Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Jimmy Garropolo traded to 49ers. Analysis must be anchored in politics because kneeling

The San Francisco 49ers traded a 2018 second-round draft pick for New England Patriots quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo on Tuesday.  

Garoppolo was stabbed in the back of his heart by a Belly Chick in a swift boat and he had his reputation buried at wounded knee after a walk of shame on the trail of tears when his back was to the wall and there was no tomorrow and San Francisco will win Fifty-Four Forty or fight against Kumatsu or Kimoy because the only way to MAGA is to cross that bridge to the 21st century and put a chicken in every pot because I like Ike.

Holocaust (13)

It is prolly best to begin with a definition of a holocaust:

Among the Israelites and even now among many non-Christian believers, an offering entirely consumed by fire. In Jewish tradition, only animals could be offered in holocaust, which is regarded as the most complete expression of one's reverence for God. A holocaust could either be prescribed by law or voluntarily made in fulfillment of a private vow or as an act of devotion. In the Old Testament, holocausts were vivid reminders of God's supreme dominion over his creatures. They were means of atonement for sin, and they foreshadowed the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. (Etym. Greek holokaustos, burned whole.)

Now, up until WWII, we Christian Catholics (We who follow Jesus in the universal Church He established) not only held that belief corporately, but we were repeatedly taught that by our Popes, Princes, Prelates, and Priests.

And it was because this truth was repeatedly taught - Repetitio est mater studiorum - that, morally speaking, The Catholic Church could not be

driven off this truthful ground of belief.

But, that has all changed now, hasn't it?  Our new 

orientation is that there is a new holocaust that needs 
addressing and we are repeatedly told that we must never forget and that we must go along with its absurd charge (psychological projection) that we are responsible for the holocaust (Jews always innocent, Catholics always guilty).

Here is just one example (although many more could be produced) of such by one of the so-called gang of eight, Sean Cardinal o'Malley, who identified the mass murders of Jews by the Nazis the worst crime in history. 


Well, Amateur Brain Surgeon calls such Cultural Marxist bowing and scraping before the Messias-Deniers an abomination worthy of excommunication were he Pope.

What happened to the Jews during World War Two is not even morally discernible when compared to the worst crime in history - Deicide, - but to state that what happened to the Jews in WW2 is the worst crime in history is to  

denigrate the only act worthy of the name, Holocaust, if that word is to have any historical and true definition.

What? You think the Nazi's, in killing Jews, were actualising that which was a type in the old testament?  Did God choose the Nazis to sacrifice sinful Jews as the way to actualise Salvation? Were the Jews offering themselves as a salvific sacrifice?

Those are a few of the unavoidable intellectual consequences deriving from the idea that war crimes are a holocaust.

Please. Such an idea would have to have a dozen weather balloons attached to it just so it could rise to the level of absurdity.

So let's just go back in time a bit...to a time when the liberalism we now suffer under was dutifully ascending into its mephitic power.

Even prior to WWII, we Catholics had publicly 

addressed our complicated relationship with the 
Messiah-Deniers in a fashion that revealed our 
already liberalised inclinations.

(Pope Pius X condemned that liberalism as, 


In any event, one expression of that 

liberalism/modernism was, the Opus Sacerdotal 
Amici Israel movement  that was then gaining great
favor amongst the mighty within the Church before 
its ideological inclinations (innocent Jews, guilty 
Catholics) were scotched by the great Rafael Maria 
Jose Pedro Francisco Borja Gerardo de la Santissima
Trinidad Merry del Val y Zulueta; Cardinal 
Merry del Val.

It was a movement that, while it began with positive

motives (as did the Liturgical Movement), began to 
be corrupted by liberals/modernists and it sought, 
among other things, to change the prayers of Holy
Mass to  please the Messias-Deniers as if not 
irritating any group of persons could be the purpose
of any Holy Mass (pace Pauline Rite)..

