Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on April 09, 2010, 12:44:06 PM
-
The Attacks on Pope Benedict - a Conspiracy of Man - or God?
by Michael Hoffman http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/
Over the centuries many sorts of masquers have bored deep into the bowels of the Roman Catholic Church. Some of these have even occupied the papal throne; others were content to be the power behind that throne.
King Henry VIII first received the theological justification for his divorce from Catherine of Aragon from the Neoplatonic brotherhood inside the Vatican; out of said fraternity would emerge Dr. John Dee, the Protestant magician who, using the Hermetic and Kabbalistic cunning of the Roman Catholic magician Marsilio Ficino, furnished William Cecil with the mind control keys and mass persuasion techniques that gained him the rule of England through a reanimated goddess Isis who is known to history as Queen Elizabeth I.
Very few believing Catholics ever glimpse this hidden reality, and when they are so privileged as to gain a fleeting vision of it, they run from it, so threatening is it to the papal Caesarism to which they kowtow like the pagan subjects of Kubla Khan. Jesus Christ did not come to institute slavish and cowering obedience to mere men, however elaborately costumed or adored. He came to save souls, which is the highest law, a law recognized by only a few churchmen, such as the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who defied Popes Paul VI and John Paul II for that very reason.
Behind the scenes of the competing Catholic and Protestant churches exists a golden thread, a rainbow bridge if you will, that unites initiates in both camps who, believing they possess godlike powers derived from the secret gnosis of the Corpus Heremeticuм, are above the morality they publicly preach, beyond good and evil, and united in processing humankind toward a "higher" destiny without the knowledge or consent of those being processed. This is the age-old mandate of the pagan-occult imperium.
Shortly before the latest uproar over pederasty within the Roman Catholic Church, a Vatican exorcist announced that the devil was active in the Vatican, even at the highest levels. Prior to this not exactly unexpected revelation, Pope Benedict XVI completed the third of his pilgrimages to the ѕуηαgσgυє, the latest, on Jan. 17, at Rome itself, where this papal Judas gave every encouragement to the assembled Pharisees.
Most recently he has appointed a member of the secret society of Opus Dei to head the powerful diocese of Los Angeles, California, after child-molestation enabler and obstructor of justice Cardinal Roger Mahony retires next year with his pension intact and full church honors accorded to this patron of pederasty.
Certain Catholic automatons have marched forth, decrying a purported "media conspiracy" of "gossip" against the pope. But are the troubles that have befallen this pope a conspiracy of man, or a curse of God?
How long do the vassals of Rome imagine that God will be mocked by popes who make common cause with the ideological and spiritual descendants of those who stoned, laid hands upon and conspired in the murder of His Divine Son?
Pope John Paul II, the modern champion of the ѕуηαgσgυє and the first pope in history to enter its precincts as a supplicant, spent the final years of his pontificate as a hunchback, drooling spittle onto his breast. Unless he repents and makes reparation, Pope Benedict XVI can no more escape the wrath of God than did his predecessor.
If Benedict is besieged now, it may be payback for his treason to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding his provisional revival of the old Latin Mass, which he has integrated into a neo-Catholic hybrid Church of h0Ɩ0cαųstianity, whereby Auschwitz is rendered more sacred by far than Calvary, a revolutionary betrayal made tolerable now that it is accompanied by Tridentine incense and Gregorian chant.
Those badly deceived persons who make common cause with this pontiff might wish to consider what fate may be in store if they do not switch their allegiance from Benedict to Jesus.
Copyright ©2010 by RevisionistHistory.org
Hoffman is the author of seven books of history and literature, including Judaism Discovered. He edits Revisionist History, a newsletter published six times a year. The latest issue, on "The Money Power," is available for purchase online.
-
I think perhaps Mr. Hoffman needs to re-think his views on the sedevacantist "theory."
In any event, this is an excellent article.
-
"Behind the scenes of the competing Catholic and Protestant churches exists a golden thread, a rainbow bridge if you will, that unites initiates in both camps who, believing they possess godlike powers derived from the secret gnosis of the Corpus Heremeticuм, are above the morality they publicly preach, beyond good and evil, and united in processing humankind toward a "higher" destiny without the knowledge or consent of those being processed. This is the age-old mandate of the pagan-occult imperium. "
he was interesting until this point, guess another jackass destined for the ash heap of Hell....a shame too......note to Hoffman, the Catholic Church is led by the HS, it is the only true Church...EENS Michael....
