Pope Leo of The Augustinian Sect

15 thoughts on “Pope Leo of The Augustinian Sect”

1. Israel only accepted two commandments at Sinai before we feared that we would surely die and therefore demanded that Moshe receive the rest of the Torah. What’s the “rest of the Torah”, not just the 611 commandments within the language of the Written Torah but all the halachot capable of rising to the sanctity of time oriented tohor commandments from the Torah itself! Herein defines the intent of the 1st Sinai commandment … to obey the revelation of HaShem לשמה.

   LORD not the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment and therefore LORD comes under the 2nd Sinai commandment. The same apples to God, Yahweh, Jesus or Allah etc.

   The day of Shabbat approaches, but this tohor time oriented commandment does not rest at one day of not doing מלאכה/work but all the rest of the six days of not doing forbidden עבודה on the 6 days of “shabbat”. Raising positive and negative commandments – which do not require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna to tohor time oriented commandments which do require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna – as learned in the first Book of the Written Torah – בראשית. This first word of the Torah בראשית, it contains both a רמז, meaning words
   within words of ראש בית, ברית אש, and ב’ ראשית but more it contains a סוד: the idea of tohor time oriented commandments which includes all the halachot contained within the Talmud! Hence the Gra taught the kabbalah that בראשית contains all the commandments of the Torah. Torah, by definition includes all the Halachot of the Talmud, according to the B’HaG’s Hilchot Gadolot, a commentary that Pre-Adamites the Creation of Adam and the Garden.

   The next three Books of the Written Torah contain תולדות commandments; positive and negative commandments do not require k’vanna as do tohor time oriented commandments. What distinguishes a tohor time oriented commandment from תולדות commandments and halachot contained within the Talmud? A tohor time oriented commandment requires the dedication of the Yatzir Ha’Tov which breathes tohor spirits from within the heart. The בנין אב/precedent by which Torah common law\משנה תורה/ learns בכל לבבך\כם within the kre’a shma as publicly taught by Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi in one of his Mishnaot within the mesechta of ברכות, the concept of עבודת השם – the key יסוד (which contains סוד) of doing mitzvot לשמה, a person must dedicate tohor middot (( The revelation of the 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the substitute theology known as the sin of the Golden Calf )), by sanctifying a tohor spirit which breathes within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. JeZeus when asked by his disciples did not understand this fundamental and basic kabbalah/סוד. He taught his disciples: “Our Father who lives in Heaven …” Wrong. Tefillah a matter of the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the Heart. Dedicating a spirit does not compare to blowing air from the lungs as expressed through the precedent of blowing the Shofar. Its not the blowing of the shofar that elevates this mitzva unto a time oriented tohor commandment! But rather the affixation of t’keah, tru’ah, and sh’varim to the positive, negative commandments all as tohor time oriented commandments which remember the oaths the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov swore the oath ( ONE in the opening p’suk of kre’a shma. ), to serve HaShem לשמה through time oriented commandments.

   Because both the gospels and new testament never teach this fundamental סוד\יסוד Jews recognize JeZeus as a false messiah. Mu-Ham-Mad referred to JeZeus as a prophet.

   Loading...

   Reply

   • The mitzva of observing Torah commandments לשמה within the borders of the oath sworn brit lands, the inheritance of the Chosen Cohen people.

     [[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? I[[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? In a world saturated with propaganda and revisionism, what disciplines shape that conscience to remain true to Sinai? ]]]

     The Books of שמות וויקרא concentrate on the avodat HaShem of dedicating korbanot. This “service” does not exist as offering up a barbeque unto Heaven. The mitzva of the פרט case of Moshiach learns from the כלל of korbanot services of the House of Aaron.

     Another בנין אב-precedent, the כלל for faith: צדק צדק תרדוף. Still another פרט-בנין אב precedent: the court case of Hebrew slaves vs. the State of Par’o – beating slaves for their rebellion to meet their brick production quota consequent to Par’o withholding the required straw.

     One other בנין אב-precedent learns from the כלל that all ברכות require שם ומלכות.

     Just as a korban requires a dedication to achieve a specific specified purpose, so too the mitzva of Moshiach. Specifically in the mitzva case dedication of Moshiach, this dedicated “king” sanctified לשמה to rule the land with Judicial justice, working through the common law lateral Sanhedrin courtrooms. Based upon the Torah Constitutional mandate that the Sanhedrin courts operate through משנה תורה-Legislative Review of any and all statute laws or bureaucratic regulations imposed by the Monarchy and/or his government.

     The often repeated rebuke which the Book of Shmuel makes upon the House of David as Moshiach, the injustice shown to the husband of Bat Sheva. This פרט-specific defines the כלל dedication of the mitzva dedication of Moshiach. No such dedication for the mitzva of Moshiach to become a substitute theology which has some mythical theologically based messiah to replace the chosen Cohen People.

     The opening word of the Torah בראשית, through the aggadic stories of the Creation, teaches the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments; as the Av of the תולדות secondary source positive and negative commandments located specifically in the Books of שמות ויקרא ובמדבר. Hence just as the Book of בראשית introduces the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov, this opening first Book of the Torah introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandments which the rest of the Books of the Torah come to clarify.

     For example: what separates tohor spirits from tumah spirits? Avodat HaShem in the Mishkan, only served in the state of tohor middot. For a Cohen to serve within the Mishkan in a condition of tumah middot – this Av transgression carries the din of כרת. Cutting off that person and his children from the oath brit wherein HaShem and the Avot mutually swore to create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין. This latter בראשית most essential idea shares nothing with tuma middot which promote racial or genetic inheritance of the Jewish race – as the Xtian church and Nazis promote – examples of tumah middot.

     Hence to swear a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות like as do all ברכות from the Torah. The sin of the Golden Calf – a substitute theology which replaces the revelation of the 1st Sinai commandment revelation of the Spirit Divine Presence Name unto other word-Gods. Avoda zara by definition worships other Word-gods. The sin of the Golden Calf serves as the defining פרט for the 2nd Sinai Commandment כלל not to worship other Gods.

     Therefore all Torah oath britot require שם ומלכות. The Name clearly directly links to the Spirit Divine Presence Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. The term מלך refers to the כלל mitzva of the dedication of the spirit of משיח as expressed through all tohor time oriented Av commandments … the righteous pursuit of justice to achieve shalom among the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations in all Ages and times while Jews rule our ancient homelands.

     מלכות understood as the dedication of defined tohor middot. אל remembrance of the Sin of the Golden Calf. רחום the inference which turns pity upon its head. Obliterating the Canaanites, the killing of the minor stubborn and rebellious child, the war against Amalek (Jewish assimilation to foreign cultures and customs of peoples who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. And intermarriage with such Goyim). The middah of רחום a Jew dedicates how he shall socially interact with both his people and Goyim in the future; specifically through the dedication of defined tohor middot. חנון the general dedication to dedicate all future behavioral patterns with family friends, people, and even Goyim by and through the future born tohor middot that a person dedicates whenever that Jews does Torah or Talmudic mitzvot/halachot.

