Review of Judaism and the Vatican: An Attempt at Spiritual Subversion. Vicomte Léon de Poncins.

Review of Judaism and the Vatican: An Attempt at Spiritual Subversion
Vicomte Léon de Poncins, trans. Timothy Tindal-Robertson
Palmdale, CA.: Christian Book Club of America, reprinted 1999. Originally printed 1967.

Editor’s note: TOO has posted several articles over the years on Jewish influence on the Catholic Church: George F. Held’s translations of Léon de Poncins: The Problem with the Jews at the Council in four parts, Jimmy Moglia’s “Quo Vadis Vatican? Jewish involvement in the radical changes of the Second Vatican Council,” my “The role of Jewish converts to Catholicism in changing traditional Catholic teachings on Jews.” Andrew Joyce’s “Jews, White Guilt, and the Death of the Church of England” shows how some of these same figures (e.g., Jules Isaac) have influenced the Church of England.

After a little over a half century, it has become quite clear that the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) and the changes which took place in its wake—especially the promulgation of the New Mass by Pope Paul VI/Montini (1963–78)—has created a new religion that while it may still be called “Catholic” is in reality something quite different than what had existed for some two thousand years beforehand. The Council had been called by Pope John XXIII/Roncalli (1958–1963) to be “pastoral” and not to define doctrine or settle theological disputes; however, it was quickly taken over by Modernist forces who, despite being a minority (albeit a very determined minority), were able to force through a progressive agenda.

The Modernist takeover at Vatican II was not by happenstance, but, as with a great many important historical events, was well planned in advance. John XXIII’s predecessor, Pope Pius XII/Pacelli (1939–1958), had contemplated calling a council, but had been warned against it. Although Pius XII prevailed in not convoking a general assembly and is thought by many as the last “traditional” pope, an objective look at his appointments and actions during his pontificate paint a different picture. Many of the Vatican II revolutionaries operated freely during Pius XII’s reign and some had gained influential positions inside the Roman Curia. One of the most prominent Modernist was the future Pope, Paul VI.

It has been argued that had the Council never been convoked and had the Church retained its traditional stance on morals and doctrine, the cultural revolution which took place in the 1960s and beyond may have never taken place or would have been mitigated. The Vatican II documents, in many instances, were not explicitly heretical, but they were worded in such a way that they could (and were) interpreted in a liberal fashion. Modernists boasted that the Council inaugurated a “New Springtime” in the Church which would add converts and invigorate the faithful to greater devotion. Just the opposite occurred, as millions left and joined other denominations or simply lost interest .

Vatican II would have profound societal effects, especially in regard to marriage, child rearing, and the role of women. Very soon after the Council had ended, “Catholic divorce” in the form of Church annulments became popular. Where marriage in the time before Vatican II was held as indissoluble, married couples by the thousands were afterwards granted annulments by Church authorities and could and did remarry. Traditionally, Catholic women were seen and acted as homemakers and child-bearers or, if called, sought a religious vocation; after Vatican II women were encouraged to pursue careers and were granted positions in the Church and even allowed liturgical roles. Under the papacy of John Paul II/Wojtyla (1978–2005) for the first time, younger women and girls were permitted to become altar servers.

The New Springtime proved to be an unmitigated disaster on all fronts, as not only vocations, Church attendance, and membership plummeted to historic lows, but also widespread divorce and the new role of women led to a catastrophic drop in birthrates especially among the Catholic populations of Western Europe.

One of the most significant changes which took place at the Council was on the relationship between the Church and the Jews. The Modernists had hoped, with considerable Jewish backing, to push through language which would absolve the Jews from their crime of Deicide, condemn “anti-Semitism,” and play down Christian efforts to convert the Jews. Evangelization was to be replaced with the idea that Jews were “elder brothers” of Christians, as opposed to the traditional doctrine of “supercession”—that the covenant between God and the Church superceded the covenant between God and the Jews. This new construct appeared with the notion of Western civilization’s “Judeo-Christian” heritage which became a popular phrase in conservative and neoconservative literature.

There were few Churchmen or those among the laity who opposed Vatican II and almost none who objected to the new policy toward the Jews or did any investigation on how such a radical change came about. Among the few who did was Vicomte Léon de Poncins, a distinguished French author who had written numerous books and articles dealing with Freemasonry, the Jews, and subversive political movements. Poncins was the founder of the famous review, Contre-Révolution, which was published in Switzerland. He came from a distinguished French family. His great-grand-fathers were defenders of the Ancien Régime, one losing his life fighting the revolutionaries in 1789, while the other was imprisoned by Napoleon for his support of the monarchy.

Poncins wrote two books shortly after the close of the Council: Judaism and the Vatican (1967) and Freemasonry and the Vatican (1968). The former chronicled the events, personalities, and literature which led to the changes which took place in the decades prior to Vatican II in regards to the Jews. It also gave a first-hand commentary on the machinations which went on behind the scenes at the Council, including the actions of Paul VI and progressive bishops which many Catholic conservatives at the time, and even now, did not hold accountable or looked the other way, especially about the Pope’s involvement.

While there have been studies of Vatican II in the turbulent years which followed and while most have included analysis of the changes in Church policy toward the Jews, the later literature (mostly from traditional Catholic sources) has steered clear of the notion that the Jews had malicious intentions in their efforts. More traditional authors argued that they were doing so for self-preservation and in reaction to Christian persecution. Poncins was not of this mode of thought, believing in more sinister aspects of Jewish behavior which was why he was smeared and called an “anti-Semite.”

The Jewish onslaught on the Church began in earnest after the conclusion of World War II. The justification that Jewish intellectuals used was that the persecution of the Jews under National Socialism was the culmination of Gentile oppression and hatred which stemmed back to the time of Constantine’s emancipation of the Church and his patronage of it. Once given power, both Church and state persecuted the Jews over the next two millennia.

