Questions for Hoffman concerning his book about usury

Questions on Usury for Michael Hoffman

From D.L., Omaha, Nebraska:

Michael,

I have just completed reading your excellent book Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not, and am re-reading and researching various sections for further clarity. Here are questions and comments which I hope you can assist me with in whatever spare time may allow.

1. If the popes from 1515 were manifest heretics on the issue of allowing, condoning and promoting the practice of usury in any form whatsoever, from the standpoint of it being mortally sinful, then the Catholic Church was absent of s valid papacy all these centuries.  Exceptions most likely, would be popes who served brief reigns e.g.: Adrian VI, Marcellus II, Urban VII, Innocent IX and Leo XI.

2. Pius VIII served only 20 months and near the end of his office was troubled by revolutionary activities in France and Italy.  Could these events have led to a hasty and not well thought out decision given to the Bishop of Rheims?  Perhaps those advisors in the Curia advised him falsely, and through ignorance and bad trust/judgment he sinned lacking due diligence, but not by way of heresy?

3. Do you see exceptions of heresy with regard to Pius VI and Pius X?  The Church cannot err in Canonizations which would violate Her principle of Indefectibility.

4. Trent and Vatican I would have been promulgated by two antipopes, Pius V and Pius IX.  Do you see these councils partially or entirely illegitimate?

Dear Mr. L:

I write history. I am not a theologian, nor do I contemplate the theological consequences of my historical research, which is based solely on the pursuit of truth wherever it leads, on the basis that where there is truth there is Jesus Christ. If my book Usury in Christendom is true, then it is of Christ.

Remaining faithful to the True Church of All Time, the ecclesia of SS. Basil, Chrysostom, Aquinas, Anthony of Padua, King Edward the Confessor, Pope Innocent IV, etc., does not make one a traitor. Treason to traitors is no treason. The Catholic Church cannot nullify sacred dogma, or betray Christ, but rather, the post-Renaissance Church of Rome, or "newchurch," as some term it, appears to have done so. The bane of Christian society is their situation ethics, their substitution of human financial standards relative to the circumstances and context of the times, for immutable divine law against interest on loans. No pope after Leo X reversed the tide of usury in the Church. Even the famous Vix Pervenit encyclical of Benedict XIV consisted of toothless semantics. It had no provision for enforcement. It left a loophole for certain types of usury. Usury among “Catholics" flourished in the wake of it.

• Any pope after Leo X had the power to enforce the immemorial Catholic dogma on what usury is and the mortal sinfulness of it. 

• Any pope after Leo X could have promulgated the following as law, as it had been law for fifteen hundred years: 

"All interest on loans of money is a grave transgression against the law of God. In order to obtain absolution, reception of the Eucharist and a Catholic burial, all usurers must confess their mortal sin, avoid the near occasion of sin by halting their involvement in usurious trade and operations, and make restitution for the interest they took. Impenitent, practicing usurers are not to receive the Eucharist and are to be refused a Catholic burial. In Catholic nations, the civil authorities are urged to seize the assets of usurers after death to repay interest to debtors. Obstinate usurers are excommunicated." 

No such restorative statement of enforcement of the eternal Law of God (or anything approximating it), has ever been issued in the past 500 years (1515 to 2015) by any pope since usurious operations were incrementally empowered beginning with Medici Pope Leo X's Bull, Inter multiplices of May 4, 1515. 

Ergo, despite whatever pious, nostalgic or sentimental feelings one may have for any pope from Leo X onward, it grieves me to say that whatever good those popes may have done cannot override their condonation of the worst of all sins. By their papal permission (by silence, inaction, apathy or active conspiracy) for the love of money that is usury --said love being, according to the Gospel the root of all evil (as it is, by its sterility and the plague of situation ethics that must accompany it in order to justify it) they acted as wolves, not shepherds .

We cannot say "he was a good pope but he permitted adultery. He was a good pope but he permitted idolatry. He was a good pope but he allowed for robbery." Any papal relaxation of the divine law against those grave transgressions renders the pontiff involved a devil in the shape of a pontiff.

This  is true as well as for the centuries of gradualism which resulted, in 1830 in the pontificate of Pius VIII, in de facto permission for the root of all evil, the love of money as weaponized by interest on loans of money, which is what very obviously motivated the Renaissance Church of Rome in letting the “Catholic" usurers ply their trade.

