“…’traditional Catholics’ are far more devoted to the incense, bells, sacred music, and ceremonies of the Tridentine Latin Mass of old than they are to the substance of the true Church’s dogma of rabbinic Judaism’s perfidy. The exterior of the Mass has been retained but the interior of its Biblical, Patristic, and medieval theology has been hollowed out and replaced by apathy toward accommodations with Talmudic Judaism and the betrayal of Jesus that they symbolize.”—Michael Hoffman
By Timothy Fitzpatrick
April 9, 2022 Anno Domini
Revisionist Michael Hoffman’s 2017 polemic outing the modern Catholic Church as a “neo-platonic-Hermetic-Kabbalist” counterfeit is a difficult read both actually and in its revelations.
Hoffman begins The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome by condemning the “Church of Rome” as a deviation from the true Catholic Church he estimates began in the early sixteenth century, but in contrast offers a few examples of Catholic clerics, who, by miracle, actually did God’s work, including Fr. Pierre De Smet and Fr. Joseph Cataldo “in their work defending the American Indian….” So, the first two examples Hoffman upholds as renegades against the wayward neoplatonic syncretist Renaissance Pontiffs are two priests, miraculous in their efforts, because they defended a minority group. Is this a Christian apologetic or an argument from the Communist Manifesto? It sounds more like class (race) struggle than a Christian miracle. Fortunately, this subtle neo-Marxism of Hoffman’s doesn’t set the tone for the rest of the book.
Occult Renaissance is written in the usual Hoffman style: verbose, reactionary, bitter, repetitive, contrarian, scornful, and lacking charity at times (see my other review of his about Usury in Christendom). Thus, the 723-page book is quite a strain to read (thought not quite as straining as Hoffman’s Judaism Discovered, which is more a large reference manual than a book for casual Sunday night reading). It seems that his inspiration for the book came about as a reaction to today’s traditional Catholics, whom he sets up repeatedly as the mindless public relations agents of the papacy. So disgusted with their supposed ignorance he must’ve been, he felt compelled to set them all straight—first by writing Usury in Christendom and recently Occult Renaissance.
The implications of the author’s thesis, if true, requires a whole new revision going far beyond what sedevacantists have done with the Second Vatican Council and the associated “anti-popes”. Hoffman’s thesis is that, in contrast to the contemporary traditional Catholic view that the Church was corrupted and left without a valid pope starting at the Second Vatican Council (1958-1965), today’s counterfeit Catholic Church actually was first corrupted under the Medici popes, who opened the Vatican doors to centuries of occult subversion (mainly via saboteurs Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and Johannes Reuchlin), the justification of usury (Leo X), papal-approved lying (via Alphonsus Liguori’s Talmudic-inspired equivocation, 30 different ways of swearing falsely without guilt, and permission of birth control), and institutionalized pederasty (enabled by papal elitism).
“There is no other science that provides us with greater certainty of Christ’s divinity than magic and Kabbalah,” claims Pico.
Hoffman provides much evidence of Pico’s kabbalistic subversion of the Vatican. He concludes:
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola is the true father of the Second Vatican Council and the “post-Conciliar Church.”
Hoffman’s findings of rabbinic situations ethics peppered throughout modern Catholic teaching is significant; however, it’s ironic considering Hoffman’s own apparent situation ethics when he, as a Christian, associates with and defends the Nation of Islam. It seems their Marxist brand of anti-Zionism is convincing enough for Hoffman to ally with them against “Judaics”.
Also ironic is Hoffman’s fixation with the Tetragrammaton: the supposed secret, ineffable name of God consisting of four Hebrew consonants YHVH, from which we get Yahweh, Jehovah, etc. This supposed name for God is believed by some to be a Kabbalist invention that was inserted into the Masoretic text of the Old Testament (the authoritative Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament translates references to God as only “LORD”). Hoffman admits that the Tetragrammaton is used in magic (invoking demons, etc.) but dismisses the implications of this as merely pagan mockery or abuse of God’s holy name. The New Testament, however, clears up any confusion regarding God’s sacred name.
Phillipians 2:9-10 – Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.