The reason for the Church’s animus toward the Jews was Christianity itself which at its root was “anti-Semitic.” In the minds of Christians, the Jews were directly responsible for Christ’s death. Therefore, the Gospel accounts which placed the blame on the Jews during Christ’s “trial” and Crucifixion, along with the early Church Fathers’ commentary on these events, had to be discredited. Later, the great Church doctors also had to be undermined for their upholding of Jewish responsibility in the death of Christ.

The pronouncements on non-Christian religions and the declaration Nostra aetate passed in the Fourth Session of the Council (1965) accomplished almost all that the Modernists had hoped for. In effect, these pronouncements repudiated nearly two thousand years of Catholic teaching on the Jews. Ever since, the Church has continually bowed to Jewish pressure in regard to its liturgy, the naming of saints, and in the political realm—its most infamous decision in the latter being the recognition of the state of Israel in 1994.

Poncins, who closely covered the Vatican II proceedings, wrote of the declaration:

. . . a number of Jewish organizations and personalities are behind the reforms which were proposed at the Council with a view to modifying the Church’s attitude and time-honored teaching about Judaism: Jules Isaac, Label Katz, President of the B’nai B’rith, Nahum Goldman, President of the World Jewish Congress, etc. . . . These reforms are very important because they suggest that for two thousand years the Church had been mistaken and that she must make amends and completely reconsider her attitude to the Jews. [10]

The leading figure in the years prior to the Council was the virulent anti-Catholic writer Jules Isaac, and he played an active role during the Counsel. “Isaac,” Poncins describes, “turned the Council to advantage, having found there considerable support among progressive bishops. In fact he became the principal theorist and promoter of the campaign being waged against the traditional teaching of the Church.” [11]

Isaac had long before begun his hostile campaign to overturn Catholic teaching on the Jews with his two most important books on the subject: Jésus et Israel (1946) and Genése de l’Antisémitisme (1948). Poncins accurately summarizes the main thrust of these works:

 In these books Jules Isaac fiercely censures Christian teaching, which he says has been the source of modern anti-Semitism, and preaches, though it would be more correct to say he demands, the ‘purification’ and ‘amendment’ of doctrines two thousand years old. [11]

The two fonts of Revelation are: Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. To be successful, Isaac had to challenge the veracity of the Gospels, a seemingly monumental undertaking, but Jewish hubris apparently knows no bounds. The passages which Poncins quotes from show a number of inconsistencies, errors, and omissions which makes one wonder how books so flawed and biased could attain such notoriety. Poncins points out the shabby scholarship and vitriol that Isaac has for his subject:

In short, in their account of the Passion, now revised and corrected  by Jules Isaac, the writers of the Gospels appear as arrant liars of whom Matthew is unquestionably the most venomous. [19]


While the Romans cannot be completely exonerated for Christ’s death, Isaac focuses solely on the actions of Pilate during the Passion. He ignores the number of occasions during His three-year ministry where the Jews sought to kill Him. The most important omission was when Caiphas, shortly after the raising of Lazarus, condemned Christ to die: “Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” [S. John ch. xi, vs. 50] There is no evidence, even at that late date, that any of the high Roman officials, including Pilate, knew of Christ until his Crucifixion.

In addition to his written works, Isaac organized “both national and international gatherings attended by sympathetic Catholics who were favorably disposed towards his arguments.” [12] Instead of falling on deaf ears inside the Vatican, in the post-war Catholic world, Isaac attracted a significant following. In fact, he was able to obtain a private audience with Pius XII where “he pleaded on behalf of Judaism.” [12] In 1960, after discussions with high ranking officials of the Roman Curia, Isaac met with John XXIII and asked the pope to “condemn the ‘teaching of contempt’ [in the Gospel narratives], suggesting that a sub-commission should be set up specifically to study the problem.” [12–13] Isaac’s activities proved to be quite fruitful, as Poncins reports:

Some time afterwards Jules Isaac ‘learned with joy that his suggestions had been considered by the Pope and handed on to Cardinal Bea for examination.’ The latter set up a special working [party to study relations between the Church and Israel, which finally resulted in the Council vote on the 20th of November 1964. [13] 

That a vicious critic of Sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers, and saints was received by the Catholic hierarchy says a lot about the power and influence that the Jews had attained. And that their ideas were eventually accepted by Rome, shows how it had become increasingly Judaized. Judaization would only accelerate especially after the promulgation of the New Mass as popes would visit and pray with Jews at synagogues.

While Judaism and the Vatican appeared over a half century ago, it is still relevant for it was one of the first works which showed that the modern Catholic Church is a different institution than had previously existed for some two thousand years. Furthermore, Poncins addresses the touchy subject of the Jewish infiltration of the Church which even many traditional Catholic authors have typically avoided.

Poncins’ tome is important, for the changes in the Church’s attitude toward the Jews played a large part in its downfall as the Western world’s preeminent moral authority which used to defend the family, taught what the proper role of women in society should be, while it condemned societal-wrecking evils as sodomy, divorce, abortion, contraception, and concubinage. Without the Church’s guidance, Western societies were easy prey for the cultural Marxists’ (often Jewish) assault on traditional values and morals.

A revitalization of Western civilization can only come about if the nightmarish demographic trends of the Occidental peoples are reversed. It is doubtful that such a turnaround can come about unless the Catholic Church repudiates the Second Vatican Council, especially in its policy toward the Jews, and becomes once again a defender of traditional Christian morality. To begin such an arduous task, there is no better place to start than a thorough reading of Vicomte Léon de Poncins’ Judaism and the Vatican.

50 replies
  1. anarchyst
    anarchyst says:

    We also have to get away from the “judeo-Christian” mindset, as well…

    Using the “Old Testament” for “laws” is wrong. Yes, the Ten Commandments are a good guide which proscribes certain behaviors, but the rest of mosaic law relies on a vindictive, vengeful “god” to exact “punishment” on “his people”.