Here is the decree ditching that expression of



“The nature and purpose of the association called” Friends of Israel “was submitted to the judgment of the Congregation of the Holy Office, and a booklet entitled Pax super Israel , edited for this purpose [ idcirco ]  by management and spread extensively to better understanding of the characteristics and method, attendants Eminent Fathers to guard the faith and morals were first recognized the commendable side of this association, which is to urge faithful to pray and work for the conversion of Jews to the reign of Christ. It is not surprising that at the beginning, this association having in mind that this single purpose, not only many faithful and priests, but many bishops, have acceded. The Catholic Church, in fact, has always been used to pray for the Jewish people, which was the custodian of the divine promises up to Jesus Christ, despite the continual blindness of that people, even more, because even this blindness. With what charity the Apostolic See has he not protected the same people against unjust vexations!Because it rejects all hatred and animosities between peoples, condemning the utmost hatred against the people formerly chosen by God, this hatred that today we usually refer to as an “anti-Semitism “. However, noticing and considering that this association “Friends of Israel” then adopted a way of acting and thinking contrary to the meaning and spirit of the Church, at the thought of the Holy Fathers and the liturgy, the Eminent Fathers, having received the votes of Consultors of the Plenary Meeting of 21 March 1928, decreed that the association of the “Friends of Israel” should be deleted. They declared effectively abolished, and prescribed that no one in the future, will allow to write or edit books or pamphlets to promote nature in any way similar erroneous initiatives. The following Thursday, 22nd of the same month of the same year, in the audience granted to the Assessor of the Holy Office, the Holy Father Pius XI Pope by Divine Providence, approved the decision of the Fathers and Eminent ordered its publication. Given in Rome, at the Palace of the Holy Office, 25 March 1928. ”

If we were to change [the prayer] it would appear that the Church had erred up to now,” the Pope said

But we know that Liberalism/Modernism was aught but suppressed within the Church and never defeated and so we see its corrosive denaturing of Catholicism achieving its malign triumphalism wherein the Holocaust of Jesus Christ has been replaced by the war crimes the Nazis visited upon the Jews.

Whereas it was once an openly acknowledged plain and simple truth amongst Catholics that the Passion and Death of Our Lord and Saviour was The Holocaust, see below for an example:

Pierre Barbet, M.D. A Doctor at Calvary

such an understanding about THE HOLOCAUST has been reduced to a recondite reality amongst a handful of traditionalists.

But what about the definition about the Holocaust being a burnt offering, you ask?

Well, it was the burning charity of Jesus which took the place of material fire:

Article 3. Whether Christ's Passion operated by way of sacrifice?

Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's Passion did not operate by way of sacrifice. For the truth should correspond with the figure. But human flesh was never offered up in the sacrifices of the Old Law, which were figures of Christ: nay, such sacrifices were reputed as impious, according to Psalm 105:38: "And they shed innocent blood: the blood of their sons and of their daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of Chanaan." It seems therefore that Christ's Passion cannot be called a sacrifice.

Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x) that "a visible sacrifice is a sacrament--that is, a sacred sign--of an invisible sacrifice." Now Christ's Passion is not a sign, but rather the thing signified by other signs. Therefore it seems that Christ's Passion is not a sacrifice.

Objection 3. Further, whoever offers sacrifice performs some sacred rite, as the very word "sacrifice" shows. But those men who slew Christ did not perform any sacred act, but rather wrought a great wrong. Therefore Christ's Passion was rather a malefice than a sacrifice.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Ephesians 5:2): "He delivered Himself up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness."

I answer that, A sacrifice properly so called is something done for that honor which is properly due to God, in order to appease Him: and hence it is that Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): "A true sacrifice is every good work done in order that we may cling to God in holy fellowship, yet referred to that consummation of happiness wherein we can be truly blessed." But, as is added in the same place, "Christ offered Himself up for us in the Passion": and this voluntary enduring of the Passion was most acceptable to God, as coming from charity. Therefore it is manifest that Christ's Passion was a true sacrifice. Moreover, as Augustine says farther on in the same book, "the primitive sacrifices of the holy Fathers were many and various signs of this true sacrifice, one being prefigured by many, in the same way as a single concept of thought is expressed in many words, in order to commend it without tediousness": and, as Augustine observe, (De Trin. iv), "since there are four things to be noted in every sacrifice--to wit, to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered--that the same one true Mediator reconciling us with God through the peace-sacrifice might continue to be one with Him to whom He offered it, might be one with them for whom He offered it, and might Himself be the offerer and what He offered."