“Jesus” is the name above all names; therefore, Hoffman’s advocacy for the Tetragrammaton is irrelevant to the Christian faith. We are saved by only one name, and that is Jesus Christ. (I am that I am; Aramaic: ehyeh asher ehyeh, is also used for God’s name in the Old Testament)
I was rather disappointed that Jacob Frank’s influence on the Catholic Church was forgotten or ignored by Hoffman. Frankism seems to have aided the Kabbalist syncretism of the “Church of Rome” and may have played a part in shaping the Vatican’s later Mariology (Hoffman takes a more restrained position on the Blessed Virgin Mary—for which I commend him).
Hoffman seems to reject the First Vatican Council (in addition to the Second), at least as it pertains to the dogma of Papal infallibility. His constant cynical use of “papists”, “papalolaters”, “priestcraft”, his many other expressions of disgust with papal power, and his casting of blame for the Church of Rome’s waywardness on the papacy tell us this. What also suggests this is his dating of the divergence from true Roman Catholicism to the Kabbalist “Church of Rome”, which occurred long before the First Vatican Council, at some point in the 15th century (at or just before Pope Leo X). If most or all popes after Leo X have been crypto-occultists (Hoffman claims occult progression following Leo X was “seamless”), then that can only mean the First (and Second) Vatican Council was invalid. Furthermore, Hoffman doesn’t use the common sedevacantist descriptor of “anti-pope” to describe the bad or heretical popes. They are all just popes. With this, Hoffman’s chosen Catholic position or whether he is Catholic at all continues to be a mystery. He could be accused of being a Protestant (esp. a puritan), Eastern Orthodox sympathizer, or other, but since he does not seem to recognize the primacy or infallibility of the pope, technically speaking he can’t be called a new kind of sedevacantist. He equates the power of the Holy See with Pharaohism.
Under Hoffman’s view of seamless occult progression among the papacy, he inevitably indicts Pope Leo XIII but provides little support for this in Occult Renaissance (see my challenge to this claim in Pope Leo XIII’s pontificate did indict the Kabbalah). In general, though, Hoffman’s seamless progression thesis seems plausible when you consider Pope Innocent III’s declaration that “not to oppose erroneous doctrine is to approve of it.” Where was the reversal of this progression? It’s difficult to argue that there ever was a post-Renaissance pope who reversed centuries of papist treason against Christ and His holy Church. According to Hoffman, those popes who seemed to provide a counter to papal syncretism did so as mere concessions to pacify the laity while the subversion continued, part of the two-steps-forward, one-step-back tactic.
As for Hoffman’s least supported claim, of institutionalized pederasty, there is truth to what he is saying, but his biases on this matter were revealed years ago by a contributor of this blog, Jude Duffy, and, therefore, he does not seem to have a good command of this subject.
…my original passing comment about Hoffman (and other alternative media types such as David Icke) alluded to their penchant for uncritically recycling any and all negative narratives the corporate media serve up about the Catholic Church—even though they urge their followers to treat the same media’s narratives about most other issues with contempt. Hoffman in his counter-attack has made no effort to refute this criticism.
As Bill Donohue of the Catholic League says, the Sexual Abuse Lobby is Agenda Ridden.
As much as I don’t care for Hoffman’s writing style—his questionable historiography; his contextual inconsistency; his arrogant and condescending dialogue with his critics and others; his scandalous and inappropriate association with the Nation of Islam; his Marxist views on race and colonialism—many of his arguments in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome seem well supported.
“Whoever followed Christ when He walked on earth had to be an independent thinker free of the religious authority that controlled the Temple and had condemned Him. But “traditional Catholics” don’t question the pieties, legends, and lies that came before Vatican Council II on the part of saints and popes labeled conservative.”
While I would not recommend this book to recent converts to Roman Catholicism or nominal Catholics who might completely abandon what little their is of their faith after reading Occult Renaissance, I would recommend it to established and “traditional” Catholics. It could bring the sedevacantist movement to a greater understanding of the usurpation of the one, true Church.
Tim, not sure if you can comment, if you have time, a individual by the name of Benedict Rodgers is worth looking into as he has been lately promoting individuals within the Hong Kong Democracy Movement which is openly known to be run the Chinese Communist Party, one of the individuals who fled to the UK by the name of Nathan Law is known to be controlled opposition. Benedict Rodger’s also runs a group called Hong Kong Watch as well and has been involved with the Falun Gong group as well.