-
"Pope John Paul II, the modern champion of the ѕуηαgσgυє and the first pope in history to enter its precincts as a supplicant, spent the final years of his pontificate as a hunchback, drooling spittle onto his breast. Unless he repents and makes reparation, Pope Benedict XVI can no more escape the wrath of God than did his predecessor. "
So is Hoffman, a rather Judiac sounding name (perhaps he truly is a "self hating Jєω", perhaps we have an actual one now!, is he going to attack everyone that has Parkinson's now? Rather shameful and low to attack those afflicted with so great a disease. Is Hoffman now himself a prophet, predicting the end of B16 and his method of death?
Note again to Hoffman, repent yourself and come into the One Holy and True Faith,EENS....
-
"Those badly deceived persons who make common cause with this pontiff might wish to consider what fate may be in store if they do not switch their allegiance from Benedict to Jesus"
so, will Hoffman publicly profess Christ in the only method that is acceptable to Christ, the Catholic Mass?
-
Mr. Hoffman assists at the TLM rather regularly. He is simply saying that there have been not-so-good elements moving among ecclesiastical (and civil) circles for a long time. This is clearly true, and, whether one thinks the See of Peter is presently vacant or thinks it is not, the evidence of centuries-old inner rot is pretty clear. From the time of the high water mark of Christendom in the 13th century, things have been going steadily downhill.
-
Quote
"Those badly deceived persons who make common cause with this pontiff might wish to consider what fate may be in store if they do not switch their allegiance from Benedict to Jesus."
============================
Amen Brother Hoffman. "I was just following orders" did not work at Nurenberg trials and it won't fly at the Last Judgment.
Christ made the comment that the clergy of his time made converts twofold sons of Devil as they were originally. Just another example of how blind obedience is sometimes not enough for salvation. As in the days of Noah -- Noah built his own spiritual ark. Noah wasn't anti authority, he was pro survival. A man can not serve two masters. 1986 Assisi showed the world what master Club Infallible worships.
Matthew 5:13
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men.
Actually "good for nothing" is too kind a description for Club Infallible.
-
Mr. Hoffman assists at the TLM rather regularly. He is simply saying that there have been not-so-good elements moving among ecclesiastical (and civil) circles for a long time. This is clearly true, and, whether one thinks the See of Peter is presently vacant or thinks it is not, the evidence of centuries-old inner rot is pretty clear. From the time of the high water mark of Christendom in the 13th century, things have been going steadily downhill.
I would agree that the 13th C was the highwater mark.....his article did not sound as you put it to me initially, mroe like a "the Pope is the antichrist" fundie or something similar......thanks for your good insights on this.
-
Quote
"Those badly deceived persons who make common cause with this pontiff might wish to consider what fate may be in store if they do not switch their allegiance from Benedict to Jesus."
============================
Amen Brother Hoffman. "I was just following orders" did not work at Nurenberg trials and it won't fly at the Last Judgment.
Christ made the comment that the clergy of his time made converts twofold sons of Devil as they were originally. Just another example of how blind obedience is sometimes not enough for salvation. As in the days of Noah -- Noah built his own spiritual ark. Noah wasn't anti authority, he was pro survival. A man can not serve two masters. 1986 Assisi showed the world what master Club Infallible worships.
Matthew 5:13
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men.
Actually "good for nothing" is too kind a description for Club Infallible.
true, blind allegiance is not Catholic at all, but curious, who do you follow? the authoirty of scripture alone? or do you have a Bishop? cardinal? are you a home aloner? do you recognize the Magesterium (leaving aside the 'who is and is not pope' arguement).
-
...thanks for your good insights on this.
No worries. In a short piece, it is easy to "miss" what isn't there, so to speak. I have met Mr. Hoffman and spoken with him at sufficient length to know more than is conveyed via such short commentaries. Like all of us, he is trying to make his way in, and make some sense of, very wild days.
-
Maybe his SSPX days are numbered.
-
Maybe his SSPX days are numbered.
Thinking in these terms is corrosive to the mind because it places personal opinions at the level of faith. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. No need to incessantly worry about the status of offices. Trying to keep the faith and maintain one's virtue today is a herculean effort in itself. Take heed, lest you fall as well.