    That my work fine for jews, as they have their evil “talmud” to rely on, but “for the rest of us”, it won’t wash.
    Judaism is an insular belief system that shuns outsiders, prohibits proselytization, and promotes a form of supremacy, relegating all gentiles (non-jews) to the status of livestock-subhumans with souls, only to be used for the advancement and benefit of jews.

    In fact, slavery (of goyim) is still condoned and encouraged in the jewish Talmud. In addition, the jewish Talmud condones pedophilia, allowing lecherous old jews to rape children as long as they are “three years and a day” of age.

    The barbaric practice of circumcision (male genital mutilation) is also suspect, the “mohel” fellating the infant after the “deed is done” passing on “who knows what STDs” to the infant. Removing a healthy body part without medical necessity is not only unethical, but is criminal in nature. Male genital mutilation should be outlawed worldwide.

    In fact, every jewish “holiday” (holy day) is based on the celebration of genocide and destruction of gentiles.
    Our present troubles are a result of a jewish cabal taking over political decisions in our nominally “multicultural” country.

    Tying Judaism to Christianity was a clever trick used by the jews to “cement” their claim to the “land of Israel” and of the covenant, to which I reply, “God is not a real estate agent”.

    Jews rejected the covenant when they murdered Jesus Christ. Their covenant with God was then “null and void”.

    It is the flawed Schofield translation of the Bible that elevated jews to the status of Christianity’s “elder brothers”, which was then reinforced by the Catholic (flawed) “Vatican II Ecumenical Council” in the 1960s.

    I cringe when I hear well-meaning people talk about out judeo-Christian heritage.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The only common thread between Christianity and judaism may be the Ten Commandments, nothing more.

    The god of judaism is a vengeful god, totally unlike the merciful and welcoming God of Christianity.
    Christianity welcomes ALL, regardless of nationality or social status, not true of judaism.

    Sad to say, even the present-day (post-Vatican II ecumenical council) Catholic church has bought into absolving the jews for Jesus Christ’s murder.

    As always is the case, even today, the jews got others, the Romans to do their dirty work for them, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
    How can Christians have the same values as the Jews; the very people who denounced and betrayed the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, and call for his execution (by others, of course, that is the Jewish way)?

    It makes absolutely no sense at all.

    Jews have no respect for Christianity, for Jesus Christ or Mary, his mother, who are both honored as Prophets in Islam, but instead, Jews spit on hearing their names and do the same while passing a Christian of any kind or a Christian Church in Israel. They have no respect for Christians or any other religion.

    It is time the Jewish lobbies and the American Government leaders as well as the evangelical Christian leaders who mislead the poor American young into joining the military and believing that they are doing something for God and Christianity by fighting Israel’s wars were named, shamed and arrested and tried for treason.

    In a perverse sort of way, israel’s favorite “war song” is “Onward Christian Soldiers”…

    There…I’ve said it…

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Israel Shahak, in his “Jewish History, Jewish Religion : The Weight of Three Thousand Years “, treats the non Hebrew reader to several surprises, which, unsurprisingly, never made their translations into English, or anything else, before.

      In addition to the human aberrations of their alleged religion, they do not prohibit sexual intercourse between mother and son – but REGULATE it instead.

      As you mentioned, sex with a girl three years, AND A DAY, is acceptable, because Holy, Revered Savant and Rabbi Hole of the Ass, determined, at 09:30, on the eleventh Sabbath of the year 666 C.E. , THAT HER HYMEN WILL SIMPLY GROW BACK ANYWAY !!!

      In 2013, Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef died, [ none too soon ] and was laid to rest by a police-reported 700,000 + mourners. BBC and Bibi lauded him as a top Torah scholar and authority on Halacha [ Jewish Law ].

      Here’s what The Jerusalem Post said about my favorite of his five cited, most asinine comments:

      Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that they have no
      place in the world – only to serve the people of Israel. In Israel
      death has no dominion over them. With gentiles, it will be like
      any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them
      longevity. Why ? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d
      lose their money.
      This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well
      for this Jew. Why are gentiles needed ? They will work, they will
      plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is
      why gentiles were created.

      Why don’t the self-acclaimed good Jews put an end to this unmitigated untreated sewage by their Savants ???, instead of incessantly bidding us to the cash register to come up with ever larger sums to fight this ‘pernicious’, ‘mounting’, ‘simply inexplicable’ anti-Semitism. To the tune of Billions worldwide, annually.

      Where are our Eunuchs, hammering on the innumerable doors of THEIR many Vaticans throughout the World ? : demanding change ???

    • Marcel
      Marcel says:

      You cite the Ten Commandments as a commendable Judaic contribution to Christianity. Putting aside the fact that the Moses story is a myth, I would like to address your conclusion. The Ten Commandment myth has lots of holes in it. It presumes that before the Burning Bush gave the tablets to Moses, humanity lived without rules and people–including Jews–went around spitting on their parents, insulted God, killed without remorse, merrily slept with their neighbor’s spouse, stole and lied… According to the Moses’ tale, The Commandments ordered Jews to follow God’s 10 rules. The Burning Bush didn’t order Moses to spread the commandments among non-Jews. It was an exclusive package. Was it because Gentiles had already received similar commandments from their clay idols or is it that God didn’t care whether Gentiles lived sinful lives? Since we are all descendants of Adam and Eve (according to the Hebrew Bible), why would ignore the Polynesians, the Lapps, the Hottentots, Mongolians… and the Middle Eastern neighbors of the Jews? Why would God nominate Jews as the teachers’ pet. It doesn’t scan. What had Jews done for the privilege? Had the Polynesians failed to submit their home work and were being punished by the teacher?

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Your questions may seem to you to be original and clever, but they are neither. The English journalist who, a century ago, wrote “How odd / Of God / To choose / The Jews” was even then understood to have merely devised an effectively compact expression of nineteen hundred years’ worth of enduring universal puzzlement.