Thanks, A21. I’ll have a look into this.
Tim, not sure if you can comment just letting you know that Benedict Rodgers is also a huge advocate of allowing people from CCP owned Hong Kong to immigrate into the UK:
I don’t think he’s wrong about occultism invading the Church with the so called “christian-kabbalism” of certain Renaissance hierarchy members. That’s been known for a long time by various people though noting new there really. I mean many outright evil people were not wrong in observation of the corruptions of the world, marx for instance. How did they respond to it though? Most responded by profiting from it or devising ways to use it to their or their associates benefit. Look at the satanic obelisk in the triumphal St Peters Square and other extravagant worldly constructions from the Renaissance on down. No one opposes gorgeous structures that were paid for by donation of time and money by believers and were open to anyone to worship but it can’t be overlooked that many of them since the Renaissance explosion are not quite right, too worldly and imposing with plenty of hexagrams, obelisks and the like which give them away. In ancient Catholic countries like France, Spain, Portugal and Italy they were largely stolen by the jew-masonic governments brought in through their revolutions which slaughtered millions of Catholics and Catholic clergy at all levels. Outlawed monastic orders etc It’s pretty disgusting the arson of Notre Dame in Jew France and the following renovations to a building that has been a place of worship for Catholics for 800+ years. The cold satanism of so many reporting on it and involved with the whole thing is evident and that’s just one case of so many.
As I’ve said there have always been good true Catholics and fake bad Catholics, in fact that is a general fact of this world: it’s mixed. That’s true at any time, regardless of the prevailing liturgy and direction. Of course all human institutions need leadership, that’s just how it must be. If this leadership becomes corrupt or captured by satans minions then it is no longer valid leadership if it spews satanic doctrines of various kinds, and imposes such as dogma. If the modern Church disregards dogmas how can they be trusted with anything? How can their Saints be regarded as real Saints? If you notice almost every Pope of Vatican II is a Saint, this cannot be so in reality. Would anyone say that parents ordering a child to murder or steal or otherwise are true parents? No they are bad parents and their criminal directives are not to be followed, same with the Church. They can give good directives as well and those should be obeyed but only those. If a state compels anyone by law to commit satanic activities of various types they are not to be followed but those orders that comply with Christian morals should be followed, in fact they are not necessary to real Christians who voluntarily follow Christian morals anyways if they are real Christians. Outside the pale of the Church it’s all chaff except in singular exceptions which the Lord has aided and chosen specifically.
The Church is such a huge organization that it’s mixed as well, regardless of what some far away hierarchy does. I don’t think the whole Church can just be thrown out the window because of an overall decline. Apocalypse itself describes a decline that ends with the Lord returning. The Tridentine Church was a reaction to the onslaught of greedy, immoral thieves that executed their satanic revolution in the 16th Century. It unified and codified so much that was disparate and confused. If you’ve read the Catechism of Trent it’s a simple, clear explanation of the beliefs of the Church up to that time. How unifying it was to Christendom that you could walk into any parish from Bombay to Chicago and get the same mass in Latin, the homily was obviously in the vernacular but there was no need for this confusion of mass in 3 or more different vernacular languages we get now. The missal had each Saints feast in a book that could be used for a lifetime and passed down, now we get a newspaper missalette that has all sorts of non-catholic things in it, never mentions which Saint the feast is for and is just thrown away every year and is very cheap and gives a changeable impression. But I also think it’s a slippery slope when you start just bashing on the Church, you can come very close to just being Protestant or worse. Then you turn to that garbage outside of it which is the the satanism of the world. However these are critical times, since the jews and allies have risen up since the Holy Inquisition was ended and the Catholic Monarchs became corrupt collaborators we see the corruption speeded up across the board including the Church with it’s infiltration and the wildly changing directives and even disregarding dogma. It’s very hard to watch and be fairly impotent to do much about outside of ourselves. Catholicism was the last bastion against satanism in all its forms, it’s most potent being talmudism and kabbalism and they are the top leadership.
I’ve commented on Hoffman before and I believe he’s of jewish stock, he worked for the jew AP mafia, he’s associated with some obscure movements etc I do think he has some good information though but almost as much spin mixed in. His opus on mind control calls it masonic mind control but skips the ultimate jewish kabbalistic part. His intro to King Kill 33 plays up the surface level masonry as well and also the whole book is by probably an ONI man or unknown really. I was recently reading some Springmeier(not his real name but it sounds very jewish, he says his father worked for the UN, he somehow has all this information from anonymous informants, portland native(highly marxist jewish area like the whole pnw) etc etc etc) and while he has some interesting information it all sounds like an extension of jewish theatrical diversions. If you notice much of this exposer stuff all started in the late 80’s early 90’s when George Bush was openly proclaiming the need for one world government, the Communism Show changed it’s tone and other things. Bill Cooper, ONI and de molay, suddenly emerged as well. Probably not a coincidence.
One major objective of the satanists is to spread satanism of any kind and they know that their power would have many admirers if brought to light only a little bit. The fact that they have grown so powerful through satanic means and got away with it would also inspire criminal behavior by others. Springmeier up plays the freemasons, witches and other satanic orgs and their ghastly but theatrical/lightening rod type of doings, but he only mentions the jews in passing here and there and also spreads occultism by exposing it, he never mentions Talmudism and Kabbalism much, never analyzes the gangsterism that they practice, never makes any sort of main encompassing exposition of it. I do think he does mention that Trauma Based Total Mind Control is based at the back on the Kabbalah though. He mentions judaism but does not mention what that really means, for instance mentions the Bronfman gangsters and says that they are jewish on the surface but are satanists in secret, never mentioning that judaism is a form of satanism and thus spreading misinformation that serves to validate a totally false view of judaism. I believe he does have a single chapter in Be Wise As Serpents that mentions judaism and it’s false whitewash but he never took it beyond that one chapter in a meaningful way. He was given bona fides by being jailed for robbery as well. He mentions naval and military involvement but doesn’t mention Hyman Rickover, the jewish admiral who supposedly started the “nuclear” navy, which is most likely just codeword for the totally satanic navy. His and Wheelers whole thing is that programmed multiples are victims, fair enough, but this is to inspire awe and pity towards these people who by and large follow orders their whole lives and would not give it up if they could. They love the intrigue and luxury etc they are not to be trusted or pitied imo. They are by and large animals of a kind with their masters and or relatives. A lot of them have satanic ancestry and thus are continuing the work of satanists. He is not Catholic and denigrates the Church in places, he pushes the charismatic faux Christianity of many of these “exposers” as well as the masonic version of Christianity that is Baptism, methodism, anglicanism/episcopalianism et al. Has no real knowledge of the Saints or their lives or any other real Christianity. Pushes a neo-judaism where at the end of many of his books will call for a new Moses to lead us to some heaven on earth or some such it’s all very mishmash. It’s equally as murky with most of these exposers really and serves the same purpose as movies, tv, games, newspapers, etc to entertain, recruit, keep busy, keep scared etc all at a profit. I’ve said enough for now lol
Tim, didn’t you write that Hoffman was providing quotes in his book in bad faith? Have you been able to verify his research?
Yes, at least one.
Not having read the book myself let me ask one more question:
A good historical review tries to paint as accurate of a picture as possible, even if it is a detriment to the authors thesis. Did you get the impression from reading the book that Hoffman was telling the whole truth, or was he cherry-picking?
Some things are cherry picked, for sure. But I think his point that most sedes miss the centuries prior to 1958 is important.
Quote here from 20th-century Rosicrucian Manly Palmer Hall in support of Hoffman’s thesis of papal crypsis:
“The rise of the Christian Church broke up the intellectual pattern of the classical pagan world. By persecution of this pattern’s ideologies it drove the secret societies into greater secrecy; the pagan intellectuals then reclothed their original ideas in a garment of Christian phraseology, but bestowed the keys of the symbolism only upon those duly initiated and bound to secrecy by their vows. (Chapter 7, The Democratic Tradition Preserved by Secret Societies)”
Catholicism versus Hyper-Papalism
Is Hoffman misrepresenting the Catholic Church as inherently hyper-papal?