-
Very few believing Catholics ever glimpse this hidden reality, and when they are so privileged as to gain a fleeting vision of it, they run from it, so threatening is it to the papal Caesarism to which they kowtow like the pagan subjects of Kubla Khan. Jesus Christ did not come to institute slavish and cowering obedience to mere men, however elaborately costumed or adored. He came to save souls, which is the highest law, a law recognized by only a few churchmen, such as the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who defied Popes Paul VI and John Paul II for that very reason.
This is breathtakingly Protestant. "Papal Caesarism" is straight from the Protestant script, and so is all this business about how elaborately adorned they are. All that's missing is a complaint about how the Vatican is obscenely wealthy and what a contrast this makes with Christ who lived in poverty.
Hoffman, do you realize that you think just like Paul VI and JPII? They also thought Popes were too elaborately adorned, so they refused the tiara and are buried in wooden coffins like vampires.
We do owe obedience to the Pope. But these Popes, if they are Popes at all, have had their authority put into question by unorthodoxy and therefore have forfeited their right to obedience. It's like Hoffman is trying to twist an emergency measure against the Vatican II Popes into a philosophy of freedom vis-a-vis papal authority in itself.
I would like to corner this fellow and ask him point-blank if he believes in separation of Church and state.
-
You're analysis is shockingly accurate. :good-shot:
-
Maybe his SSPX days are numbered.
Thinking in these terms is corrosive to the mind because it places personal opinions at the level of faith. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. No need to incessantly worry about the status of offices. Trying to keep the faith and maintain one's virtue today is a herculean effort in itself. Take heed, lest you fall as well.
Caminus, I didn't come to CathInfo so that I could be attacked by fellow posters. If I wanted that, I'd go to Catholic Answers.
-
There is no love lost between Caminus and sedes. That is why my post is "shockingly" accurate. It is shocking because I'm a sede and therefore usually wrong, in his eyes.
-
I would like to corner this fellow and ask him point-blank if he believes in separation of Church and state.
I don't believe that he does. (I own a copy of Judaism Discovered, and he never defends it in that book to my knowledge - but then again, maybe it would be out of place there.)
I've already confronted Mr. Hoffman on his blog on the ambiguous nature of many of his posts on regards to Protestantism/Catholicism. I don't believe that he has ever come out and just straight out said "despite all of this, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church because it is the one true Church of Christ"
Caminus, I didn't come to CathInfo so that I could be attacked by fellow posters. If I wanted that, I'd go to Catholic Answers.
It wasn't an attack, just some wise advice.
-
King Henry VIII first received the theological justification for his divorce from Catherine of Aragon from the Neoplatonic brotherhood inside the Vatican; out of said fraternity would emerge Dr. John Dee, the Protestant magician who, using the Hermetic and Kabbalistic cunning of the Roman Catholic magician Marsilio Ficino, furnished William Cecil with the mind control keys and mass persuasion techniques that gained him the rule of England through a reanimated goddess Isis who is known to history as Queen Elizabeth I.
:thinking:
Is that even possible?
-
Vladimir
And what, young man, did I write to merit this great "advice." Make a remark about the SSPX?
-
I've already confronted Mr. Hoffman on his blog on the ambiguous nature of many of his posts on regards to Protestantism/Catholicism.
I can't decipher the ambiguity either. I asked him twice if he was a traditional Catholic to which I recieved no reply. If he is Catholic simply because of the traditional doctrine concerning the Jєωs, then his motives would be false and the deep scandal he has taken regarding the modern hierarchy viz. Jєωιѕн relations would certainly destroy that singular motive. Thus, if these prelates have taken an erroneous view of Judaism, the entire Church would to him be false. He, like SV's, can't seem to comprehend that the Pope could be an instrument of the devil in many ways and still remain a member of the Church.
-
Caminus said:
He, like SV's, can't seem to comprehend that the Pope could be an instrument of the devil in many ways and still remain a member of the Church.
You can't seem to comprehend that some of us can make a distinction between an immoral Pope and one who has promoted error and/or heresy through an ecuмenical Council -- an impossibility.
You also can't seem to acknowledge this distinction yourself; you just keep ignoring it and hoping it will go away.
