My Novus Ordo sister-in-law said, "you have to read Orthodoxy" so I did.  His style wandered for pages at a time and in fact continued to wander the entire book.  So I gave him another try with The Dumb Ox (about St. Thomas Aquinas) and found it to be the same.  Then I figured I had to be 'missing something', as people really seem to love ol' Chesty, and I joined the Chesterton Society for a bit.  Let's just say those were my last efforts with Chesterton.

What is interesting is that he published Orthodoxy in 1908, a year after St. Pius X put out Pascendi, and in it he blasts R.J. Campbell for his book The New Theology (also written in 1907 like Pascendi).  The bogus new theology, the train wreck of our times, was very much active to anyone paying attention.  Sadly, after that my sister-in-law said, "you have to read John Paul the Great by Peggy Noonan", so I did.  Noonan describes JPII exactly for what he was - the embodiment of everything Pius X condemned in Pascendi.  Now Noonan and my sister-in-law just need to read Pascendi, then reread Chesterton, and they might actually start seeing the light.

I have read all these authors. Have most of their works in my private library and count one of them as an old and dear friend.

I could be wrong, but I can guess which one is your friend.

I could be wrong, but I can guess which one is your friend.

And who amongst these authors would you guess?

While I have Carrol's 'A History of Christendom' series, I have not yet even cracked the first book.  

But I have read Carrol's 'The Guillotine and the Cross' about the French Revolution, and I would definitely recommend it.

As for the others... I've tried reading both Chesterton and Belloc, but I couldn't really get into them.  I don't recall the books, but I only read a couple of chapters by either author and then lost further interest.

And while I have several books by Charles Coulombe, the only one I've read thus far is "Puritan's Empire."  I thought that was a great read.  

Knowing you personally ... I know the correct answer, but that would be cheating.

Yes, you are excluded from this because you know me personally. :-)

This is a good thread on Coulombe, in which Incredulous and Mark79 made an appearance and expressed misgivings:

https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/charles-coulombe-41743/

Interesting, to me at least, is Canterella's praise for Coulombe. When I was a member of ABLF 1.0 I was half-surprised when Cantarella was one of the members who attacked me for starting a thread about female hair length and sex-segregated forums. I got banned for these two threads. I remember Mithrandylan saying that he and TMW89 started a male-only forum shortly after this incident, but that it wasn't very successful because there were no women. I wonder if that forum is still going.

Kephapaulos seems very proud to have such a friend. What does Kephapaulos think of this thread? I notice that Kephapaulos's friend quotes Davila. Davila never really went after jws, did he? He preferred generalizations.

Here's the full text of the piece I linked (better to just go this link: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1458990/replies?c=345):

Free Republic  Browse · Search

Religion  Topics · Post Article

---

To: murphE
Tom Droelesky on Coulombe, the impeccable defender of Feeney uber alles. (These guys are flat out nuts yet we are supposed to hear them re the explication of Doctrine. Yikes)
Saint Augustine and his "interest" in Poltergeists

Mr. Coulombe cited Saint Augustine as an individual who had an interest in the dark forces that are the subject of his own book on haunted and spooky public places. Thanks to the efforts of an individual who has done some research on this matter, I can now ask Mr. Coulombe very publicly to provide his docuмentation of this claim, which I viewed at first with utter astonishment. Although I can by no means call myself an Augustinian scholar, I am not unfamilar with the corpus of Saint Augustine's writings. Mr. Coulombe's claims were met by me with incredulity. As it turns out, others shared that incredulity, which is what prompted one person to provide me with the following:

"I looked in Ghosts and Poltergeists by Father Thurston, and sure enough Father Thurston references De Civitate Dei, Book 22, Chapter 8 for St. Augustine's 'poltergeist' account. To the contrary, it is a famous chapter showing that in St. Augustine's day miracles abounded, proving Christ and the Church to be authentic. He cites healings, cures, and more--including some deliverance from demons. There is no trace of 'fascination' with 'haunted houses' or 'spooky places' there at all, let alone poltergeists of course. St. Augustine simply shows the power of Christ in calm language."

Mr. Coulombe needs to provide more than a gratuitous claim that great saints have shared his own unusual interests. He must provide chapter and verse docuмentation that Saint Augustine, for example, wrote about spooks and haunted places in the manner he suggests in his answers to my questions. The evidence thus far unearthed suggests that Mr. Coulombe has thrown around at least one name, that of Saint Augustine, as a means to provide his own interest in ghosts and haunted places with a mantle of Catholic respectability going back to the Fathers themselves. Whether this is so with the other saints he lists remains to be seen.

It has also come to my attention that a Mr. Craig Heimbichner, whose work is cited in footnote 1-A below, exposed several years ago what he asserts was Mr. Coulombe's false use of a work attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas which scholars have shown to be spurious. "It is a well-known fact," he wrote, "that occultists have falsely attributed some works to St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas." If this assertion by Mr. Heimbicher is indeed true, then Mr. Coulombe's use of the names of other saints also must be questioned and researched very carefully.

Saint Albert the Great and Saint Thomas: Friendly to Occultists?

More evidence on this exact matter emerged on March 15, 2004. A bit of time needs to be spent on this in order to demonstrate that the evidence seems to indicate on its face that Mr. Coulombe has used spurious sources to make some of the assertions he did about Saints Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas in his Summer 1990 article in Gnosis Magazine, "The Esoteric Orthodoxy of Catholicism."

In attempting to find a "harmony" between occultism and Catholicism, Mr. Coulombe tried to claim that St. Albertus Magnus (St. Albert the Great) was an “alchemist,” failing to note that this typical claim of occultists rests chiefly on a book, The Book of the Secrets of Albertus Magnus, falsely attributed to the great teacher of Saint Thomas Aquinas. While this book still sells in Satanic circles, I am informed, no serious scholar believes that the Saint had anything to do with it. [Source: "The sorcerers’] bedside books are The Secrets of Albertus Magnus, The Secrets of Albertus Minor and The Red Dragon…. It was another of the Devil’s unscrupulous wiles to use the reputation of a venerable saint as cover for his diabolic formulae.” Leon Cristiani, Satan in the Modern World, 180-81.] Further docuмentation on the falsity of these claims made by occultists about St. Albert the Great can be found in an article by Edward O'Brien, "The New Age and Albertus Magnus," Homiletic and Pastoral Review, July 2000, pp. 49-53.

Mr. Coulombe, however, not only apparently takes the word of occultists in this matter, but goes so far as to claim that St. Thomas Aquinas was an alchemist as well. He states that “the alchemical text De Aurora Consurgens” is “reliably attributed” to St. Thomas, but stops short of saying that St. Thomas actually wrote the work—and for good reason. Given the many forged works attributed to the Saint, and the context of his other writings, it is highly probable that someone else wrote this alchemical treatise.

[Source: See www.home.duq.edu/~bonin/thomasbibliography.html#spurious for the false attribution of the work cited by Mr. Coulombe to St. Thomas Aquinas].

