John 4:8, why was Jehovah so vengeful, according toNahum 1:2, seeing that love suffers everything, believes everything, hopes everything, bears everything, according to 1 Cor. 13:7?
    If Jehovah confesses that he did not know any other people besides Israel, according to Deut. 14:2 and Amos 3:2, why did he call Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon his servant and one pleasing in his eyes, if Nebuchadnezzar was cruel, prideful and tyrannical? (Jer. 27:1-8; 25:9; 43:10).
    If Jesus, sent by the Father, came to destroy the works of the devil, according to 1 John 3:8, why did Jehovah support them? Did Jehovah oppose Satan when he doubted Job’s faithfulness? He on the contrary agreed with the malignant plans of Satan (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7). Jesus opposed Satan in Luke 22:31-32.
    If Jehovah established in the law and in the prophets that life consisted of the observation and obedience to the law (Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11,13,21), why is it written in the New Testament that whoever keeps the Law falls from grace and loses their life? Paul spoke by the Holy Spirit, saying,“And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:3,4).
    If the Father’s righteousness in the New Testament is Jesus Christ crucified for us (Rom. 10:4; 2 Cor. 5:21), why did Jehovah establish the law as a basis for righteousness? “But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works” (Rom. 9:31-32). And Paul says that Israel, knowing the standard of Jehovah’s righteousness, did not know the righteousness of God. Christ and Jehovah are not one (Rom. 10:3; Acts 13:39).
    Jehovah allowed divorce for whatever reason. “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house” (Deut. 24:1). Another instance is in Deut. 21:10-14. Jesus forbade divorce for any reason at all. Therefore he is not one with Jehovah (Matt. 19:3-6).
    Jehovah declares himself the god of the silver and the gold in Haggai 2:8. He is, for this reason, the god who makes rich or poor (1 Sam. 2:7; Eccl. 5:19). If Jehovah is the one who gives wealth, why did Jesus tell his disciples not to seek it? (Matt. 6:19-21).
    Jehovah made Solomon very rich (1 Kings 3:13). He gave Jehoshaphat many riches (2 Chr. 17:5). He made Hezekiah rich (2 Chr. 32:27). Why does Jesus say to relinquish one’s wealth? “So, therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his possessions” (Luke 14:33). A rich man wished to follow Jesus, and he told him, “go and sell your possessions and give to the poor…and come, follow Me” (Matt. 16:22). Another very rich man wanted to build larger storing places, but Jesus said to him, “You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?” (Luke 12:16-21).
    The concept of riches of Jehovah was totally material, for it was made of the silver and gold we use here on this world. This was the treasure belonging to Jehovah that was stored in Solomon’s temple (Josh. 6:18-19; 1 Kings 7:51; etc.). Why does Jesus make void this concept of riches and establishes another one in Matt. 6:19-21? Jesus and Jehovah are not one.
    Jehovah gave his measure for love in the Law: “And you shall love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5). “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18). Jesus established another standard saying, “A New commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you” (John 13:34). The love with which Jesus loves men is so vast, divine, and glorious, that it places the commandment to love the neighbor as oneself in the dust, so inferior it is. The standard of Jehovah is carnal and human, but the standard of Jesus is spiritual and divine. Jesus and Jehovah have different concepts.
    Jehovah loved himself better than he loved men, and he said, because Israel had not been faithful, that he had poured his wrath on them in Egypt. And he did this because he loved himself(Ezek. 20:8-9). This is the measure of the love of Jehovah. The measure of the love of Jesus is another, for loving lost men better then Himself, he gave His life on the cross to save them. Which is the greater love? There is one sure thing. Jehovah cannot be Jesus, nor can he be God the Father. Let us continue on this subject. How can this statement of Jesus be understood “I and the Father are one”?
    SAME NATURE? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
    SAME POWER? “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18).
    SAME LOVE? “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (Jo. 15:13).
    SAME PURPOSE? “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29).
    SAME GOODNESS? “And He [Jesus] said to him, ‘Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good” (Matt. 19:17).
    SAME SPIRIT? ” However you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Matt. 19:17).SAME GLORY? “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was” (John 17:5).
    SAME AUTHORSHIP OF CREATION? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him; and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being (John 1:1-3). SAME DOMINIUM?“…and all things that are Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine; and I have been glorified in them” (John 17:10).
    SAME HOLINESS?  “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens” (Rev. 3:7).
    THE QUEST GOES ON: What did Jesus mean when he said: “The Father and I are one”? Jesus meant to reveal that wherever the Son is not, the Father is not, either. Christ wasn’t in the Old Testament, therefore, the Father was not there either. The Old Testament prophecies said that the Christ would come. “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me” (John 5:39). “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25).
    If Jesus were the same Jehovah of the Old Testament, he would have said: “I have come on My own initiative”. But, on the contrary, he said: “If God were your Father, you would love Me; for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I HAVE NOT EVEN COME ON MY OWN INITIATIVE, but He sent Me” (John 8:42). Jesus wished to reveal that the Father doesn’t exist outside the Son: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him” (John 1:18).
    If God were seen through the Son, He might be Jehovah, but God is seen in the Son, because they areone in essence. “Phillip said to Him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.’  Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Phillip? HE WHO HAS SEEN ME HAS SEEN THE FATHER’ ” (John 14:8-9). Jesus doesn’t point to the Father saying, “It is this one or it is that one”, but says: “TO LOOK AT ME IS TO LOOK AT THE FATHER WHO IS IN ME”. “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works” (John 14:10).
    The Father entrusted everything in the hands of the Son, thus being unable to manifest Himself outside the Son, or even prior to the Son. “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands” (John 13:3) “All things that the Father has are Mine” (John 16:15). “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hands” (John 3:35). “For not even the Father judges any one, but He has given all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22). Jehovah judged men before the Son had come; this was against John 5:22. All is all.
    If God was judging men before Christ came, it means that He had not given all judgment to the Son, only part of the judgment, since the Son could not deliver the ones condemned by the Father, as this would constitute two judgments. Because the Father had determined one only judgment by the hands of the Son, the previous judgments had not been true judgments. (Acts 17:31). This is the reason why Jesus Christ will judge Sodom and Gomorrah that were judged and condemned by Jehovah, again. (Gen. 19:24-25 and Matt. 11:24).
    The Father God revealed in Jesus Christ cannot be seen nor known apart from Jesus, because the good works that Jesus did are the expression of the love of the Father“…the works that I do in My Father’s name, these bear witness of Me” (John 10:25) “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” (John 10:32)  “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:37-38) “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” (John 14:7)
    No one can see the Father, hear the Father, and know the Father apart from Jesus Christ. For this reason, Jesus told them, “I am the truth, the way, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” (John 14:6) Jesus had not said, “nobody goes to the Father”, but, “nobody comes to the Father”, because the Father is in Him, and not outside of Him.
    The works that Jehovah does are works of evil, not works of love (Amos 3:6;  Jer. 11:17; 18:11 and 21:10). For this reason Jehovah was outside of Christ. In John 3:19-21 Jesus says that evil is darkness.  If Jehovah does what is evil, and evil is darkness, Jehovah is the god of darkness (Ex. 20:21 and Ps. 18:11).
    Finally, we read in Matthew: “… and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matt.11:27). Adam knew Jehovah; Cain knew Jehovah, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc.. Jehovah prided himself in being known: “…but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am Jehovah” (Jer. 9:24). “Thus says the Lord God, ‘On the day when I chose Israel and swore to the descendants of the House of Jacob AND MADE MYSELF KNOWN TO THEM IN THE LAND OF EGYPT” (Ezek. 20:5). Nobody knows the Father, though, except the Son. And if Jehovah made himself known, has the Son made a useless revelation? When Jesus says, “anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him”, declares that the revelation of the Father isn’t public, but private. Christ doesn’t reveal Him to everybody, but only to the saints. Matthew, John, Paul and the other apostles have not revealed the Father, because they didn’t feel up to doing the works, which were exclusively Jesus’ works. They would be usurpers. It is easy to determine who is not the Father, because the one that is not the Father, kills, send plagues and pestilence, sends to captivity, delivers the just to the devil, makes mothers eat their offspring. It is easy to find out that Jehovah is not the Father, neither Jesus. Only the blind think they can prove that the usurper is the Father, for his works are so contrary to His, as the light is different from the darkness, and Hell is different from Heaven. If a man can take the name of God and also prophesy in the name of God, falsely, why can’t an angel, who is much higher than men, usurp the place of God before blind men? This is the reason why the one who worships Jesus only, has the Father also(1John 2:23). Why does Jesus show up only in the New Testament? Because He didn’t want to be a co-operator with the works of darkness. When Jehovah entered the History of men, calamities, curses, and havoc began to happen. Christ came in person in order to destroy the works of the devil. (1John 3:8).        Here are some more of jehovas’ claims: The words of Jehovah God: “Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die” (Ez. 18:4). In other words, Jehovah is saying: As the souls are mine, I kill those that sin. This can be proven by the words of the priest Eli as he rebuked his sons Hophni and Phinehas: “If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him? BUT THEY WOULD NOT LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF THEIR FATHER, FOR THE LORD DESIRED TO PUT THEM TO DEATH” (1Sam. 2:25).
    When did Jehovah declare that all souls belonged to him? These words were spoken a long time after Adam was sent out of the Garden of Eden, and a long time before the death of Christ in the cross to redeem sinners. Which was the situation of the souls that lived since the times of Adam until Jesus Christ? Paul reveals in Rom. 5:17 that they were all dead, and Jesus confirms it when a young man, which wanted to follow him, asked him permission to go bury his father first: “And another of the disciples said to Him; ‘Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father.’ But Jesus said to him, Follow Me; and allow the dead to bury their own dead’” (Matt. 8:21,22). John said that whoever believed in Jesus had passed from death to life (John 5:24).
    If these souls were dead, how did Jehovah declare that they belonged to him? Is it because Jehovah is the God of the dead? I refuse to believe in this blasphemy, but it is Jehovah who speaks of himself as the owner of the dead souls.
    In the New Testament, we read that Jesus bought the souls with his precious blood (1Cor. 6:20 and 1Pet. 1:18,19). If Jesus is Jehovah, did he buy them from himself? Did he redeem them from his own hands? The Apostle Paul tells us that the work of Christ is to deliver men from the devil (Acts 10:38; 26:18). We understand by the Bible that Jesus bought and redeemed them from someone wicked. Since Jehovah stated that the souls belonged to him, Jesus could not have bought them, only delivered them. Someone buys that which does not belong to him or her. If Jehovah is the Father, Jesus bought them from the Father for the Father?  How could Jesus buy from the devil that which belongs to Jehovah? If I buy from Peter the car that belongs to John, I was sold a bill of goods. Paul further says that all creation is subjected to futility, and that creatures will be set free from corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:20,21). Did souls belong to Jehovah while they were still slaves in captivity to corruption?
    John, in his gospel, teaches that, in order for us to be children of God, we have to accept Christ as Savior, and that the ones who were born of flesh and blood are not the children of God (John 1:12, 13).All the souls, which Jehovah declares to be his, have not received Jesus as their savior, and they were born of the flesh and of the blood; and Paul reveals that flesh and blood are corruptible, in 1Cor.15:50.As it is, declaring that all souls are his, Jehovah is saying that corruption belongs to him, for the blood is the soul. “So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beat or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For as the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life” (Lev. 17:13,14).
    So, we see that the souls, corrupt by nature, could not belong to the Father or to Jesus Christ, but belonged to Jehovah. And Jesus bought them for himself and for his Father, pouring his blood in the cross. The Bible says that all are sinners, in Rom. 5:12, and maintains that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, in Rom. 3:23; and does Jehovah say that all souls are his? In Ps. 24:1 we read that the world and those who live in it belong to Jehovah. This is unbelievable, but Jehovah declares himself to be the owner of the dead souls and the owner of sinners fallen short of the glory of God!
    Jesus, says Paul, came to save the sinners who belonged to Jehovah (1Tim. 1:15). It is evident that these sinners were not of Jesus or of the Father, for John says that whoever sins, has never seen Him or known Him (1John 3:5,6). Christ came to set captives free, we read in Luke 4:18,19. If they were captives, how did Jehovah allow it, and how did he asseverate that they all belonged to him? 
    How could all souls belong to Jehovah, if a great number of souls are children of the devil? “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies” (John 8:44).
    John said, in relation to Jesus, “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds, to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28,29).
    If the largest part is condemned, because they are children of the devil, God could not say: All souls are mine. Let us listen again to what John says, “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: any one who does not practice righteousness IS NOT OF GOD” (1John 3:10). But we who believe in Jesus Christ belong to God the Father, because we were bought with the precious blood of his only begotten Son. Now we know that GOD can not lie, otherwise he would be of the dark and not light. Remember Linda; common sense lesson….. why is hot, hot and cold in fact cold? Or any other two things that are diametrically opposed to one another for that matter. ex: light/ dark, good/ evil, fast/ slow etc., etc. ,etc. The answer is obvious, it was not a trick question. You did not answer correctly even after we discussed and I made you aware that I had already given you the answer. You still could not answer the obvious until I pointed it out to you. Let us recap, light can not be darkness or it is not light……very simple. Common sense but to this day only one person looked at me in amazement for asking such a stupid question and immediately gave correct answer. Kudos to that young man , Josh, who possesses common sense. OK , lies of jehova….again, this is by no means an exhaustive list here but just a few.                1.     Jehovah declares that he deceives the prophets, therefore, he lies (Ezek. 14:6-10). Does he kill, afterwards?
    2.     Jehovah deceived Jeremiah (Jer. 20:7,8).
    3.     Jeremiah accuses Jehovah of deceiving Israel (Jer. 4:10).
    4.     He deceived Ahab through 400 prophets (1Kings 22:5-6; 19-23). In order to kill Ahab, he used the artifice of a lie.
    5.     Jehovah says that nobody has ever oppressed Israel (1 Chr. 16:20-22; Is. 54:10-11). We mention here texts where Israel was oppressed: Judg. 2:13-16; 3:8-9,12-15. “Then the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of Jehovah, after Ehud died. And Jehovah sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor; and the commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth-hagoyim. And the sons of Israel cried to Jehovah; for he had nine hundred iron chariots, and he oppressed the sons of Israel severely for twenty years” (Judg. 4:1-3).Jehovah oppressed Israel (Judg. 6:1-10; 10:6-10; 13:1; Is. 60:14).
    6.     Jehovah said that he was going to destroy death forever (Is. 25:8), and perpetrated it instead(Is. 65:17-25; 66:22-24).
    7.     He said that he was going to forgive Israel in the desert (Ezek. 20:13-17) but destroyed them(Num. 14:18-23; 26-37). “‘And I will dash them against each other, both the fathers and the sons together,’ declares Jehovah. ‘I will not show pity nor be sorry nor have compassion that I should not destroy them’” (Jer. 13:14).
    8.     Jehovah created the destroyer (Is. 54:16) to destroy his people (Is. 6:11-12; 61:3-4; Joel 1:7-12). The destructions should end in 70 years (Dan. 9:2). They have not ended until today: Under the Greeks, Antiochus Epifanes took an idol into the Holy of Holies; under the Romans, there was the slaughter of children by Herod the Great; Titus and Vespasianus destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple; and there was the great holocaust of six million Jews killed under the power of Hitler.
    9.     Jehovah chose Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:29-37). He lied, and afterwards accused Israel of having chosen him (2 Kings 17:20-21).
    10.       He promised a rest during the kingdom of Solomon (1 Chr. 22:9-10). It did not happen, since Solomon never had peace in his kingdom (1 Kings 11:14-25). He lied.
    11.       The Aaronic priesthood would be eternal (Ex. 40:13-15; 1 Chr. 23:13). Considering that it was changed, it came to an end (Heb. 7:11-12).
    12.       Jehovah said that the one who kept the law would live (Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11; Rom. 5:12).Death reigned until Christ (Rom. 5:17; Matt. 8:21-22). No one is justified before God by the law, though.
    13.       Jehovah considers himself Almighty (Gen. 17:1). Nobody escapes his hands (Deut. 32:39; Is. 43:13; 14:27; 1 Sam. 2:3-10). He is the potter (Jer. 18:1-6; Is. 63:8). The devil was stronger, as we read in Rom. 8:19-21. He did not keep Adam, David, Salomon or Israel. He lied, for he never keeps anyone. And Israel accuses him (Is. 63:17).
    14.       The earth was created formless and empty (Gen. 1:2). Jehovah says that he did not create it empty (Is. 45:18). Who lied?
    15.       Jehovah says that he thinks evil and not good (Jer. 18:11; 21:10). Later, he says that he thinks good, and not evil (Jer. 29:11).
    16.       Jehovah says that he takes no pleasure in the death of the one who dies (Ezek. 18:32). But he shut the ears of Hophni and Phinehas, because he wanted to kill them (1 Sam. 2:25; Gen. 38:6-7).
    17.       He testified to David walking in his ways (1 Kings 11:38). David did not walk in his ways, though (2 Sam. 12:7-12).
    18.       Jehovah said that parents would not die for their children, neither the children for their parents(Deut. 24:16; Is. 14:21). He killed Eli for the sins of his sons Hophni and Phineas (1 Sam. 2:22-25; 12-17). He killed David’s son for the sin of his father (2 Sam. 12:15-19).
    19.       Jehovah does not show partiality (Deut. 10:17) but declared to have favored Israel and not Egypt (Ex. 11:6-7; Amos 3:2; Deut. 14:1-2).
    20.       He gave orders to Moses concerning the sacrifices and burnt offerings (Ex. 20:24). And, in Jer. 7:21,22, he denied having given such order.
    21.       He assured Abraham that he would not kill the righteous with the unrighteous (Gen. 18:24-32). And he did the opposite, killing righteous and wicked together (Ezek. 21:1-4).
    22.       He said that he does not make use of violence (Zach. 4:6), and in reality he uses it (Ezek. 20:33; Ps. 7:11-13).
    23.       He asked the people to turn from his ways (Ezek. 33:11). Afterwards, he did not accept their repentance (Jer. 11:14; 13:14; Ex. 8:18).
    24.       Haggai and Zachariah preached the end of the captivity after 70 years (Jer. 25:12; 29:10-14; Dan. 9:2). Zerubbabel restored the temple in 538 BC, when he returned with 42,000 men. In 456, Esra took 1,755 men to Jerusalem. The prophecy was that the glory of the second temple would be greater than the glory of the first one (Hag.2:9). The temple of Solomon stood for 360 years and the one of Zerubbabel for 195 years. Antiochus Epiphanius defiled it through the offerings of pigs, in 170 BC. Therefore, the prophecy of Haggai 2:9 was not true. Nebuzaradan burnt he temple in the year 587 BC.
    25.       The history was like this: the decree of Cyrus was in 534 BC. The work took 21 years. It was finished in 515 BC. Esra went to Jerusalem in 458 BC, according to Esra 1:1-2. The second temple has not become glorious, until today. A lie.     Let us cover another sore subject ignored by the church…….human sacrifice. No one in their right mind would ever consider Moloch to be anything other than a false god and may even consider a deity that demands and accepts human sacrifice  to be of Satan or luciferian in nature. However you would like to describe it, feel free to do so now. Well, let us apply that same theory with these acts here:            Ancient mythology brings us news of human sacrifices as a means to placate the wrath and furor of the gods of the peoples. Children were innocent victims of these horrible worships. In the year 2,214 BC, in many places (Ur, Mari, Assyria, Ugarit, Amou), they worshipped the god Moloch with the sacrifice of children. These innocent victims were burnt alive. This macabre worship got into the history of Israel with Solomon, the king who had the wisdom given by Yahweh, or Jehovah, the god of the Hebrews. Jehovah had forbidden this worship in the Law of Moses. “Neither shall you give any of your offspring to offer them to Moloch, nor shall you profane the name of your God” (Lev.18:21). Whoever did this was condemned to death; and if anyone, friend or relative, knowing about it, did not denounce the one guilty of this crime, and did not kill him; such person and his family were condemned to death and extinction(Lev.20:2-5).
    Solomon was nymphomaniac, having a thousand women: three hundred were concubines, all of them forbidden by Yahweh (Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Hittites, Sidoneans, and the Pharaoh’s daughter). Those women corrupted him to the extent that he built a statue of Moloch, an abomination of the sons of Ammon (1 Kings 11:1-6). Solomon did not die, because he was favored of Jehovah. Many kings offered their children to the fire of Moloch. King Ahab (2 Kings 16:1-3), Manasseh (2 Kings 21:1-6). This horrible worship became a practice among the people of Israel (2 Kings 2:16-17).
    The issue  I propose is the following: Jehovah, the one who killed those who committed this crime of sacrificing to Moloch, also accepted sacrifices of children. Or not? Let us analyze the Old Testament.
    Israel was warring against the sons of Ammon, the people of Moloch, and Jephthah was the chosen general (Judges 11:1-5). Afraid of being defeated, Jephthah vowed to Jehovah the following: “If Thou wilt indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, than it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering” (Judges 11:30-31). Jephthah had an only daughter, and she went out from his house to meet him. Jephthah, when he saw her, rent his garments, crying, for he was going to fulfill his promise; and he did it 60 days after that. The question is: Does Jehovah accept human sacrifices or not? Did Jehovah accept the sacrifice of Jephthah? Follow me.
    When Israel, led by Joshua, was at the doors of Canaan, Achan saw among the spoil a Babylonian mantle, two hundred shekels of silver, and a bar of gold, and hid them in the earth. For this reason, Israel began to lose the battle, and thirty-six Israelite soldiers died. Joshua tore his garments and fell, praying, before Jehovah, who said: There is sin. Joshua cast lots and the tribe of Judah was appointed. From the tribe of Judah, the family of the Zerahites was taken, and among the Zerahites, Achan. This was all done under the instruction of Jehovah. After Achan had confessed his sin, all the people got Achan, the silver, the mantle, the bar of gold, his sons and his daughters, his oxen, his donkeys and his sheep, his tent and all he had, and took them to the Valley of Achor, and stoned them to death and burnt them with fire. By this “JEHOVAH TURNED FROM THE FIERCENESS OF HIS ANGER” (Josh.7:1-26). If the sacrifice of the family of Achan placated the wrath of Jehovah, he accepts human sacrifices.
    The second is the case of the first-born. After Jehovah freed Israel from the Egyptian yoke through the death of the first-born, he demanded that all the first-born of Israel, both human and animal, were handed over to him. The first-born had to be redeemed by five shekels in silver. If they were not redeemed, they were sacrificed to Jehovah (Ex.13:11-16; Num.18:15-16). In this way, Jehovah accepted sacrifices of children, just as Moloch did. The omission of the ransom resulted in sacrifice. The other case is the circumcision. The child that was not circumcised was sacrificed to Jehovah(Gen.17:14).
    For forty years as they wandered through the desert, the people of Israel prostituted with the Moabites. Furious, Jehovah sent a plague that killed 24,000 Moabites. He was prepared to go on killing, but Phinehas the son of Eleazar, grandson of Aaron, took a spear and pierced a man of Israel and the woman through the body. Jehovah then said, “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned away My wrath from the sons of Israel” (Num.25:11). Jehovah accepted human sacrifice to appease him.
    The fifth is the case of Saul. Jehovah chose Saul, and Jehovah rejected Saul (1 Sam.9:17; 16:1). The prophet Samuel gave the news of the rejection, but the announcement of the death of Saul and his three sons, Jehovah gave by the mouth of a sorcerer (1 Sam.13:14; 28:6-19; 31:1-2). The death of Saul and his three sons did not put out the vengeful fury of Jehovah, for thirty years more. Jehovah, very angry, sent three years of famine over Israel. David prayed and Jehovah answered that the responsible for it was Saul and his bloody house. They had wished to kill the Gibeonites forty years before. David called the Gibeonites to clear things up and end the famine in Israel. The Gibeonites asked for the seven sons of Saul to hang them in sacrifice to Jehovah. All seven innocent men were hung unto Jehovah, and the text finishes, “and after that God was moved by entreaty for the land” (2 Sam.21:1-14).
    Let us analyze the last of the cases of this study. The kingdom of Israel enjoyed years of glory under the rule of David, and under peace. The kingdom was strengthened and the ark was taken to Jerusalem and placed in a tent that David put up (1 Chr.16:1). David said, “I am dwelling in a house of cedar, but the ark of the covenant of Jehovah is under curtains”. Then David decided to edify a house for the ark of God (1 Chr.17:1-12). At this time of glory for David and his kingdom, the wrath of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, apparently with no reason. Jehovah was angry, and only human sacrifices would bring him peace. Since there was no reason for sacrifices, Jehovah incited David to number the people, and David obeyed, and that gave Jehovah reason to kill 70,000 Israelites.
    Those 70,000 souls were sacrificed to appease the spirit of Jehovah (2 Sam.24:1; 1 Chr.21:1-16).
    In reality, Jehovah was never against human sacrifices. When he forbid the sacrifices done to Moloch, he did so because this privilege, only he, Jehovah, could have.
    When Jesus died on the cross, this sacrifice was not done unto the Father, but to Jehovah. The Father gave his Son in sacrifice, and the blood that was shed delivered us from Jehovah. Peter said, “Knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold…but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Pet.18-19). Understanding of this makes the doctrines of protestant  church denominations blasphemous in believing that jehova/ yhwh is either CHRIST OR the FATHER. No one ransoms himself. Now if you would like to focus on “the blood of CHRIST”, fine, just be certain that you understand that he was a sacrifice to yhwh/ jehova and be sure that it is made clear to those you teach that to unlike the church. Never allow pew warmers to walk away believing this abomination is in fact GOD or CHRIST. for doing so you will be silenced though if not shunned and literally thrown out of your church for not conforming to the Protestant doctrine. You see, once you understand some of these things you find that the Protestant church is no place for a christian as it is Judaic in nature. It gets no more Judaic than believing in yhwy/jehova in either form of their doctrine or awaiting and praying for the Jewish messiah to come. Problem usually is that they do not know what the Jewish messiah is…….he does not concur with the FATHER or CHRIST , JUST AS JEHOVA DOES NOT. Linda, you know that I could go on here forever providing all from the KJV, this should be sufficient though. Good luck in your mission my cousin.Love you, so does CHRIST. Yhwh and his worshippers will not though, now that you have some truth to show them on this subject. So make your choice, Christ or the church and sola scriptura as THEY present it to you. Believe.me, you are not going to make any friends here.That is not what it is about though, it is about saving souls from jehova and it can not be done without discussing these matters. Remember, I could do this all day long, protestants can not win this as the truth is self evident. It needs no mosaic or otherwise law to make it so. However, they are making it illegal to hold this position, step by step. Which side are you on “christian”?