        Milton said that he wrote to justify God’s ways, and Pope’s declared aim was to vindicate them. Neither felt qualified to explain those ways, however. Nor do their writings evince disappointment that matters that they, in common with others, saw as being above a creature’s pay grade were not thoroughly spelled out to them. The standard term for their attitude is intellectual modesty, also known as humility, rightly understood.

        To be contemptuous of Christianity is one of the few freedoms (((our masters))) have left us. So go for it. But though you may have concluded that God’s plan must be a fairy tale because his FAQ doesn’t answer every question a potential customer might have, don’t imagine that those who don’t share your illusions consider your pebble a stumbling block.

        • Marcel
          Marcel says:

          Sophistry is no substitute for the truth. Hebrews invite–have done so for more than two millennia–hostility when they insanely and arrogantly claim to be the Big Guy’s chosen. The question stands: of the thousands of nations, ethnic groups, and countries why would the Guy in the Sky pick Hebrews as his favorite? I will not get into the subject of the many times the desert tribe disobeyed him. Why would the Spirit up There make this decision knowing full well (He knows everything) that it would spoil His chosen and invite hostility towards them? For the sake of argument, I am assuming that there is a Big Guy beond the sun and he busies himself with what goes on in this planet.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            What you call sophistry is simply preferring a properly formed intellect to a childishly self-indulgent one.

            Repetition of the same adolescent objections doesn’t lend them any more credence than they had the first time around, nor does your backhanded attempt to change the focus from the Christian understanding of the Old Testament to that of the Jews.

            The bottom-line question is who are you trying to impress?

    • Jacobite
      Jacobite says:

      I know that the idea that Yahweh and God were two different Beings is an early heresy (Marcian?), but Yahweh’s command to the Hebrews to head for the Promised Land, kill everybody living there, and enjoy(!) doesn’t square with anything I read that God says in the New Testament. This ignores the Jews’ constant state of warfare with every other group of people they come into contact with, of course. When they lose, it’s Yahweh’s judgement against them — when they defeat the aliens, it’s often with Yahweh lending a magical hand. Forgive me, a gentile, with not getting a warm, fuzzy feeling from Yahweh. But He’s definitely the god of the Jews, as they don’t consider Akum to be fully human anyway.

      • Marcel
        Marcel says:

        And let’s not forget Abraham/Avram/Ephrem/Avrom of Ur (southern Iraq) who was picked by the Guy Upstairs and told he should leave his homeland and go to another desert land which for PR purposes was called the Land of Milk and Honey. The fact that the so-called Land of Milk and Honey was already inhabited by Cananites was of no interest to the All-Good and All-Wise Spirit in the Sky. But we–humble humans–can in no way comprehend the workings of the Wise Guy of the Sky.

    • Antoninus
      Antoninus says:

      There’s a lot of good stuff here, but as with all gross generalizations, there are some misleading statements. Judaism today has little to do with the authentic teachings of Judaism at the time of Jesus. And even then there were the heretics and apostates. That’s why Jesus went after the Sanhedrin, etc., and called them out as Hippocrates. But there also the Essenes. The Blessed Mother, St. Elizabeth, etc., were members of this ascetic group of Jews. They and many other followed Jesus. In fact, so many Jews followed Jesus after the resurrection that secular historians have a hard time explaining where all the Jews went. They converted.

      But on the whole I agree with what you are saying. the Jews did not build western civilization, the Catholic Church did … period. But they were there to capitalize on it.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Scofield [not Schofield]. And Scofield’s Jewish handler, Samuel Untermyer, goes unmentioned.

      People who make up their own spellings tend to have a rather informal grasp of factual reality.

  2. Alan Donelson
    Alan Donelson says:

    I would think appropriate mention of Michael Hoffman’s “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome” — Vatican II was icing on the cake baked since the 1500’s.

  3. Yves Vannes
    Yves Vannes says:

    “A revitalization of Western civilization can only come about if the nightmarish demographic trends of the Occidental peoples are reversed. It is doubtful that such a turnaround can come about unless the Catholic Church repudiates the Second Vatican Council, especially in its policy toward the Jews, and becomes once again a defender of traditional Christian morality.”

    This is true for both Catholics and Protestants. But in doing so these institutions will fight tooth and nail to prevent the things most needed. Reform will have to come from outside of the formal Church structure.

    The Holy See is full of progressives and homosexuals and most bishops in the West are SJW busybodies.

    Conservative Protestants are Christian Zionists. Episcopalians and Protestant Universalists are so far down the Wonderland rabbit hole that they aren’t worth the effort with the Lutherans foot dragging not far behind them.

    You can add to these problems that the old Catholic urban strongholds have all been obliterated and all traditional Christian parishes of all denominations which once ordered the communal life of Western Christendom have little to no influence.

    Mr. Patrick is right. With no or little communal faith revitalization becomes doubly difficult. Maybe by focusing on these institutions and regaining control of them…we may developing better cohesion around white group interests. If we can achieve that we will have advanced our interests to the point where our enemies will seem less threatening…or capable.

  4. Slovenec
    Slovenec says:

    Ancient Slovenian culture was disgusted with this Semitic proto-communism, forced upon Indo-Europeans by fire and sword of Germanic barbarians:

    “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

    ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:34-37‬ ‭KJV‬‬

    Christianity, New Testament included, is as filthy and as moronic as Islam or any other proto-communist cult born in low IQ deserts.

  5. Gerry
    Gerry says:


    You know either Christ Jesus is the Savior / Messiah or He is not? That is the first point and it is the most foundational period!!!! Do the Jews believe this? No!!! Do they want it? No!!! Will they accept this? No

    Well, Houston we have a problem?

    that’s the first issue!!!!!!

    2nd. point…

    One cannot talk deicide without mentioning one simple and straightforward matter and that is


    Jesus himself made this totally and completely clear to all!!!!