Reply to Objection 1. Although the truth answers to the figure in some respects, yet it does not in all, since the truth must go beyond the figure. Therefore the figure of this sacrifice, in which Christ's flesh is offered, was flesh right fittingly, not the flesh of men, but of animals, as denoting Christ's. And this is a most perfect sacrifice. First of all, since being flesh of human nature, it is fittingly offered for men, and is partaken of by them under the Sacrament. Secondly, because being passible and mortal, it was fit for immolation. Thirdly, because, being sinless, it had virtue to cleanse from sins. Fourthly, because, being the offerer's own flesh, it was acceptable to God on account of His charity in offering up His own flesh. Hence it is that Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "What else could be so fittingly partaken of by men, or offered up for men, as human flesh? What else could be so appropriate for this immolation as mortal flesh? What else is there so clean for cleansing mortals as the flesh born in the womb without fleshly concupiscence, and coming from a virginal womb? What could be so favorably offered and accepted as the flesh of our sacrifice, which was made the body of our Priest?"

Reply to Objection 2. Augustine is speaking there of visible figurative sacrifices: and even Christ's Passion, although denoted by other figurative sacrifices, is yet a sign of something to be observed by us, according to 1 Peter 4:1: "Christ therefore, having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sins: that now he may live the rest of his time in the flesh, not after the desires of men, but according to the will of God."

Reply to Objection 3. Christ's Passion was indeed a malefice on His slayers' part; but on His own it was the sacrifice of one suffering out of charity. Hence it is Christ who is said to have offered this sacrifice, and not the executioners.

It is the Fiery Charity of Jesus that replaced the material fire...

Malign Modernism is triumphant during this execrable ecclesiastical epoch but Amateur Brain Surgeon will, to the extent he is aware of it, repudiate it and all of its satanic promises of a faux  anthropocentric peace with the permanent enemies of Jesus, The Messias-Deniers, and while Amateur Brain Surgeon loves the Jews, he will not supplant THE HOLOCAUST with the faux worship of Holocaustry for it was the best and the then brightest of the Catholic Church - The Jesuits - who warned all about the grave trouble headed the Jews way if the Christian nations of Europe did not deal with the Jews as they had to be dealt with if cataclysmic calamity was not to befall them: 

October 23, 1890 La Civiltà Cattolica, on The Jewish Question

Ultimate Defense: Setting Aside Civil Equality

But as long as Christianity doesn't shed the political yoke of Masonry, it will be vain to propose and discuss possible solutions for liberation. The only solution and, at the same time the most reliable one, is to turn back and retake the way where one has gone astray. If the Hebrews are not put in their place by humane and Christian laws, certainly, but nevertheless by laws of exception which deprive them of civil equality, to which they have no right and which is even no less pernicious for them than it is for Christians, little or nothing will be accomplished. Seeing the inevitability of their presence in the various countries; seeing their unalterable nature of their being foreigners in every country, and of their being enemies of each country that tolerates them, and of their being a society always separated from the societies in which it lives; seeing the Talmud's morality that they follow, and the fundamental dogma of their religion which impels them to seize, by any means whatsoever, the goods of all peoples, because it assigns to their race the possession of, and the domination over, all the world; seeing that the experience of many centuries, and that one which we are undergoing at present, has proven and still proves, that the legal equality with Christians conceded to them in the Christian states results either in their oppression of Christians or in their slaughter by Christians, there emerges the consequence that the only way of reconciling the Hebrews' residence with the Christians' rights is to regulate it with such laws which, at the same time, impede the Hebrews from offending the Christians' welfare, and impede the Christians from offending that of the Hebrews.

And this is just what, in a more or less perfect manner, has been done in the past; this is what, for a century, the Hebrews have tried to abolish; but this is also what, sooner or later, willingly or unwillingly, will have to be restored, and perhaps the Hebrews themselves will be constrained to ask that it be restored. For the predominance to which today's revolutionary law has helped them is digging an abyss under their feet, whose depth corresponds to the height to which they have risen. And at the first burst of the storm they are provoking by their very predominance at present, they will suffer such an enormous ruin, heralding an event as unequaled in their history as their modern audacity is also unequaled and with which they have trampled the nations that have madly exalted them.

On January 30, 1930, German President Paul Von Hindenburg named Adolph Hitler Chancellor – only forty years after the official Catholic Church's media organ, La Civilta Cattolica , issued its onimous warning


But, few then listened and fewer have ears and eyes open to the truth now.

Look, it is plain and simple, the Messias-Deniers are also Holocaust Deniers in that they reject Jesus as their Messias and their Savior.