  49. My point in providing the information I do is this: if you want to worship a bunch of dead jewish ancestors and a false CHRISTUM/CHRIST then simply continue referencing english translated bibles and pay attention to an entirely heretical church(they all are and I have proven this if you will put aside your false pride and study this information) with popes running around in skullcaps with jewish symbolism all over their modern vestments and everywhere in their modern renovated churches. Or you have an option here. Study the information I provide. In doing so you will find Jesum Christum/Christ God. Study the Trinitarian Theophany given to Sister Lucia. Study Immaculate Conception. In doing so you will know that OUR LADY is not and can not be mary of the bible. SHE never claimed SHE was. SHE was asked who SHE was by Bernadette and the answer given was “I AM THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION”. Understand it and why SHE can not be mary. The modern publication of the Babylonian Talmud has on the cover of every volume a very interesting image adorning the cover. It is the inside of St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City , Rome. What is being said here I ask my catholic brothers and sisters. Find OUR LADY, JESUM CHRISTUM and SPRITUM SANCTUM and worship GOD This is the TRINITY. Remember, there is no salvation outside of the ORIGINAL Catholic faith. It used to worship GOD and that was why this was true. Not anymore, they have deceived as they have been infiltrated. If you want the abomination of desolation described in the Esdras Apocalypse (the last four books of the jewish bible , three of them have been removed in order to deceive you but are in the vulgate I have provided a link to)and the total eclipse of the TRUE FAITH to be brought on, just ignore what I say and continue in your heresies. Or you can do as OUR LADY (who IS GOD THE MOTHER) has instructed and recite daily the ORIGINAL ROSARY 150 uninterrupted without the lord beads using the correct names (Our Lady, Jesum Christum, Spiritum Sanctum) as this was given in order to replace the mass and continue the faith once there is to be no legitimate preists to perform the mass (and it has happened) and stay as far away fro. the heretical church as possible. Do a conditional baptism on yourself, children and family members as you have been baptized in the name of the name of the coming antichrist since 1944. This are simply facts that are easily proven if you will study the subjects. You will not do it though, I know you all will not. You will sit around debating whether someone us a legit pope and other nonsense. The church is heretical now, has been for a long timeand you need to get this through your heads. Study the latin vulgate so that you understand the jewish deception that the bible(old and new testaments) is and then throw it in the trashbin where it belongs. You do not need a lying bibke to worship GOD. At this time you do not even know where to find him in the bible and I assure you HE is not mentioned but 43 times. You do not know where though but I told you how to find HIM. I will post these 43 mentions if you request me to do it. I am not crazy, I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am showing you the easily proven truth on this subject. There is no in between here folks, you are either for GOD(which is the Trinitatarian Theophany given to Lucia) or you are the enemy of the True Faith. Figure it out, I will be happy to help you if you truly care about this. Otherwise you just confess with your lipsand most of what you confess you do not understand and is heresy anyway. May you stop worshipping dead men and come to GOD(which is the TRINITARIAN THEOPHANY given to Sister Lucia). In the names of Our Lady, Jesum Christum and Spiritum Sanctum , I beg you to listen to me and study this subject. Your souls depend on it. May they bless you in the truth. jeff