    “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” John 10:18

    The Jews for all their bluster and talk about killing him none had the ability to so much as harm a hair of his head!!!!
    and though Jesus himself did not want to die and had hoped for something different to happen hence the words and his tears:

    41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” Luke 19:

    He knew different. His death had to happen but as He again made clear it was his choice…

    Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? Matthew 26:53

    If Jesus had so desired he could have ended the Roman Empire with one simple 5 word sentence!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don’t believe me go back and read:

    15 When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. “Oh no, my lord! What shall we do?” the servant asked.

    16 “Don’t be afraid,” the prophet answered. “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”

    17 And Elisha prayed, “Open his eyes, Lord, so that he may see.” Then the Lord opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

    18 As the enemy came down toward him, Elisha prayed to the Lord, “Strike this army with blindness.” So he struck them with blindness, as Elisha had asked.2 kings 6:14-19

    Don’t think for one minute such a history wasn’t on the mind of Christ as He was being arrested!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He knew and had the power to fully end the entire Roman Empire with a mere sentence!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Now if the Church had instead of beating the Jews over the head about killing Christ had revealed to them Christ the King and Risen Savior then I dare say there would never have been a Vatican 2. Further to this my word Deicide is one thing but what about the sufferings of well just Paul alone who was always in their sights. St. Paul wasn’t afraid of the Romans as much as he was afraid of his own people. Given a choice between going to Jerusalem or Rome Paul hands down would have chosen Rome any day! Why? If one doesn’t know please read the book of Acts!!!!

    Judaism? O good grief and we are going to bow to these people who mock and curse the true and only King? And that i guess is there hope is it not? Take my word or rather Paul’s about this:

    but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[a] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[b] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Hebrews 10:27-31

    Whenever, I hear people talk about what the Talmud says about Christ and His mother I tremble.

    Just go read the book Climate Change the Work of God by Gerry Fox if one needs some understanding of that and what the Fear of the Lord really is!!!!

  6. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    I don’t know why the Eastern Jews talk about being descended from the Biblical Jews of 4000 years ago when they were all converted during the Middle Ages (according to some of my ancestors who were Sephardi Rabbis).
    My ancestors also believed that you could not convert but had to have a jewish mother to be a jew which is how God chooses his Sturmabteilungsmanner.
    I am pleased that my ancestors were not as stupid as the Chief Rabbi who said that God put gentiles and donkeys on Earth to serve jews.
    Sadly, my maternal great grandfather was stupid enough to marry an Eastern Jewess.
    If a so called Jew approaches the Roman Catholic Church I respectfully suggest that he is pushed away with a Barge Pole.

  7. Forever Guilty
    Forever Guilty says:

    My knowledge of Christianity way below typical TOO writer and commentator . Also our ancestors invested a lot in Christianity. So we should respect their efforts.

    However Christianity was brought to Europe from Middle East. But is it optimal for White people ? “Turning the other cheek” etc. I mean its originated in Middle East by people with different evaluation paths and behavioral patterns then Whites.

    Wouldn’t we better if we return to our own ferocious fighting Gods: Odin , Perun, Thor ?

  8. Robert Meister
    Robert Meister says:

    Or we could start a new church where the truth on GOD’s views on race and racemixing is one focus.

    It could also be coupled together with modern evidence in dna and IQ studies.

    And priests could be allowed to be married hence less pedophelia and pedophilia and sexual abuse should be reported.

    But the catholic church has the fncy churhes with gold painted stuff ….

    Yeah but in the long run WE can have that also. We can honor GOD by building even cooler churches and things.

    Modern christianity yet based on the texts. I have some great ideas on how to make it popular and work great.

    • Jacobite
      Jacobite says:

      For a pedophile, marrying a woman is no substitute for molesting young children. That’s sort of included in the definition of ‘pedophile’. .

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” We can honor GOD by building even cooler churches and things.”

      The ultimate homage to

      {{ The God of Empirical Reality }}

      is the fulfillment of the Ultimate Purpose of Life

      which is to have FUN ;

      where FUN is broadly construed

      and mostly means enjoyments/pleasures/thrills .

      Hence ,

      “… building even cooler churches and things.”

      could be FUN for some people .

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      If one studies Scripture closely (and it helps to have an understanding of languages) it becomes apparent that Scripture does support what you suggest. The problem comes when dealing with the faulty translations; e.g. – using ‘Jew’ when it should have been ‘Judean’, ‘Gentiles’ when it should have been ‘Nations’, etc..

      And, I would also say that two books do not belong in the Bible, to wit Esther and Song of Solomon. The former is a purely materialistic story of murder and revenge (as well as being historically fraudulent) while the latter supports miscegenation.

      So, 64 books total. Bible scholars generally agree there are six parts of the Bible (Law, Prophets, Writings, History, Epistles & Revelation). Now, I believe God does have a sense of humor, but to say these six sections are comprised of sixty-six books is pushing the envelope a little too far. .

  9. teo toon
    teo toon says:

    Evangelization was to be replaced with the idea that Jews were “elder brothers” of Christians, as opposed to the traditional doctrine of “supercession”—that the covenant between God and the Church superceded the covenant between God and the Jews.

    There was no “supercession”. Christ came to make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah which means the tribes, including the ten northern tribes known as Israel still exist; one needs but do the research to discover where and who they are: most of the northern tribes are Protestant set free by Martin Luther from the Roman Babylonian beast. The information is out there and easy to obtain.

    As for “he idea that Jews were “elder brothers” of Christians,” the Babylonian Pharisees/Talmudists are “elder brothers” to Babylonian Rome. It is funny that Rome does not call itself the younger brother to the Orthodox Church of the East.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Supersessionism (note the spelling) has never been [ahem] superseded. It is alive and well and, in common with anything properly called a doctrine, it will remain so for the duration.