In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas writes: 'The magic art is both unlawful and futile. It is unlawful, because the means it employs for acquiring knowledge have not in themselves the power to cause science, consisting as they do in gazing on certain shapes, and muttering certain strange words, and so forth. Wherefore this art does not make use of these things as causes, but as signs; not however as signs instituted by God, as are the sacramental signs. It follows, therefore, that they are empty signs, and consequently a kind of agreement or covenant made with the demons for the purpose of consultation and of compact by tokens. (Augustine, De Doct. Christ. ii 20) Wherefore the magic art is to be absolutely repudiated and avoided by a Christian, even as other arts of vain and noxious superstition…. (II-II, Q. 96 Art. 1).'

As one observer noted to me about this passage: "The mind of St. Thomas on the occult is clear in this passage, and Mr. Coulombe’s strange silence on such a matter, coupled with his attribution of a categorized forgery to the Angelic Doctor, is quite curious." Indeed. It is very curious. There is, of course, no middle ground between magic and the Faith. Christ the King College faculty member John Kamprath, who holds a Master's degree in theology and was for two years the Headmaster of the Kolbe Academy in Napa, California, has provided a reflection on the Church's consistent condemnation of magic, which is printed in footnote 5 below.

Writing for Gnosis and Fate

Mr. Coulombe’s justification of his former relationship with Fate Magazine is a little disturbing. Again, giving credence to something called Fate Magazine is, in my estimation, not worth the money earned by contributing articles to it. Such a magazine is an exercise in spiritual pornography. Could a Catholic contribute legitimately to Playboy or Penthouse in order to make a living and to evangelize the readers of such pornographic fare? I was in the middle of promoting a book about baseball, which contained overt apostolic references (which is why the New York Mets organization never associated itself with it), when I decided to walk out of Shea Stadium for good on July 16, 2002, to protest the demonic advertising of a certain pill manufactured by Pfizer, thus costing me a radio interview on a pre-game program that could have advanced book sales mightily. I just could not participate any longer in the subsidizing of that which demeaned the dignity of marital relations and undermined the innocence and purity of the young. It really does matter where and for whom we write. God will provide for our temporal needs. This is no mere aphorism. It is written by a family man who lacks regular income and any health insurance at all.

The Gnostic "Bishop," Stephan Hoeller

Mr. Coulombe explains his connections with the now defunct Gnosis Magazine and to the gnostic “bishop” of Los Angeles, Stephan Hoeller. He asked me if I had read his 1990 Gnosis Magazine article, “The Esoteric Orthodoxy of Catholicism.” I have read it in its entirety, although I did not have the time to access his other works in Gnosis Magazine, which he claims were written as a means of evangelizing its readers. The fact that he is aware of one person converting to the Faith is a cause for great rejoicing. But just as there surely are cases of souls converting to the Faith as a result of Papal Masses replete with all manner of profanation and scandal, many more souls may have been reaffirmed in their errors as a result of the whole ambiance of such spectacles. Similarly, giving credence to a magazine named after a fundamental Christian heresy of the First Century A.D. is replete with its own dangers, not the least of which is giving scandal to fellow Catholics. It is thus not unreasonable that a number of responsible, sober traditional Catholics found Mr. Coulombe’s association with Gnosis Magazine to be ill-considered despite his commendable desire to teach the Faith and to bring souls into the true Church. Additionally, no matter how Mr. Coulombe used the word “magical” to refer to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, all people must be taught that the Mass is the mysterium fidei. It is not at all unreasonable to register a strong protest at the use of the word “magic” to refer to the unbloody re-presentation of the Son’s offering of Himself to the Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross. Gnositicism can in no way be reconciled to Catholicism. Mr. Coulombe is quite mistaken if he contends that anyone practicing gnosticism can be a "Catholiciser" or is as close to the Catholic Faith as might be an Anglo-Catholic. Gnosticism has nothing to do with Catholicism. Period.

Insofar as his relationship to Stephan Hoeller, the gnostic “bishop” of Los Angeles, Mr. Coulombe asked me if I had any non-Catholic friends. If so, he asked, how do I evangelize them. I need to spend more time on this than can be done without distracting the reader from the main focus of this article, which is to point out the dangers of the occult. A forthcoming article on this site will deal with the matter of dealing with non-Catholic friends and relatives.

... A man in the single state, such as Mr. Coulombe, has a different set of obligations than a married man with children. I am no judge of Mr. Coulombe’s friendship with Stephan Hoeller, who we pray does indeed convert to the true Faith before he dies. I am sure that Mr. Coulombe recognizes that those involved directly in the occult, however, pose a particular danger, which should not be minimized or ignored. The advice that is given by most priests in these instances is to avoid all contact with those who could lead us into sin and who might be in league directly with the demons, which is why having a solid spiritual director who is firmly grounded in the truths of the Faith is so important to guide us in such situations. If contact is to be cut off with someone who a spiritual director judges to be demonically dangerous, then it must be remembered that prayer is the quintessential tool of evangelization and conversion. We must be ready to detach ourselves from the closest of relationships if a solid spiritual director assesses the real possibility of demonic activity. Not even exorcists themselves look forward to coming into contact with the demonic.

Stephan Hoeller and the Ecclesia Gnostica Alba-USA

Mr. Coulombe asked me for evidence of my claim that his friend, Stephan Hoeller, had a "concordat" between his own gnostic "church" and a satanic "church." The evidence was provided to me on March 13, 2004, and is to be found on a website entitled "Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica Stranded Bishops," edited by Peter-R. Koenig. The evidence--and an explanation of it--will be found in a footnote at the conclusion of this article. By means of summary, however, the evidence states that Mr. Hoeller entered into "concordat" with the Ecclesia Gnostica Alba-USA (EGA-USA), which has links to the Ordo Templi Orientis, which was founded by the notorious satanist Aleister Crowley. Alas, gnosticism of its very nature is satanic, in that it claims to possess the key to discovering "secret knowledge" (gnosis) granted only to the elect. This is the same lie that Satan tempted Eve with in the Garden of Eden, that she and her husband Adam would have the same knowledge as God Himself if they ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Two Raymond Lullys?

Others who have an extensive knowledge of Ultrarealism and Neoplatonism have now reviewed Mr. Coulombe’s 1992 Tolkien Conference address, which included references to Hermeticism. Footnote 4, below, deals with Mr. Coulombe's statements concering the Golden Dawn and an A. E. White, referenced initially in the next section of this article. The information speaks for itself.

Also, the whole matter of Lullism has been explored rather extensively by several researchers. Mr. Coulombe bases a good deal of his approach on what he asserts is the philosophy and the interests of Blessed Raymond Lully. To be sure, Blessed Raymond Lully was certainly a martyr for the Faith and a champion of Catholic manhood and chivalry. There are aspects of his philosophy,though, that have troubled the Church for some time, generally on the grounds of what was deemed to be excessive rationalism. As is described briefly about him in a Catholic encyclopedia:

“[Blessed Raymond] Wrote over 300 works in Latin, Arabic and Catalan on theology, logic, philosophy; wrote fiction and poetry. Known as a alchemist, but had no training in occult arts, and invented his own Christian-based concepts to try to explain the alchemical mysteries. Reputed to have solved the "lead-into-gold" mystery; legend says he worked on it to finance missionary work. Had a small but devoted band of followers known as Lullists who continued their work after his death, though some of them drifted away from the Church in search of alchemical knowledge. His work in this area has been the source of controversy for centuries, and non-Christian occult groups have seen him as a ‘master’ or whatever term they use.”