Messiah: The Hebrew word for "Anointed One." The equivalent word in Greek is Christos. In the Old Testament it was sometimes applied in a general sense to prophets or priests (Exodus 30:30), but more specifically it referred to the coming of one who would usher in a period of righteousness and conquer sin and evil (Daniel 9:26). In the New Testament the Evangelists made it clear that they knew Jesus was the long-anticipated Messiah (Acts 2:36; Matthew 16:17; Galatians 3:24-29). Those who refused to accept Jesus interpreted the promised kingdom to be a worldly domain and looked forward to a messiah who would be a military leader to help Israel triumph over her enemies.

The Jews are forever drowning in a racial supremacist quicksand, always asking - Is it good for the Jews? - for it is always about them.

A column from Rabbi Gellman serves as an instructive lesson:


Y'all can do as you desire but Amateur Brain Surgeon confesses, believes, and tries to teach others that there is ONLY ONE HOLOCAUST; THE SALVIFIC HOLY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST ON CALVARY and Re-presented at Mass.

He who says Holocaust must be speaking about Jesus Christ on Calvary and His Pluperfect Sacrifice of Salvation and/or Mass.

anything else is benighted bunk demanded of us by politically oriented Popes, Princes, Prelates, and Priests; and on earth there will never be a pair of ears that will hear Amateur Brain Surgeon confess such a lie as that proposed by Sean Cardinal O'Malley and the like.

Monday, October 30, 2017

Holocaust (12)

1 Thess 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved-so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them at last! 17 But since we were bereft of you, brethren, for a short time, in person not in heart, we endeavored the more eagerly and with great desire to see you face to face; 18 because we wanted to come to you—I, Paul, again and again—but Satan hindered us. 19 For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you? 20 For you are our glory and joy.

Saint Thomas Aquinas comments: In what has gone before the Apostle disclosed the character of his coming to them; here he indicates the character of their conversion. In treating this Paul makes two points. First, he shows that they have been perfectly converted as a result of their steadfast faith; secondly, he shows how courageously they persevered amidst tribulations (2:14). Paul first remarks upon their blessings, for which he offers thanks, and then he supplies a reason for this.

So Paul says, and, since I have carefully preached to you, as a father to his children, I therefore thank God as a father does for the welfare of his children: “No greater joy can I have than this, to bear that my children follow the truth” (3 Jn. 1:3). “With thanksgiving” (Phil. 4:6). But for what reason? For this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. The preacher should give thanks when his preaching proves to be effective in the lives of his congregation. Paul tells them, you heard the word of God from us, that is, through us: “Let me hear what God the Lord will speak” (Ps. 85:8). “Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ (Rom. 10: 17). You accepted it, that is, you kept it firmly in your heart, not as the word of men; for the words of man are empty: “You desire proof that Christ is speaking in me” (2 Cor. 13:3). “No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:21). And why does he give thanks? Because the fact that you have believed, God has worked in you. “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). “Thou hast wrought for us all our works” (Is. 26:12).

Then when be says, for you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea, he shows how courageously they persevered in the midst of tribulations; and in treating this he makes two points. First, he speaks of their trials, in which they stood firm; secondly, of the remedy he proposes to apply (2:17). Again, the first point is divided into two parts. First, Paul commends them for their patience in the face of difficulties; secondly, be reprehends those responsible for the difficulties (2:15).

Consequently, Paul says: you received the word not as the word of men, but as what it really is, the word of God, for you exposed yourselves for its sake even to death. The fact that a man dies for the sake of Christ is testimony to the fact that the words of the faith are the words of God; and, therefore, “martyrs” means the same as “witnesses.” In Judea, for it is there that the faith of Christ was first proclaimed: “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Is. 2:3). In addition, it was also there that the first persecution of the faith occurred, as is evident from Acts (8:1): “On that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem.” “But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings” (Heb. 10:32). The Thessalonians endured similar difficulties, so Paul remarks: for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen, that is, from the incredulous Thessalonians: “And a man’s foes will be those of his own household” (Matt. 10:36).

Then when Paul observes, who killed both the Lord Jesus, he rebukes the Jews who started the persecution. First, he recalls their sin, and then the reason for the sin (2:16). In regard to the first point Paul does three things: first, he treats their sin in relation to God’s ministers; secondly, with reference to God Himself; and thirdly as relating to the entire human race.

The ministers of God are those who preach, namely, Christ, the prophets and the apostles. Preaching is performed by Christ as the one from whom the doctrine originates, by the prophets who prefigured this doctrine, and by the apostles who carry out the injunction to preach.