  10. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    Robert, on one thing, I couldn’t possibly disagree with you more.
    Probably I am the least informed on Christianity here. But didn’t He say, wherever two or three of you congregate in my honor, there is a Church !? Nothing on zip codes or grand edifices.

    As a former, long-time tour director during my youth, I have been to innumerable houses of worship. Whose heart would not be warmed by St. Paul’s, St. Peter, Notre Dame and dozens more around the globe ? Innate talent and a long apprenticeship were required to conceive of and erect these imposing structures, which coincidentally projected power and wealth.

    Nevertheless, if one were brought into this world in a rented manger, would a current Mennonite Church not be as beautiful: possibly more so ?

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      “Probably I am the least informed on Christianity here.”

      Writing in the spirit of fraternal correction, I deem this your least informed TOO comment ever, Charles. You are not even in the top thirty in this particular category!

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Well, Charles, we have it on the highest authority that “the last shall be first and the first, last,” but precisely how that aligns with the present discussion eludes me.

  11. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    I quote from the article, paragraph 11: “The reason for the Church’s animus toward the Jews was Christianity itself which was ‘anti-semitic.’ In the minds of Christians the Jews were directly responsible for Christ’s death.”

    And the author thinks such childish thinking is intellectually respectable enough to be defended! BARF–it’s no wonder our Caucasian ethnic/genetic cluster is so imperiled–what with such unmitigated IDIOCY being part of the cultural and ideological baggage carried about by too many White Nationalists!

    Listen, you christian (the name doesn’t merit a capital letter) fools, there’s no intellectually respectable reason to suppose a “Redeemer” ever lived–especially a virgin-born one who lol walks on water and raises the dead–BUT assuming he did exist, your own creed holds that his Vicarious Atonement on the cross enables you all to enjoy eternal bliss. Well, SOMEONE had to assist in the nasty work of getting him on the cross, and it was Judas and other Jews who did. If you had the power of reasoning (of course, if you did, you wouldn’t disgrace yourself with an appallingly stupid superstition that makes even Islam seem sensible lol), you would regard Judas and the other Jews involved in the crucifixion as INSTRUMENTS OF DIVINE PURPOSE AND DIVINE LOVE.

    You think you’re so hip about Jewish influence in the world, and so independent of Jewish ways; BUT it’s clear that your dumb creed has cut you off from the intellectual integrity of the culture that made your race great–PAGAN Classical Graeco-Roman–and saddled you with the very Judaic belief in congenital and collective guilt. It’s the JEWS who think that sons can rightly be punished for the sins of the fathers–and so do you if you think the Jews were ever blamable as a people for being lol “Christ-killers.”

    Lol, if your inspiration were Athenian and Ionian, as it should be, instead of Saul/Paul, it would give you pause to reflect that
    1) only a few Jews are alleged to have conspired to have Christ executed by the Romans–basically Judas Iscariot and some Pharisees, whereas the disciples and followers were ALSO born Jews or Hebrews;
    2) Jews born centuries later COULD NOT have been involved in the conspiracy to kill Christ–and most of them lol were/are presumably not even descended from the particular individuals allegedly involved.

    Not only is this utter nonsense about THE JEWS being Christ-killers a disgrace to human nature–which should be rational–but I have little doubt that the fanatical animus which Jews harbor against us is in some important degree imputable to this abysmally stupid bigotry.

    To the extent that White Nationalists call themselves christians, I am ashamed of our movement.

    —A conscious and proud heir of Pagan Greece and Rome, not ANYTHING Semitic.–christianity

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Does a society need a consensus to exist? If yes, how to get one.
      1) Using reason 2) using something else

      Using reason leads to endless argumentation- this tends to block consensus.
      Consensus requires agreement for the sake of agreement- this blocks reason.
      Agreement for the sake of agreement is the base of all religion, including Scientology. “Reality is what we agree it to be”. . .of course, that is the opposite of science.

      Achievement of consensus- brotherly love- implies that disagreement is to be avoided at all costs. Peace is achieved by the smart ones remaining quiet, kissing the asses of the unconscious masses.

      This is like the emperor’s new clothes- the smart child speaks truth, and breaks up the divine consensus, and gets blamed, I presume.

      Going against group = going against God.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        “” “Reality is what we agree it to be”. . .of course, that is the opposite of science.””

        Not really opposite .

        Science clearly implies that “Reality” is established when empirical results are consistently in [ agreement ] with predictions made by scientists .

  12. Robert Meister
    Robert Meister says:

    Some comments here commented on my comment.

    Due to limited time I’ll make a fast comment on them, based on my memory.

    Someone argued money and fun is the only important tjing is life.

    Well so is finding a great partner, which is fun, cause sex is fun and a great girlfriend is fun.

    Some people make great research art technology and write importanta books and yes people tend to be the best at things they think are fun. But it’s also a calling something mysterious something bigger, that can be bigger than life.

    Regarding churches. I get chills when visiting some churches, it resonates with me. I also think christianity is the TRUE religion one that fiercly opposes racial mixing.

    Shure money isn’t everything but if one makes great great money supporting such projects could be a coolway of showing POWER of the true Christianity against the weak often anti white false representations that seems to dominate unfortunately. It’s a way of showing the true christianity to the next generations and people in like hundreds of years will know by seing them the truth.

    So it’s like the finest art litterature and research it lives forever…

  13. Robert Meister
    Robert Meister says:

    And also at the dude who may be a political enemy and racially mixed who went on about fun. everything about fun.

    Your text gives me the impression that largely racemixed groups on the avarege such as many jews may be pushing this as a way for making people betray their long term interest and race and the future for themselves and their kind as by giving em media jobs at companies owned by people who wanna take out white folks or whatever.

    Short term empty fulfillment corruption.

    Only focus on the ecstacy of now. And hey do drugs cause it’s fun sure it may blow your brains out but whatever.