     Both Xtianity and Islam worship other Word-gods. Therefore both religions do not define faith as the pursuit of justice, but rather belief in the theologies about these Word-gods.

     [[[ Also, when you speak of the erasure of Jewish self-determination through revisionist Palestinian narratives, I hear both an intellectual rebuttal and a deep historical wound. Is your critique aimed primarily at the political manipulation of language and borders—or also at the erasure of Jewish covenantal memory from the land itself? ]]]

     Unlike the Xtian and Muslims theologies which promote some pie in the sky Universal Monotheism God, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai revealed the local tribal God of Israel. When David fled from king Shaul he declared as he entered g’lut lands: “I have been forced to abandon God”. Just as the Great and Small Sanhedrin courts only have jurisdiction within the borders of the Jewish state so too the local God of Israel. Herein the answer given to the Holocaust survivor who said to me: “I was in Auschwitz, Where was God?” When I lived in the US and Xtian people asked me if I was a religious Jew? I responded with: I am an atheist praise God. But even living within the borders of the oath sworn brit alliance lands I habitually respond to Goyim with “I am an atheist – praise God”. Meaning, I do not believe in any theological/creed construct of Word-gods – praise God. LOL Torah, its deep and requires a sense of humor.

     The curse of g’lut-exile of my people almost immediately caused Jews to lose the wisdom how to do mitzvot לשמה. G’lut Jewry does not understand how to employ and work our Yatrir HaTov within our hearts. The בנין אב-precedent of blowing the shofer serves as a פרט to define the כלל of Yatzir HaTov. Meaning, to blow a shofar requires air from the lungs. But to blow a spirit from the Yatzir HaTov within the heart requires the k’vanna, (all time-oriented commandments require k’vanna) the dedication of defined tohor middot spirits. This כללי-general idea of tohor middot, it defines the dedication of the middah of חנון.

     Herein a definition of 3 of the 13 tohor middot which a person dedicates through Yatzir Tov k’vannot from within their hearts. Jews uprooted from our homelands by both the Babylonians and Romans caused the g’lut cursed survivors to lose this kabbalah wisdom which defines how to do mitzvot לשמה.

     Loading...

     Reply

2. Confronted with British and French imperialism Jerusalem threatens to annex area C of Samaria! And also to terminate the EU Israel special relationship wherein Israel pulls out of the EU UN voting block.

   ‘Britain cannot be on the side of Hamas’: As the UK turns on Israel, one leader stand

   The fall of Assad in Syria, the collapse of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the obliteration of Hamas in Gaza have triggered a massive domino effect which has radically changed the balance of power in the Middle East. Britain and France, their ‘Great Power’ status collapsed with the establishment of Vichy France and the defeat of Britain to seize the Suez Canal in 1956.

   The Abraham Accords irreversibly tarnished EU imperialism known as UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 as utterly archaic, yesterdays’ dead news.

   President Trump’s efforts to force a forced population transfer of all Gazans unto Arab countries resembles the mass population transfer post WWII Allies forced upon the defeated Germans. The Allies compelled 14 million German refugees to depart and move away from Prussia – the newly established Polish territories acquired consequent to War – comparable to Israel’s capture of Jordan’s West Bank. The territory of Prussia, territory which both Poland and Russia acquired through war … mocks the Pie in the Sky language of UN 242 by which the defrocked great powers of England and France declared “Inadmissibility of Acquisition of Territory by War“

   Loading...

   Reply

3. In the Shadow of the Lie, In the Light of the Brit … Blood and Brit: A Judgment Against Revision and Hypocrisy.

   In the shadow of the past, they twist and turn,
   Revisionist tongues, where the embers burn.
   Genocide,” they cry—a hollow refrain,
   While Tora! Tora! fades in disdain.(1).

   Infamy cloaked in a selective veil,
   As kingdoms of Judea fade, their stories pale.
   Three crowns of defiance, in history’s grip,
   While the Arab presence slips, a phantom’s trip.

   Jordan’s grasp on Samaria, a name to erase,
   “West Bank” they call it, a political face.
   No state for the people, no dreams to ignite,
   Just shadows of rulers who vanished from sight.

   Egypt held Gaza, a fleeting charade,
   Yet Nasser’s ambitions left nothing but shade.
   Arafat’s embrace of a name, ’64 newly found,
   In the wake of recapture, the truth’s tightly bound.

   Revisionist whispers, like ghosts in the night,
   Denying the horrors, distorting the light.
   To compare Gaza as Holocaust, a vile, bitter jest,
   In the theater of history, they fail the true test.

   So let them rewrite, let them spin their tale,
   But the weight of the truth will forever prevail.
   For history’s not written by lies that deceive,
   Though buried in Arab sands of deception & fraud,
   Israel arises in Zion, on its own ancient National feet.

   WordPress participants, if you slap the term “genocide” onto Israel’s response to the Oct 7th Abomination War, then intellectual honesty demands you paste the same label on the Dec 7th, 1941 assault—the “day of infamy”—which launched America into World War II. Accusing Israel of genocide while excusing the Allies’ firebombing of Tokyo and atomic obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reveals either flagrant hypocrisy or ideological dishonesty.

   Revisionist hacks whitewash the role Arab states played between 1948 and 1967, fabricating a myth in which a sovereign Palestine once flourished—until Israel supposedly destroyed it.

   In truth, Jews rooted themselves in the land through three distinct political eras:

   The united Twelve-Tribe Kingdom,

   The Judean Republic under Persian suzerainty, and

   The Hasmonean Dynasty, which threw off Greek-Syrian domination through armed revolt.

   No Arab or Muslim polity ever ruled a sovereign state in the land now called Israel. Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan occupied Samaria—renaming it the “West Bank” in a rhetorical land grab—but never lifted a finger to forge a Palestinian state. The British Mandate for Palestine dissolved in 1948; no successor Arab government attempted to revive it. Arab states rejected UN 181, Britain’s feeble divide and conquer UN 242. Post the Nakba defeat and Israeli Independence, the UN has no authority to impose 194 – “right of return” upon the Jewish state. Despite the Goebbels repeated mantra refrain: Zionist entity Crusader State.

   Egypt, likewise, seized control of Gaza. Despite the 1950 UN condemnation (endorsed by every member state except England and Pakistan), Egypt’s monarch made no moves toward Palestinian statehood. Nasser later toppled that king, but Arafat didn’t even adopt the term “Palestine” until 1964—just three years before Israel’s recapture of both Gaza and Samaria. The PLO’s founding charter, penned under Arab occupation, refused to claim either territory; instead, it called for Israel’s destruction. Their silence about Gaza and the West Bank in 1964 screams louder than any later propaganda.

   Revisionist history mimics Holocaust denial by distorting the record, concealing cause and context, and blaming the victim for surviving.

