Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Dom Landford Defending NOM  (Read 31976 times)

0 Members and 292 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Kephapaulos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1900
  • Reputation: +493/-20
  • Gender: Male
Dom Landford Defending NOM
« on: April 10, 2025, 12:16:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • What do we make of this?

    http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/doctrinal-note-on-new-missal-by-dom.html

    Either side of the argument would claim like in that of the Divine Mercy devotion debate that some were taking advantage of Cardinal Ottaviani due to his physcial blindness in his old age. 
    Logged
    "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed nomini tuo da gloriam..." (Ps. 113:9)

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13039
    • Reputation: +8256/-2561
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dom Landford Defending NOM
    « Reply #1 on: April 10, 2025, 12:34:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 1) Why do you care what Dom Landford says?
    2) What is the purpose of a debate on the NOM, in 1970?  The new mass wasn't even "rolled out" fully, in most countries.  The 1970 version isn't what most people got.
    3) Analyzing the new mass in 1970 (which underwent a hurricane of changes since it's 'purest form' early days) is like analyzing a flower before it's bloomed.  The early stages aren't comparable to the finished product.  Less than 1% of new masses were anywhere close to what Ottaviani analyzed (and he had issues with the 1%).  The rest of the 99%, which took longer to implement globally, were so much more modernized than the 1970 version.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47753
    • Reputation: +28253/-5289
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dom Landford Defending NOM
    « Reply #2 on: April 10, 2025, 12:58:06 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Nobody should care about anything on Salza/Siscoe's site, since they now denounce ALL Traditional Catholics as schismatics, claiming that Bergoglio and Joe Biden are Catholics, while +Lefebvre was not.
    Logged

    Offline Kephapaulos

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1900
    • Reputation: +493/-20
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dom Landford Defending NOM
    « Reply #3 on: Yesterday at 12:42:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Bump! :laugh1: 


    Have any others heard of this reply to The Ottaviani Intervention of Dom Lanford?


    Any comments?
    Logged
    "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed nomini tuo da gloriam..." (Ps. 113:9)

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47753
    • Reputation: +28253/-5289
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dom Landford Defending NOM
    « Reply #4 on: Yesterday at 03:00:04 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Almost no one has paid sufficient attention in the NOM to the destruction and eradication of the Catholic Offertory.  Father Cekada says there is no Offertory in the NOM, but that's not exactly right.  There is.  Problem is that it's not a Catholic Offertory, and IMO invalidates the Mass.  Were it not for the Offertory, I would say that the NOM offered with "Eucharistic Prayer I" would certainly be valid, but the New Offertory turns it into a Non-Catholic Rite.
    Logged

    Offline Kephapaulos

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1900
    • Reputation: +493/-20
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dom Landford Defending NOM
    « Reply #5 on: Yesterday at 05:20:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Yes, it is still problematic. It's sad and shows how unintelligent and stubborn men can be when they don't try to think a little more about the depth of meaning of prayers like the tried and true Offertory instead of erring on the side of supposed practicality. And, hey, I understand even though I often can mistakenly take things literally at times. :fryingpan:
    Logged
    "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed nomini tuo da gloriam..." (Ps. 113:9)

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47753
    • Reputation: +28253/-5289
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dom Landford Defending NOM
    « Reply #6 on: Yesterday at 06:40:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I have been working on a little write up about the NO Offertory.  I think that there's been a lot of emphasis placed on references to the Mass being a sacrifice being taken out of the NOM, but there are still in fact some that remain, especially in Eucharistic Prayer I (mostly the Tridentine Canon if you compare the Latin).

    But I think that's the wrong emphasis, since "sacrifice" doesn't necessarily mean a sacrifice such as that of the Mass, as there are expressions like "sacrifice of praise", and the word itself just means to make holy and to dedicate something to God, setting it aside from the world.

    When you get to the part of the Mass where the priest re-enacts as it were what Our Lord did at the Last Supper ... what is he actually doing?  For all you know, he could just be re-enacting it, in the sense of doing it just to remember what He did, as a symbol of His sacrifice on the cross, as a so-called "institution narrative".  So, that's where the Offertory becomes absolutely critical.  It's in the Offertory where the Rite of the Church specifies ... "OK, in what follows, this is what we're doing."  It actually disambiguates the meaning of what follows and sets the intention of the Rite.