Paul first makes reference to Christ when he says: who killed the Lord Jesus, as is clear from Matthew (21:38): “This is the heir; come, let us kill him.” That it was the Gentiles who killed him is not a valid objection, for the Jews with their own words asked Pilate to kill him: “My heritage has become to me like a lion in the forest, she has lifted up her voice against me” (Jer. 12:8). Paul then speaks of the prophets when he mentions: and the prophets. “Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered” (Ac. 7:52). Paul next speaks of the apostles when he comments: and drove us out, that is, the apostles. “Beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues” (Mt. 10: 17).

Secondly, Paul mentions the sin of the Jews in its relation to God, with the words: and displease God, although they may think that through this they do a service to God, as is evident in John 16. Actually, because they do not have zeal for God in accordance with knowledge, they are not pleasing to God, since they do not act in keeping with right faith and “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb. 11:6); “therefore the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people, and he stretched out his hand against them and smote them” (Is. 5:25).

Thirdly, Paul considers their sin in its relation to the whole human race, when he says: and oppose all men. “His hand against every man and every man’s hand against him” (Gen. 16:12). And they are antagonistic, because they prohibit and impede the preaching to the Gentiles, and also the conversion of the Gentiles. In Acts 10 and 11 Peter is criticized for having gone to Cornelius; also in Luke 15 the elder son, the Jewish people, is disturbed because the younger son, the Gentile people, is received by the father. “Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting”’ (Is. 45:10). “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets” (Num. 11-29).

The reason for this sin is found in the divine permission, by which God wills that they fill up the measure of their sins. Indeed, for all things which come about, either good or bad, there is a certain measure, because nothing is infinite; and the measure of all these things is in [God’s] foreknowledge. The measure of good things is what it prepares, for “grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift” (Eph. 4:7); the measure of evil things, however, is what it permits, for if some are “evil, they are not as evil as they want, but as God permits. And, therefore, they live until they attain that which God permits: “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers” (Matt. 23:32). So Paul says: so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. For after the suffering of Christ, God gave the Jews forty years to repent, but they were not converted; rather they multiplied their sins. God did not permit this to go on, so Paul states: but Gods wrath has come upon them until the end. “For great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us (2 Kg22:13). “For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people” (Lk. 21:23). And you should not think that this wrath shall last for one hundred years only, but until the end of the world, when all the Gentiles will have embraced [the Christian religion], and then all of Israel shall be saved, as it appears from Rom. 10, Lk. 19:44, 21:6, and Matt. 24:2: “There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.”

Then when Paul says, but since we were bereft of you, brethren, for a short time, he shows the remedy that he proposed to apply for them, namely, that he will personally go to them. In regard to this he makes three points: first, be discusses his proposed visit; secondly he treats the obstacle to his visit (2:18); thirdly, he gives the reason why he wanted to go (2:19).

So Paul says: but since we were bereft of you, either on account of your tribulations, or because we were separated from you [in conversation], that is, missing the opportunity for conversation, and in person, that is, not being able to enjoy your company. Both of these things require the presence of a friend because it is consoling. But not in heart, for we are present in heart, as is evident from 1 Cor. (5:3): “For though absent in body I am present in spirit.” We endeavored the more eagerly and with great desire to see you face to face, that we may be present also in body as we are in our heart; “I have longed for many years to come to you” (Rom. 15:23). When Paul says we, he intends a plural meaning, because he writes in the name of three persons, that is, in his own name, and that of Silvanus, and of Timothy. Therefore Paul says: we wanted to come to you, all of us perhaps once, but I Paul, again and again, that is twice, as I proposed; but Satan hindered us, that is, set up obstacles, perhaps through violent winds, as in: “Four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth” (Rev. 7:1).

Then when Paul says: for what is our hope, he gives the reason for his proposal. First, in regard to the future; secondly, in regard to the present (2:20). Paul says: I desire to see you and I give thanks for your blessings which are our hope; for it is on account of these blessings that we hope for rewards from God, when He shall come to render to every one according to his deeds. For the greatest reward of the preacher comes from those whom he has converted. Or joy, because their joy is the Apostle’s joy, just as their goodness is the Apostle’s goodness; for the goodness of the effect is accounted for by the goodness of the cause. Or crown of boasting, because as a result of their struggles he who encouraged them to struggle shall be decorated; for the commander who led the soldiers to combat is decorated: “He who disciplines his son will profit by him, and will boast of him among acquaintances” (Sir. 30:2). 1 ask what is this hope; is it not you? Yes, assuredly: in the future, that is, before our Lord Jesus at his coming; but also in the present, for you are, among all the faithful, our glory: I would rather die than have any one deprive me of my ground for boasting” (1 Cor. 9:15); and joy, for which reason Paul rejoices over their good fortune in the present.