   When Ben-Gurion and the Zionist leadership named the new state “Israel,” they didn’t merely select a name—they resurrected an identity. “Israel” evoked ancient sovereignty, tethered modern Jewish nationalism to ancestral roots, and announced a reborn nation. This name galvanized a people and reshaped geopolitics.

   Had the Jews named the state “Palestine,” the identity landscape might have fractured. For centuries, “Palestine” referred to geography—not Arab nationality. During the British Mandate, the term “Palestinian” often denoted Jews, not Arabs. Arabs roundly rejected both the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, which carved out a Jewish National Home. That rejection didn’t spring from a desire for Palestinian independence—it flowed from opposition to Jewish statehood.

   The Jerusalem Post bore the title Palestine Post during the Mandate, further underlining the term’s original association with Jews. The Zionist movement, founded on Herzl’s vision, drew legitimacy from the Balfour Declaration. Every Arab war against Israel traces back to Arab rejection of Jewish self-determination.

   Foreign propaganda outfits often deploy the word “created” to smear Israel as artificial or illegitimate. But in 1947, two-thirds of the UN voted in favor of Jewish self-determination in the Middle East. Following Israel’s Declaration of Independence, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union immediately recognized the Jewish state. Yet Arab states categorically rejected the British-sponsored UN Resolution 181 and waged war to erase Israel from the map.

   The emergence of a “Palestinian Arab” national identity didn’t arise in a cultural vacuum—it developed as a reaction to Zionism and the Jewish victory in the War of Independence. Jewish sovereignty forced clarity onto a region long trapped in imperial ambiguity.

   We didn’t steal a land. We reclaimed a homeland—and we won our war of national survival. Arab propaganda still clings to the word “created” because it cannot stomach the truth: Israel wasn’t manufactured by foreigners. Jews rebuilt it. Fought for it. Bled for it. Secured it.

   The Palestinian national identity emerged in opposition to Zionism, not as a longstanding expression of sovereignty. Historical facts—like the Jewish political presence across millennia, the origins of the term “Palestinian,” and the legitimacy of Israel’s statehood—have been distorted by propaganda.

   “There are those who parade mitzvos in public and butcher the brit in private.” Yet even as we confront the lies of nations, we must confront the lies we whisper to ourselves—in the shadows of our courts and the corners of our sanctuaries.

   They sculpt their piety for the crowd. They cloak themselves in tallit and tefillin while gutting mishpat behind locked doors. Their lips chant hallel; their hands extort, manipulate, betray. They don Torah like theater, not oath. They fear scandal, not sin. Exposure, not exile. They crave applause, not HaShem’s judgment. They hijack yirat shamayim and weaponize it for social control.

   “And there are those who break Torah laws in Zion, but build it in secret.”

   They offend the eye. They scandalize the synagogue. They clash with halakhic decorum. But when no one watches, they feed the widow, guard the convert, return the lost. They wrestle with the brit in the dead of night. No banners. No blessings. Just emunah forged in sweat and silence. They cut paths through darkness while the righteous sleep.

   “I prefer the latter.”

   The Kotzker doesn’t flinch. He scorches the hypocrite. He crowns the broken. He hunts the soul that bleeds for justice while the choir sings. Better the one who stumbles in daylight but plants mishpat in the shadows than the one who dazzles the crowd while hollowing out Sinai with assimilated Greek logic and statute halachic codes. Better the sinner who limps toward HaShem than the Cohen who flees like naked Adam who clothes himself in gold and titles.

   A Mashal: The Two Sons of the King: Yitzak & Yishmael

   To what may this be compared? To a King who had two sons.

   One son dressed each morning in royal garments. He walked the palace courts with a Koran under his arm and Molotov cocktail burning in the wind while publicly fasting on Ramadan to show honor to the homeless poor. When courtiers passed, he bowed low and recited Surahs & Ayahs in full voice. He offered tithes from the royal table and dipped his bread with flourish. But in the cellar—where no servant dared tread—his corrupted scales weighted profits from theft, scrolls smeared with lies, two separate accounting books. His voice rang holy; but his hands shed the innocent blood of corruption.

   The other son wore torn g’lut clothes and wandered the outer gates. He walked upon dusty roads while his lofty brother goose stepped upon paved sidewalks. He spoke roughly, fought openly, and refused to step into any court which switched the syllogism for פרדס(2). When he prayed tefillah within his heart, the k’vanna did not address any God in the Heavens, but rather he stood before the Torah ark and remembered the oaths sworn by the Avot. The ministers mocked him; the elders wrote him off. But by night he visited the sick. He buried the forgotten. He returned coins dropped by the blind. His door on Shabbat remained open to orphans and strangers. He studied Torah alone, by candle, and wept when he did not understand its common law פרדס inductive logic. No trumpet announced his deeds. No ledger recorded them but the King’s.

   When the Day of Reckoning came, both sons were summoned. The first stood proud, wrapped in Alba, Stole, Chasuble, Cincture, Pectoral Cross, and Liturgical Colors. The second stood silent, eyes lowered, hands crusted and scarred. And the King said:

   “Better the son who stumbles in the street but guards My brit in secret, than the one who honors Me with his lips but who Koran never once mentions the brit in print. (3) For I do not seek actors in My court, but servants who carry justice in the marrow of their bones.”

   Thus taught the Kotzker Rebbe: “Give me no angel wrapped in costume. Give me the soul that limps, bleeds, hides—but clings to HaShem with both fists.”

   Chagigah 5b:

   The baal teshuvah does not merely regret; he wrestles, burns, and rebuilds. He rips out the rotted beams of his past and drives Torah into new ground. No pedigree props him up. No ancestral merit shields him. He grafts emunah into the flesh of his heart and buries it deep within the souls of his children—where no eye sees, where only HaShem weighs the kiddushin mitzva of ‘fruitful and multiply’. He constructs his legal identity from the rubble of assimilation and statute laws. He births halakhic common law identity out of intermarriage chaos—not through inheritance, but through fire. Through sweat. Through judgment. Through t’shuvah.

   The righteous man who never falls may stand, but the baal teshuvah ascends. Not like a Cohen on temple steps—but like a soldier dragging himself up Sinai, gashed, ragged, but clutching the sworn oath brit in stained bloodied hands. The baal teshuvah climbs from the pit of assimilation and intermarriage ruin to build something stronger than innocence—he builds justice from ash.

   This Kotzker line doesn’t whisper piety. It shouts Torah common law. It carves a verdict: authenticity belongs to the one who fights for the brit in secret. The Rebbe doesn’t moralize—he judges. He cuts down the pius religious Jew who bases statute law Judaism code upon Greek foreign logic.

   ۞ Haqq al-Kadhib: The Truth of the Lie ۞
   In the cadence of ancient reproach

   Have they not claimed what they did not build?
   Have they not wept over stones they did not lay?
   Have they not called themselves what they were not named?

   Lo! The land spoke before their tongue.
   The hills bore witness before their fathers’ dust.
   Zion remembered her children—
   But they remembered not her name.