    In the Traditional Mass, the priest says we are offering the Spotless Victim (Hostia) for our sins.  Now, some older translations say "Host", and I can't help but wonder whether that's deliberate.  If you look up the Latin word, however, you'll find that Hostia is a technical term for a blood offering or vicitim in a sacrifice.  Colloqually, however, the unconsecrated bread wafers have come to be called "Hosts", and with that "Host" translation, it may have been preparation for what was to come.  Father Cekada's book Work of Human Hands does a great job showing how the liturgical revolution had been underway for a very long time before the NOM, to an extent that I had not been aware of.

    So, the Tridentine Mass, the Offertory says that the priest is offering the Spotless Sacrificial Victim for our sins.

    Father Cekada says that the NOM does not have an Offertory.  Not quite.  It certainly does not have anything that resembles the Tridentine version, but it definitely has an Offertory.

    What does the NOM say we're offering?  We're offering the "fruit of the earth" and "work of human hands", so they may become our spiritual food / drink.  Uhm, so instead of offering the Spotless Victim, we're offering ... bread? wine?  I doubt bread and wine will do anything to make satisfaction for our sins.  But it gets worse.  Some have pointed out that the NOM Offertory resembles a Jєωιѕн table prayer, and that it most certainly does.  Marie-Julie Jahenny related a private revelation in which Our Lord told her that the enemies, the ones who crucified Him (= the Jews) were preparing a New Mass that would be "odious in [His] sight" and would contain "words from the abyss".  So Jєωιѕн table prayer replacing the Offertory certainly would qualify.

    Now, if you take a look at the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.  Abel offered a spotless lamb (Spotless Victim) and his offering was accepted by God.  Cain offered ... the "fruits of the earth" ... and God rejected it.  Now ... think back on Adam's punishment for Original Sin.  God told him that "cursed is the earth in thy work".  So we have "fruits of the earth" offered by Cain, to which the Novus Ordo also adds "work of human hands", but God had cursed the earth in human work, the work of human hands.  So ... the Novus Ordo Mass has the priest offering to God that which He in fact had cursed as a punishment for Original Sin.  St. Paul said Cain's sacrifice was rejected due to lack of faith, but what does that mean, since Cain certainly believed in God.  Well, it means that for some reason he paid no attention to the fact that God had cursed the fruits of the earth.  God made this contrast as a way to foreshadow the difference between the Tridentine Mass, offering a Spotless Victim, just like Abel and the NOM, offering to God the "fruits of the earth", just like Cain, the "work of human hands", after God had CURSED the earth in our work.  This also presages the fact that only a Spotless and Innocent Victim could make up for the sins committed against God, and not the cursed and Fallen.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13629
    • Reputation: +8909/-1627
    • Gender: Male
    the тαℓмυdic "Offertory" of the NOM
    « Reply #7 on: Yesterday at 07:14:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • THE OFFERTORY

    The тαℓмυdic Touch:
    THE REAL STORY OF THE OFFERTORY'S REPLACEMENT

    "In the New Mass the Offertory was replaced by a formula from the тαℓмυd, a classic of hate-literature directed against Jesus with an intensity and perversity perhaps never equaled."

    by Craig Heimbichner

    This article originally appeared in the March, 2004 issue of Catholic Family News, and back on line by request.

    Many articles have been written about the objectionable changes to the Mass which culminated in the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI, and scarcely anything of substance can be added to the incisive Ottaviani Intervention or the exhaustive study of Michael Davies in his third volume of Liturgical Revolution. Even Cardinal Ratzinger is on record admitting the practical disaster of the liturgical reform. It is obvious to devout Catholics that the faithful have been submerged during the period of the New Mass in a swamp marked by non-attendance, widespread unbelief, immorality, irreverence, indifferentism, and compromise. Catholics have seen even their formerly orthodox leaders flailing in a quicksand of ambiguity. While the causes of this broad crisis cannot be solely attributed to the changes in the Mass, an important connection exists, since the rule lex credendi, lex orandi (we believe as we pray) remains vitally true. Yet one of the most subtle and blasphemous changes in the prayer of the Mass has been overlooked. We have been told that the Offertory was replaced by a "Jєωιѕн table blessing" -----a change objectionable enough for a host of reasons. But the reality is far worse: for the Offertory has been replaced by a prayer with no connection to the practices of the Old Testament Israelites, but rather which stems from Christ-rejecting Rabbis who agreed with the Sanhedrin that demanded His death. The astonishing truth is that in the New Mass, the Offertory, was replaced by a formula from the тαℓмυd, a classic of hate-literature directed against Jesus with an intensity and perversity perhaps never equaled. 1 This sacrilege was slipped past the faithful without notice, and deserves exposure as yet one more reason to loudly demand the restoration of a liturgy which honors rather than blasphemes the One Who first said and instituted the Mass itself.