Matt 12:30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.

Following the late 20th century political reproachment between Catholics and Jews, we Catholics have allowed ourselves to descend into such an insane state of affairs that a man can not be consecrated a Bishop if he is a so-called holocaust-denier whereas a man can not become a head rabbi of a Jewish organization unless he is a Messias-Denier.

What is worse, being a Holocaust-Denier or a Messias-Denier? 

Both the world and the Church have the same answer, don't they?

A Holocaust Denier is an evil blackguard whereas a Messias-Denier is a respected and honored man.

However, the consequences of being a Holocaust-Denier are resolved according to the differing levels of punishment inflicted by the dominant group controlling the world whereas being a Messias-Denier merits eternal punishment from God.

Luke 19:27 But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them bring them hither; and kill them before me

Cornelius a Lapide commentary:

Ver. 27.—But those mine enemies (the Jews, His citizens, who would not have Him to reign over them) bring them hither—to my Tribunal, in the valley of Jehosaphat and Jerusalem—and kill them before Me.” In the Greek, “Kill them before my face.” Our Lord alludes to those victorious kings who slew and destroyed their conquered rebels. By this destruction Christ signifies the extreme judgment of the Jews and His other enemies, and their own condemnation to eternal death in Gehenna, and that a living and vital death, where they will be perpetually tormented by death-dealing flames, and yet will never die. Our Lord alludes to Titus, who slaughtered the conquered Jews. He describes precisely to the letter the condemnation of the Jews, and the Gehenna which He has appointed for them when He shall return from heaven to judge and condemn them and the reprobate.

How can the magisterium take the decision not to seek the conversion of the Jews knowing the consequences of them not converting and the consequences of not preaching Christ and conversion?

1 Corinth 9:16 For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon me; for woe is unto me if I not preach the gospel.

Cornelius a Lapide commentary:

Ver. 16.—Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. It appears from this that strict injunctions were given to the Apostles (S. Matt. xxviii. 19) to preach the Gospel and teach all nations, insomuch that, if they had neglected to do so, they would have sinned mortally. For on those that neglect this their duty he pronounces the woe of the wrath of God and of hell. By the same injunctions all pasters, Bishops, and Archbishops are now bound. 

Pray for all Popes, Prelates, and Priests who have taken the decision not to preach the Gospel to the Jews and seek their conversion to the Faith but, rather, seek aught but their friendship and approval.

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Holocaust (11)

In his address during his historic visit to the Great Synagogue of Rome April 13, 1986, Pope Saint John Paul II said:
…the Church of Christ discovers her ‘bond’ with Judaism by ‘searching into her own mystery.’ The Jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us, but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion. With Judaism, therefore, we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers
He was specifically addressing Non-Catholic living Jews who have no – zip, zero, zilch, nada – connection with Old Testament Judaism.
With the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as punishment for the crime of Deicide, the Jewish religion died for the Temple and The priesthood and the Sacrifices were destroyed/abolished and Rabbinical Judaism was created to war against Jesus Christ and his Church – and those Messias-Denying, Holocaust-Denying, false religion revolutionaries are our elder brothers?

Can one identify one member of the priesthood of Aaron who became a Catholic?  

No, for the priesthood of Aaron were the rulers of the Synagogue with whom the Christians  had no connection save a negative one; that is, once it was discovered that a faithful Jew was a disciple of Christ he was kicked-out of the Synagogue. 

The Synagogue was the sanctuary of the faithless Jews then and it is the sanctuary of the faithless Jew now.
Look around, where is the Temple, Priesthood, and Animal Sacrifices that were constitutive of Judaism?

Nowhere, for now.
Few men know that Rabbinical Judaism has re-established the Sanhedrin and have plans to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and to sacrifice a red heifer, so, they’ve got that going for them, but, back to our elder brothers.

With our putative elder brothers being they who formed as rabbinical judaism in 70 AD we have on our hands a miracle in that those younger than us are proclaimed elders.
Who knows these novel mysteries, who professes these novel mysteries?
The Shadow (church) does.