   They cry “return”—but whence did they come?
   From Kheibar? From Damascus? From the sands of Najd?
   Not from Yehudah, not from Shomron.
   Their fathers did not plant olives in Ephraim.
   Their mothers did not sing by the waters of Zion.

   Woe to the people who inherit envy.
   Woe to the nation born of grievance.
   They forged a people from negation.
   They raised a flag over a wound.

   And say: “Nakba! Nakba!”
   But who cast the first spear?
   Who heard the call of Mufti and Pharaoh?
   Who marched seven nations against one boy, wrapped in prophecy?
   And they were broken like clay jars on the threshing floor.

   And lo—they claim Jerusalem!
   Did their prophets anoint it?
   Did their songs rise from her gates?
   No—
   The Temple did not weep for them.
   The Cohonim did not speak their tongue.

   Say to them:
   You are Ishmael, son of the field—
   And we are Israel, bound to the altar.
   We remember the fire.
   You remember the sand.

   So perish the lie that cloaks itself in keffiyeh.
   Perish the myth born in Cairo’s tongue.
   The land knows her children.
   The stones cry out against their claim.
   And history is not mocked.
   ________________________________________________
   (1) “Tora” references the Japanese military code for “lightning attack” (totsugeki raigeki), famously transmitted during the Pearl Harbor assault on December 7, 1941. The line critiques modern willful ignorance or contempt toward historical warnings or aggression.

   (2) “פרדס” (Pardes) – A one-line footnote or aside explaining the four levels of Torah exegesis (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod) might enhance the meaning of rejecting syllogism for covenantal reasoning.

   (3) The koran affirms earlier prophets but omits the concept of the brit as a legal-political alliance cut with Israel. The first word of the Torah בראשית contains ברית אש.

   Loading...

   Reply

4. St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Ordo Caritatis”, while true, was misplaced in the debate on illegal immigration. Prevost had to correct JD Vance, who seemed to have quantified love instead of prioritizing it. Love has no bounds, but it is prioritized according to context.

   Vance’s argument was misplaced because it was defensive. He should have aimed for the offensive, i.e., stress the importance of the Seventh Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” which is an immemorial teaching of the Church.

   It is obvious that a vast majority of the millions of migrants who broke US immigration laws are fake asylum claimants. Home Security rates them at more than 90 percent. Ideally, every single case should be heard, but that would take years.

   The Biden-Harris administration had given the aliens free cellphones containing an app where they could set the date for their own court hearings. And they did so, to up to 5 to 10 years going forward, enjoying the freebies (food, shelter, clothing, health care, transportation, education, job placement, even the right to own property, as urged by the international law for protection of refugees.) The fake asylum claimants enjoy the freebies while awaiting their court hearing that takes years. Such freebies are at the expense of American taxpayers.

   It’s theft. Fake asylum seekers are thieves. They violate the Seventh Commandment. Vance should have stressed that instead of Aquinas’ Ordo Amoris.

   Loading...

   Reply

   • welcome.us
     check out who gave what to the illegals = Carter, Clinton, Obama and Bush
     The Pope needs to stay out of Politics. There are a million things more important right now than tweeting JD Vance!!

     Loading...

     Reply

5. I never had actually heard of the Augestinian sect before a few days ago. I did hear, though, Martin Luther also belonged to it. So that’s…not good.

   Loading...

   Reply

6. A funny thing about this is, why would victims of sexual abuse think the church would investigate?

   That requires law enforcement. It seems that all of the close associates of Francis cover up abuse, it’s a requirement.

   Loading...

   Reply

7. The New Pope from Chicago

   The Second Vatican: Papal Renewal Beyond the West – Where the Pope lives is where the Church listens. Repentance, exile, diaspora—an act of moral courage. A functioning Roman Curia intact—Rome as the “embassy,” not the throne. A spiritual Vatican abroad (e.g. Bogotá), and an administrative Vatican in Rome—mirroring Orthodox and Eastern Church multi-polarity. The Cross cannot atone for Auschwitz. No theology of the Cross is complete without acknowledging the silence of God at Auschwitz. The papacy must become a witness to repentance, not imperialism.

   The Catholic White Paper: Relocating the papacy as a form of exile rather than schism – a diasporic moral witness. Moral legitimacy, simply more important than territorial continuity. 2024 as the Vatican’s “final break” with Europe. Diaspora, exile, “bearing the mark of Cain.” Rome, morally discredited by its complicity in European antisemitism and 2000+ years of Jew hating theological lies. The Cross of Jesus cannot atone for the Shoah. Rome has become the tomb of Catholicism’s imperial past, not the womb of its future. Relocate the papal court to the spiritual frontiers of the faith—in Bogotá, Nairobi, or even Washington—without surrendering the Petrine title.

   Throughout history, popes have temporarily relocated for various reasons (e.g., during wars or crises) while still retaining their title and authority as Bishop of Rome. This flexibility in residence could be invoked to justify a more permanent arrangement. Canon law recognizes the pope’s authority to govern the Church and make decisions regarding his residence. The Code of Canon Law (CIC) does not explicitly mandate that the pope must reside in Rome, allowing for the possibility of a new residence while maintaining the canonical status of the Holy See. The pope is always the Bishop of Rome, regardless of his physical location. This title could be retained symbolically, allowing the pope to govern from a new location while still being recognized as the Bishop of Rome.

   The pope could delegate certain administrative functions to representatives or curial officials in Rome, ensuring that the governance of the Church continues without interruption. This delegation could help maintain the connection to the Holy See while allowing the pope to operate from a new residence. Modern technology could facilitate the pope’s engagement with the Vatican and the global Church, allowing for virtual participation in meetings, liturgies, and decision-making processes, thereby reinforcing the connection to Rome.

   The pope could continue to celebrate key liturgical events in Rome, such as Easter and Christmas, reinforcing the connection to the Vatican and the historical significance of the city as the heart of Catholicism. The pope could perform symbolic acts, such as the annual blessing from St. Peter’s Basilica, to maintain a visible link to the Holy See and its traditions, even while residing elsewhere.

   The pope could consult with the College of Cardinals and other Church leaders to build consensus around the decision to relocate the papal residence. This collaborative approach would help ensure that the move is seen as legitimate and in the best interest of the Church. A formal declaration or apostolic letter could be issued to explain the rationale for the move, emphasizing the continuity of the papacy and the ongoing commitment to the Church’s mission.

   While the idea of relocating the papal residence presents challenges, canon law and tradition offer pathways to accommodate such a shift without formally changing the seat of the Holy See. By drawing on historical precedents, leveraging the flexibility of canon law, and maintaining liturgical and administrative continuity, the Church could navigate this transition in a way that honors its traditions while responding to contemporary realities. This approach would allow the papacy to adapt to a global context while retaining its essential identity and authority as the Bishop of Rome.

   Would there be two functional capitals (Rome and Bogotá)? Would the College of Cardinals be expected to shift its base? What mechanisms ensure continuity of apostolic succession? Jesus’ own itinerancy and homelessness (Luke 9:58); Pauline epistles on the universality of faith beyond Jerusalem; early Church models of decentralized leadership.