For all I know every Pope since the Renaissance has been part of some giant Kabbalistic plot. Maybe the Pharisees have been sitting in the Temple since Leo X. I don't care. I care about what they teach in their official capacity, about the Magisterium. As long as the Magisterium is pristine, there are no worries on my end. But there is no way that the encyclicals of Paul VI and up can be part of the true Magisterium.
That is why sedevacantists exist, not to mention the SSPX. But the easily exploded myth of the SSPX is that an ecuмenical council approved by a true Pope can err.
Here we get back to my other post about SSPX being more extremist than home-aloner sedes. If VII was only AMBIGUOUS, you have no cause to divorce yourself from the rest of the Church. You should be like Attila Guimares, recognizing and resisting from within the infected structures. But if it actually taught error or heresy, you should be sedevacantist. Either way, there is no purpose for SSPX.
-
Caminus said:
He, like SV's, can't seem to comprehend that the Pope could be an instrument of the devil in many ways and still remain a member of the Church.
You can't seem to comprehend that some of us can make a distinction between an immoral Pope and one who has promoted error and/or heresy through an ecuмenical Council -- an impossibility.
You also can't seem to acknowledge this distinction yourself; you just keep ignoring it and hoping it will go away.
For all I know every Pope since the Renaissance has been part of some giant Kabbalistic plot. Maybe the Pharisees have been sitting in the Temple since Leo X. I don't care. I care about what they teach in their official capacity, about the Magisterium. As long as the Magisterium is pristine, there are no worries on my end. But there is no way that the encyclicals of Paul VI and up can be part of the true Magisterium.
That is why sedevacantists exist, not to mention the SSPX. But the easily exploded myth of the SSPX is that an ecuмenical council approved by a true Pope can err.
Here we get back to my other post about SSPX being more extremist than home-aloner sedes. If VII was only AMBIGUOUS, you have no cause to divorce yourself from the rest of the Church. You should be like Attila Guimares, recognizing and resisting from within the infected structures. But if it actually taught error or heresy, you should be sedevacantist. Either way, there is no purpose for SSPX.
:applause:
-
Good job Raoul. Alexandria, the ignore button works wonders. I like you and your view
-
He, like SV's, can't seem to comprehend that the Pope could be an instrument of the devil in many ways and still remain a member of the Church.
SVs and SV-ism aside, Hoffman clearly does just that -- otherwise, he would not call them popes, oui?
Sure, he nails them for their 'crypto-rabbinism', but he always calls them Pope So-and-so while doing so.
FWIW, while he has written things, in this short article and elsewhere, with which I disagree (and, in some cases, very strongly), his perceptiveness and honesty are, IMO, rather good signs and, in my limited personal experience, he is a truly decent man of good will.
-
Thanks, Dawn. :wink:
-
Caminus said:
He, like SV's, can't seem to comprehend that the Pope could be an instrument of the devil in many ways and still remain a member of the Church.
You can't seem to comprehend that some of us can make a distinction between an immoral Pope and one who has promoted error and/or heresy through an ecuмenical Council -- an impossibility.
You also can't seem to acknowledge this distinction yourself; you just keep ignoring it and hoping it will go away.
For all I know every Pope since the Renaissance has been part of some giant Kabbalistic plot. Maybe the Pharisees have been sitting in the Temple since Leo X. I don't care. I care about what they teach in their official capacity, about the Magisterium. As long as the Magisterium is pristine, there are no worries on my end. But there is no way that the encyclicals of Paul VI and up can be part of the true Magisterium.
That is why sedevacantists exist, not to mention the SSPX. But the easily exploded myth of the SSPX is that an ecuмenical council approved by a true Pope can err.
Here we get back to my other post about SSPX being more extremist than home-aloner sedes. If VII was only AMBIGUOUS, you have no cause to divorce yourself from the rest of the Church. You should be like Attila Guimares, recognizing and resisting from within the infected structures. But if it actually taught error or heresy, you should be sedevacantist. Either way, there is no purpose for SSPX.
Right, you've asserted this as the basis for your opinion many times before which rests on a faulty idea of the magisterium as well as the precise nature of the problematic texts. It is more than ambiguity, it is a fallacious construct because it lacks making the proper distinctions. Thus it is used as a weapon to destroy the faith. On another level, the underlying intention of some of the docuмents is obviously erroneous as well, but underlying premises can't come under our consideration except by way of explaining the possible motives. I recognize that there are many layers to the problem and that it is more complex than you wish to make it appear. This stems from your own irresponsibility.
Regarding your post about the "extremism" of the SSPX it is based upon yet another false understanding and really implies nothing is wrong with the Church today in terms of the perversion of external religion and true heresy among many other things. In other words, you're suppressed premise is that everything else is in tact, the problem merely being a contained error in the minds of others. You want to take Vatican II in a vacuum and then turn around and blame somebody. You're categories are all mixed up and this leads you to make ridiculous observations.
-
Good job Raoul. Alexandria, the ignore button works wonders. I like you and your view
My, my how sensitive we are. I wonder if that's why those other message boards ban us so easily.
-
I've already confronted Mr. Hoffman on his blog on the ambiguous nature of many of his posts on regards to Protestantism/Catholicism.
I can't decipher the ambiguity either. I asked him twice if he was a traditional Catholic to which I recieved no reply. If he is Catholic simply because of the traditional doctrine concerning the Jєωs, then his motives would be false and the deep scandal he has taken regarding the modern hierarchy viz. Jєωιѕн relations would certainly destroy that singular motive. Thus, if these prelates have taken an erroneous view of Judaism, the entire Church would to him be false. He, like SV's, can't seem to comprehend that the Pope could be an instrument of the devil in many ways and still remain a member of the Church.
Agreed, but these "many ways" are not just "any ways". You seem to miss that distinction, Caminus.
-
I've already confronted Mr. Hoffman on his blog on the ambiguous nature of many of his posts on regards to Protestantism/Catholicism.
I can't decipher the ambiguity either. I asked him twice if he was a traditional Catholic to which I recieved no reply. If he is Catholic simply because of the traditional doctrine concerning the Jєωs, then his motives would be false and the deep scandal he has taken regarding the modern hierarchy viz. Jєωιѕн relations would certainly destroy that singular motive. Thus, if these prelates have taken an erroneous view of Judaism, the entire Church would to him be false. He, like SV's, can't seem to comprehend that the Pope could be an instrument of the devil in many ways and still remain a member of the Church.
Agreed, but these "many ways" are not just "any ways". You seem to miss that distinction, Caminus.
Yes and those "many ways" can include doctrinal matters. Mike seems to want to limit the possibility to mere immorality of the lower appetite. And small errors in thought can lead to enormous consequences. SV's also seem to want to deny this possibility, many arguing inductively from those very grave effects.
-
King Henry VIII first received the theological justification for his divorce from Catherine of Aragon from the Neoplatonic brotherhood inside the Vatican; out of said fraternity would emerge Dr. John Dee, the Protestant magician who, using the Hermetic and Kabbalistic cunning of the Roman Catholic magician Marsilio Ficino, furnished William Cecil with the mind control keys and mass persuasion techniques that gained him the rule of England through a reanimated goddess Isis who is known to history as Queen Elizabeth I.
:thinking:
Is that even possible?
Basically I'd say yes it is POSSIBLE, but maybe not literally. Hoffman is writing cryptically, and seems to be assuming his readers have studied the black arts.
Mr. Hoffmann is pretty knowledgable about heavy occultic stuff, and I truly hope he understands the extreme dangers of delving into that stuff as deeply as he does. Without the supervison of a similarly educated and experienced Catholic priest, Mr. Hoffmann could be playing with fire, even with the very best of intentions.
The problem is that most Catholic priests are very ignorant of satanism; they are afraid of it for good reason, but the dearth of priests ready for spiritual warfare is a very bad thing for us.
So, intelligent men like Mr. Hoffman do the research and come up with their own conclusions such as his description of Queen Elizabeth I. :scared2:
-
I've already confronted Mr. Hoffman on his blog on the ambiguous nature of many of his posts on regards to Protestantism/Catholicism.
I can't decipher the ambiguity either. I asked him twice if he was a traditional Catholic to which I recieved no reply. If he is Catholic simply because of the traditional doctrine concerning the Jєωs, then his motives would be false and the deep scandal he has taken regarding the modern hierarchy viz. Jєωιѕн relations would certainly destroy that singular motive. Thus, if these prelates have taken an erroneous view of Judaism, the entire Church would to him be false. He, like SV's, can't seem to comprehend that the Pope could be an instrument of the devil in many ways and still remain a member of the Church.
Agreed, but these "many ways" are not just "any ways". You seem to miss that distinction, Caminus.
Yes and those "many ways" can include doctrinal matters. Mike seems to want to limit the possibility to mere immorality of the lower appetite. And small errors in thought can lead to enormous consequences. SV's also seem to want to deny this possibility, many arguing inductively from those very grave effects.
So are you saying the errors since Vatican II are small errors only with big consequences? I don't believe you actually think this is the case.
-
No, the errors and heresy caused by the deficient formulation or erroneous constructs of Vatican II are enormous and have had very grave consequences.
Now I'd like to see Mike actually respond rather than running away again.
-
No, the errors and heresy caused by the deficient formulation or erroneous constructs of Vatican II are enormous and have had very grave consequences.
Now I'd like to see Mike actually respond rather than running away again.
So these errors and heresy did not come from any real living person. Is that what you are saying?
-
Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. :facepalm:
-
Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. :facepalm:
Well then, what are you saying?
-
http://blogs.news.sky.com/foreignmatters/Post:50e22f56-7f1d-42fc-ab09-63e1fa8edffd
Pope Attacks? A 'Jєωιѕн Led Plot'.
Tim Marshall
April 12, 2010 12:37 PM
Recommend post (15)
If you are an 81 year old Italian bishop of a certain persuasion, the anti everything kind, then the reasons for the recent attacks on the Pope over the pedophilia scandal are obvious; they are a 'Jєωιѕн led plot'.
The quoted views of Giacomo Babibi come from an interview he gave to a right wing Catholic website -Pontifex. I say quoted becuase he has subsequently denied them, but he does have a history of previous, as indeed does his church. About 1,900 years of it.
According to the website, Monsignor Babini, the retired bishop of Grosseto, told them that 'The enemies of catholicism are always the same - Freemasons and Jєωs...Let me be more precise, it is a refined Zionist media attack against the Church. At the end of the day the Jєωs are a Deicide (god killing) people...they and no-one else carried out the Crucifixion'.
Last time I looked, which was Easter Friday whilst watching 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', John Wayne was wearing a Roman Centurion's outfit whilst drawling 'Aw truly this was the son of Gard' as his colleagues nailed Jesus to the cross.
But then what would you expect from a man of the cloth (Babini not Wayne) who also believes that although the h0Ɩ0cαųst was shameful, it took place due to Jєωs 'strangling Germany economically'.
Of course we could dismiss this as the rantings of a man from the past, but sadly, it follows others, those of senior Vatican officals, that the recent criticism of the Holy Father is part of various plots to undermine him. Then there was interesting comparison by a top priest that the criticism was similar to the nαzι witchhunt of Jєωs - you know all that recent rounding up Catholic priests across Europe and sending them in trains to concentrations camps whilst surrounding the Vatican ghetto before starving and shelling it. Or did you miss that?
To give the Vatican credit, the American Jєωιѕн Group Committee website quotes bishop Vincenzo Paglia as saying that Babini's remarks are "entirely contrary to the official line and mainstream thought of the Catholic church".
Indeed, since Vatican II that is true. Vatican II overturned centuries of Catholic thought and led to the apology for not speaking out during the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
However, lingering in the darker corners of sections of catholic thought are the ideas of Babini. It is difficult for this not to be so. The Romans crucified Jesus, so when, a few centuries later they decided to become Christians, this presented somehting of a problem. The way round it was to insert some new passages into scripture and hey presto it was the Jєωs wot done it. One of the most infamous is from the Book of John 'Ye are of your father the devil'. Another is from Mathew; The Jєωs said of Jesus's death "Let his blood be on our heads and that of our children' Leave to one side liberal christian interpretation, these passages have been used by those of Babini's mindset for centuries.
Pontifex is standing by its story and pointing out other interviews Babini has given in a similar vein. He does not
care much for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, his take on Church of England converts coming to Catholic churches? - 'I hope we don't get a whole load of gαys coming onboard.' .. he believes ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are 'abhorent'' and ''against nature'' adding ''in the animal kingdom animals respect their sɛҳuąƖity so from that point of view that is better.'
This one could run and run....for another few centuries.