Another source wrote that Blessed Raymond’s beatification, which took place in the Eighteenth Century, had been held up for centuries because of the activities of some of those who misappropriated his name to dabble in the occult. Obviously, as Mr. Coulombe points out quite rightly, the eminent missionary Blessed Junipero Serra taught Lullist philosophy in Spain before undertaking his work of evangelizing the people of Mexico and California. One has to make a distinction, therefore, between the aspects of Lullism that are authentically Catholic and those that have been misappropriated by occultists. Perhaps Mr. Coulombe’s article on Blessed Raymond Lully, which was published in Gnosis Magazine, might be instructive at some point to place into print anew so as to explore both the legitimate and occult uses of the term Lullism.

Even in this area, however, it appears as though the truth is hard to discern. Information was received on March 13, 2004, revealing that a book, The Lives and Times of the Popes, written by the Chevalier Artaud De Montor and published by The Catholic Publication Society of New York in ten volumes in 1911, discusses the existence of two Raymond Lullys, one a martyr for the Faith, the other a heretic. More research needs to be done to see if Mr. Coulombe's writings have taken into account the possibility that the Raymond Lully who is a hero to the occultists is not the one and the same beatified Crusader and martyr. Perhaps additional research since 1911 has clarified the matter. The entire reference from this book is included in a footnote following the docuмentation of Stephan Hoeller's ties to the Ecclesia Gnostica Alba-USA.

Whether or not Mr. Coulombe has dealt with the existence of two Raymond Lullys and the confusion generated thereby, others have done so. A. E. Waite, the Freemason and occultist (who has been used by none other than Mr. Coulombe to champion the cause of "Christian Hermeticism"), stated that there were definitely two Raymond Lullys, separated by a couple of centuries--the former the martyr and creator of a philosophy in an attempt to convert Muslims, and the second was an alchemist and exponent of the occult Jєωιѕн Kabbalah. According to Waite, the confusion between the two is the fraudulent work of Eliphas Levi, the notorious occultist, apostate, and general diabolist. Waite exposed Levi and showed that the two Lullys were separate men. Again, it will be quite useful to discover if Mr. Coulombe has been the victim of this confusion or has written anything to acknowledge the controversy. It appears that some of Mr. Coulombe's answers to my own questions have raised many complex questions about historical accuracy and interpretation. (Footnote 3 below contains the full text of the material from Waite, a Freemason and a gnostic who has been praised in a article written by Mr. Coulombe for his "Catholic" tendencies. Footnote 4, as noted above, provides evidence about Waite's background and Mr. Coulombe's praise of him.)

Michael Hoffman II and Charles Coulombe

Sadly, there is yet more evidence that has been amassed. This evidence, found in a response to Mr. Coulombe's answers circulated by Michael Hoffman II, comes from a primary source, Johannes Reuchlin's De Arte Cabalistica. Although the evidence will be presented below, Mr. Hoffman makes it clear from his primary source that, Pico della Mirandola and Johannes Reuchlin, who were cited favorably by Mr. Coulombe in one of his answers to me as individuals desiring to find a bridge between aspects of the occult and religious faith, were not merely "students" of the Kabbalah, as Mr. Coulombe claims, but occult propagandists for Judaism who were attempting to "baptize" the Satanic Kabbalah within Catholicism. This suggests that, as does the the incorrect attribution by Mr. Coulombe of "interest" in the occult to Saint Augustine and the careless, at best, mis-attribution of the authorship of occulist books to Sts. Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, that there are a lot of gratuitous assertions in Mr. Coulombe's answers that need to be understood as such.

As Mr. Coulombe used one of his answers to claim that Mr. Hoffman had begun criticizing him years ago because of his criticism of the American Founding--and had charged that Mr. Hoffman had continued this criticism continously over the years, simple justice requires that part of his own response to Mr. Coulombe be printed below. Mr. Coulombe has engaged in an effort to dismiss Mr. Hoffman's criticism of him as being rooted in a personal vendetta. This is similar to the tactics used by Bill and Hillary Clinton and their supporters: change the focus of the conversation from the factual foundation of criticism leveled against them to the motivations they projected into the minds and hearts of their critics. It is a cheap and tawdry trick designed to keep public debate at a base level of emotion and sentimentality.

[Mr. Hoffman, dissatisfied with the fact that I had published only part of his response to Mr. Coulombe, has insisted that his entire response be posted in this article. I do so with reluctance as I do not want to further inflame a situation that has aroused the anger of so many people who do not want to look objectively and dispassionately at the truth or falsity of the evidence presented herein. Prior to Mr. Hoffman's e-mail to me on March 17, 2004, I had had no direct contact with him, other than receiving his response to Mr. Coulombe's answers to my original set of questions. I edited his response in order to keep the focus on the truth or falsity of various claims made by Mr. Coulombe. As you will see momentarily, the unexpurgated text contains characterizations of Mr. Coulombe's work that are not sugar-coated, to say the least. I find Mr. Hoffman's characterizations harsh and counter-productive. I am not ready, for instance, to call Mr. Coulombe a "disciple of Renaissance satanists." As he does have the right to defend himself against Mr. Coulombe's claims about his own involvement in this matter--and as he does provide solid historical evidence concerning the work of Pico della Mirandola and Johannes Reuchlin, I am hereby publishing Mr. Hoffman's complete response.]

"Michael A. Hoffman II Replies to Charles Coulombe, March 15, 2004

"Hoffman's Preface: I published an expose in the 1990s of Charles Coulombe's writings and I have not chosen to revisit the subject in print until now, for reasons stated below. I pen the following rejoinder in the expectation that I will not have to do so again in the future. Outside of traditional Catholic and Wiccan circles, Mr. Coulombe is a non-entity. Surely there are competent Catholic researchers who can follow up on Coulombe's adulatory references to Hermeticism, magic, Pico and Reuchlin, trace them to their Satanic radix and unmask Coulombe and his preposterous pose as an orthodox follower of Jesus Christ.

"I begin with a response which Mr. Coulombe gave to a question asked at this webpage: http://www.christorchaos.com/CoulombeQuestions.html, in an article entitled, 'A Question and Answer Session Between Thomas A. Droleskey and Charles Coulombe, March 11, 2004.'

"I encourage all interested parties to read the material posted on that page in its entirety. I have excerpted for purposes of rejoinder, three paragraphs from that exchange, as follows:

Charles Coulombe: "Of course, Gnosis began to be attacked for Catholic proselytising. In 1993, one Michael Hoffman II, enraged by supposed 'unpatriotic sentiments' in an article I wrote for the Angelus, went on a campaign to 'reveal' my past as a writer of 'occult aricles for Satanic magazines' or whatever, which has continued until to-day. This has been most annoying. But since I know of at least one conversion due to my 'Gnosis' writings, I consider the annoyance worth it."