   The theological movements emerging from Latin America and Africa represent significant developments within the Catholic Church that reflect the unique cultural, social, and political contexts of these regions. These movements not only address local issues but also offer valuable insights and models for a diasporic Church that seeks to engage with a diverse global community. Liberation theology emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a response to the social injustices and economic inequalities prevalent in many Latin American countries. It emphasizes the preferential option for the poor and the need for the Church to advocate for social justice and human rights.

   This movement integrates Christian faith with the struggles of marginalized communities, encouraging a critical examination of societal structures that perpetuate poverty and oppression. It calls for active engagement in social and political issues, viewing the fight for justice as a fundamental aspect of living out the Gospel. Liberation theology can serve as a model for a diasporic Church by emphasizing the importance of contextualizing faith within the realities of people’s lives. It encourages the Church to be a voice for the voiceless and to actively participate in the struggles for justice and dignity in various cultural contexts.

   African inculturation theology seeks to integrate African cultural values, traditions, and practices into the Catholic faith. It recognizes the richness of African heritage and aims to express Christianity in ways that resonate with local customs and beliefs. This theology emphasizes communal values, relationships, and the interconnectedness of life, which are central to many African cultures. It challenges the individualistic tendencies often found in Western expressions of Christianity and promotes a more holistic understanding of faith. African inculturation theology offers a framework for the diasporic Church to embrace cultural diversity and foster inclusivity. By valuing local traditions and practices, the Church can create a more vibrant and relatable expression of faith that resonates with diverse communities around the world.

   Synodality emphasizes the importance of listening, dialogue, and shared decision-making within the Church. It encourages the involvement of laypeople, clergy, and bishops in the governance and direction of the Church, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility among all members. Synodal experiments in various regions, including Latin America and Africa, have demonstrated the potential for local churches to adapt their practices and governance structures to better meet the needs of their communities. This approach promotes a more dynamic and responsive Church that is attuned to the realities of its members. The synodal approach can serve as a model for the diasporic Church by promoting inclusivity and collaboration across cultural and geographical boundaries. It encourages the Church to listen to the voices of diverse communities and to adapt its practices to reflect the richness of global Catholicism.

   By focusing on these theological movements, the diasporic Church can become more culturally relevant and responsive to the needs of its diverse members. This relevance is crucial for engaging younger generations and those who may feel disconnected from traditional expressions of faith. Emphasizing these movements fosters a sense of global solidarity among Catholics, recognizing that the Church is not monolithic but rather a tapestry of diverse experiences and expressions of faith. This solidarity can strengthen the Church’s mission and witness in a globalized world. The insights gained from liberation theology, African inculturation, and synodal experiments can inspire innovative models of ministry that prioritize social justice, cultural integration, and participatory governance. These models can help the Church navigate contemporary challenges and engage meaningfully with the world.

   Cardinals will still convene in Rome for a conclave when a new pope needs to be elected. The conclave is traditionally held in the Sistine Chapel, and it is a key part of the process of electing a new pope following the death or resignation of the sitting pope. Now a global rite with millions of adherents around the world. The Catholic Church has seen substantial growth in regions such as Africa, Asia, and the Americas, leading to a more diverse representation within the Latin Rite.

   Benedict XVI’s resignation as precedent for humility, decline of Roman authority. Galatians 1–2, Philippians 3—to emphasize a faith not anchored in a holy city but in the risen Christ. Benedict XVI & the Jewish statement “Dabru Emet.” The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) marked a pivotal moment in Catholic-Jewish relations, particularly with the declaration “Nostra Aetate,” which rejected the notion of collective Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus and emphasized the shared spiritual heritage. He rejected the classic Church substitution theology. He maintained that the Church does not replace Israel but rather sees itself in a relationship with it. He encouraged Catholics to engage with Jewish thought and tradition.

   “Dabru Emet” explicitly condemns anti-Semitism and calls for Christians to confront their historical complicity in anti-Jewish sentiments and actions. The statement emphasizes the importance of Jewish identity and the need for Christians to respect the distinctiveness of Judaism.

   Catholic post-Shoah theology represents a significant evolution in the Church’s understanding of its relationship with Judaism and the Jewish people. Through the contributions of theologians like Joseph Ratzinger and statements like “Dabru Emet,” there is a growing recognition of the need for dialogue, respect, and acknowledgment of the shared heritage between Jews and Christians. This ongoing theological reflection continues to shape Catholic teaching and practice in the contemporary world.

   After the humiliations of the 2024 European Olympics and the collapse of Vatican influence in France, Germany, and Italy, Pope Leo XIV made the unthinkable decision—to leave Rome. Not as a schism, but as an exile. A diasporic papacy, symbolizing not fragmentation, but acknowledgement that Hitler’s Shoah murdered the Catholic Church in Europe.

   During crises (e.g. the Avignon Papacy, 1309–1376), the Church never officially moved the Holy See, only the pope’s residence. Europe is increasingly post-Christian, with declining Mass attendance, priestly vocations, and moral authority. The contrasting approaches to secularism and religion in France and Germany. Laïcité is a French concept of secularism that emphasizes the strict separation of church and state. It is characterized by a strong stance against religious influence in public life and institutions. This aggressive form of secularism means that religious symbols and practices are often restricted in public spaces, including schools and government buildings. The French model of laïcité, rooted in the 1789 establishment of the Church of Reason. And continued through the French 1905 law that established the separation of church and state, reflecting a historical context of conflict between the state and the Catholic Church. By contrast cultural acceptance of religious symbols. In Germany, religion remains generally more accepted in public life. Yet still there persists the ancient system, a “church tax” – where the state collects taxes on behalf of registered religious communities, which reflects a more integrated relationship between the state and religious institutions. Germany’s more pluralistic cultural style, more forgiving towards permitting some type of coexistence of various religious practices and symbols in public life.

   Many of the worst abuse cases and resistance to Vatican authority have emerged from European dioceses. The rising “New World” faith, nearly 40% of the world’s Catholics, live in S. America, European hostility towards the Vatican, perhaps best exemplified through the 2024 European Olympics, which basically denounced the Vatican’s very existence. But even the EU attempt to write a Constitution which made no mention of the Church – another glaring attribute that Europeans have long rejected the moral decay of the Catholic Church in the Vatican.

   The U.S. Church has immense wealth, media reach, and access to political influence. The American Church has diverse Catholic populations (Latino, African, Filipino, traditionalist, charismatic). The First Amendment arguably provides more institutional autonomy than many European secular states. A relocation to a city like Buenos Aires or Bogotá could preserve Catholic heritage while affirming demographic reality.

   Removing the Holy See out of Europe would echo the Church’s earlier moves toward the “Global South”, consequent to its now popular populous decolonizing or democratizing tendencies. Europe has radically shifted away from both imperialism and Monarchial rule. The Pope could reside in Washington, New York, or Chicago, while technically retaining the title “Bishop of Rome.” The, to quote Bush #1, “new world order”, a diasporic papacy, reflecting the global dispersion of the faith.