  50. Jeff. Yes Rome got some of their beliefs from the pagan apostacy of the Israelites. Jeremiah 17:8 says the woman were kneading dough, and baking cakes for the queen of heaven, which God said was an abomination. Then in modern times September th 11th is “national hot cross buns day”, and September 12 is a major feast day for Mary honoring her name, in the liturgical calendar. They are literally kneading dough, and baking cakes for the Queen of heaven.

  51. Jeff. Scripture teaches what is called “the Godhead”. In 1 John 5:8 it says “there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus according to John 1), and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one”. It’s not a Catholic doctrine, because it was written before the Roman church existed (606 AD beginning of modern Roman Catholicism). The English bible isn’t the only bible that teaches these things, it’s in every bible that is inspired by God. There’s one in most, if not all languages. God promised to preserve his word, and that’s not by an unknown bible that no one reads.

  52. Mary. You call what I say “moronic” without saying where you think I “err”. Tell me where the doctrine of transubstantiation is in scripture?. Also it is very true that the statue of Peter was once a statue of Jupiter. That’s not the only recycled pagan statue that Rome has. To say it’s not true would make you a liar. I know for a fact it’s true. I can only be refuted by liars or people in denial. Which are you?

    1. Jeremy, do yourself a favour, and place a good dictionary by your side the next time you feel tempted to post a comment here. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but “refuted” is not a synonym for “contradicted”. To “refute” a statement is to disprove it. So when you say, “I can only be refuted by liars or people in denial”, you’re really saying, “I can only be proved wrong by liars or people in denial”.

  53. Mary. I see you’re not willing to answer any questions, but you demand it from others. Kinda hypocritical don’t you think? I’ll answer your question anyway, because I’m always willing to give an account as to what, and why I believe. Paul says “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”. I can testify that that statement is true, faith does in fact come by hearing the word of God. I went seeking after God by his word, and found him (more like he found me). I believe the account God gave of his Son stated in scripture, and that is Jesus Christ died on the cross, was buried, and was resurrected three days later (good Friday to sunday is two days and one night), and he done this for all men/woman, for the remission of sin. Is is the blood of Jesus Christ that washes sin. All of this is accounted to all who believe this. Salvation is by grace through faith. Grace, as scripture clearly teaches, is a gift from God. If one has to pay one cent, or do anything to obtain this grace, it is no longer a gift, but a reward. The reward for a believer is given by God, according to works. Some have precious stones, some have wood, hay, or stubble. All works will be tried by the Lord. Precious stones is a good reward, but all wood hay, and stubble will be burned, but that man will be saved, as so by fire. Some will recieve a “better resurrection” according to works. In Romans 4 Paul says “but to him that worketh not, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for rightousness” there is no purgatory. Scripture says ” it is appointed for man to die one, after that is judgement”, so when you die, you go to heaven, or hell. There is no “soul sleep”, because “God is a God of the living”. When Jesus Christ returns, he will come with all who are in heaven, and our bodies will be resurrected, and glorified, “to be like unto his glorified body”. If you ask, I’ll will quote scripture to verify everything I just said, and more. I am not SDA, Mormon, JW, or Protestant (no such thing anymore). If I was alive in the 18th-the early 20th, I would be considered one. I was once an independent baptist, but not anymore. You can’t find churches in organized Christianity that preaches the truth anymore. If you can, it rare. You wanted to know what I believe, and I told you. I believe the bible. Nothing more, and nothing less.

    1. So, truth is whatever Jeremy says it is based on no authority except his own interpretation of scripture.

      1. Mary. No. Scripture needs no interpretation. “Interpretation” is for those who are too lazy to read the bible, or the dislexic.

      2. Mary. My last post was a modern day explanation. The explanation why “interpretation” was needed by the “laity”, is because scripture reading was frowned upon before 1965 (Vatican II). There were centuries, if not a millennium where owning a bible would lead to disciplinary actions (Roman Catholicism only). It’s obvious they guarded scripture, because they didn’t want the laity to see the discrepancies between their doctrine, and biblical doctrine. The fox guarding the henhouse if you will. With the invention of the Internet, theres a world of information waiting for those who want the truth. It’s out there, but you gotta wade through miles of cess to find it. This is why you see people leaving Roman Catholicism in droves. That plus the scandals involving pedophilia, and the harboring of fugitives by your “vicar of Christ”.

        1. So any notion of maintaining unity and harmony was just a smokescreen for a dictatorial Church? Seems to me that unity would be of the highest priority for Christ’s Church during the millennial reign.

    2. Oh, so if the Bible needs no interpretation why do so many ‘Bible-believing Christians’ come up with so many different interpretations? They can’t ALL be guided by the Holy Spirit. And how do you know that your particular interpretation is the correct one? I’ve read the Bible, thank you very much.

    3. Jeremy: where do you get your history? it’s nothing but protestant myths and legends. It simply isn’t TRUE that Bible reading was frowned on before 1965. I know; I was a Catholic before 1965 as were my parents. Nor is it true that you could face disciplinary action for owning a Bible. You may convince other embittered protestants of these tall tales, but you won’t convince a Catholic who knows her faith.
      People aren’t leaving Catholicism in droves, they’re leaving the Vatican 2 sect in droves because it no longer teaches the Catholic Faith.
      I wondered how long it would be before you’d bring up what the Jewish-controlled media inaccurately calls ‘paedophilia’. If anything is lazy that predictable tactic is. The scandals are just a sign that the Church is spiritually under attack. She will, however eventually triumph; we have Christ’s promise of that.

  54. Mary. I never heard “many bible believing Christians come up with many interpretations”. All who truly believe scripture, believe the same thing, because scripture never changes. I’ve seen many comparisons of the king James to a koine Greek bible, and the doctrine is the same. People still speak koine Greek in bible believing churches (not orthodox) in Greece today. Also you live in England, correct? Try going to Italy, Spain, or South America. previous to Vatican II. You live in a country (thanks to protestants) that doesn’t allow your priest any disciplinary action, other than excommunication. Go back to when Rome ruled England. How was civil libertys then? Not all countries are the same. I guarantee if Rome was allowed to rule the same way they did in the Middle Ages, they would. As you read in the quotes I gave, “heretics” would be put to death.

    1. This is ridiculous, Jeremy. There are thousands and thousands of Protestant denominations all at odds with each other over interpretation. There is zero unity/harmony among the Protestant Reformation. Go get educated, renounce your heresy, then come back and post here with intelligence.

      1. Fitzinfo. What does Protestants have to do with my post on bible believers? Not all modern day Protestants are bible believers. By an intelligent post, you wouldn’t be referring to something that resembles your obviously flawed “essay” on usury, would you? It’s simple. One either belived scripture, or they don’t. I’m not the only one who believes what I believe. There are millions of people who believe the bible in a literal context. There’s truths on the surface that anyone can read, and understand, then there’s underlying meaning that the Holy Ghost teaches, where like Paul said, you have to compare scripture with scripture. Do you even know Romes interpretation of scripture? Whatever it is, I’m sure 2 Thessalonians 2 isn’t referring to them.