"Hoffman Replies: Charles Coulombe reminds me of Lillian Hellman, about whom Mary McCarthy famously stated, "Everything she says is a lie including 'and' and 'the."

"Mr. Coulombe pretends that I had an ulterior motive in exposing his outrageous appeal for "baptizing Hermeticism" which he made in the pages of "Gnosis" magazine. In point of fact, Rev. Fr. Christopher Hunter of the SSPX, (acting in a private and not an official capacity), asked this writer to critique an article Mr. Coulombe had written in The Angelus on American conservatism, which was riddled with errors.

"It was only after I wrote that critique, that other writings by Coulombe came to my attention. Mr. Coulombe has always insisted on some kind of omniscience in this regard, attempting to win sympathy among Catholics critical of the Founding Fathers by retailing the lie that I exposed his occult involvement mainly because of his stand on America and patrotism, the supposition being that his occultism alone would not have piqued my interest or outrage. This is the sort of boldfaced lie that an unscrupulous occultist would circulate. Mr. Coulombe has no evidence for his lie, he simply parrots it for cheap advantage.

"Coulombe says that my 'campaign' concerning his writings has continued to this day, which is another lie. I have not published anything with regard to him in several years. His writings, speeches and pose as a traditional Catholic are tedious and transparent and do not engage me at any level. March 15, 2004 is the first time I have written anything for publication concerning Mr. Coulombe in many years, and I do so now only because he has chosen to drag my name into the long overdue investigation of his subversion and infiltration.

"I will furnish but one brief example of what an outrageous deceiver this fellow is, and the extent to which his deceit depends on the credulity and ignorance of his audience.

"Dr. Tom Droleskey asked Coulombe, 'Why would it be unfair to conclude from the evidence provided in your writings that you are attempting to engage in a syncretist effort to find a bridge between the aforementioned philosophies and occult practices and the Catholic Faith?'

"Coulombe responded: 'Because it would imply that the Jesuits were trying to merge Confucianism or Hinduism and the Faith with the Chinese and Malabar Rites (which canard was condemned by Pius XII); that the use of pre-Christian religious customs in Catholic liturgy or para-liturgical customs is a sign of Catholic-Pagan syncretism, as some Protestants allege; or that the study of the Kabbalah by Bl. Raymond Lully, Pico della Mirandola, or Reuchlin was an attenpt to do the same with Judaism; or that your use of the Christmas Tree is really Thor worship. If you want to evangelise people, you must use words, ideas, and actions that they will understand. To the uninformed, this may well appear like syncretism --- and indeed, mistakes in this realm are sometimes made, as history tells us. But mistakes from an excess of zeal are far better than a cold-hearted smugness, which does not think the souls of the heathen worth either the risk of failure or, worse still, the mere effort.' (End quote)

"I must be one of the 'uninformed' because I happen to know that Pico della Mirandola and (Johannes) Reuchlin were not merely 'students' of the Kabbalah as Coulombe claims, but occult propagandists for Judaism who were attempting to "baptize" the Satanic Kabbalah within Catholicism.

"The fact that even at this late date Mr. Coulombe is still peddling an apologia for the putrid agents of Kabbalistic Judaism is further evidence of the extent of his corruption. I own a facsimile edition of the original printing of Reuchlin's De Arte Cabalistica which is replete with praise for the Kabbalah. In Book One, Reuchlin rhapsodizes that the knowledge contained in the Kabbalah 'is nobler than logic or reason itself. Reuchlin also repeatedly quotes the тαℓмυd approvingly in support of the Kabbalah.

"Both Pico della Mirandola and Reuchlin put forth the blasphemous proposition that the Kabbalah is the repository of the oldest and most sacred truths of Christianity. Pico's famed "theses" included the declaration that the Kabbalah (and magic) constitute the best proof of the veracity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! These are Coulombe's exemplars of the Catholic missionary spirit.

"The purpose of this disgusting propaganda on the part of Reuchlin and Pico was to generate awe and veneration for the rabbis. They succeeded in this endeavor and the western secret societies, from Rosicrucianism to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, arose from this induced respect for the Kabbalah and its 'learned' rabbinic proponents, who in turn were then able to transmit to the awed elite of Christendom, the secrets of the Egyptian and Babylonian sorcery and superstition that form the basis of both the Kabbalah and the тαℓмυd.

"Mr. Coulombe can perpetrate his fraud on only one of two grounds: 1. He himself is abysmally ignorant of the provenance of the western secret societies and therefore is in no position to write or lecture on these topics to anyone; or 2. he has such a low opinion of the intelligence of his interlocutors that he brazenly defends the Kabbalistic fifth-columnists in the expectation that traditional Catholics are so completely ignorant of the history of the era that they will fail to discover the imposture."

"How much more really needs to be said? Coulombe has been pimping for Reuchlin and Pico in print since the early 1990s and he does so even now, in the course of answering questions from traditional Catholics concerning the extent of his heteordoxy.

"Mr. Coulombe is a loyal disciple of the Renaissance Satanists who launched the first large-scale intellectual subversion of the Catholic Church. That he continues to maintain a facade of traditional Catholicism while daring to uphold wicked Judaizers like Reuchlin and Pico as worthy examples of Catholic 'evangelists,' whose only error was 'an excess of zeal' is so brazen it smacks of chutzpagh.

"Coulombe seems to be having a Hell-Fire Club jest at the expense of the cowans. How does this fellow retain even a shred of credibility in traditional Catholic circles? Sincerely, Michael A. Hoffman II"

This is strong stuff. Focusing here only on the matter of Johannes Reuchlin, we must remember that the principle of non-contradiction teaches us, however, that two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be simulataneously true. Mr. Hoffman is either correct in his presentation of what is found in Johannes Reuchlin's De Arte Cabalistica or not. And if he is correct, then Mr. Coulombe is wrong. Mr. Hoffman's own personal beliefs, such as historical revisionism, a perspective with which I do not agree at all, and his personal associations are irrelevant to a dispassionate assessment of his factual accuracy in this matter. Despite the efforts of the Clinton defense team to disparage him--and despite his own indecisiveness, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr either had the facts about Bill Clinton's perjury in the deposition he gave in the Paula Jones lawsuit in January of 1998 or he did not. All of the disparagement leveled against him and other Clinton critics had no bearing on the truth or the falsity of the charge of perjury against Clinton.

It is thus important for traditional Catholics to look at evidence as objectively as possible. For example, even though I do not agree with Mr. Hoffman's historical revisionism, I have looked at the statements he has presented in his response to Mr. Coulombe only on the basis of whether those statements are accurate, as I have been assured by those who have studied these matters that they are. Similarly, even though I agree very much with Mr. Coulombe about the false foundations of the American Founding, I cannot let my agreement with him on this important matter stand in the way of assessing his words and statements solely on the basis of their truth or falsity. My good friend Dr. Thomas Woods, Jr., is a brilliant scholar with whom I occasionally have disagreements, especially in areas such as the founding and Americanism. This does not deter me in the least from appreciating his great contribution in other areas. Traditional Catholics must be careful not to ape the tactics of the Clintonites by striking out at imaginary motives and cօռspιʀαcιҽs against their friends and associates when others are simply attempting--upon the peril of the loss of their own immortal souls--to assess statements on the basis of their factual accuracy.