   The Avignon Papacy eventually triggered the Western Schism, which had profound implications for Vatican authority and church unity. In 1309, Pope Clement V moved the papal court from Rome to Avignon, France. The French monarchy, at that time, sought to exert control over the papacy. The papacy remained in Avignon for nearly 70 years, seven successive popes resided in Avignon. Perceived French domination over the Holy See increased tensions with other European powers, particularly Italy and England.

   The prolonged absence of the papacy from Rome diminished its authority and legitimacy in the eyes of many Christians. The perception that the popes were more aligned with French interests than with the universal Church contributed to growing discontent. In 1377, Pope Gregory XI returned the papacy to Rome, which was seen as a restoration of the papal authority. A Pope, anti-Pope schism followed, Urban VI in Rome and Clement VII in Avignon.

   The Western Schism lasted for nearly 40 years, during which various European nations aligned themselves with one pope or the other, leading to political and religious divisions across Christendom. The schism was finally resolved at the Council of Constance (1414-1418), which deposed the rival popes and elected Pope Martin V, restoring a single papacy in Rome. The resolution of the schism ultimately led to reforms within the Church and a reevaluation of the papal role in the broader context of European politics and society. At least until the Protestant Reformation 30 year War exploded early in the 17th Century.

   The mass human slaughter of the 30 Years War almost depopulated all of Germany. The horrific barbarity of that War, compares to the death toll caused by WWI. A comparison of the two wars, 8 vs 16 million people killed.

   The key strategic battlefields fought in Germany. The Thirty Years’ War began as a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states within the Holy Roman Empire but evolved into a broader struggle involving many European powers, including France, Sweden, and Spain. Estimates suggest that the population of Germany was reduced by as much as 25% to 50% due to the war. This staggering loss of life resulted from not only direct military engagements but also from famine, disease, and the breakdown of social order.

   The war was marked by extreme violence and brutality, including widespread atrocities committed by both sides. Armies often pillaged towns, leading to civilian casualties and suffering. The use of mercenary troops, who were often poorly paid and motivated by looting, exacerbated the violence.

   The Thirty Years’ War ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which established a new political order in Europe based on the principles of state sovereignty and religious tolerance. The war significantly weakened the Holy Roman Empire and altered the balance of power in Europe. In that same year the terrible Cossack revolt burned like a wildfire across the plains of the Ukraine and Poland. The competing European empires carved up Poland like an American Thanksgiving turkey. Only post WWII did the Allied power return Prussia back to Poland – split between Poland and the USSR. The devastation caused by the 30 year war, led to significant demographic, economic, and social changes in Germany. Many regions took decades to recover, and the war left a legacy of mistrust and division that would influence German politics for generations, particularly in terms of its impact on the German population and the broader European landscape.

   Bottom line, the Holy See has a fractured legacy in Europe. The Treaty of Westphalia entrenched state sovereignty and religious pluralism, paving the way for Enlightenment secularism, which ultimately culminated in the French Revolution and the birth of laïcité. The worst clergy abuse scandals and most aggressive calls for doctrinal overhaul (e.g., from Germany’s “Synodal Way”) come from European dioceses.

   The post WWII “faithful” in Europe: childless, aging, shrinking, and increasingly disengaged. The Pope is by definition the Bishop of Rome. Moving the Holy See means either redefining that identity or retaining the title symbolically while relocating the de facto papal court. It validates that the moral influence of the ancient Roman empire as dead as the rise of the Jewish state in 1948 proved the Catholic hate speech against the Jews of Europe as an utter lie and ‘blood libel’ slander.

   A Second Vatican (perhaps in Washington, Buenos Aires, or Bogotá) emerges as the real base of operations. This “diasporic papacy” echoes the Church’s global dispersion—and acknowledges that Rome no longer speaks for Catholicism’s dead reality. Moving the center away from Europe honors Catholicism’s demographic shift. The First Amendment, despite U.S. flaws, provides more space for institutional independence than European secular bureaucracies. European hostility, symbolized by the 2024 Olympics and EU secularization, has ultimately delegitimized the Vatican’s presence in Rome, perhaps irreparably.

   Moving the Holy See could redefine the papacy’s identity while acknowledging the Church’s global dispersion. The notion of a Second Vatican Council in a new location could serve as a base for a revitalized Church that honors its demographic shift and responds to contemporary challenges. The challenges posed by secularization, demographic shifts, and internal dissent will require innovative approaches to leadership and governance within the Church.

   The Vatican, as a European power center, no longer represents the heart of global Catholicism. The collapse in Mass attendance, vocations, and cultural relevance across France, Germany, and Italy signals more than just apathy—it reveals deep hostility toward the institutional Church. Catholicism has lost not just power but credibility.

   The Church’s failure to protect Jews, the later revelations of complicity or silence, and the enduring legacy of anti-Judaic teachings (now widely condemned but still lingering in parts of Catholic theology) have morally compromised its position. The founding of the State of Israel in 1948 did indeed expose the “blood libel” and other lies as genocidal propaganda cloaked in theology.

   A global papacy would reflect reality, not cause a rupture. A diasporic papacy today could be a leap into a post-imperial, multicultural future. Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia are also growing Catholic strongholds. Meanwhile, the American Church—with its wealth, media power, legal independence (via the First Amendment), and demographic diversity—offers strategic advantages as a logistical base.

   .Just as Vatican II reoriented Catholicism in the 20th century—updating liturgy, acknowledging religious freedom, and engaging the modern world—a new base could recenter the Church in its emerging heartlands. Rome no longer speaks for Catholicism’s dead European reality. A “diasporic papacy”, recognizes that post WWII, the Christian Church, bearing the mark of Cain, has gone into the disgrace of exile. Just as did the Jewish people after the Roman empire crushed their revolts 2000+ years in the past.

   A new base for the papacy could serve as a revitalized center for the Church, honoring its demographic shift and responding to contemporary challenges, much like Vatican II did in the 20th century. The concept of a diasporic papacy reflects a recognition that the Church must adapt to survive and thrive in a global context. As Europe becomes increasingly secular, the Church’s ability to maintain relevance and authority will depend on its willingness to engage with new cultural realities and the diverse experiences of its global congregation. A diasporic papacy could symbolize a new chapter for the Church, one that acknowledges its past while looking forward to a more diverse and interconnected future.

   Just as Vatican II sought aggiornamento—bringing the Church into dialogue with the modern world—a diasporic papacy in the 21st century would be a bold act of ecclesial realism and pastoral renewal. A diasporic papacy represents a pivot from imperial nostalgia to global responsiveness, from Eurocentric bureaucracy to a pluralistic pastoral imagination. By relocating the papal court without discarding the historical title “Bishop of Rome,” the Church could honor its Petrine legacy while signaling a new chapter—one defined not by proximity to empire, but fidelity to its global flock. A Second Vatican, in a new city, could serve as the institutional symbol of this transformation.