    The Offertory had long been a target of the enemies of Christ and His Church, since it clearly expresses the propitiatory content of the Sacrifice of Christ which is repeated in an unbloody manner in the Mass. The was the subject of a stern warning by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, some of the pretended resurrection of early traditions was patently fraudulent. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the supposed revival of a "Jєωιѕн table blessing" from the days of the first Jєωιѕн converts to Christianity as a replacement for the Offertory. We are supposed to believe that this scrapping of the Offertory marks a return to the type of faith and liturgy of the earliest Church, and furthermore supposedly reminds us of our Jєωιѕн roots.

    All of these alleged reasons and explanations are simply lies, and their subversive nature is underscored by the fact that they succeeded where Luther failed in eliminating the Offertory which he hated. The lies behind this substitution are truly multiform. First, the Offertory was not replaced by a Jєωιѕн table blessing, but by a rabbinical blessing from the тαℓмυd, as we will see below. Second, the тαℓмυd was not written during the life of Christ or His Apostles, and could not have been reflective of anything in the early Church except the traditions of its first enemies. In fact, the тαℓмυd was written in Babylon after the Rabbis had rejected the Messiah -----written in fact by Rabbis in full and venomous agreement with that rejection. Third, the тαℓмυdic blessing is part of a list of "blessings" in the тαℓмυd which also contains curses of Christians. Fourth, what we now know as Judaism-----the rabbinical swamp of blasphemy and paganism codified in the тαℓмυd-----has no connection to the faith of the Old Testament, for it nullifies it (Matthew 15:1-9). Fifth, borrowing any prayer from the тαℓмυd is arguably treason to Christ, for the тαℓмυd-----burned by several astute Popes-----contains the most horrid blasphemies against both Jesus and Mary known to man, only a few of which we will quote for purposes of docuмentation.

    Before supporting these contentions, it is worth noting that the Second Vatican Council Fathers were all warned that covert forces of Judaism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ were about to stage a "coup" at the Council, under the guise of a "brotherly reconciliation" and under the pretext of "bridge-building". This warning came in the form of a large and thoroughly docuмented tome entitled, The Plot Against the Church, penned by several authors under the pseudonym Maurice Pinay. One of the actual authors was Fr. Saenz y Arriaga, later the subject of a questionable excommunication following his exposure of the public wearing of the Jєωιѕн Ephod of Caiaphas by Paul VI-----an emblem replete with Masonic as well as rabbinical symbolism.

    It should also be emphasized that the architect of the New Mass, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, has been well exposed as a secret Freemason. A raid of an Italian Lodge in 1976 revealed a roster of high-ranking Vatican prelates, their dates of initiation into Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and even their code-names. Bugnini entered the Brotherhood on April 23, 1963. His code-name was Buan. 2

    Several Popes had condemned Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, beginning with Clement XII in 1738, and for good reason. The conspiratorial intent of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was not only indicated by its grisly oaths of blind obedience to superiors under pain of assassination-----carried out in the famous William Morgan case 3-----but also in the upper degrees such as the Judaic Kadosh 4 degree, wherein a mock crown and mock papal tiara are stabbed in an unmistakable symbolic attack against Church and State (this degree is the 30th in the worldwide Scottish Rite today). 5 In addition, the common Royal Arch Degree, considered a completion of the Third or Master Mason Degree, contains an invocation "for the good of Masonry, generally, but the Jєωιѕн nation in particular". 6 Hence Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as an institution is clearly pledged to fight against the Church and the well-ordered State, and to serve the interests of Judaism as embodied in the тαℓмυd. For these grave reasons several Popes recognized the threat posed by this subversive secret society and censured it in the strongest possible terms. 7

    Nevertheless, Masons bored from within, in accordance with their own plans which had been exposed by Monsignor Dillon in 1884 and published by Pope Leo XIII one year later at his own expense-----after the Pope had himself written Humanum Genus, the most expansive papal condemnation of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ ever penned. 8 One of the ensuing Masonic triumphs against the Church was clearly the wreckage of the liturgy, led by one of their own members, as we have seen. The hallmarks of treachery are apparent to those with eyes to see and a sensus Catholicus and need no recapitulation here. But this background of anti-Christian subversion and intrigue needs to be stressed to understand the truly blasphemous substitution of the Offertory with a nearly verbatim passage from the masters to whom the Masonic institution is pledged in service as evidenced in the Royal Arch Degree referenced above.