A Lifelong Interest in the Occult

Despite all of his protestations to the contrary in his answers to my questions, Mr. Charles Coulombe really has had a lifelong interest in the occult. Consider the following "Talk of the Town: Postcard from L.A." column written by John Whalen in The New Yorker on September 6, 1999:

?“A Hollywood psychic's inaccuracy fails to dent his popularity. A little over a week ago, the chances of the world's coming to an end were hovering somewhere in the neighborhood of eighty-seven percent--that is, according to Criswell, the late Hollywood prophet who claimed his predictive accuracy to be within that lofty percentile. ‘The world as we know it will cease to exist...on August 18, 1999, he forecast in his 1968 book "Criswell Predicts from Now to the Year 2000.’ He went on, ‘And if you and I meet each other on the street that fateful day...we will open our mouths to speak and no words will come out, for we have no future--you and I will suddenly run out of time!’

“Though Criswell departed the world as we know it in 1982, his friends and admirers hadn't yet been stricken mute by the evening of August 18th. On that Wednesday night, an assortment of them congregated at the congenially moldering Boardners, an old-time Hollywood watering hole and former Criswell haunt.

“They came to toast the Criswellian apocalypse, and to raise a Martini glass to one of Hollywood's first celebrity psychics. During the nineteen-fifties, the flamboyant Criswell hosted a live program on Los Angeles television and wrote a nationally syndicated column (both titled ‘Criswell Predicts’) in which he dispensed outrageous predictions while radiating low-wattage Tinseltown glimmer. His column and his appearances on The Tonight Show briefly made him something of a national character. It was Criswell who blazed a trail for all subsequent mass-media prophets, seers, and astrologers, from Jeane Dixon to Linda Goodman and Dionne Warwick's Psychic Friends.platinum-blond pompadour who introduced several of Ed Wood's famously underproduced films, including ‘Plan 9 from Outer Space.’ Thanks to the enduring cult status of ‘Plan 9,’ and to Tim Burton's 1994 Ed Wood biopic, Criswell has been enjoying a kind of show-business comeback from beyond the grave. His record album of prophecies ("’he Legendary Criswell Predicts! Your Incredible Future’) has been reissued on CD. And Criswell memorabilia-including autographed photos and signed copies of his books-sustain energetic bidding on Internet auction sites.

“Of course, Criswell's claimed eighty-seven per cent accuracy level has taken a savage beating over the years. For example, the tragedy he forecast for England (‘Meteor Destroys London: 1988') failed to materialize. Likewise his political forecasts: "I predict the assassination of Fidel Castro by a woman, on August 9, 1970"; ‘I predict the District of Columbia within the next fifteen years will cease to exist as the capital of the United States. The seat of government will be moved to Wichita, Kansas, in the caverns beneath the city’; ‘There will be no welfare in the future, and I predict the death penalty for all freeloaders.’ He also predicted that the first Americans on the moon would be pregnant women, and that by 1981 Americans would be able to receive heart, kidney, and brain transplants via vending machines.

“Among those in attendance at the Boardners fete were several of Criswell's former tenants (in addition to being a brinksmanlike prognosticator, Cris was also a Hollywood landlord). Charles Coulombe, who was just a boy when his family moved into one of the showman's apartment buildings, remembered that ‘Mr. Criswell,’ as he still called him, claimed to have lost his psychic gift after he came to Hollywood. ‘He told my father that he had had the ability to tell the future when he was young, but that when he started taking money for it he lost it,’ Coulombe said. As the clock neared midnight, Coulombe, dressed in tails for the occasion, donned a white wig and commemorated the planet's final moments by channelling Criswell. Reading aloud the psychic's vision of doomsday, Coulombe intoned, ‘Future generations from some other planet will dig down through seven layers of rubble and find us some two thousand years hence. They will wonder what on earth was meant by the words “Henry Ford” or “Hollywood,” and what in heaven's name was a "Criswell"?’ Alas, when the last revellers left, at 2 A.M., Boardners was still standing, thus dealing the Criswell legacy yet another harsh statistical blow. But on a much more important level, Hollywood's greatest seer had vindicated himself: he had posthumously conjured an enthusiastic party in his honor. The significance of August 18th? It's Criswell's birthday.”

Although it may very well be the case that Mr. Coulombe desires to effect the conversion of his occultist friends, it is simply wrong to associate with them in functions such as the one described the above. The occult is not "fun." It is a fundamental and satanic violation of the First Commandment. There is an old aphorism that is quite apposite here: "Show me who your friends are and I'll show you who you are." Mr. Coulombe seems to have forgotten the possibility that keeping company such as this at events that honor a man who was violating the First Commandment by attempting to predict, albeit incompetently, the future lends credence to the beliefs of those who are in attendance. It is not Puritanical to avoid such events: it is Catholic.

Some of Mr. Coulombe's defenders have said that it is indeed Puritanical to insist that it is wrong not to read books about the witchcraft or the occult. Would the Cure of Ars, St. John-Marie Vianney, say it would not be a sin to read a book about witchcraft or the occult, no less associate regularly with occulists, witches, gnostics and other New Agers? Would Saint Padre Pio have said so? Would Saint Therese of Lisieux have said so. If you cannot answer "yes" to each of those questions, then how is it Puritanical to practice the Catholic Faith by showing not interest in anything to do with the occult and its evil practices? Our Lady told the seers at Fatima that a little friend of theirs who had died would suffer the fires of Purgatory until the end of time because she read bad books. Bad books, folks, in rural Portugal in the second decade of the Twentieth Century. Does any serious, practicing Catholic want to contend that books about witchcraft and the occult and its practices are not bad and thus should not be read?

Pope Pius XI warned about this precise point in his great encyclical letter on the Christian Education of Youth, Divini Illius Magistri, issued on December 31, 1929:

"More than ever nowadays an extended and careful vigilance is necessary, inasmuch as the dangers of moral and religious shipwreck are greater for inexperienced youth. Especially is this true of impious and immoral books, often diabolically circulated at low prices; of the cinema, which multiplies every kind of exhibition; and now also of the radio, which facilitates every kind of communications. These most powerful means of publicity, which can be of great utility for instruction and education when directed by sound principles, are only too often used as an incentive to evil passions and greed for gain. St. Augustine deplored the passion for the shows of the circus which possessed even some Christians of his time, and he dramatically narrates the infatuation for them, fortunately only temporary, of his disciple and friend Alipius. How often today must parents and educators bewail the corruption of youth brought about by the modern theater and the vile book!" (Paragraph 90)

What applies to youth applies to us all. Pope Pius XI also issued an encyclical letter in 1936, Vigilante Cura, warning about the indecency and suggestiveness in motion pictures at that early date. Our eyes are the eyes of Christ. They are the windows to our souls, which is why we must make sure that nothing that could tempt us away from the Faith is permitted to pass the portals of our eyes and ears. Puritanism. No, try Catholicism. Try the "little way" of the Little Flower herself. The occut is evil. There is no area of compatibility between it and the true Faith. Unlike pre-Christian religions, the occult is a specific and categorical rejection of the Faith and mocks it perversely and satanically, seeking to render under mere humans godlike powers.