   A new base for the papacy could serve as a revitalized center for the Church, honoring its demographic shift and responding to contemporary challenges, much like Vatican II did in the 20th century. A Second Vatican Council in a new location as a means of revitalizing the Church; a willingness to engage with the modern world and adapt to the realities of a globalized faith. A renewed sense of purpose and connection among Catholics worldwide, reinforcing the Church’s commitment to its mission in a rapidly changing landscape.

   The theological movements emerging from Latin America and Africa are not merely demographic phenomena; they represent profound expressions of faith that address the unique challenges and aspirations of their communities. By focusing on liberation theology, African inculturation, and synodal experiments, the diasporic Church can draw on these rich traditions to create a more inclusive, relevant, and responsive expression of Catholicism that resonates with the diverse experiences of its global congregation. This approach not only honors the cultural contexts of the faithful but also enriches the universal Church, fostering a deeper understanding of what it means to be a global community of believers.

   Loading...

   Reply

   • How embarrassing for you, to paste in irrelevant propaganda.

     Loading...

     Reply

     • Your sentence carries zero comprehension. Suggest you learn how to write a complete sentence.

       Loading...

       Reply

     • Who was the Rambam and what impact did he inflict upon the Jewish people?

       Was the 1232 ban only on Moreh Nevuchim or also on Mishneh Torah? It seems to me, that the ban made by the Baali Tosafot covered both. The former treif book openly praised the Arabic interpretations of how to learn Aristotle’s syllogism deductive reasoning. While the latter openly copied, much as did king Shlomo did with his Beit HaMikdosh which duplicated the extravagance of Goyim Temple construction across the world, the egg-crate organization of statute law into subject matter which defines both Greek and Roman legalism which subordinates the legislative review of the courts subsumed before the primary authority of the legislatures or Senates.

       The 1232 ban initiated by the Ba’alei Tosafot (specifically the rabbis of Northern France, notably Rabbi Shlomo of Montpellier and his circle) was explicitly focused on Moreh Nevuchim and other philosophical writings by the Rambam. However, it is historically unclear whether Mishneh Torah was officially banned by the same decree — though many critics implicitly or explicitly saw the codification and systematization of halakha in Mishneh Torah as deeply problematic and part of the same rationalist project they opposed.

       No post-Tosafist, ghetto-era rabbi succeeded in reestablishing a Talmud-based common law jurisprudence. The yeshiva model after the Shulchan Aruch largely became a pilpulist or posek-based culture, not a dayyanut britit (covenantal judicial reasoning) as modeled by the Talmud. The shift in the yeshiva model after the publication of the “Shulchan Aruch” and the rise of pilpulist and posek-based cultures marked a significant change in Jewish legal practice. This shift has been critiqued for moving away from the dynamic, integrative approach exemplified by the Tosafists.

       Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema, 1520–1572) wrote his statute law commentary to the statute law Shulchan Aruch. The idea that communal legal practice, responsa, and local precedent, compares to – much less replaces the sealed masoret of the Talmud patently absurd.

       The Maharshal (Rabbi Shlomo Luria, 1510–1573) – In Yam Shel Shlomo, he critiques halakhic decisions made by earlier authorities. But did he go back to the Talmud and weigh the sugyot with a common-law mindset? No. His Yam Shel Shlomo never once acknowledged sugya integrity within the Order and organization of the Talmud. He never once addressed how the Baali Tosafot wrote a common law commentary to the Talmud or how they condemned the Rambam in 1232 for writing a statute law perversion, the first of its kind, of both the T’NaCH and Talmudic and Midrashic common law jurisprudence.

       He never once engaged with the methodology of the Baalei HaTosafot, who viewed the Talmud not as a loose anthology of traditions, but as a tightly integrated common law system. The Baalei HaTosafot commentaries cross-referenced parallel sugyot across tractates that reached to the depths of the Yerushalmi.

       The process of integrating and harmonizing legal principles and rulings from different sugyot (sections or topics) within the Talmud, known as the etzem ha-mishpat or inter-sugya legal synthesis which involves analyzing various legal discussions, interpretations, and precedents found in multiple sugyot to create a cohesive understanding of halacha, his commentary never once achieved.

       Etzem ha-mishpat represents the essence, the core of legal reasoning, focusing on how different legal arguments and rulings can be reconciled or applied in a unified manner. This approach allows scholars and jurists to derive comprehensive legal conclusions that reflect the complexity and dynamism of Jewish law, rather than treating each sugya in isolation. By engaging in this synthesis, legal authorities can address contemporary issues while remaining rooted in traditional sources, ensuring that halacha – most essentially common law – does not descend unto the legal corruption of assimilated Greek and Roman statute law Hades. The latter grossly fails to evolve in response to new circumstances while maintaining its imaginary Talmudic foundational principles, as the Rambam so – bold faced – falsely declared.

       The Rashbam predates the Rambam, his intellectual lineage among Tosafists reflects an earlier form of Ashkenazi resistance to rationalism. The Paris rabbis explicitly publicly opposed the Rambam’s statute law perversion of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. The Goyim threw the Jews into ghetto gulags for 3 Centuries but rabbinic leadership betrayed and abandoned judical Jewish courtroom common law. Rabbinic Torts damages courts utterly forsook the 3 man Courts division of labor which divide the Court organization into Judge, prosecuting attorney, and defense attorney as the definition of all Torts 3 man courtrooms! This retreat from common law Talmudic courts, commanded not to accept bribes, compares to Kashrut mash’gichim who receive their salaries from the stores they police! An absolute and utter corruption of Talmudic common law.

       The Tosafists did not codify—they commented dynamically, upheld disputes, and refused the false security of closure. This, the hallmark of covenantal jurisprudence: law as a living court process, and most definitely not some arrogant appeal to authority – imperial fiat. The later pilpul schools which sprouted as weeds following the Gra utterly failed to grasp.

       After the Shulchan Aruch, the yeshiva model shifted towards a pilpulist or posek-based culture, moving away from the dayyanut britit (covenantal judicial reasoning) exemplified by the Talmud. Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema) wrote his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch, which represented statute law, but (as previously stated) the notion that communal legal practice and local precedent could replace the Talmud’s sealed masoret simply fundamentally flawed.

       Etzem ha-mishpat, or inter-sugya legal synthesis, represents the core of legal reasoning, allowing for the reconciliation of diverse legal arguments. This synthesis absolutely essential for addressing contemporary issues while remaining rooted in tradition; to ensure that halacha retains its common law essence and does not devolve into the corruption of assimilated Greek and Roman statute law, as falsely promoted by the Rambam.

       Despite the challenges faced by Jews in the ghetto, rabbinic leadership felt itself forced to abandoned the judicial common law system, forsaking the three-man court structure essential for Torts damage law suits. This retreat parallels the corruption seen in kashrut supervision, where mash’gichim in Israel today face conflicts of interest! Who pays their salaries?