    2. When Rome ruled England Rome wasn’t even Christian, neither was England.
      If you are referring to pre-tyrant, Henry VIII’s spiritual break with Rome, their was no popular wish for a break with Rome. If you want to read some true history,read William Cobbett’s “A History of the Protestant Reformation in England And Ireland”, available to read online. Cobbett was a 19th Century, Protestant, Member of Parliament in Britain. Believe me, there was no “religious liberty” for Catholics for centuries after the “Reformation”.
      As for “Bible Believing Christians” all agreeing on essentials; do they heck! Methodism is a breakaway movement from Anglicanism. How many strains of SDA’s, Baptists, Lutheran’s, etc, etc are there. Prots cannot even agree as to whether one can lose his salvation or not. For example; some believe in ‘once saved, always saved’, others don’t. Some believe in infant baptism, others don’t. There are as many protestant interpretations of the Bible as there are protestants!

    3. Careful there Jerry. In spite of your hot denials, your Protestantism and Liberalism are showing through like rust on a re-sprayed old banger.

    4. Oops. I committed the their/there error in my last post, lol. Proof reading, proof reading!

    5. Yes, Northsider, Jeremy sounded distinctly Whiggish in that last comment. The use of the term ‘civil liberties’ is interesting. I’m sure it was much used in Ireland by those pressing for legal abortion and same sex ‘marriage’.

  55. Peter. You have a skewed view of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament wasn’t a “Jewish God”. The word Jew isn’t mentioned until the book of kings, and that was to describe the kingdom of Judah. Anyone from Judah was a Jew. God chose the Hebrews to be priests to preach Gods word, and law to the world. Anyone in the Old Testament could become a Jew by being circumcised, and obeying the law. The only why God made the law was to teach them that they were sinners, and was in need of the promised coming redeemer (Jesus). The promise of the redeemer came right after the events in Eden. It was Gods plan from the beginning to redeem the whole world through Jesus Christ. Like mentioned above, the “Jews” (not in a modern sense) were to be priests to the world. the Israelites kept going into apostacy, and worshipping strange gods (example. Queen of heaven. Jeremiah 17:8), and weren’t doing what God wanted them to do. Paul says it clearly that God is no respecter of persons. They were “chosen” to be the teachers of the oracles (scripture) of God. That’s it, and they didn’t even do it. Believers are the seed of Abraham through Jesus Christ (Galatians 3). The Jews are not the seed of Abraham Jesus is the seed (singular), and therefore all believers are through him. You got the Old Testament completely wrong.

  56. This is Paul speaking to the Galatians, who were starting to believe what judaizers were telling them, and he corrected them. galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
    (edited for length)

  57. Jeremy: ‘ “Interpretation” is for those too lazy to read the Bible, or the dislexic.’
    No, I don’t think the spelling of the last word of that sentence is meant ironically either.

  58. Just because the bible is full of lies does not mean that GOD does not exist. It just means do not put your faith in a book of jewish lies. You will be deceived if you do.

  59. Northsider. I’m sure you believe, because were falsely taught (again), that all who oppose Roman Catholicism are “Protestants”. It’s OK to believe everthing is a conspiracy, we are all free, correct?. I’m not so sure what that does for ones mental health though. You can believe me to be whatever your heart desires.

    1. Whatever you care to call yourselves, you are all the bitter fruit of the Protestant Revolt.

  60. Mary. It wouldn’t be the “same sex marriage” that Catholics are wanting. Is it. Like here in America? When I use the term “civil liberties”, it’s just another way of saying freedom. Cheers.

    1. “Catholics” who vote for same sex “marriage” have been influenced by the Protestant/Masonic milieu in which they live. They are not following Catholic teaching.
      The whole concept or ‘freedom’ in the way you use it is pure Masonic/Americanist libertarianism which seeks to eliminate God from the civic realm. It has nothing to do with true liberty which acknowledges the reign of Christ the King, which your hallowed founders deliberately omitted.

  61. Mary. On your comment on William cobbtt. I’d rather about the wishes of people who went through Romes persecution. Like someone like Wycliffe.

    1. Jeremy: “Mary. On your comment on William cobbtt. I’d rather about the wishes of people who went through Romes persecution. Like someone like Wycliffe.”
      Ie; you are not interested in true history, you just want read stuff that confirms you in your bigotry.

  62. Mary. If any of them belived the bible, they would believe that you cannot lose your salvation, or infants should not be baptized. To prove from scripture that infants should not be baptized, read the story about the Ethiopian eunuch, were Phillip would not baptize him until he “believeth with all thine heart”, also, does this sound like you can lose salvation? John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
    27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
    28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
    29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
    30 I and my Father are one.
    31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

    1. That doesn’t disprove infant baptism. How could an adult who has never heard of Jesus seek baptism? It does indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation. See John 3:5. Look up the places in Acts where Paul baptises whole households. Surely some of them must have been children below the age of reason. Paul tells us that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col 2:11-12). Since it was mainly infants who were circumcised if Paul meant to exclude infants from baptism it’s strange he didn’t say so.
      I’m glad you brought up the eunuch in Acts. Note well this passage:
      30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
      31 And he said, How can I,EXCEPT SOME MAN SHOULD GUIDE ME? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31 KJV).

  63. Fitzinfo. I know a little about “Protestant denominations”, and you’d be hard pressed to name more than 10 (not impossible). A Lutheran is a Lutheran no matter who is the bishop (or whatever) of that church, hence the name Luther. To say that there 5,000 different denominations of Lutheranism, would be like saying every Roman Catholic Church is a denomination. That’s where those exaggerated numbers come from. I’ve even read some deluded Roman Catholics say that there’s 43,000 denominations, and they believe this to be so, because they read it on a apologetic website. Why not just go ahead and say each church is a denomination? Get those numbers up past a million. I wouldn’t lump in SDA, Mormons, or JW with Protestants. At least it’s possible to get saved in a Protestant church. SDA believes Jesus is the archangel Michael. Mormons belive jesus and lucifer are brothers. I think JW belive Jesus is Michael as well.

    1. You have no right to criticise Mormons or JWs or anybody else since they are merely following their own interpretation of scripture: just like you.

  64. Fitzinfo. There is no such thing as a “universal” earthly church in scripture. You have the churches (plural) at Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, Philipi, Galatia, Smyrna, Laodecia etc, and all these churches are ran by each other their own bishops, with Jesus Christ at it head. Each congregation is “the body” of each church. They all collectively in a spiritual sense, make up the bride of Christ. There was not one “universal bishop” running the show in the bible. That didn’t happen until 606 AD, when the title of “universal bishop” was offered to the bishop of Constantinople. Under the “advice” (more like jealousy) of the Roman bishop Gregory, calling the title “forerunner of the antichrist” (quote is in the note I posted to Mary) the offer was refused by the bishop of Constantinople. The offer was given to the next bishop after Gregory (Boniface III), and he happily accepted. There’s your first “pope”. Not Peter, but Boniface III in 606 AD. That’s when “papal Rome” started.

      1. Peter. 9 “Jesus'” not in my English bible, or Spanish, German, Dutch etc. was the New Testament written in Latin? I thought Greek was the language of the NT, besides the gospel of Matthew (Aramaic). The oldest original bible in existence is not written in Hebrew, or Latin. It’s a koine Greek bible. That original koine Greek bible does not teach no more than 1 Jesus. Is your beliefs what Rome teaches? God is not a God of any one ethnicity. You don’t belive the account that God gave of his son, that’s obvious. Therefore “you are none of his”.

        1. Jeremy, I will ask you again. Please answer this time. Who is yhwh/jehova/yahu /lord god/adonai ?Is it GOD? Is your jesus he incarnate? Is your jesus the son of any of these deities?

  65. Peter. Yes this is sad. You belive in a corrupt bible that no one reads (if what you’re saying is true). You are proof that there is more than just two denominations of Catholicism.

    1. You are correct , jeremy there was original traditional catholic faith and there us a heretical form. Arianism began long ago. The church has been being infiltrated since its inception. Above is one form of heresy. I agree than God is not of any ethnicity so why do you need a jewish book of lies to believe GOD?

      1. Peter. In Genesis it says “God said (singular) let’s make man in our image (plural). 1 John 5:7 says “there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. Jesus Christ is the God of the OT, because although there are three distinctive characteristics of God, God is one, “just like the church is one”. Also. Was not the “Latin vulgate” a translation from Hebrew, and Greek texts? Paul said “a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, and not the flesh”.

  66. Mary. This chapter does not teach baptismal regeneration. Read it in context. Jesus is speaking to a man who thought Jesus meant he literally had to be born again. This is a prelude to John 3:16, where Jesus tells him flat out what he meant. To be “born of water” is a physical birth. So yes you have to be born of water obviously. When you take 1 verse out of context it does sound like baptism is a necessity. Like the Samaritan woman at the well in this same gospel who thought Jesus was literally offering her water so she would never thirst again, and in the same gospel (John) where certain people think they literally have to “eat Jesus” for salvation. It goes without saying that context is the key….John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
    (edited for length)

  67. I’ve heard that bizarre theory that the water means the waters of birth. There’s nothing to suggest that at all.

  68. Peter. I can’t find anything online about the Latin vulgate teaching 9 different “Jesus’, could you please point me to a website to validate your claims?

  69. Mary. If “bizarre” you mean biblical, then yes. It’s there for you to read. Where in those verses do you read any different?

    1. It’s redundant. Everyone is born of water in that sense. It is just one interpretation. Other “Reformers” had different interpretations. All this confusion only proves the need of a central teaching authority.

      1. Mary. He’s speaking to a man who thought he literally had to be born again. Jesus said to him I’m teaching you EARTHLY things and you still don’t understand. Read all the verses. Don’t stop were Jesus said you have to be born of water. Let Jesus explain himself, like he did in John 6:63. I’ve spoken to average Catholics. They don’t have a hard time understanding scripture when it’s shown to them. Then you have the Catholics, who like in 2 Thessalonians 2, have been given over by God to belive a lie, because they have no love for the truth. If your god, the pope came to your town, you’d be waiting in line to kiss his slipper. Those are the types that have been given over. Now that’s sad.

    2. “If your god, the pope came to your town, you’d be waiting in line to kiss his slipper. Those are the types that have been given over. Now that’s sad.”
      When you right garbage like that, you cannot expect to be believed when you say that you have made a serious study of Catholic doctrine or on your beliefs about scripture.

  70. Mary. I’ve brushed up on my “Catholic apologetics” I’ve heard the points you’re making before. It’s all refuted by scripture. It’s there for you to read. I know how shills argue. We all have agendas. Mine is to spread the gospel, yours is to hinder it. I studied Roman Catholicism, because I was interested in being ordained. I, like most white Americans have Catholics in their family.

    1. Jeremy: you can’t have studied Catholic doctrine very closely, else you wouldn’t misrepresent it so badly.
      It is clear that you know how shills work since you are so practised at it yourself.
      For instance: you claim that this is a Catholic apologetics website. No it isn’t. It is a site, open to all faiths and none, informing people about the very real and pernicious Jewish hegemony over our institutions. This also includes Jewish infiltration of churches.You, however, seek to divert us from that mission with all your ridiculous Jesuit/Vatican conspiracy theories. That’s what I call shilling.

      1. Mary. I’m not diverting anything. Did I deny that wealthy Jews own Hollywood, or the music industry? No. I never expected you to “fess up” on anything that involves Rome. I’m not a shill, because I’m not trying to defend anything other than scripture. You’ll defend this blogs “party lines” at any cost. That’s what makes you a shill. Mr Fitzinfo is correct on most of his points, but what he fails to mention (as expected), Is the role of Rome in all of this. This is a conspiracy website that caters to Catholics. If you scour the Internet, there’s a version of this site for all beliefs. It always denies the involvement of the institution it caters to. Also. You were not born again at baptism. If that’s what you believe, then you weren’t baptized unto the Lord. John the Baptist baptized with water, Jesus Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit, the spiritual baptism is what leads to salvation, and that comes by faith. Being born again isn’t a “deed”, or “work”. It happens at the moment one puts all their faith in Jesus Christ. I offer scripture, and you condemn me. You offer nothing but opinions, with zero scripture to correct me where you think I’m wrong. I’m wrong in your eyes because Rome says I’m wrong (blind obedience). That makes you a shill. I’m a shill to scripture, and that I’ve never denied. Why won’t you admit you’re a shill to your cathetism?