Conclusion

In renouncing Satan and all of his empty works and pomps in our baptism we pledged ourselves to reject any and all activities that give credence to magic and sorcery and alleged “hidden” knowledge. Everything we need to know has been revealed to us by Our Lord and deposited in Holy Mother Church. There is no “hidden” knowledge given only to the elect to learn and to explicate. And by pledging ourselves to reject Satan and all of his empty works and pomps in our baptism we have promised to contemplate on Heavenly things, not on those things that can cause us to be possessed by the devil and his minions and thus lead ourselves and others astray from the path of salvation given us by the Church. It is, as mentioned earlier, a fundamental sin against the First Commandment to seek out allegedly “hidden knowledge.” Remember how King Saul had consulted a witch to converse with the dead prophet Samuel. Saul’s violation of the First Commandment by engaging in the occult did not go well for him. (See 1 Kings 28:1-25.)

Although Mr. Coulombe sees it as his own mission to evangelize those in the occult, the rest of us should stay away from everything to do with the forces of darkness and witchcraft and ghosts and superstition. And the evidence amassed does seem to suggest that Mr. Coulombe has gone out of his way to try to prove a nonexistent compatibility between the occult and the Faith, which is, frankly, irresponsible. It is difficult enough to get to Heaven and to try to imitate the virtues of the saints without inviting in the demons by means of unjustified curiosity. In other words, do not try for yourselves what Mr. Coulombe has been doing. An interest in the occult is no mere hobby. Wicca is not simply "silly," as Mr. Coulombe stated in his answer to question thirteen. Wicca and all aspects of the occult are open invitations to lose your soul for all eternity by violating the First Commandment and sinning against the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity.

To protect us from the dangers associated with even discussing this subject, a priest who reviewed several earlier drafts of this manuscript urged us to pray the following prayer both morning and evening. There is no better way than to close this reflection than by praying:

“August Queen of heaven, sovereign Mistress of the Angels, thou, who from the beginning hast received from the beginning the power and the mission to crush the head of Satan, we humbly implore thee, to send they holy legions so that under thy command and by thy power, they may drive the devils away, everywhere fight them, subduing their boldness, and thrust them down in the abyss.

"Who is like unto God?

“O good and tender Mother, thou willst always be our love and our hope.

"O divine Mother, send thy holy Angels to defend me and drive far away from me the cruel enemy.

“Holy Angels and Archangels, defend us, keep us. Amen."

Footnote 1: The Evidence from Eccleisa Gnostica America Stranded Bishops

"As the Vilatte-'apostolic succession 'line that Breeze claimed until 1990 had turned out to be bogus, in 1993, David Scriven was seeking consecration as a Bishop under Bishop Robert Cokinis and Bishop John Cole (both EGA).

"The EGA USA is in concordat with Bishop Stephan Hoeller of California, even though his lineage is through Duc de Palatine. Scriven's request was turned over to Hoeller, and nothing ever came of this. Before they would ever consecrate anyone, the issue of Intent would have to be clearly established to be in conjunction with their purpose. Dioceses are in the midwestern bible belt, and great care must be taken to ensure that the EGA is not mislabeled as a thelemic church.

"Scriven nevertheless seeked consecration into the EGA and in 1996 found so through Jorge Rodriguez.

"Rodriguez was consecrated an EGA bishop by Roger St.-Victor Herard. Rodriguez later left the EGA to found his own church, Eglise Catholica Apostolica Orthodoxa. He caused quite a lot of problems for the EGA and the fact that he left was welcomed. The consecration by Rodriguez is not considered valid by any EGA bishops. Rodriguez has been working outside the guise of the E.G.A., so the E.G.A feels that he doesn't have the right to be making Gnostic Bishops even though he shares the same succession that they share. To quote a passage from Bishop Hoeller 'We ordain clergy for our own jurisdiction and not for "independent" activities on their own. The Ecclesia has no interest in expansion for its own sake, rather it prefers to have a few parishes led by properly trained priests of true Gnostic commitment.'

"The EGA has very stringent regulations for consecration (e.g. above mentioned issue of Intent). Also, the bull of election is most important. For a valid consecration, there must be a bull of election signed by at least three of EGA Bishops. Rodriguez did not even initiate a bull of election for Scriven at all. -- No wonder that only Jack B. Hogg Jr. and Jorge Rodriguez are named as "Bishops in Amity" in the official list of the active 'Caliphate'-Gnostic Church members.

"Study a version of Stephan Hoeller's Mass that was modified by the EGA's late Primate, Roger St. Victor Herard (Tau Charles). Up to that point, The E.G.A had used a French mass only, and the English mass was basically the Roman mass with a few slight alterations."

Footnote 1-A: An Explanation of this Evidence as provided on March 13, 2004

"[Aleister] Crowley's occult Ordo Templi Orientis, along with other branches, is now associated with a Gnostic Catholic Church called the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica or EGC. In an article on voodoo published in Catholic Family News in December of 2003, a Mr. Craig Heimbichner mentioned a branch of the OTO which is intertwined with Haitian voodoo, called the OTOA (A for Antiqua). This is run in Chicago by Michael Bertiaux, who is mentioned on the website given above. "Bertiaux has an 'authentic' gnostic episcopal consecration. He is closely tied to the British OTO run by Crowley's direct disciple, Kenneth Grant. This is the group you will see mentioned as the 'Typhonian' OTO. Mr. Heimbichner notes that Grant says the OTOA is a merger of a Kabbalistic-Masonic Order with Crowley's notions. This moves us closer to the link with Stephan Hoeller.

"Grant helped establish another branch of the Gnostic Church called Ecclesia Gnostica Alba, EGA, led by a man in Yugoslavia. It has an American branch called EGA USA. Remember that this branch goes back to a disciple of satanist Crowley. It is therefore a satanic cult or organization.

"Scroll down the website to the part called 'The Great Gnostic Catholic Church Scandal.' It is there (paragraph 6, line 3) that you will find the statement, 'The EGA USA is in concordat with Bishop Stephan Hoeller of California.'

"Now notice that a man named Scriven was trying to get Hoeller to consecrate him as a gnostic bishop of the EGA . Further down in that paragraph, there is a reference to what Hoeller says about consecrating bishops. Further notice this is all in connection with the EGA group that goes back to Crowley's disciple Kenneth Grant. Finally, in the next paragraph, there is reference to Hoeller's gnostic 'Mass' being modified (and therefore, used) by the EGA's late Primate, as until then they had used a French 'Mass,' but they wanted the English version that was closer to the Roman one."

Can any believing Catholic honestly minimize the seriousness of all of this?

Footnote 2: From The Lives and Times of the Popes, by the Chevalier Artaud De Montor, published by The Catholic Publication Society of New York in ten volumes in 1911

"From time to time disturbances broke out in Syria in regard to the cultus of Saint Maro. Cyril, the Greek patriarch, determined upon the suppression of this devotion, and proceeded to destroy the engravings of Saint Maro published at Rome, forbidding him to be counted among the saints, on the ground that he had both lived and died a heretic.