    Lots of important things that matter to people is not only fun. Is falling in love always fun? Important yes, fulfilling if it goes well, it can als be an emotional roller coaster and exhausting and risky. But you do it case it’s important to you. If you really wanna write a great book and also have the talent, sure it’s gonna be fun, but also a lot of really hard work…

    Say someone is trying to rob your wife and kids at gunpoint and threatens to shoot em and is high on drugs, and you have a gun and can take the criminal out. Is that only fun? It sure is important though.

    Is the most probably coming racewar fun. Probably not at all, just an effect of demographics and huge racial differences and lies and propaganda and well documented stuff and the need for whites to be able to have our own territory. Which is of course important and will be fun when established. A relief for sure and it will also a great opportunity and very successfull.

    But it’s all politics and warfare. I personally don’t think either warfare or politics is fun. Sure, meeting likeminded people and DOING SOMETHING against the genocide aggressively pushed on whites can be a good feeling. At least you ain’t a coward slave you’re a free man or woman…

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      I do not know who that “dude” is that you refer to nor know whom “Your text” refers to . However , your somewhat garbled argument , which appears to employ several less than ultimate life counter-examples , seems to suggest that

      {{{ The Ultimate Purpose of Life Is To Have FUN }}}

      where FUN is broadly construed
      and mostly means enjoyments/pleasures/thrills

      perhaps is not true . If that is your contention , then you are welcome to present a clearly intelligible argument against the content of that statement of ultimate purpose here in reply to this comment where it will be easy to find .

  14. Robert Meister
    Robert Meister says:

    And the thing about drugs was irony, kinda. I mean doing any heavier drugs is stupid. And even weed makes people stupid maybe not smoking once or twice inna lifetime but on a more regular basis or too much. And it can also be addictive and a gateway drug and stuff. What I mean to say is don’t do drugs…

  15. Robert Meister
    Robert Meister says:

    Yes moneytalks person I did refer to you.

    I did also make the argument that there are higher values things that are larger than life. Sure these things can be fun and often are but there is something deeper behind this.

    Regardless I did already give some practical examples and whatevs, the infiltration short term corruption aspect was also mentioned and so on…

    But hey I think you may be here by expressing a viewpiont manipulating the narrative and I do think this is a common strategy by racemixed socalled “jews” anther more advanced version of the manipulative aggressive lies and total control almost of information and on. Is this the new thing when the propaganda has been exposed aswell as the overtaking of institutions and types of businesses? It’s smart cause it aint a total lie and uses an underlying truth. Hence the perspective is yet pushed to obtain a goal, the short term do drugs corruption strategy mentioned.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      I read almost everything that T.O.O. publishes on this site because it is the best forum ( that I know of ) for intellectual discourse in defense of the nonjewish White race ; and I do not recall seeing any comments by you over the past few years . Are you new to this site or have you merely been lurking in the shadows for a few years ? Regardless , I am yet again perplexed by your slightly garbled comments .

      In any case , is it correct to presume that you would agree “things that are larger than life” are imaginary and not real ?

      FIFY , I am not a racemixed person . Are you a centenarian ?

  16. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    It is surprising that in all histories about the subversion of the Catholic Church significant moments are deliberately left out.
    The foundation in 1926 of the ‘Opus sacerdotale Amici Israel’, or the ‘Clerical Association of Friends of Israel’. Its declared purpose was to pray for the conversion of the Jews and to promote a favorable attitude towards them within the Roman Catholic Church. Its very first request was “that the word “perfidis”, which described the Jews during the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews, be removed, since some believed the prayer could be interpreted as anti-Semitic”.
    By the end of the year, its membership included 18 cardinals, 200 bishops and about 2,000 priests. Albeit short-lived, the association being dissolved by the Holy Office on 28 March 1928, its membership included 19 cardinals, more than 300 bishops and archbishops and about 3,000 priests. The rot planted powerful roots.
    But the roots were planted even before. It was preceded by the “Congrégation de Notre-Dame de Sion” (“Congregation of Our Lady of Sion”) composed of two Roman Catholic religious congregations both founded in Paris: that of the “Catholic priests and Religious Brothers” in 1852, and that of “Religious Sisters”, founded in 1843, both by two Jewish converts, the brothers Marie Theodor Ratisbonne, and Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne, “to witness in the Church and in the world that God continues to be faithful in his love for the Jewish people and to hasten the fulfillment of the promises concerning the Jews and the Gentiles.” After his baptism in 1842 Alphonse entered the “Society of Jesus”, where he spent several years, leaving it in 1850 with the Pope’s and the Superior General’s permission in order to found with his brother the Congregation of the Fathers of Our Lady of Sion in 1852.
    After Vatican II and the “Nostra Aetate” the congregation changed radically its initial ‘orientation’, which was the conversion of the Jews, throwing the mask and showing its true colors. Today it is one of the principal actors of the “dialogue with Judaisme, in the full respect of this religion and excluding any will to convert them”. Their mission is to ‘make known the Jews and Judaism, denounce any proselytism and antisemitism, promote a rapprochement in esteem and friendship, particularly by studying the ‘Jewish roots’ of the New Testament, Biblical Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew and the…Talmud!”
    But the root of corruption was planted centuries before, when the budding Papal church commissioned Jerome to translate the ‘Bible’ according to “Hebraica Veritas” and with the aid of the Talmudists, i.e. after the texts used in rabbinical circles, which expunged the Hebraic texts on which the canonical text of the Septuagint is based of all references to the Christ.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      I agree with this statement,

      After Vatican II and the “Nostra Aetate” the congregation changed radically its initial ‘orientation’, which was the conversion of the Jews …

      but not with this one.

      … throwing [i.e., dropping] the mask and showing its true colors.