    A modern myth is that this "Jєωιѕн table blessing" has its roots in worship from the time of Ezra. Searching the Bible should reveal that this story is absent from the pages of Holy Writ. Where, then, does it originate? The Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia 9 (published 1901-1906, consisting of twelve volumes) tells us, in its article on Benedictions, that this story of the origin of "blessings" in Judaism is a "rabbinical tradition" in the тαℓмυd itself-----in Berakoth 33a, as indeed it is. As a source of history, however, the тαℓмυd should as a rule be rejected-----just as one should reject the тαℓмυdic stories that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a "harlot" (Sanhedrin l06a), that Adam had sɛҳuąƖ intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden (Yebamoth 63a), that Jesus "learned witchcraft in Egypt" -----(Shabbos l04b), or that Jesus is in Hell being boiled in "hot excrement" (Gittin 57a). One must emphasize that these passages and many others, long denied by Rabbis, have been included in the most recent and authoritative translation of the тαℓмυd-----several volumes of which are still in production-----rendered by the noted тαℓмυdic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. Rabbi Steinsaltz comments on prior truncated and censored versions of the тαℓмυd: "Wherever the тαℓмυd makes derogatory reference to Jesus or to Christianity in general, the comment was completely erased, and the name of Christ was systematically removed
    . . . " 10

    In The Essential тαℓмυd, Rabbi Steinsaltz writes of the supreme importance of the Babylonian тαℓмυd: "Babylonian scholars were soon attracted to the new center and thousands of disciples flocked to study there." 11 What Christ condemned as "the traditions of the elders" (Mark 7:1-13), Rabbi Steinsaltz calls the "oral law," stating that "the work of preserving and codifying the vast body of oral law went on for several generations . . . " 12 This oral law was eventually written down as the тαℓмυd, the most important and authoritative version being the lengthy Babylonian тαℓмυd. Rabbi Steinsaltz traces the gradual development and redaction of the Babylonian тαℓмυd, commenting that "the natural authorities best equipped to clarify problems were the heads of the great Babylonian academies of Sura and Pumbedita". Their authority was unquestioned, and consequently the тαℓмυd assumed the greatest possible importance, eclipsing the Old Testament as the central text of Judaism: "Historically speaking," writes Rabbi Steinsaltz, "the тαℓмυd is the central pillar of Jєωιѕн culture" 13-----note: the тαℓмυd, not the Old Testament. From the redacted тαℓмυdic oral traditions, which Christ denounced as a special mark of the Pharisees and Scribes, came what we know today to be Judaism. And it is from this false religion, premised on the rejection of Jesus, that the replacement of the Offertory in the Mass was culled.

    Some might respond that Judaism is not a different religion, but merely an earlier "phase" of the covenant now called Christianity, 14 with prayers which after all are directed to the same God. In response to this completely false characterization-----confusing as it does the faith of the Israelites with the corruptions of the Pharisees, already well-entrenched in the time of Christ-----I will quote a Doctor of the Church universally neglected today. St. John Chrysostom responds incisively: "But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For He said, 'If you were to know My Father, you would also know Me. But you neither know Me nor do you know My Father.' Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?" 15

    The true origin of the so-called "Jєωιѕн table blessing" is by all evidence the тαℓмυd itself, since absent any other testimony one cannot attribute an authentic Old Testament origin to the practices of those who freely invented so many objectionable traditions that Christ Himself condemned them on several occasions (Mark 7:1-13; Matthew 15:1-9; Matthew 23:25-26). Hence in the Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia explanation of "Benedictions," we find that "in the course of time all these benedictions assumed a stereotyped form; and the rule is given by Rab that, to be regarded as a regular benediction (Ber. 40b), every benediction must contain the name of God, and by R. Johanan that it must contain the attribute of God's kingship." In other words, the тαℓмυd and its rabbinical authors dictated the form of the blessing in Judaism which we later find brazenly imported into the New Mass by Bugnini's committee.