The ignorant patriarch was unaware that Theodoret, in the lives of the Fathers, and Saint John Chrysostom, in his thirty-sixth epistle, both of them contemporaries of Saint Maro, recognized him as a saint; that his cultus had continued for centuries, even at Rome; and in the church of the Maronites, that the missals of the same people, approved by Clement VIII, and the testimonies of innumerable writers, given before that learned pontiff, openly spoke of Maro under the title of saint. The inconsiderate patriarch confounded him with a second Maro, or Marone, a heretical abbot who lived in the time of the Emperor Mauritius, in 602, whereas Saint Maro lived in the year 395, under the Emperor Arcadius. Due distinction must be made between the two, even as we distinguish between the two Raymond Lullys: the one a heretic and the other venerated as a martyr...." (Excerpted from a section on Pope Benedict XIV)

Footnote 3: Arthur Edward Waite (A. E. Waite) [1857-1942]: The Holy Kabbalah, 1929; Reprinted 1995 by Carol Publishing Group: New York, NY. Quote from pp. 438-440

"The name of Raymund Lully has been cited as that of a considerable authority on the Kabbalah, as upon several other departments of secret knowledge. It is time to affirm that few ascriptions seem to possess less foundation in fact. It must be said, first of all, that there is indubitable evidence for distinguishing between two persons at least who bore this name: otherwise it was assumed for a second time at a later date. The original Raymund Lully was that seneschal of Majorca whose legend is narrated in a monograph on the doctor illuminators which I wrote in recent years. He was born during the first half of the thirteenth century. The second Raymund Lully was an alchemist. His legend, enshrined in the deceitful memorial of a so-called Abbot of Westminster, was unknown, so far as I can trace, till the beginning of the seventeenth century, but the works by which he is distinguished from this prototype are certainly much earlier, possibly by two centuries. There is a third and modern legend, which bears all the marks of invention on the part of its narrator, Eliphas Levi, and this identifies the two personages by prolonging the life of the first through the instrumentality of the Great Elixir. It is described as a popular legend, but Raymund Lully and his namesake were never of enough importance to impress the imagination of the people. The first was known chiefly as a scholastic reformer and a Christian evangelist, martyred for an ill-judged attempt at the propagation of the faith among the Mussulmen of Africa. The second has been described as a 'Jєωιѕн neophyte,' the denomination on its surface suggesting a proselyte of the gate. This is therefore the personality which would connect naturally with

Kabbalism.... "The confusion of the two Raymunds is perhaps more excusable among occultists than for ordinary biographers." Footnote 4: More Information on the Golden Dawn and A. E. Waite: Questions from Mr. Coulombe's 1992 Tolkien Address (provided by a researcher to Christorchaos.com)

"On the third page of his Tolkien speech ("Hermetic Imagination: The Effect of the Golden Dawn on Fantasy Literature") Mr. Coulombe calls A. E. Waite a Catholic. Here is a bit on Waite:

" 'Arthur Edward Waite, or A. E. Waite, was one member who espoused the cause of occultism with a prolific outpouring from his pen. In fact, the popular 'Rider-Waite Tarot Deck' is derived from Waite’s work. Author of A New Encyclopaedia of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Waite held more Masonic offices than almost anyone. These included Past Senior Grand Warden, Past Provincial Deputy Grand Director of Ceremonies, Past Grand Inner Guard, Past Great Captain of the Guards, and many more. Thanks to Waite’s Book of Black Magic and Pacts, a young Aleister Crowley became interested in the occult, contacted Waite and eventually became an enthusiastic young member of the Order of the Golden Dawn. Crowley gained from that organization the entire foundation of his occult training, which would stand him in good stead when he later openly called himself 'The Great Beast 666.'

" 'Of the Catholic Church, Waite (an apostate Catholic) writes that 'Rome is a spiritual Kaiserism' and admits that 'Rome and Masonry are placed in an inevitable competition….' Waite even acknowledges that they are 'enemies.' While Waite ridicules the notion that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ ever had anything to do with Satan, his Encylopaedia included a picture which typified, as Waite puts it, 'the Morning Star or Lucifer, emerging from the clouds….'

"This is the man whom Coulombe calls 'the Catholic A. E. Waite' and who, according to Coulombe, 'formed a separate, more explicitly Christian Mysticism-oriented Golden Dawn group….'

"A bit on the Golden Dawn itself for your readers:

"Coulombe follows these same trends of thought in his lecture given to the Tolkien Centennial Conference of 1992 (which he prominently posted on his most recent web site when it was accessible). The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn sprang from the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia. As Golden Dawn member (and Secretary to Aleister Crowley) Dr. Israel Regardie writes of this important occult forerunner, 'This was an organization formulated in 1865 by eminent Freemasons….This Society…confined its membership to Freemasons in good standing….' * [The original manuscripts which formed the basis for the Order of the Golden Dawn contained the instructions, “Avoid Roman Catholics, but with pity.” Christina Stoddard, Light-bearers of Darkness, p, 84; * Israel Regardie, The Golden Dawn, p. 19.]

"In a telling passage [in Hermetic Imagination], Coulombe proceeds to express apparent admiration for the Golden Dawn’s 'high festival, the feast of Corpus Christi.' However, he does not tell his audience that this Golden Dawn 'feast' is a blasphemy aimed at the Body of Christ, for this extended occult ceremony honors not Jesus but the legendary 'founder' of Rosicrucian occultism, Christian Rosenkreutz. The actual title of this 'high festival' is The Consecration Ceremony of the Vault of the Adepti, and it directs that it is to be used 'on each day of Corpus Christi.' The Chief (an important leader of the Order who must be present) opens by advancing to the altar, lifting his wand on high, and saying 'HEKAS HEKAS ESTE BEBELOI! Associate Adeptus Minor, let the Chamber be purified by the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram.' He then returns to his place, while the Third Adept performs the ritual with the black end of the wand. So opens this ritual which Coulombe seems to find compatible with Catholicism. True, Christ is mentioned—Satanists, remember, mention him in every Black Mass—but as one scans the liturgy of this “high festival,” one finds invocations to Isis, Scorpio, Apophis, the Destroyer, and Osiris, to name a few. In addition, the celebrant must utter the following blasphemous nonsense: 'I am ANOUN the Concealed One, the Opener of the day….I am the Lord of Life, triumphant over Death. There is no part of me that is not of the Gods. I am the Preparer of the Pathway, the Rescuer unto the Light!'

"Coulombe conceals all of these 'details' from his readers, instead blaming the 'neo-Thomists' for looking at these matters unsympathetically. He adds that the 'Christian Hermeticism encompassed by the Golden Dawn' may be symbolized by a picture on a Tarot card, in which, as Coulombe tells us, a chalice held by a hand descending from a cloud typifies the union of the Catholic sacraments with the 'Holy Grail,' which Coulombe sees as an expression of the Hermetic tradition. He concludes, 'Two mysteries…yet they are in fact one. This is deepest Christian Hermeticism indeed. It is to the honour of the Golden Dawn that the Order both developed an authentic strand of such Hermeticism, and attracted members of the calibre necessary to convey such to a world not without need of it.'