      The orientation and practice of the orders of Sionist priests and religious founded by the Ratisbonne brothers were genuinely toward conversion, without qualification of any sort, least of all accommodation to any aspect of Judaism, racial or otherwise. The order’s work had the full support of Pius IX, and if there is any pope of the last five centuries whom the Jews detest more, he is unknown to me. Furthermore, though it is certainly true that, after the Vatican II revolution, the order betrayed its mission, it shouldn’t be forgotten that both the fact and the character of its redirection came at the explicit command of the Vatican dicastery with oversight of the priestly and religious orders. Of course, the orders’ various superiors could have resisted the command had they had the wisdom and courage of Marcel Lefebvre, but very few did back then, and the numbers aren’t much larger now.

      Apropos the Ratisbonne brothers themselves, of all the converts from Judaism in the past two or three hundred years of whom I am aware, they are the only ones whose total abnegation of their Jewishness equals or even rivals that of Paul the Apostle.

      • Seraphim
        Seraphim says:

        I wouldn’t doubt the sincerity and abnegation of the Ratisbonne brothers.
        I wouldn’t be so certain of the aims of the Congregation they founded:
        “D’après son texte fondateur, « La Congrégation a été fondée pour témoigner, dans l’Église et dans le monde, de la fidélité de Dieu à son amour pour le peuple juif et pour travailler à l’accomplissement des promesses bibliques, révélées aux patriarches et aux prophètes d’Israël pour toute l’humanité ».
        It is in this climate that the “Salus ex Judæis est. Le Salut vient des Juifs” became “Le Salut PAR les Juifs! (the title of Leon Bloy’s pamphlet against “les élucubrations anti-juives de M. Drumont”, « un livre contre l’antisémitisme ». What was the intention of Bloy? “À part l’inspiration surnaturelle, on peut dire que le ‘Salut par les Juifs’ est, sans aucun doute, le témoignage chrétien le plus énergique & le plus pressant en faveur de la Race Aînée, depuis l’onzième chapitre de saint Paul aux Romains… Le Salut par les Juifs, qu’on croirait une paraphrase de ce chapitre de saint Paul, fait observer, dès la première ligne, que le Sang qui fut versé sur la Croix pour la Rédemption du genre humain, de même que celui qui est versé invisiblement, chaque jour, dans le Calice du Sacrement de l’Autel, est naturellement & surnaturellement du sang juif, — l’immense fleuve du Sang Hébreu dont la source est en Abraham & l’embouchure aux Cinq Plaies du Christ”).
        If you believe the Wikipedia (and there are no reasons to disbelieve it): “Bloy’s Le Salut par les Juifs, with its apocalyptically radical interpretation of chapters 9 to 11 of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, had a major influence on the Catholic theologians of the Second Vatican Council responsible for section 4 of the council’s declaration Nostra aetate, the doctrinal basis for a revolutionary change in the Catholic Church’s attitude to Judaism. In 2013, Pope Francis surprised many by quoting Bloy during his first homily as pope”.
        Ironically “Le 13 novembre 2013, sur une plainte de la LICRA, le juge des référés de Bobigny ordonne la censure partielle de l’ouvrage de Léon Bloy, Le Salut par les Juifs, décision qui suscite une polémique”.
        Would we see soon “Le Salut POUR les Juifs” (only)?

  17. Robert Meister
    Robert Meister says:

    By larger than life I certainly mean real things.

    Some art, the highest form reaches this almost mythical high.

    The arts of real genius for example.

    The term as such means maybe to simplify thing a bit: art and things that are kinda more interesting that the life of the unique individual that made it or something similar or in that kinda ways or something anyways the mystery and heavy stuff…

  18. J. Rocha
    J. Rocha says:

    As a pre-Vatican II Catholic, catechised to believe in the doctrine of EENS in the late fifties, I am always left open-mouthed by Pierre de Caron’s defense of Lefebvre.
    In his Letter to Confused Catholics, Lefebvre spends the first half of the book bewailing the fact that Catholics no longer baptize their children only to state on page 74, or thereabouts, that people can be saved by EXPLICIT and IMPLICIT baptism of Desire.
    To illustrate the former he gives the example of the African impatient to be baptized on the spot for fear he may die before the bishop’s return, and is told by Lefebvre, not to worry because the fact is that he has expressed the desire to be baptized and if he is not in a state of mortal sin, he will be saved. This teaching is heretical as the DOGMAS of the Catholic Faith are that to be saved you need to be baptized with water, to profess the Catholic Faith and to be a member of the Catholic Church. In addition it has lead to confusion amongst so called traditional Catholics that a state of mortal is worse than the state of Original Sin this invalidating the necessity for Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection .
    To make matters worse , Lefebvre then goes on to write that Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims AND EVEN ANIMISTS can e saved by implicit BOD. They don’t have to look at express the desire because ‘God knows the heart of all men’ as far as I am aware that is the Calvinist heresy and if that is the case, why are Catholics the only ones that need to get baptized .
    The so-called traditional sects are also heretical in their gnostic puritanism.
    Before Vatican II , Catholics smoked, drank and danced with the best of them. They were smartly dressed and didn’t go round in weird clothes looking as though they’d been dragged through a hedge backwards .
    Looking back, I have the impression that the Church had already been undermined by the two great American heresies , Liberalism and Puritanism, long before Vatican II. The liberals stayed with the Church and the puritans went on to form the so-called traditional sects.
    As for me, I have taken the advice of St Vincent of Lerins in his Commotorium written after the Church restored the Faith after succumbing to the Arian heresy. Which is that should the Church succumb to heresy ONCE AGAIN the only option for a true Catholic is to cling to the oldest teachings of the Church about which there is no dispute. The doctrine of EENS was the doctrine of the Church from the Acts of the Apostles until Vatican II.

  19. Robert Meister
    Robert Meister says:

    But also english aint my mother tongue hence the saying might not be appropriate to what I meant to say.

    I suppose in everyday usage it means someone or something that is extraordinary, but it has several meanings also. anyways also no I aint old. Are you? I’m in my early 20s

Comments are closed.