    2. It’s usually badly catechised Catholics, sadly too many these days, who prey to the likes of you.
      We are born again at baptism.

    3. There’s no ‘party line’. You don’t like the purpose of this blog. Fair enough. Feel free to leave. But we’re certainly not going to change important work to suit your prejudices.
      What ‘role of Rome’? the Catholic church is as much a victim of Jewish machinations as other institutions. Just because you dislike Catholic doctrine it doesn’t that the Catholic Church is behind everything!

  71. Mary. If you don’t think this website is catered to Roman Catholicism, you’re more deluded than I thought. Why didn’t mr Fitzinfo bring up the most blatant, and morally disgusting usury, that is indulgences? As far as usury goes, if I had to choose, id rather someone take advantage of me with a high interest rate, than bring my dead loved ones in to the equation. When you take advantage of one on a spiritual level, that’s taking it to the highest level possible. Maybe the thought of indulgences never crossed his mind. Maybe it did, and he never expected anyone to bring it up, being this is a website that caters to Roman Catholics.
    I don’t have much more to say to you, unless you bring something other than opinions to this discussion.

    1. Actually, if I’m correct, Tim, the owner of this site, is not a ‘Roman’ Catholic, but an Eastern Orthodox Christian.
      As Northsider has already said usury has nothing to do with indulgences. It is a banking practice of charging interest. Even Hoffman is aware of that.
      Your last sentence is laughable seeing as we’ve had nothing but personal opinions and preferences emanating from your direction.

  72. Revelation 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

  73. Peter this is Paul speaking to “gentile” believers in Philipi……Philipians 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

  74. Peter. Jesus Christ told the Pharisees, and Jews of his time “your kingdom has been taken from you, and given to a nation bearing the fruit thereof” Peter in one of his epistles give the exact title that was once the Israelites (priests), and gives it to believers. Why might you ask? Because like Jesus said “they did not bear the fruits thereof”. It wasn’t a “consolation prize”. If you read the Old Testament, the prophets were warning them it was going to happen, and they had to conform, and be a part of “the bride of Christ”, or not. Most rejected it. They were looking for an earthly kingdom. At one time they tried to make Jesus king, but he fled. He said, when asked if he was the king of the Jews, “my kingdom is not of this world”.

  75. Jeremy: “I know a little about “Protestant denominations”, and you’d be hard pressed to name more than 10.” I think we can take it from this that Jeremy is arithmetically, as well as orthographically, challenged.

  76. Mary Louise. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the BBC TV programme “Who do you think you are?” which purports to trace the ancestors of celebs. Well I chanced to see an episode of it the other day, in which the British actress Celia Imrie featured. The programme stated that Lord William Russell, the17the century Whig intriguer was her great great grandfather multiplied by eight. Anyway to cut a long story short, in the programme Celia Imrie went to the British library to discuss her alleged ancestor with an exceedingly camp long haired, cravat wearing academic. This very weird character launched into the most absurd Whig propaganda narrative I think I’ve ever heard. The Whigs were for the people, don’t you know, and the Protestants were for the people, and the Catholic Church was against the people. The Protestant countries at that time were the only democracies, don’t you know, and the Catholic ones were all tyrannies.
    I was astonished that even the BBC would have the chutzpah to broadcast such unadulterated Whig drivel. Everyone with even the slightest knowledge of the 17th century knows that there were NO democracies in the 17th century, and that the Whigs, far from being friends of “the people”, were the party of the Highland clearances, the enclosures, the engineered Irish “famine”, industrial child labour and so on.
    The BBC was always anti-Catholic of course, but it seems to me to have become much more virulent in its Catholiphobia in recent years – to the point where it’s now utterly obsessive. The same applies to the rest of the media – witness the garlands for the rabidly anti-Catholic propaganda film Spotlight at the Oscar Ziofest recently. I think it’s now fairly obvious that the term Neocon is really just another word for “modern Whig”. Indeed the Neocon Michael Gove has acknowledged as much. Though they spoof a lot about the threat of Islam – in order to lure useful idiot Catholic trads, and other “conservative Christians” into the Zio-Trotskyist tent – the “Neo-Whigs” clearly view their real enemy as the Catholic Church.
    The proof of the pudding is in the content: I’m guessing you won’t find any Oscar winning films made about child abuse by Imams, just as you won’t find any made about rabbinical abuse or Protestant clerical abuse. The Mail on Sunday has allowed Peter Hitchens to conduct a long running campaign to exonerate the late Anglican Bishop Bell from charges of child abuse – a campaign that has garnered the support of many in the British media, from the Neocon Telegraph to the Zio-lefty Guardian. Yet whatever the truth of the Bell allegations, the fact is billions in compensation have been paid out in compensation for alleged crimes by Catholic priests that have been investigated even less than the allegations against Bell. And not only have none of the Whig presstitutes complained about this, they’ve endlessly gloated about it. So let nobody say media focus on Catholic clerical abuse, real and alleged, is “anti-religious” or even “anti-Christian”. It’s not – it’s anti-Catholic, first and last and always.

    1. Mary. Fitzinfo is orthodox, and he has a shamrock as his avatar? I thought the shamrock is an Irish Catholic symbol? Who are you trying to fool?

    2. I’m trying to ‘fool’ no-one. I know Tim from another blog, he definitely claimed to be Orthodox. Ask him if you don’t believe me. The shamrock maybe the symbol of St Patrick, but he is venerated in the Orthodox as well as the Catholic Church.

      1. Thanks, Mary, for explaining to Jeremy. I am a former Catholic, current Orthodox. I simply cannot harmonize the current situation with the Vatican (traditional/sede vacante movements included) with what I believe the Universal Church is. However, I occasionally attend the Catholic mass and thoroughly enjoy Latin chant. I do consider Catholics part of the true Church. There are some things the Catholics do better (unity) and some things the Orthodox do better (unchanged teaching). But overall, I have to side with Orthodoxy at this time. I have yet to read St. Thomas Aquinas’ critique of the Greek Church, but I intend to do that soon and sincerely consider it.

    3. I didn’t see the programme in question since I dumped my TV over 10 years ago. However, that doesn’t surprise me in the least. Such as the Russell family, of whom Bertrand Russell was a scion. no doubt benefited from Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries.
      When you know that Hollywood is a hotbed of paedophilia, the pious posturing of Hollywood Zio-luvvies and the media over ‘Spotlight’. just sticks in the craw. Yet never forget: it is “Rome” that controls the world’s politicians and finances; the Jews are merely frontmen.

  77. Mary Louise: Very true. In college I knew an American guy, who as a teenager had attended an acting course run a by a leading Hollywood producer who was a rampant paedophile. Part of this “course” involved getting young pupils “to shed their inhibitions” – in ways that I won’t go into – but which I think you can probably guess. The interview with Mark Glenn on Press TV, on Fitzinfo’s twitter feed, is worth watching on this account. The idea of Hollywood or the corporate crass media “exposing” paedophilia, is akin to the IDF making a film “exposing” the bombing of innocent civilians, or the Freemasons making a documentary on the evils of secret societies. That last one is not as far fetched as it sounds: Irish Masonic mouthpieces in the media and politics make a habit of accusing Catholics of belonging to secret societies. In other words, in order to deflect scrutiny from their own nefarious activities, they accuse others of the crimes they themselves habitually perpetrate..

  78. Mary Louise: Just click on the tweet “Priest sex abuse scandal…” on Fitzinfo’s tweets, up on the sidebar of this blog, and it will take you to the Glenn interview – on Press TV

  79. Mary Louise. That piece by Hoffman gives the game away: he’s a Luther groupie pure and simple. Dr Rao is, in my view, one of the most thoughtful trads around, in that he doesn’t go in for the usual trad nonsense of arguing that all our troubles began with the French Revolution – a rather convenient formulation for Anglo-Whig Masonic “conservatives”, in that it ostensibly absolves Protestant England of any blame for the modern chaos (Catholic traditionalists are in my view far too influenced by Anglo-“conservative” historical narratives – not to mention the works of Anglo-supremacist writers and apologists for Anglo-masonry such as Nesta Webster). As E Michael Jones and others have demonstrated, the French Revolution was merely a continental version of the series of Masonic Whig revolutions that had transformed Britain in the previous three centuries.
    In a funny kind of way, Dr Rao’s piece seems to have provoked Hoffman into revealing his true colours; because Rao’s analysis is so measured and sophisticated, Hoffman couldn’t try his usual trick of simply dismissing him as a mindless defender of all things pre-Vatican II Catholic, so he had to come out and openly bat for Luther and Lutheranism. The bit about Bach was particularly absurd – what next, the poems of Emily Dickinson cited as proof of what a great bunch the New England Protestants were? It wouldn’t surprise me in the least, assuming it hasn’t already happened.

    1. There’s a certain type of German nationalist, e.g. Carolyn Yeager, who, even if they are not religious, admire Luther as well as the anti-Catholic Bismarck. However, that type also tends to admire, if not idolise, Hitler. Hoffman is not a Hitler admirer therefore I do not believe that that is his agenda.
      Surely he must know that Catholics had been condemning Jewish malfeasance for centuries before Luther and Johann Eisenmenger came along.

  80. Mary: I read somewhere that Hoffman is very proud of being descended from the Anabaptist leader Hoffman, so maybe ancient clan patriotism is a factor in all of this – though Luther was no fan of Anabaptism – to put it mildly.
    But there’s no doubt that there’s also a liberal element to Hoffman’s worldview: he clearly believes in the idea of “religious liberty” – which all sounds very reasonable until you begin to think about all the vile practises sanctioned by pagan religions.

    1. Exactly. Some years ago the spirit of ‘religious liberty’and ‘freedom of conscience’ persuaded the chiefs of the Royal Navy that Satanism was a valid expression of religious sentiment. Frankly, I would not like to be on a ship where someone was practising Satanism!

    2. On Twitter last week, I asked Hoffman what he is religiously. No answer yet.

      @HoffmanMichaelA What exactly are you? Catholic? Puritan? other? Many of your critics would like to know. Perhaps would help us understand u – 6:00 PM – 6 Mar 2016

      1. Fitzinfo. Why does anyone owe you an explanation as to their beliefs? I guess since he decided not to speak with you that makes him a Jewish Masonic conspirator? You should probably get your house in order before you worry about others. Does a priest have the “power” through a Latin ritual to turn a cracker into “Jesus”? That’s where you believe your salvation comes from. In Hebrews Paul says Jesus was offered ONCE for all, not like the “Catholic” version of “Jesus”, who is offered millions of times a day. you speak evil of a man who could be responsible for leading thaousands of people to the real Jesus Christ (not a wafer). Who have you led to the Jesus of the bible? Not one soul, because you don’t believe in the Son of the living God.

        1. Anyone who publicly criticizes a faith (especially in the form of a book) ought to be honest about their own faith or lack thereof. It’s time for Hoffman to fess up. Furthermore, if the answer to the Jewish question lies in the Catholic faith, then Hoffman is leading his readers down a path of confusion and bewilderment by not offering this solution but instead only exposing Judaism for the lie that it is. Hoffman himself has stated on record that exposing of lies alone can actually help the conspirators and strengthen lies.

  81. Jeremy: Whatever Hoffman’s beliefs, I think we can take it as read that he’s a million miles from the nonsense you peddle. For example Hoffman has repeatedly defended veneration of the Blessed Virgin, and also has only good things to say about the Catholic Queen, Isabella of Spain. So while Hoffman is without question religiously and philosophically incoherent, his views certainly don’t approximate to yours – which makes your championing of him pitiful as well as absurd.
    By the way isn’t it telling that when backed into a corner you always insist you’re not a Protestant, but yet you keep championing this man’s defence of Luther and Calvin? If you’re not a Protestant, why should you owe any loyalty to two of the major founders of Protestantism?

    1. Giving Hoffman the benefit of doubt, maybe it is that Hoffman doesn’t really know what he is and, therefore, doesn’t identify with one faith over another. He just gravitates towards whatever agrees with his world view. Is he engaging in self-deception by ignoring the masonic core of libertarianism (founding fathers, Americanism, etc) and the long-running anti-Jewish stance of the Catholic Church, or his he sincerely uneducated about it? I tend to think the former.

      1. Tim, now we are making some sense.I believe he could clear up his own confusion by studying a latin vulgate and its Nominum Interpretatio just as anyone else could do. Hoffman has done some very important and well sourced work. He must be given credig for this. His misunderstanding appears to be for the same reason 90% of the world that refer to these jewish texts misunderstand; they read english bibles.Maybe he is aware of what the vulgate exposes and refuses to say so. Nobody knows but himself. Do you know?

    2. Northsider. I don’t believe mr Hoffman venerates (worships) Mary. Also I’m for anyone who believes that salvation is by grace through faith, as scripture clearly states, wether they’re baptist, Lutheran, even a Catholic, but if they belived that most important biblical truth, they wouldn’t be Catholic. I read parts of his book years back called “judaisms strange gods”, and he stated in that book those very beliefs. I believe you have something against him because of his last name, and what he was once part of.

      1. I believe you have something against him because of his last name, and what he was once part of.

        Jeremy, how can you expect to be taken seriously when you say ridiculous things like this? Have you even read Northsider’s series?

    3. Karl Keating, (of whom I am not fan, he’s a neocon – type Catholic), posited the theory that Protestants who insist that Catholics worship Mary do this for two reasons: 1. they think that all prayer is worship – which it isn’t; and, what’s more to the point: 2. the honour which Protestants give to God Himself is only as high as the honour which Catholics give to Mary. I Think Jeremy, who wrongly equates veneration with worship, gives much credence to this theory.

      1. Mary. When an institution claims a person was without sin, and scripture clearly says that all are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God, you are in fact deifying that person. Mary was a sinner. Scripture proves she offered 2 turtle doves. 1 for a burnt offering, and the other was in fact a sin offering. One doesn’t offer a sin offering unles they are sinners. You can go to google images now and see hundreds of pictures of people bowing to statues of Mary. I’ve heard of woman giving their rosary beads as an offering to “their holy mother”. If you believe a person can hear everyone’s prayers, that means you belive they’re omnipotent, and you are giving them God like status…………ALL-HOLY — Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life. (Catechism 411, 493)
        Luke 2:22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
        Leviticus 12:8
        But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’

    4. Well, St Paul can’t literally have meant ‘all’ since, clearly, not all have sinned. For example: children below the age of reason and people too mentally retarded to understand the concept of sin.
      Besides, Mary’s sinlessness is of a different order than Christ’s who is sinless by His very nature. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary, from the very moment of her conception, through the MERITS OF JESUS CHRIST, was PRESERVED (ie, it was by an act of God) from Original Sin from the moment of her conception. That’s what Mary means when in Luke 1 she calls God her saviour. In fact, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception gives MORE, not less, glory to Christ. Watch the video below, which shows the Biblical basis for Mary’s sinlessness.

    5. Mary and Joseph were acting in obedience to the Law. For that matter, Jesus had no need of circumcision nor did he need to be offered to God.

    6. Jeremy:watch the video. You say that you are here for a discussion, yet you refuse to look at any evidence we present for our position. You are clearly not here for a discussion but to try and force your views on us.

    1. This is an article related to Hoffman and his philo-Protestantism, not an arena for you to lie and spread heresy. Stay on the topic or else your comments will be deleted.

  82. mary. I also don’t understand how Rome can celebrate “good Friday” as the day Jesus was crucified, when scripture says a dozen times he was buried for three days, and three nights. Friday to Sunday is two days. What does good Friday really represent? It’s not the crucifixion of Christ.
    Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

    1. Three days don’t literally mean three periods of 24 hours. Three days can mean parts of days. Besides; not only Catholics commemorate Good Friday as the day of Christ’s Crucifixion.

  83. Tim – I think you sum up the Hoffman conundrum very well: he strikes me as, at heart, quite an emotional character. Emotion has its place of course, and can often lead us to the truth, but it becomes a problem when it leads us to ignore the big picture. Hoffman is clearly conflicted, in my view.
    Not that long ago he wrote quite a philo-Catholic piece about Bing Crosby – a piece that seemed to contradict a lot of his diatribes about post-Renaissance Catholicism. Someone told me he’s also called out some of the “white nationalist” fraternity over their support for contraception – which is definitely to his credit. I’ve listened to David Duke’s show a few times in the last few months and he doesn’t strike me as particularly anti-Catholic (though it seems to greatly stick in his craw to admit the glaringly obvious fact that Zionists killed JFK and his brother) but he is iffy on the issue of birth prevention, which strikes me as a serious contradiction even on a natural level. If anything is facilitating “white genocide” surely it’s the contraceptive culture?

  84. Jeremy, the man who can’t even spell the word “usury”, much less understand what it means, presumes to infallibly interpret the Bible, a huge complex set of books, and to lecture others on its true meaning. If that doesn’t sum up Protestant vainglory, what does?

    1. Northsider, if you have any other article ideas, I would be happy to post them. You are a good writer with a strong ability to interpret and organize the relevant. I haven’t had much time to post much over the last two months, so it would be good to keep content fresh.

  85. Tim: thanks for the very kind words – not sure they’re completely deserved lol – but they’re very much appreciated. I certainly hope to take you up on your offer – and please God much more speedily than in the case of the Hoffman pieces! I’ll be in touch.

    1. Very interesting Tim – a lot of food for thought. I’m interested in the author’s use of the term “Hermetic Reformation”. Does he mean by this that the Reformation was itself heavily influenced by Hermetic ideas, or does he simply mean that at around the time of the Reformation, another occultist “Reformation”, i.e., the Renaissance, was taking shape? The reason I ask is because the author does not otherwise make much reference to Protestantism.
      Hoffman’s line on the other hand, seems to at least partly imply that the Renaissance and the Reformation were two distinct and even contradictory phenomena – that in fact the Reformation was in one sense a backlash against the corruption of the Renaissance.
      Conventional Whig historians didn’t make this distinction, and to a large extent still don’t. For them the Reformation and the Renaissance were a twin engine bomber of “creative destructive” (to use a Neocon, i.e., Whig, term) “progress”, demolishing medieval “superstition”, and clearing a path for capitalist “liberation”.
      For once I think the Whigs are right. Even if you leave aside the fact that many Reformation leaders had occult tendencies, and leave aside also the occultism of Elizabeth I of England’s court, and so on., you still have to take into account the huge spiritual and cultural void left by Protestant altar smashing (both literal and metaphorical), a void that occultism eagerly filled. The quote in the piece from Schumpeter about double entry book-keeping entailing the death of considerations of goodness, beauty and so on, surely applies quite especially to Protestants. In fact Hoffman admits this himself, when he says the New England Puritans were practical men with little time for contemplation – men in other words who believed that “time was money”. And does the hermetic obsession with a return to a supposed “purified” religion dovetail with Puritanism’s hatred of liturgical splendour, icons, and so on? Many early Protestants even thought prayer was ungodly time-wasting.
      Hoffman points to the denunciations of Jewish loan sharking by Luther and other Protestants. Fair enough, but Marx denounced Jewish “huckstering” too, as indeed did some of the early leaders of modern Zionism. Does that mean they too were allies in the fight against usury? The truth is that by undermining the Church’s authority, Luther helped liberate the forces of usurious capitalism, whatever his protestations once the horse had bolted.
      I think you can make an analogy between the Reformation and the 1960s cultural revolution. During the Reformation all kinds of different groups – some of whom loathed each other – worked together to undermine, and if possible destroy, Catholic power. The same is true of the 1960s and after. In the Sixties you had Stalinists, and Trotskyists, and Maoists, and Hoxhaists, and anarchists and left-libertarians, and right-libertarians, and hippies, and Randian “objectivists”, and Austrian economists, and Chicago School Friedmanites, Reichians, Feminists of all sorts, and Black Panthers and on an on. A bit later you had the Neocons. And of course you also had the partial takeover of the Church by liberal modernists – who infiltrated from the left – and the Neocon “Catholics”, who infiltrated from the mainstream right. (as Mary Louise has noted here, there’s also considerable evidence to indicate that the traditionalist wing of the Church has likewise been infiltrated and weaponised on behalf of an anti-Catholic agenda, but that’s another day’s work).
      Most of these groups claimed to despise each other, and yet consciously and unconsciously they came together extremely effectively, in order to erode the last vestiges of Christian culture in the west. Without wishing to be pseudish about it, this collective ideological synthesis surely represents a sort of “political alchemy”, whereby the “base metal” of various collections of cranks and fanatics blend together to form a powerfully destructive amalgamation – of a piece with the anti-Catholic coalition Oliver Cromwell sought to achieve in his lifetime.

  86. Hello, Gentlemen (mostly) and Ladies: Thank you for your interesting discussion of Hoffman and his views. I and my family live in the same U.S. state in which Mr. Hoffman lives, Idaho, and have met the man at least a couple of times. He very thoroughly annoys me, sometimes to beyond patience (a virtue which I have sadly lacked for many years). I have attempted, more than once, to correct his erroneous views and vile statements against the Catholic Church, but his pride and arrogance are seemingly iron-clad proof against any such attempts. I too have no clear idea of his own religion, although I was given to understand that a number of years ago, he and his wife frequented the SSPX chapel of the Immaculate Conception in Post Falls, Idaho. The last I had heard, he had not been seen there for some time, and I have no idea whether or not his wife is attending there any longer either. By his constant and unremitting attacks and disparagement of the Catholic Church, there is no possible way he can be called a Catholic. I did ask him once some time ago whether or not he was a Catholic and he dissembled, refusing to answer yes or no.
    I must commend “Northsider” for his very reasoned and accurate article against Mr. Hoffman’s ridiculous book on usury. That book thoroughly infuriated me, and I really appreciate “Northsider”‘s rebuttal. Thank you, Good Sir.
    My wife is of Irish ancestry, three of her four direct ancestors having arrived from Ireland in the mid-1800s. I also have some Irish ancestry, a great-grandmother O’Sullivan, and another, Flynn, although my primary ancestry is Welsh (Davis) and lowland Scots (Biggar)
    We are practicing Roman Catholics, and work constantly to know and understand our Faith. We loathe the Novus Ordo, and agree with many that Mr. Bergolio (Frankie) cannot possibly be the true Pope since, as Mary Louise so accurately pointed out, he is not a Catholic.
    We attend only the Tridentine Mass, offered, for now, by an old priest who recently passed his 90th birthday. In fact, we have attended only the Tridentine Mass, when we could, when it was offered, for at least the past 36 years, driving, for most of those Masses, a distance of 100 miles to get to them, no matter the weather or conditions. We have been blessed to be able to do so, as many others we know who also practice our Holy Faith have no access to such a priest or to the True Mass and Sacraments.
    Fitzinfo, your leaving the “Catholic” Concilliar Church as you have done is perfectly understandable, given the chaos into which the robber Vatican Council II plunged our beloved Church. In fact, it is possible that by leaving that hellish organization when you did, you may have contributed to the salvation of your soul. However, in my opinion, what you have done is also deplorable, and I hope, and will pray, that when you have finished St. Thomas’ book on the Greeks, you may revert back to the Faith into which you were born, and which has been stolen from you.
    Mary Louise: your characterization of the “Traditio” site is absolutely correct. Some time ago, I had some direct dealings with so-called “Fr.” Morrison. He would never answer my repeated queries about where, when, and by whom had he been ordained, and in fact, he kicked me off his discussion forum when I insisted. After further research, I discovered that he had bought many books from a friend of ours who sold “rescued” Catholic books, all of which pertained to how to study for the priesthood. Our friend characterized the selection of books as those someone would want in order to pass themselves off as a priest. I know that “Fr.” Morrison plays the violin, since he told me this himself. I only mention this to illustrate that I did “work” with him for a considerable period in my attempts to discover whether or not he was genuine. There are many “poseurs” (sp?) out there and one must be careful.
    My wife and I operate a rather old-fashioned-looking website, http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com, which some of you may find of interest. My wife does most of the writing for our site, when she is not otherwise occupied in caring for our handicapped daughter. My wife is the most intelligent and good woman I have ever known….which is why I cannot figure out why she ever married me 36 years ago.
    God Bless you all. I will keep you in my daily prayers.

    1. Hello, Kenneth. Thank you for linking to your wonderful website. I am currently reading your series of articles on the Bishop Williamson affair. It does seem that it was deliberately timed to coincide with Benedict’s reconciliation of the SSPX.

      1. Mary. No need for the video on King James. I’ve heard it all. Some claim he was a queer, but the man who first made the allegations waited until 30 years after his death, and was the same man James booted out of parliament. I’m not a “King James onlyist”, I’m a textus receptus onlyist.

  87. Fitzinfo. There is no difference at all between the Old Testament of the king James, and the Old Testament books used by the believers of the early church. It’s the same books considered “canon” by the Jews of the first few centuries. Any differences between old testament books is the result of Rome. The apocryphal texts are used to prop up the Septuagint.

    1. Jeremy, I guess you have never studied a real latin vulgate with the included Biblia Sacra Nominum Interpretatio(Bible Sacred Name Interpretation) if you actually believe this to be the case.

      1. Lola. I don’t read the “sacred name translation” becasue, it’s a fake bible. The Greek texts calls the messiah Iesous. The 1611 Kjv says Iesus, see the similarities? shortly after there was a update of the English language and there was a J added to the alphabet. Iesus became Jesus. Sorry to brake it to you, but there is no such thing as an original Hebrew New Testament in existence. The oldest bibles in existence were written in Greek. Your Hebrew roots movement was invented in the late 1800s by Adventists. You are in error.

        1. That is interesting Jeremy because the jewish encyclopedia itself praises the work of Jerome and the quid hebraeorum who translated it for its accurracy. It also clearly explains that the latin vulgate is the ONLY TRANSLATION in existence of the ORIGINAL PALEO HEBREW TEXTS. You have no clue what you are talking about on this one. Search the the two entries “Jerome” and “Vulgate”. This is still available for you to read at the present time in even the online jewish encyclopedia. Now, if you understood what the Vulgate states using the Biblia Sacra Nominum Interpretatio, you would understand that it would be counter productive for the jewish faith and the over 400 world renowned rebbi who wrote the ” jewish encyclopedia” to lie about this subject. Sorry Jeremy, you lose this one buddy. Go get a real jewish bible, it is called a latin vulgate. Yoh might actually understand it then. Here is a link to download a complete uncorrupted vulgate including the last three books of the bible thst you do not even know exist. This is known as the Esdras Apocalypse. The book of Revelation is only one of the four deuterocanonical texts(books) of the Apocalypse. When you read the last three books you will understand why all “protest” “ant” doctrine is incorrect. Here is the link to Fordham College Archives. This is a vulgate from 1685, scanned page by page, cover to cover. Enjoy learning what you believe these texts to say is incorrect.

        2. Pdf 1/10 of the Complete Biblia Sacra (Catholic Latin Vulgate) from 1685. Contains the rare Nominum Interpretatio list for decoding the various Jewish Lords of the Hebrew/Chaldean/Greek originals which were unilaterally interpreted incorrectly as a monotheistic deity in subsequent English editions. Also contains the Esdras Apocalypse (Esdras 3 and Esdras 4) which were removed by the Vatican around 1816. Very hard to find text. Comes in 10 parts. Total file size of the 10 pdfs add up to around 1 gigabyte. https://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%221685+Catholic+Latin+Vulgate+-+Biblia+Sacra%22

        3. Jeremy, you are going in the erong direction. I am speaking of what the old testament states. As far as the NT, Deum Christum(God Christ) is only mentioned in 43 verses. Would you like a list of them? The one you refer to is Iesu Christi. He is not Deum Christum. 😉

  88. Dear Kenneth: Thank you so much for your kind words. I agree with you about Hoffman. His attitude towards the Catholic Church is quite bewildering. I first came across his work several years ago in a small SSPX (Williamson wing) magazine published in Ireland. I assumed from his articles there that he was a Protestant (praising Francis Drake etc) – but the editor assured me he was a Catholic, and quite a traditionalist one at that. Obviously the editor wasn’t lying to me – he believed what he said – and I can see why he might have assumed MH was Catholic. As I’ve noted here before, Hoffman has written some quite philo-Catholic articles over the years. However, as you indicate, this is far outweighed by his constant anti-Catholic swipes – in which he’s often quite happy to take corporate media anti-Catholic narratives at face value – (“revisionism” and the questioning spirit only going so far apparently). And why all the dissembling over something as fundamental as one’s religion?
    Your information re “Traditio” is quite intriguing. My own unscientific rule of thumb is that Catholic journalists, web-sites etc., that make common cause with corporate Zio-media attacks on the Church, in the name of restoring tradition – and then go on to endorse Neocon War on Terror narratives – are never to be trusted. The enemies of the Church are only too happy to encourage right-wing Catholics to talk up the threat of Islamic terrorism – as long as they don’t actually ask any hard questions about who sponsors ISIS, Al Nusra Front and so on. And they’re also happy to have traditionalist Catholics act as cheerleaders for the Zio-media over the clerical scandals – especially if it keeps them from noticing the powerful and all pervasive paedophile networks which exist among the enemies of the Church. It’s a win-win scenario for the Tribe – full spectrum dominance at its most audacious.
    Thanks for providing the link to your site – I don’t have time right now to look at it – but I will do so later on – I’m sure it’s excellent.
    God bless

    1. You folks are the biggest bunch of hypocrites alive. Again, you want to condemn people for “usury” (northsider), but it was the papacy who was the biggest offender. The selling of souls called indulgences is the biggest money maker in the world. The papacy has “loan sharks” beat by a mile. What does one expect, the antichrist has had 1500 years to perfect it’s simony. Talk about a get rich quick scheme. The sent Bernie Madoff to prison, but not the “pope”? I forget it the “Rothschilds” who run the world, even though the encyclopedia judaica 1906 under “Rothschilds” says they were “guardians of the papal treasure”. When one “guards” someone’s treasure, isn’t he working for the person who’s treasure is being guarded? Speaking of your apologetic links, id much rather get my history from James Aitken Wylie, who was one of the best historians of his time. Or was he a “Zionist” too? There is no doubt this “blog” is nothing more than failed apologetics, and fitzinfo, I mean disinfo lol.

      1. Northsider. If capitalism bothers you so much, just move to China or North Korea. Why not talk about the papacys role in fascism? Why not talk about the concordats the papacy made with Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and Pavolic? I wonder why northsider and fitzinfo never talk about these historical truths?

        1. Mary..I post on YouTube by the name “Jeremy James” becasue that my name. Jeremy is my first, and James is my middle name. I go by both. This was known before your stunning “revelation”. Also, just becasue northsider says indulgences isn’t usury doesn’t make it so. When someone uses someone via inflation or simony, there is no difference. Also you failed to grasp through your thick noggin that the Rothschilds are “GUARDIANS of the papal treasure”. When someone guards someone’s treasures, they are working for the person the treasure belongs to. Understand? Also all you failed apologists have never explained when it was that the papacy lost control of the worlds treasure, and the “Jews” gained control of it. When did this happen? By the papacys own admittance, they were controllers of the “old world order”, which was the papacys control of the known world. When did they lose control? It’s obvious to anyone with a brain that the civil concordats that the papacy has signed with most of the known world is the “new world order”, which is nothing but the “old world order”, but on a global scale. I hear all this rubbish about how the US was started by Freemasons, but you papal apologists fail to point out that John carrol was responsible for the founding of the US nation capital. He “gave” the land to the US government. The land the White House was built on was called Rome, and the river next to it was called the Tiber. John carrol was a Jesuit. I do enjoy reading all the posts on here. It’s amusing to read how all the problems the papacy has started is being blamed on Jews. This website is nothing more than disinfo for the Roman Catholic laity to feed on, then regurgitate this bile to others online. Scripture proves you wrong, and history proves you wrong.

          1. Jeremy, at least make your shilling believable by implicating Jews with the Jesuits. Skilled shills (Edward Hendrie) will at least do that so as not to appear as obvious HASBARATS. Your game is way too transparent. Didn’t I ban you from commenting here before? You’re like a gnat. I guess Jude’s devastating critique of the British Judaeo-Masonic cryptocracy provoked you to come back and misdirect.

    2. The usual absurd historical cherry-picking – the Fuggers, hermetics, blah, blah blah – nothing about the crucial role of Protestants in the rise of usurious capitalism – even in predominantly Catholic countries like France and Italy – or the Huguenots’ (openly boasted of by their religious descendants) role in the rise of Freemasonry and the founding of the Bank of England. The guy is a whitewasher pure and simple. The video you posted of him making slighting remarks about the Catholic Mass nearly 30 years ago suggests he’s long had a deep emotional animus against the Church – an animus that is clearly about much more than usury – whatever he may claim to the contrary.

    3. So, ‘James’ and ‘Jeremy’ are one and the same person. Surprise surprise!. Both are filled with the same crap! Look, why don’t you take a hike and stop your pathetic trolling. Northsider has already explained to you that indulgences have nothing to do with usury. You are clearly too thick to grasp that point. It’s about time you took your stupid protestant head out of your stupid protestant ass. Yes, the Rothschilds control the Vatican Bank, just as they control the Bank of England and just about every other bank in the world. If they control you financially, they control you outright. The Rothschilds control the Vatican, not vice versa. Can’t you get that concept into your thick head?!

      1. My names is Jeremy James. The email address is my name backwards because it was already take the other way. Also. Thanks for posting my email address.

    4. Oh, and just for the record: Bernie Madoff went to jail because he had the audacity to rip off fellow Jews instead of restricting his fraud to the Goyim, as the Talmud demands.

    5. Firstly, “Jeremy James”, my name is Mary Louise. If you can be bothered to go to the unnecessary effort of typing the word “Roman” every time you refer to the Catholic Church, you can expend the same effort and address me by my full name.
      Secondly, usury and Indulgences are in no way connected. just because “Jeremy James” says they are doesn’t make it so. By insisting there is a link between the two just proves your profound ignorance of both.
      Thirdly, with reference to the Vatican’s assets the word “guardian” is your word and those who want to mislead people with regards to the extent of Jewish power. The Rothschilds are not merely “guardians” of the Vatican’s finances – they control them; and, as I’ve already said, whoever controls you financially, owns you. Also, you have committed the logical fallacy – one of many you have committed – known as ‘begging the question’. Ie: when asked when did the Vatican cede control of world finances to the Jews you are presuming that the Vatican had control of the world’s finances in the first place!
      Even if what you say about John Carroll is accurate – and given the rest of the garbage you’ve come up with, it’s a big “if” – My reaction is “so what?” There are cities in the US named Athens, Paris and Memphis. Using your logic that must mean that you are also controlled by the Greeks the French and the Egyptians. The name of your largest city and centre of your commerce is called New York. York is a city in England and the see of the second most senior Anglican clergyman, the Archbishop of York, so maybe you are controlled by the Church of England. Previously it was called New Amsterdam, which is itself suggestive because Jews out of Amsterdam were responsible for funding all kinds of nefarious enterprises. Your foremost university, Harvard, is based in Cambridge Massachusetts, so maybe your country is ruled by the English academic elite.
      We are not, and don’t claim to be, “apologists” for anything. How dare you come on to this site, on which you are very rude guest, telling us what e are allowed and not allowed to discuss! You may disagree with us but it’s called freedom of speech. aren’t you Americans supposed to be big on that concept. If you don’t like this site please feel free to leave, you won’t b much missed.
      What the heck is wrong with you – have you been dumped by a Catholic girl?

  89. Correction: I think the talk you posted where he slighted the Mass was audio, not video.

  90. Jeremy: “I hear all this rubbish about how America was founded by Freemasons..”
    Hmm, an interesting comment… Just as a matter of idle curiosity, what’s your own view of the Freemasons…?
    Jeremy: “If you have a problem with capitalism….”
    Yes I do have a problem with capitalism, but that’s not really the point is it? Hoffman, the subject of this thread, and the man you came here to defend, has a serious problem with capitalism, yet your rhetorical statement above makes it clear that you have no such problem. In fact such is your enthusiasm for this vile system, you go so far as to deploy the classic phoney Coke v Pepsi binary dialectic, as in: ‘if you don’t like capitalism you must be a commie’. The truth is the opposite: if you don’t like capitalism, you can’t be a commie. Marx and Engels were both avid champions of capitalism.

    1. Jeremy boy was put back on moderation until he behaves. He responded a few more times to you and Mary basically using every card that I mentioned in my Jesuit conspiracy theory critique. Guess he never read it.