    By the time of Vatican II, of course, the voices crying out for "peace with Judaism" were strong. A new "appreciation" of Judaism was underway in the Church, culminating in the decree of Nostra Aetate that the Jews did not kill Jesus. 16 Flogged by the whip of the h0Ɩ0cαųst, the Church was on the run and trying to prove its sympathy for ѕуηαgσgυєs. If only Paul VI, in reviewing this audacious "swap" in the Mass, had heeded the strong exhortation of St. John Chrysostom: "Since there are some who think of the ѕуηαgσgυє as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the ѕуηαgσgυє and abhor it. They have the prophets but do not believe them; they read the the sacred writings but reject their witness-----and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage." 17 But the advice of this Doctor of the Church was not only ignored, one could say it has been the target of a papal apology actually given within the ѕуηαgσgυє of Rome on April 13, 1986. 18

    The source of the replacement for the Offertory is clarified in the Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia, which introduces a list of "benedictions prescribed in the тαℓмυd and adopted in the liturgy; each of them beginning with the formula 'Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Our God, King of the Universe'!" Although the liturgy of Judaism is intended in the above reference, ironically this тαℓмυdic benediction became repeated almost verbatim in the New Mass, But of even greater irony is the fact that in this instance the Latin is closer in form to the тαℓмυd than the English translation done by the ICEL: for the Latin reads, Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi, which translated literally becomes Blessed are You, Lord, God of the universe, whereas the common translation one encounters is Blessed are You, Lord God of all creation. The difference is small, but the Latin more explicitly parallels the тαℓмυd, Tragically, those who hope for a "purification" of the New Mass by rendering it in Latin would only render the blasphemous parallel between the Offertory's replacement and the тαℓмυd more exact.
     
    As One reads the тαℓмυd and the Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia, it becomes apparent that this formula extends to all benedictions, not merely to table blessings. By the 2nd Century, states the Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia, "they were already fixed as to form and number, since R. Me[size=+2]ï[/size]r declares it to be the duty of everyone to say one hundred benedictions daily . . . " These "benedictions" include reciting a "blessing" after vacating one's bowels ("who has formed man in wisdom and created many orifices . . . "), thanking God for not making one a Gentile, and thanking God "who hast not made me a woman."

    The basic structure of benedictions was eventually crystallized into eighteen. Rabbi Steinsaltz comments, "The Great Assembly . . . decided to compose a standard prayer reflecting the wishes and aspirations of the entire people. It was composed of eighteen benedictions, each dealing in brief with one subject. This prayer, most of which has survived to the present-day and still constitutes the basis of the ѕуηαgσgυє service, consists of three opening benedictions, three closing benedictions, and twelve intermediate ones containing various requests and supplications." 19 Of particular note, however, is the fact that the daily "blessings" of Judaism contain a curse against Christians. As Professor Israel Shahak of
    Hebrew University tells us, "in the most important section of the weekday prayer-----the 'eighteen blessings'-----there is a special curse, originally directed against Christians, Jєωιѕн converts to Christianity and other Jєωιѕн heretics: 'And may the apostates have no hope, and all the Christians perish instantly.' 20" Rabbi Steinsaltz comments, "One of the alterations introduced into the service shortly after the destruction [of the Second Temple] was not, however, connected to the Temple itself but to the problem of the heretic, Gnostic and Christian sects . . . Matters reached such a pass that the Sanhedrin sages at Yavneh decided to add to the Shemoneh Esreh an additional benediction (which is in fact a curse) on heretics 21 . . ." One can see that the prayer-form in the New Mass was used not only for table and even bathroom "blessings" but also to introduce curses of Christians, as even hesitantly admitted by Rabbi Steinsaltz.

    Such is the chill-inducing context of the source of the prayer which replaced the Offertory in the New Mass. Let us be frank: the context is nothing short of blasphemy and sacrilege, for the тαℓмυd and its authors were filled with hatred and curses-----verifiable today in the Steinsaltz тαℓмυd-----against Christ and Christians. 22 The fact that the version of the prayer present in the New Mass is not overtly blasphemous is no more defense of its inclusion than would be the liturgical importing of an innocent-sounding passage from Satanist Meister Crowley's Book of the Law 23 in the name of reaching out to the "misguided" or "connecting with those who have a Seed of the Word however obscure." Let us sweep aside such transparent hogwash and call a spade a spade, a blasphemy a blasphemy, and loudly and persistently demand of Rome the full restoration of what is ours by right: a Mass not born in treason and marked by sacrilege.