"The last statement is a startling admission by Coulombe of his completely uninhibited endorsement of the occult as formulated in occult Masonic Orders like the Golden Dawn. One cannot simply dismiss him as an eccentric Tolkien fan who is overly enchanted with Gandalf the sorcerer, for Coulombe has studied and endorsed the real sorcery of advanced Freemasons—and is telling us that this Masonic mumbo-jumbo is what the world needs.

" 'As we saw earlier, Coulombe’s 'Catholic' Waite denounced Satanism in the Masonic Lodges, yet included a picture honoring Lucifer in his Encyclopaedia. In doing so, Waite merely reflected his Golden Dawn training. One of the secrets of the Golden Dawn is that for initiates, the name of the Order itself refers to Lucifer, the 'Morning Star”'which illumines the dawn—that is, creates a Golden Dawn. Initiates of the Golden Dawn regard Lucifer as the benevolent 'Light-Bearer' who enlightens those in darkness; hence, they do not consider him to have fallen and become “Satan,” the Adversary. In the Golden Dawn docuмent The Three Chiefs, we read that:

" 'The first Temple founded in England in 1887-88 under the governance of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was named very appropriately Isis-Urania. Isis-Urania is Venus, and she is the occult planet which represents the Genius of this Order—Venus, the Evening and the Morning Star, presaging the rising of the Sun of ineffable Light…After the Revolt in the Order about 1900, the schismatic sect appropriated as the name of their Order, Stella Matutina, the Morning Star, thus continuing the significance of the enlightening function and purpose for which the Order was founded originally…. "It is well known that Venus is a planet peculiarly associated with occult and mystical aspiration. In the Secret Doctrine we find Blavatsky stating that ‘Venus, or Lucifer, the planet, is the light-bearer of our Earth, in both a physical and mystical sense. …Interestingly enough, in all ancient systems, the Serpent is also the Tempter, Lucifer—and once again, Lucifer is Venus, the Redeemer.' "

" After further schisms within the Golden Dawn, Waite headed the Isis-Urania Temple —clearly indicating his continuance of the Luciferian purpose of the Order through retaining the title of the Temple itself, which he surely knew contained just such an implication.

"While it is true that Waite liked to stress the 'compatibility' of his Luciferian occultism with a heretical “Gnostic” Christianity, such blasphemies should hardly deceive an instructed Catholic. Occultism frequently blends the name of Christ in its blasphemies. Without abandoning his Masonic Occultism, Waite rewrote several rituals and moved the emphasis away from sorcery to a more mystical and gnostic approach to the 'Light-Bearer.'

"It is unfortunate that his deceptions snared Evelyn Underhill, scholar of mysticism, and Charles Williams, Oxford 'inkling'—both of whom were members. But rather than finding that Williams’ membership casts a blot on him, Coulombe curiously tries to use Williams’ association to vindicate the Golden Dawn—as if the secret sins of a man could somehow purify the place in which he commits them."

It does appear that Mr. Coulombe has omitted some important facts in his works. The next update will focus on additional holes in Mr. Coulombe's answers to my original set of questions.

Footnote 5: A Reflection by Mr. John Kamprath, M.A., on the Church's Consistent Condemnation of Magic and the Occult

“Well, the issue of magic as a suitable introduction for the evangelization of pagans is patently wrong. Part of Christ's redemptive work was to free men from just this sort of evil bondage to the devil and his minions. The occult is considered by historians and Churchmen as a corruption of religion and a contributor to the decadence of civilization. Never has it been thought to lead to religion or the perfection of culture. In the words of J. P. Arendzen, ‘It is not true that “religion is the despair of magic”'; in reality, magic is but a disease of religion.’ (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition)

“The Old Testament was full of laws against magic: Exodus 22:18; Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Isaias 57:3; Micheas 5:11.

“Pliny gave a detailed description of magic in Book 30 of his Natural History and flatly rated it all as imposture.

"Early Catholics roundly rejected magic: Didache Book V:1 ‘But the way of death is this: First of all, it is wicked and full of cursing, murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcrafts, charms, robberies, false witness, hypocrisies, a double heart, fraud, pride, malice, stubbornness, covetousness, boastfulness.

“Letter of Barnabas 20:1: ‘But the Way of the Black One is crooked and full of cursing, for it is the way of death eternal with punishment, and in it are the things that destroy their soul: idolatry, forwardness, arrogance of power, hypocrisy, double-heartedness, adultery, murder, robbery, pride, transgression, fraud, malice, self-sufficiency, enchantments, magic, covetousness, the lack of fear of God.’

“By his answers, it seems that Coulombe is confusing a sense of the supernatural --present almost everywhere in all traditional pagan societies --with the return of certain of the basest practices, beliefs and superstitious metaphors in a hybrid of Christian, gnostic and pagan symbols that entice some sector's of today's apostate, post-Christian society. Building on a supernatural sense is one thing. Diving into their error is another. Unfortunately for Coulombe and others like him, you cannot persuade someone into the Church. For religious conversion is not based upon sharing common convictions, insights and interests and then merely refocusing the subject of conversion to the better, that is your, solution. No, conversion is a changing of first principals from the erroneous to the true. Sure, befriending people can only help, but you are better off having a joy of baseball in common to prepare the forum

Yes, I think I came across that article in the past or perhaps another one that addressed also matters concerning the late Wolfgang Smith. 

I honestly have only read a good part of the article so far, but I understand what the author is saying. I recall Coulombe publicly apologizing on Youtube for dabbling in tarot cards His upbringing made him strong enough to resist falling away and for other religions I can tell, but there is a worldly connection there indeed with Hollywood, knowledge of occult subjects, and certain cultures. While we need to have necessary knowledge of certain things, we don't have to know everything, for that can be a danger to our faith. 

Aside from the support of Feeney and aversion to Thomism, Charles Coulombe has made some worthwhile contributions about understanding monarchy and statecraft as well as genuine cultural values. History is his strength though, but it does not mean every historian understands everything about history properly. 

I am not sure which friend you are referring to, but I am connected in some way to Charles Coulombe via social media. I have barely said much to him on there though but have asked questions on his show Off the Menu, which should be ending this month after a run of almost ten years. He is busy and travels a lot, and so I refrain from trying to communicate with him. Now the closest personal connection I did have with him was knowing a married couple who attended the chapel for a short time for whom he was the best man at their wedding. 

I do find him comical still. I can see though he does need a break since he is getting older.

I get wary of when scholasticism and Thomism are downplayed and even blamed for the current crisis in the Church. That is already a problem right there. A classic case of rejecting St. Thomas Aquinas would be Ratzinger, and we know where his situation went. 

The other issue is shortsightedness of apprehension of the crisis in the Church. Some of the above named authors would fall into that category. Recently, I was reading some lines of the Instituto Mater Boni Consilii magazine Sodalitium reviewing what Yves Chiron wrote about the history of traditionalists. The article said that his assessment was deficient basically since he left important and relevant information. 

It reminds me of Michael Davies as well. He has good material except, having read the critique of John Daly, he falls short of understanding the crisis properly.