Moreover, in the wake of the exposure of the child molestation rings in the Catholic hierarchy, which predate Vatican II, we must wonder about the extent to which even supposed "hero" popes of the past may have shielded malefactors by means of the terrible secrecy in which the Vatican bureaucracy and curia have dwelled these many centuries. Many questions are now being raised of the extent of sodomy in the hierarchy of Rome long before Vatican II. The true history of the papacy from the Renaissance onward, has yet to be written.

As for Pius X, recall that the Code of Canon Law of 1917, which permitted usury, though promulgated by Benedict XV, was largely composed during Pope Pius X's papacy. As for the infallibility of canonizations, I wonder. Alphonsus Liguori argued for the rights of those who charge interest on loans, and advocated a most devious form of lying, and he is esteemed by "traditionalists" as one of the most eminent and holy of all Catholic saints.

The winds of truth are only beginning to blow through the Church of Rome. Let us hope that the sum effect is more than the Cryptocracy's notorious Revelation of the Method.

Michael Hoffman
Copyright © 2013 and 2015. All Rights Reserved

For Further Research:
500 Years Ago the Reign of the Loansharks Began

Independent History and Research
Box 849 • Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

___________

"Vicar of Christ on Earth" asks "Who am I to judge a gay priest?"

by Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

The Renaissance Catholic Church's embrace of usury was accomplished under a host of weasel words and euphemisms which have bedazzled and befuddled true believers in the Church of Rome since 1515. The encyclical "Vix Pervenit" of the usury advocate Pope Benedict XIV is a case in point. It was 95% anti-usury and 5% double talk that created an escape clause permitting certain types of usury. It is defended to this day by certain mind-bombed "conservative Catholic scholars" as a bastion against usury.

From instances such as this we should know that it is a major blunder to imagine that the double talk and fork-tongued lucubrations of the current Pope Francis are a product of a "Vatican II mentality of the 1960s." If you believe that, then the Vatican Cryptocracy has you wrapped in its mind control as tightly as a spider ensnares a fly. Let's banish the amnesia: "Vix Pervenit" was issued in 1745, not 1965.

Observe how Pope Francis approaches the sodomite issue. The New York Times reports that he stated to reporters aboard the papal jet, "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" (Cf. "Pope Says He Will Not Judge Gay Priests," NY Times (online), July 29, 2013).

Did he actually use the Orwellian Newspeak word for sodomy -- "gay"? If so, that in itself is a grave failure to call a thing that which it is.

Do you spot the hook in the pope's double talk? Do you see the escape clause he has given his right wing? He doesn't say he refuses to judge homosexual acts, only that he refuses to judge if some priest is a homosexual -- this gives his right wing the chance to suppose he is referring to a celibate priest of a "homosexual orientation." That's the escape clause his right wing supporters will use to tamp down the uproar: "The pope is only saying he will not judge priests of good faith who are of a gay orientation. He is not endorsing gay sex." (In the days ahead there will also be subsequent "clarifications" intended to serve as damage control to patch wounded right wing sensibilities).

Even in that case it’s a huge betrayal. Identifying human beings as being stamped indelibly with “gay orientation” reaffirms the popular myth that the majority of homosexuals “were born that way” and “cannot change.” Actually the reverse is true. The Cryptocracy encourages androgyny and homosexuality, for one thing because it helps to reduce the “surplus” population and for another, it leads them into a rootless anarchy that makes them susceptible to further revolutionary, anti-natural change. A normal young person with an attraction for the opposite sex can be seduced by the culture into experimenting with homosexual acts and then, as a result of the experiment, be told they have a permanent “gay orientation.”

Any true Vicar of Christ would have informed the journalists on his plane: “With God all things are possible, and some who believe that in their orientation they are homosexual, can, through prayer and purity of heart and mind, clarify their desires and discover a healthy attraction for the opposite sex, buried under assumptions and delusions imposed on them by a culture that values fashionable trends above Biblical ethics and human ennoblement. The homosexual is a celebrated person in contemporary culture. This leads to people identifying themselves with the homosexual condition even if, in the core of their being, it is not really the case with them. Meanwhile, the bedrock of society, the heroic mothers and fathers of many children who labor daily to provide their families with sustenance and an education, are viewed by the advertising and other media as unattractive drudges, the very last people to be emulated. Do not expect me to endorse these pathologies.”  This is what Francis would have said if he were a pope worthy of the name.

The supporters of "Pope Francis" on the left will seize on the obvious reckless symbolism of his statement and interpret his words broadly and in the manner most people, including youth, will perceive them --it's not morally objectionable to be a sodomite "if you seek the Lord" while doing so. 

If the pope's homosexual priests were of a neo-Nazi instead of a sodomite orientation, I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts that this pontiff would judge them right into the Inferno's eternal barbecue pit. But when it comes to priests who simply yearn for anal sex, it is not something that falls under his judgment as mere Pontifex Maximus.

______________________________

"If the pope's homosexual priests were of a neo-Nazi instead of a sodomite orientation, I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts that this pontiff would judge them right into the Inferno's eternal barbecue pit. But when it comes to priests who simply yearn for anal sex, it is not something that falls under his judgment as mere Pontifex Maximus."

______________________________

Imagine some sexually confused adolescent Catholic boy of 15 or 16 who is drawn to girls mostly, but somewhat tempted by boys, reading today's headlines about the pope. If that Catholic boy chooses a "gay orientation," Francis wants him to know that as pope he does not have the power or authority to "judge" him. If the boy goes out and gets sodomized, the Catholic right wing will reply, "It's not the Holy Father's fault, he didn't approve of sodomy, he only withheld judgement on sodomite orientation."

From our own research it is becoming increasingly clear that as the sterility of money-breeding-money (usury) was incrementally permitted by the Church of Rome beginning in the early 16th century, the practice of sodomy also rose exponentially inside the high ranks of the Roman clergy beginning in the early 16th century, shrouded in a prelatical secrecy which has endured from then until now. We draw your attention to the patent fact that sodomy is also a form of sterility.

Pope Francis is a reflection of this pro-sodomite current, formerly underground and now emerging in the open as Revelation-of-the Method, while the media gives its enthusiastic imprimatur to this latter day Uriah Heep as the pope of "humility." 

It's no wonder that millions of Latin American Christians are fleeing Rome for the chapels of Protestant churches that do not deviate from bedrock Biblical, Apostolic and Patristic Christianity. They don't have an "infallible" pope over them to misdirect them into losing their eternal salvation. They are free to choose to adhere to Biblical Truth and defy the sodomite movement, independent of Rome's latest coffin-riding grave digger, the most recent in a line stretching back through more than forty popes of usury. Catholics who are not brain dead need to begin to dare to think deeply and with the fear of God, about the deception and destruction that has been wrought by popes of Rome since 1515, tracking the trail of both prelatical usury and sodomy inside the Roman institution for the past 498 years. 

This ungoldly rot did not commence with the Enlightenment or the French Revolution or Vatican II. If you believe that hoax, which is a staple fiction among "traditional" Catholics, then you will never have the ability to decode the present manifestation of Mystery Babylon that has the putative "Vicar of Christ on earth" saying he cannot judge sodomite-prone Catholic priests. This type of boldface papal lying is nothing short of a challenge to the hypnotized sheeple to see if we're going to take this satanic spew lying down, or whether we will stand up and witness for the truth of God's Word and that of His apostles, patriarchs and saints.

Pope Francis has no moral compass save for situation ethics. It was situation ethics that determined the legalization of the mortal sin of usury, first in the Church of Rome when John Calvin was but a child, and later by Calvin himself, under the influence of Rome’s lawyer’s equity, or epikeia, which is sometimes just, when used to modify the laws of man, but is always Talmudic and rabbinic when employed to modify or abrogate the laws of God.

The zeitgeist determines the ethics of the Vatican’s rebels against God. Today the spirit of the time is thoroughly homosexual and hence, the papacy accommodates itself to that perverted state of affairs. When the Money Power subsumed the zeitgeist during the Renaissance, an absolutist papacy opened the door to the beginnings of predatory capitalism. No pope has the right to alter God’s law. When he dares to do so, there must be  a mechanism in place to correct or depose him.

For the past 498 years, God’s eternal law has not been the guide or rule for papal situation ethicists. Within the Renaissance papacy, situation ethics trumped God’s law, and popery will see to it that by the time self-described Catholics finally begin to grasp that the absolute authority given to a pope bears within it the seeds of catastrophe, the catastrophe will be upon us. Christ intended for His followers to be overcomers, not slaves of mere men, much less a sinister clown in a white suit who invokes Jesus so as to mock Him and His eternal and unchanging law, whether in matters of loans of money (Luke 6: 32-26), or men who lay with men (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1: 26-27).

Finally, let's promise ourselves that we will henceforth quit trafficking in Orwellian Newspeak, which imprisons our minds by causing us to think in the occluding manner in which the hidden persuaders frame this controversy. This is about sex in the rectal sewer of the human body. There is absolutely nothing innocent and joyful ("gay") about it, so let us cease our submission to the doublethink agenda imposed on us by our media masters when we are contending for the purity of our children against a ravening wolf in sheep's --or in this case, St Peter's -- clothing.

Hoffman is the author of Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not

***