    For the Council Fathers were duly warned-----as was Paul VI. To quote from the book handed to each bishop at the Second Vatican Council, "The most infamous conspiracy is in progress against the Church. Her enemies are working to destroy the most holy traditions and thus to introduce dangerous and evil-intended reforms . . . They manifest a hypocritical zeal to modernize the Church and to adapt it to the present-day situation; but in reality they conceal the secret intention of opening the gates . . . to prepare the further destruction of Christianity. All this it is intended to put into effect at the coming Vatican Council. We have proofs of how everything is being planned in secret agreement . . . " 24 But today we do not need proof of treasonous planning, for we can see the results in the implementation of the
    post-conciliar reforms-----including the reform of the liturgy. And nowhere is the hand of an enemy more clearly apparent than in the replacement of the Offertory with words which are a hallmark of a different religion, reproduced from the premier anti-Christian text in the broad history of human resistance to grace.

    Craig Heimbichner is a convert and recognized expert on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the occult. A speaker and writer, he is available to discuss the dangers of the occult and its influence are today. He may be reached in care of Catholic Family News.

    Footnotes:
    1. For this reason the тαℓмυd was ordered burned by Innocent IV in Bulle Impia ʝʊdɛօrum Perfidia, and later again by several Popes.
    2. The facts were related in a September 12, 1978 article in Osservatore Politico in Rome, Italy entitled La gran loggia vaticana. The author reportedly died after printing the list of prelates.
    3. Captain William Morgan, a Royal Arch Freemason, published the Masonic rituals and secret oaths in 1827. He was kidnapped and murdered by fellow Masons, an event which led to the original third political party in the United States: the Anti-Mason Party.
    4. Hebrew for "holy" or "consecrated."
    5. See Secret Societies Illustrated, published by Masonic publisher Ezra A. Cook Publications, Inc., p. 123.
    6. Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor, Malcolm C. Duncan, p. 249.
    7. The excommunication of Freemasons was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law, although Cardinal Ratzinger subsequently clarified on November 26, 1983 that membership is a "grave sin" which excludes one from lawful reception of Holy Communion. One wonders, however, why the explicit canonical ban was removed. It is certainly true that many Catholics heard of this change and joined Masonic Lodges.
    8. The reader is referred to the excellent summary of these docuмents by John Vennari, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church, (TAN Books and Publishers, Inc.) Available from Catholic Family News, $4.00US postpaid.
    9. Available online at www. Jєωιѕнencyclopedia.com
    10. Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential тαℓмυd, p. 84.
    11. Adin Steinsaltz, Ibid., p. 43.
    12. Steinsaltz, Ibid., p. 41.
    13. Ibid., p. 266.
    14. The unbiblical and unCatholic premise of Cardinal Ratzinger's work, Many Religions-----One Covenant: Israel, the Church and the World, Ignatius Press, 1999.
    15. St. John Chrysostom, Discourse on Judaizing Christians, III (2).
    16. The day this was decreed, St. Simon of Trent was removed from the Roman Calendar-----the child Martyr who had been killed by Jews on Good Friday out of hatred of Christ.
    17. St. John Chrysostom, Ibid., V (2).
    18. John Paul II was directly confronted on this occasion with the burning of the тαℓмυd by his predecessors. His response was to apologize for "the acts of discrimination, unjustified limitation of religious freedom . . . in regard to the Jews . . . by anyone," and he added,"I repeat, by anyone." See Luigi Accattoli, Man of the Millennium: John Paul II, pp. 139-40. If John Paul II included prior Popes in his apology, by clear implication he included St. John Chrysostom, who was famous for his fiery denunciation of тαℓмυdic poison.
    19. Adin Steinsaltz, Ibid., pp. 101-102.
    20. Israel Shahak, Jєωιѕн History, Jєωιѕн Religion, p. 63.
    21. Adin Steinsaltz, Ibid., p. 105.
    22. An excellent summary of these passages can be obtained in the concise reference work Judaism's Strange Gods by Michael A. Hoffman II.
    23. For example, would a neo-Catholic object to the phrase, "There is no bond that can unite the divided but love"? Innocent enough in itself, it is a quotation from the odious Masonic Book of the Lawof Crowley, which,liketheтαℓмυd, contains blasphemy against Jesus and Mary. If one finds a quote from Crowley objectionable-----as one should-----the objection holds a fortiori against the Rabbis who lived closer to the time of Christ, and yet denigrated Him with even worse blasphemy in the тαℓмυd.
    24. Maurice Pinay, The Plot Against the Church, p. 15.     [/font]
    Logged
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »