I am world-weary today.
The words "stale and unprofitable" come to mind. I know I am supposed to
compose a column warning against acceptance of the image of the new pope, Joseph
Ratzinger, concocted in the cryptosphere. Yet I find myself filled only with
contempt for those who are fooled repeatedly and with ease. In the past
several months the planetary poltergeist has painted the turncoat Ronald
Reagan as one of the finest champions of the West in the history of our
civilization. John Paul II garnered similar encomiums. George W. Bush is not
in their league (not yet, anyway), but he too is sold to the goyim as a
staunch Christian who stands tall against the enemies of the West, blah blah
blah.
In each case one wants to scream, "Turn off the TV! Res ipsa
loquitur!" But no such luck. Ratzinger, the sidekick of John Paul II, one of
the most spectacular rabbinic servants to ever occupy the papacy, suddenly
has developed "a troubling Nazi background" and "Jewish groups are
protesting."
This is just too ridiculous. Earlier this month John
Paul was praised as the greatest friend Judaics ever had in the Vatican--and
they extended this laurel knowing that the pope's chief theological
"enforcer" and confidant had a "troubling Nazi background"?
Does
anyone know what leverage is, or how one goes about obtaining it in ever
greater degrees? Has anyone ever played poker, or sought advantage through
intimidation and deceit?
The Judaics are seeking greater leverage and
advantage by putting the new Pope on the defensive from the first day of his
papacy. In this way, Benedict XVI must concede even more to them than he did
as cardinal; in fact, given the zeitgeist, he may not have to be very
cryptic about his rabbinic role and may grovel and betray to an even more
obsequious and public degree than did his predecessor, which is to say that
the papacy and the rabbinate are becoming
indistinguishable.
Ratzinger, we are told, is a "hardliner" on
"homosexuals and abortion." Hey, kiddies, that is George W. Bush's image
too; that is also the image of Orthodox rabbis, even though the Talmud
sanctions sodomy with little boys ("under the age of nine"), and early
abortion. But as the Gipper was accustomed to say, "Image prevails over
reality."
Since Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees is at the core of
the Gospel, the first question that should be asked is, where does Pope
Benedict stand on Judaism? When one studies the documentary record a
smile comes to the lips at the chutzpah, for Ratzinger is a salivating
Judaizer who has flushed the Gospel teaching, but now, through the magic
of the media, he is transformed into a suspect Nazi! What a gorgeous
pointillist masterpiece of alchemy, on par with indicted war criminal
Ariel Sharon's transformation into an intrepid Middle East peace
activist.
How does one argue against a reality based on consensus
rather than fact? In response, one experiences a Menckenesque sense of "To
hell with 'em. Let 'em believe whatever they will." But my obligation is to
inform, on the supposition that one out of ten have eyes to see. Here
then is a peek at the file on Joseph Ratzinger:
Quote: "Jewish
messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a
powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our
faith.Like them, we too live in expectation. The difference is that for us
the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already
come and is already present and active among us."
Source: "The
Jewish People And Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,"
Pontifical Biblical Commission. (Ratzinger wrote the preface and signed off
on this). 2001, Vatican Translation.
Note: Ratzinger's commission
states that the Messiah, the "One who is to come" will not be Jesus, but
rather will have "the traits" of Jesus. If I have your traits, I am not
you.This is a denial that the Messiah who will come will actually be Jesus.
The rabbinic rejection of the true Messiah and their wait for a false one
becomes for Christians "a powerful stimulant to keep alive...our faith."
These are weasel words; Orwellian doublespeak uttered to curry favor with
powerful modern Pharisees.
Quote: "After Auschwitz the mission of
reconciliation and acceptance permits no deferral. Even if we know that
Auschwitz is the gruesome expression of an ideology that not only wanted to
destroy Judaism but also hated and sought to eradicate from Christianity its
Jewish heritage, the question remains: What could be the reason for so much
historical hostility between those who actually must belong together
because of their faith in the one God and commitment to his will?"
Source: "Many Religions--One Covenant: Israel, the Church and the
World," by Joseph Ratzinger (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1999, p.
22).
Note: Judaism is the religion of the Pharisees who killed Jesus
Christ (I Thess. 2:14-16). It is not the religion of the Old Testament. To
the Torah-true principles of Jesus Christ, the Pharisees countered with the
Talmud-True lies of men. Christianity's "heritage" is in the Old
Testament, which Judaism nullifies. To conflate the evil of a
concentration camp with the good of overcoming Judaism, is a diabolical
deception.
Quote: "Thus the question remains: Can Christian faith,
retaining its inner power and dignity, not only tolerate Judaism but accept
it in its historic mission?"
Source: Ibid., p. 24.
Note: The
historic mission of Judaism is to destroy Christians and the Christian faith
(cf. for example, Moses Maimonides, "Letter to Yemen"). As Adam Clarke
observed concerning the New Testament account: "Thessalonica is the place
where Judaic opposition finally revealed how obdurate, unscrupulous and
obtrusive it could be. There was no reason whatever behind that wandering
committee of self-appointed opponents going into every town where Paul
preached and stirring up hatred and persecution against the Church. Having
failed in their persecutions both in Judea and upon the mission field, at
Thessalonica they enlisted the Gentiles, their magistrates and leaders, and
turned them against Paul and the Gospel."
What in Judaism has changed
since the first century A.D.? Is it now less obdurate and unscrupulous? If
Christians are to "tolerate Judaism" and "accept...its mission" why did
Christ bother to incarnate on earth and preach to the leaders of the Jews,
condemning them for betraying Israel's divine mission? (Matthew 23:15). How
dare Ratzinger preach any other gospel? (Galatians 1:8).
In the
parable of the treacherous tenants (Matthew 21:33-46), the response of the
landowner to the murder of his servants and son is to put these evil ones to
a miserable death and to lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give
him the produce at harvest time. The leaders of the Jews were the
treacherous tenants who murdered God's son and the servants of God. The nation
of Israel ("vineyard") was taken from them and given to the gentiles ("other
tenants") with the expectation that the Christian gentiles would convert the
world ( "produce a harvest"). What harvest is Ratzinger producing when he
urges toleration and acceptance of the treacherous tenants? Missionary zeal
for the souls of contemporary, self-described "Jews" has been canceled by
Ratzinger, along with Christ's ideological and spiritual contest with
Judaism, which has been ruled obsolete, "after Auschwitz."
Apparently, "after Calvary" is insufficient to any longer motivate the
Church Militant, which is called to be militant mainly with regard to
Islam. In a front page article in yesterday's edition of the Wall Street
Journal, the Zionist paper suggests the need for a new Catholic crusade
against Muslims. In celebrating the defeat of Muslims in Spain, the
Journal omitted all mention of the fact that in 1492, "when Christian
armies drove the last Muslim rulers out of ...Granada" they also drove
out all those who practiced Judaism. But the 21st century "Crusade" is
kashrut (kosher), "Judeo-Christian" and intended to have a selective
target. Crusading itself is wrong with regard to Judaism and right with
regard to Islam. The double-mind that can embrace that tortured
construct has nothing in common with He who said, "I would you were hot
or cold" (Revelation 3:16).
If John Paul II betrayed Christ to the rabbis by forbidding
opposition to Judaism--such a betrayal being the function of Judas--then
Ratzinger, architect of the thinking behind the scenes, stands in the role
of the Sanhedrin who sent Judas.We seem to have gone from Pope Judas to Pope
Caiaphas, or in more homely American terms, Pope Benedict
Arnold.