      1. Misinfo. Your “critique” is nothing more than an attempt to whitewash, and pin blame elsewhere. Refute the facts I post, then your “critique” might have some validity. I know what you are. This is a “blog” for papal conspiracy theorist. Was Adam weishapt a teacher of canon law at ingalstatdt university? Yes. Are all the other claims I made facts? Yes. You are to the papacy, what hasbara is to Israel.

    2. Northsider, I’ve been pressing the Maurice Pinay blogger on Twitter about his identity. He will neither confirm nor deny that he is Michael Hoffman. But it looks like a match. He sounds just like Hoffman, uses similar argumentative tactics, and overuses big words.

      1. disinfo . I don’t know if you understand that our government is not our country. It seems you have a problem differentiating between the two. I thought our country was the land in which we lived, not the people who hold elected office? Haven’t I already pointed out that our country was in fact started by a Jesuit named John Carroll. He literally gave the land to the government that the White House sits on amongst other things. The land that the White House sits on use to be called Rome, and the river that sits along side it, use to be called the Tiber. Maybe you should have paid attention in 4th grade history class. Also, you wish someone with a little bit of a name like Hoffman would visit your “blog”. It makes me chuckle when I read people blaming the source of our problems on the “illuminati”, and that freemasonry controls the ever hidden “illuminati” lol. What sites like THIS fail to report is that Adam Weishaupt was a professor of canon law at the Jesuit ingalstadt university. Let me guess, he was a “rogue agent”? If this whole conspiracy theory wasn’t of papal origin, then the previous fact would be well known, and papists like you would be calling it fake instead of promoting it. Freemasonry is an offshoot of Roman Catholicism. It isn’t a coincidence that masonry was completely unheard of until the counter reformation appeared. Why won’t you “report” on important matters. Why no mention of the council for national policy, which is absolute proof of the papacy a control of the “Christian right” in this country? Instead you want to focus on trying to divert attention away from the antichrist papacy.

        1. It was just a small step for you to be blindly defending Michael Hoffman to now parroting Jesuit conspiracy theories. What else could we expect from you? Weishaupt was professor only after the Jesuits had pretty much abandoned Ingoldstadt University. So what does his presence there mean? Absolutely nothing.

  91. Let us be clear about this though. They were supportive of capitalism with a centralized bank such as the world has today. Those countries not willing to subject their economies to this type of system have been targeted and immediatly put under its control.

    1. Hopefully he fully exposes indulgences for what they are, ecclesiastical usury. The story of Johann Tetzel and how he got robbed and beat up by the man he sold indulgences to, and the indulgence held up in court against Tetzel is rather hilarious.

    2. Tim, I couldn’t read that chapter on my browser – I’m using an old computer at the mo as my newer home PC broke down. As soon as I get a suitable browser going I’ll read it. In the meantime I have to agree with Mary Louise: It’s the excuse making for Protestants that really bugs me about Hoffman, and the reason I first challenged him on his site. If he can’t justify something Luther or Calvin or the Anglo-Americna Puritans did (and so many of their actions are completely unjustifiable from the point of view of someone who holds the views he claims to hold) he tries to portray it is an eminently forgiveable human error – and then immediately shifts the focus back to the alleged crimes of the Catholic Church.

      1. Check this out:
        An Antidote to Hating the Puritans
        “The persistent legend that the original Calvinists and Puritans were little more than greedheads directly responsible for the capitalism which lashes us today, is subversive nonsense. Even the belief that the Puritans under Oliver Cromwell were enthusiastic murderers of the Irish, is open to correction. A significant number of Puritan soldiers would not fight in Ireland against the Irish. Who has ever heard of this noble act of conscientious objection? It is wholly suppressed.
        In 1649 dissident Puritan soldiers circulated among their comrades in arms a tract, Certain Queries Propounded to the Consideration of such as were Intended for the Service of Ireland, urging them to refuse to go to war in Ireland. In it they argued that the Irish nation ‘hath for some hundreds or thousands of years enjoyed and possessed…the Land…without any others laying claim to having a more special right to the same.’ They asked, ‘Whether Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, William, Duke of Normandy or any other (of) the great conquerors of the world, were any other than so many great and lawless thieves; and whether it be not altogether as unjust to take our (Irish) neighbour’s land and liberties from the, as our neighbour’s goods of our own nation?’
        It is true that New England Puritans tended toward micromanagement of daily life, tiresome factional and inter-denominational squabbles and rivalry, limits on freedom of speech and, in one case, the hanging of ‘heretics’ (four Quakers, executed 1659-1661); and of course the notorious witch trials. These facats mar, but do no nullify the Puritan crusade for a just price (justum pretium), a living wage, and freedom from usury. That these early ‘Preachers of the Word’ have come to be equated in history texts andpopular media with fostering rapacious capitalism goes to show the extent to which we are continually lied ot be shadowy forces promoting a hidden agenda. Those who call themselves Christians and look to the first generation Puritan founders of America for support for their ‘laissez-faire, free market’, profit-supremacist system, look in vain.
        We have sought to dispel the staple fiction of some Roman Catholics, later echoed by partisans of the Southern Confederacy, who claim that from the beginning, New England Puritanism was representative of the most miserly forms of economic predation; Roman Catholicism allegedly being the only religious bastion against Mammonism in all of Christendom.
        Are these fables about the first Puritans seeded by the Cryptocracy to keep us from studying the radical Protestant roots of resistance to the authority of money? With the virtual collapse of the credibility of popery in the 21st century—with its melange of institutionalized child molestation and ‘infallible’ canonization of ‘Blessed’ John Paul II, patron saint of Voodoo in Benin and Koran-kissing in Rome—an alternative to papalolatry is intensely to be desired.
        How can those of us who execrate usury, whether we be Catholic, Protestant, or independent, have anything but esteem for Protestant and Puritan leaders such as Andrewes, Sibbes, Jewel, Cotton and Winthrop, and others like them? They used church and state to curb this plague of plagues. Their sermons, books and legal writings stand as a template for a Christian future in which economic exchange is regulated by the mercy of the Gospel, not the pitiless power of money.”
        —Michael Hoffman, Usury in Christendom, p. 257-259

  92. What I can’t figure out about Hoffman is why he lives in a CMRI stronghold? What does this say about CMRI? I of course agree that the Vaticann II monstrosity church is still emerging from whole judaeo-masonic cloth as we see daily, but what does the writing, which has turned pretty prejudiced against pre-Vatican II Catholicism, have to say about Hoffmans environment and his affiliations? I agree he seems to only believe that Catholicism is responsible for the modern usury leviathan out of all proportion and leaves the much larger issue of the seamy details of Protestantism and offshoots alone. Maybe it’s a penchant for self destruction projected into his larger orbit, not sure. Luther, for anyone who has read either about his life or his writings was a filthy individual, I have not read much about Calvin other than that he may have been a crypto and certainly Henry VIII and his descendants were also pretty disgusting. Where is any discussion by Hoffman about Elizabeth I and the occultist empire that still exists under other forms today? He seems to have went from a critic of Judaism to a critic of traditional Catholicism all the while associating himself with a movement that is traditional Catholicism! Confusing and like an eel Hoffman is today. Certainly Catholicism doesn’t deserve another basher from without, it certainly has the Vatican II Judaeo-Masonic internal termites. Hate to say it but maybe Hoffman is a virus sent for time release infection like the several leaders and priests in the pre-Vatican II days that suddenly embraced everything and more of that council. He certainly has the “bona-fides” to be such with his books previous.

    1. Fra Mauro: To be fair to Hoffman, he has written about Elizabeth I and the occult; but when he describes Luther as a “Christian” who was righteously outraged at the financial corruption of the Catholic Church, he has lost the plot. As you say, Luther was a dissolute character who used the excuse of corruption among some Catholic clergy as a cloak for his own moral and spiritual defects and thus to rebel against the Church.
      He also seems to admire Oliver Cromwell, and refuses to accept that he was indeed in the pay of Jews. He calls this a ‘right wing myth with endless shelf life’, though why he deems it to be right wing he never explains. Portuguese rabbi, Menasseh ben Israel managed to convince Cromwell that letting the Jews back into England would herald the second coming of Christ!. Isn’t that just how today’s Zionist Jews manipulate fundamentalist Protestants into supporting Israel.

  93. I don’t know about all this Catholic/Protestant business but Mr. Hoffman’s new article pimping Trump I left a link from Tim re: Trump controlled by Mossad and it is not showing on Mr. Hoffman’s article comment section. I received a comment via e-mail by someone re: Trump’s connection to Jew Russian mob boss. How does that work? If my comment did not show up how in the world was I able to receive a response?
    Why was my link not allowed?

    1. Elfmom55, from my understanding, Hoffman censors his comment section. Northsider can tell you all about it, as he has been at the receiving end of said censorship. I briefly skimmed Hoffman’s article about Trump and have to agree with you that he is more or less pimping him. Hoffman’s expertise is regarding the Babylonian Talmud. I question his judgment regarding current events, particularly in the realms of disinformation and controlled opposition. Here is the guy who basically made well known the concept of “Revelation of the Method” and he won’t even call out the obvious disinfo artists carrying it out, like Alex Jones (and Trump). If this is not poor judgment, then our worst fears are confirmed and he is some kind of COINTELPRO operative. He is certainly a shill for strains of Protestantism, that is for sure. I have more respect for a guy like Fritz Springmeier, who although a shill for Protestantism, doesn’t hide it (although Henry Makow has suggested that Springmeier could be a double agent).

  94. The Irish Potato Famine
    “Taken together, the combined effects of Protestantism and Capitalism far outweighed the blight as the cause of starvation during the years 1845-49. The main cause of the Great Famine was not phytophtora infestans, bur rather English Protestantism, especially if we take Capitalism as the ultimate expression of the cultural form which the Reformation had taken by the middle of the 19th century.
    The main cause of poverty in Ireland in the years leading up to the famine was the confiscation of Catholic land by Protestant invaders. Over the centuries, following the Reformation and conquests by figures like Cromwell, the land had been stolen from the natives and distributed to English freebooters, who used religious difference as an excuse to grind their Irish tenants and reduce them to a poverty so severe that it was unknown in any other part of Europe.”
    —E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal, p. 981

  95. The Glorious Revolution 1688 established monopoly capitalism over England, Scotland and Ireland. This is because Cromwell and Protestant Parliamentarians (York and Scottish Rite) went to the Synagogue of Mulheim for the loans with which to hire, equip and ship back to England the New Model Army for the Revolution that was the English Civil War 1642.
    Title deeds to all estates were collateral on those loans. They made a war with the Union of the Two Crowns (Charles I) for the supremacy – which Henry VIII had made the basis of the English Reformation. Naturally, having obtained ‘the supremacy’ , the Paliamentarians had a list of things to do from the Nasi of the Synagogue.
    First on the list was a central bank (Fifth Plank of the Marxist Manifesto) to monetize their debt to the Nasi. The owners of the Consuls of the Bank of England would naturally be the Nasi of the Synagogue of Mulheim as they owned all estates in allodial title. The bank would monetize the debt of the Parliamentarians by lending the Credit Issue (liquidity) to its government at interest. The government would then print the money and loan it into circulation. Usury is thus the foundation of the economy itself.
    The people and the preachers can argue all they like about loans and interest at the level of commerce but with a central bank of CR issue, the fact is in the UK after the War of the Succession 1688, the sovereignty was not in the monarchy or the state. The sovereignty was in money. The supremacy of the Parliamentarians was in name only. The Crown of the Judaic Supremacy which removed to The City was supreme and it owned the government as an asset of its banking cartel, just as it did the government of the Netherlands for their Calvinist War of Succession from Spain- which debt it monetized through their Amsterdamsee Wisselbank. It owned all estates in allodial/udal title. And it owned the entire population as ‘bonded entities’.
    The reason why the Synagogue had to get their front man, William of Orange, to invade England expeditiously in the Glorious Revolution was because James II (a Catholic monarch) would not sign off on a bank like the Amsterdamsee Wisselbank. The Synagogue had to settle their loans and make good their claim on the title deeds of all estates in three nations.
    Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay whose aristocratic Catholic family had insider knowledge of the overthrow of James II made an analysis of the work of Isaac D’Israeli through sources of insider knowledge in his work The Nameless War. It is worth close study and is one of the essential texts for our time.

Leave a Reply