       Rabbinic divorce courts today make the public חלול השם ברבים when they permit רשעים to publicly profane their sworn oath made before kosher witnesses and a minyan of Jews, these רשעים have no shame. Their arrogance imprisons their ex-wives to the disgraceful status of agunah! Because the post Rambam Civil War rabbis ignorantly fail to grasp the implications of the Shemittah precedent which permits Jewish farmers to sell their produce to a “beit din” (a rabbinical court) or to a non-Jewish entity.

       This action, done to circumvent the prohibition of working the land and to allow for the distribution of produce while adhering to the laws of Sh’mitta. The precedent of prosbul serves as a primary precedent. The mitzva of kiddushin absolutely requires than the baal acquire Title to the nefesh O’lam Ha’ba of his wife; meaning he acquires – based upon the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from nothing – the baal acquires title to all the seed produced in the world to come/future of this marital union. Another worthy and similar precedent, the minchag of selling חמץ before Pesach to Goyim.

       Statute law pesel Judaism, which dominated ghetto Jewry in Europe, abysmally failed to grasp that the divorce Beit Din has the power to impose the ban of נידוי upon the רשע ex-husband, based upon the precedent of gere tzeddik as a “new creation”. The דיוק of this mitzva, that the reverse din of כרת equally expels and cuts off this רשע, who publicly makes false oaths – as כרת, not part of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. The divorce beit din has the power to retro-actively annul the original kiddushin. Therefore the divorce beit din has the Torah authority to issue the required ‘get’ to the imprisoned agunah ex-wife, permitting her to make k’ddushin with a man who has fear of heaven, permitting them to sanctify the mitzva of fruitful and multiply.

       The concepts discussed in Ketubot 3a and Yevamot 90b provide important precedents for the authority of a divorce Beit Din to place an ex-baal into נידוי and subsequently issue a get that frees the agunah prisoner. Ketubot 3a: discusses the obligations of a husband to his wife, including the financial responsibilities outlined in the ketubah (marriage contract). It emphasizes the importance of the husband’s role in providing for his wife and the consequences of failing to fulfill these obligations. If a husband refuses to grant a divorce or fulfill his marital duties, the court can take action against him, including placing him in נידוי. Unlike the Aggadic 3 oaths, which religious Jews quote in order to denounce Zionism, found at the end of mesechta Ketubah, the baal has Torah/halachic obligations toward maintaining the dignity of his wife.

       The rationale, a husband who neglects his responsibilities to his wife, simply not acting in accordance with Jewish law and community standards, thus justifying the court’s immediate intervention. No רשע should ever assume his refusal to give a get to his ex constitutes as a powerful weapon of revenge – a direct negative Torah commandment.

       Yevamot 90b: This passage addresses the concept of a husband who refuses to grant a get, particularly in cases where his decision acts against the interests of his wife. The Talmud discusses the authority of the Beit Din to impose sanctions on such a husband, including excommunication. The reasoning: that the court has the responsibility to protect the rights of the agunah and ensure that does not abuse his get obligations which could leave her in a state of marital limbo. By placing the husband in נידוי, the court exerts pressure on him to comply with the law and grant the divorce. The Gemara of Sahedrin attributes the floods in the days of Noach to false oaths. The mitzva of kiddushin directly swears an oath alliance based upon the oath brit sworn at the brit cut between the pieces which eternally תמיד מעשה בראשית creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing.

       The combination of these two sources establishes a legal framework that empowers the Beit Din to act decisively in cases of refusal of the baal to returned the nefesh O’lam Ha’ba soul of his wife. The imposition of נידוי serves as a means of compelling the ex-husband to fulfill this Torah warning – not to make vain oaths. The threat to the security of the World, thereby mandates the court to issue the get following the ban. This action ultimately frees the agunah from her state of marital imprisonment, enabling her to remarry and move forward with her life.

       In summary, Ketubot 3a and Yevamot 90b provide the necessary precedents for the Beit Din to impose נידוי on an ex-husband who refuses to grant a divorce, thereby facilitating the issuance of a get and addressing the plight of the agunah.

       Consequent to the 1306 expulsion of all Jews from France which obliterated the Rashi/Tosafot common law commentaries made upon the Talmud, and ultimately crippled common law T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship – on par with the 1242 disaster of the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts in France! The destruction of evidence means that no conclusive proof exists that a majority of the Baali Tosafot condemned the Rambam. Clearly Rabbi Moshe ben Yaakov of Coucy, known also as the Smag, this Baali Tosafot who wrote Sefer Mitzvot Gadol – clearly rejected the condemnation made by the “majority” of the Baali Tosafot; based upon the simple fact that only on two occasions does the Baali Tosafot commentary mention the Rambam and no both occasions in the whole of the Sha’s; they rejected and opposed his halachic posok both times.

       Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, known as the Smak, another Baali Tosafot scholar noted for his support of lifting the נידוי that had been placed upon Maimonides in 1232 by “a group of rabbis” in Paris, including many of the Ba’alei Tosafot. Some rabbis attempt to limit the excommunication only to the Moreh’s exultation of Greek logic. However, organizing law into defined subject matter, as does the Rambam code, equally represents the influence of Greek and Roman statute law. But name the Yad – Mishna Torah – an utter perversion due to the simple fact that Rabbi’s Mishna based its name upon the Book of דברים having the second name משנה תורה. The Book of D’varim defines the Torah judicial legal system as common law. For the Rambam to distort this Torah name with his statute law code, this absolute לשון הרע merits that he like Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), that the reputation of his name for ever rots.

       In the early 2000s a group of rabbis, which amazingly included myself for a spell, attempted to re-establish a Federal lateral common law Sanhedrin court system together with the small Sanhedrin cities of refuge. Rebuilding dayyanut britit rather than posek-based rulings – my dream. Reliance upon the Talmud as the basic model for a Federal Sanhedrin court system across all 12 Tribes of the Republic. Restoring the legitimacy of beit din as a sovereign legal authority, capable of acting boldly in the face of injustice (as in the agunah case), guided by Talmudic precedent, not shackled by post-codification legal inertia. Alas I personally failed, the Yatzir to impose legal halachic closures, which defines Judaism today, dominated the hearts of my peers. The Rambam Yad triggered a tectonic shift in halakhic consciousness.

       Loading...

       Reply

     • Xtianity no different —

       The YOUTUBE clip: Brandon Gill SHUTS UP unhinged Jasmine Crockett after her woke tirade crosses the line, depicts tuma cognitive warfare.
       In this context, the Brandon Gill–Jasmine Crockett exchange isn’t just political drama—it’s an orchestrated moment of cognitive warfare. It bypasses policy debate and instead targets identity, emotion, and tribal loyalty. Whether orchestrated or simply exploited after the fact, it contributes to a larger system of psychological manipulation in the infosphere.

       The exchange, especially when edited for conflict, activates the amygdala—The amygdala is a small, almond-shaped cluster of nuclei located deep within the temporal lobes of the brain. It is part of the limbic system and plays a crucial role in processing emotions, particularly those related to fear, pleasure, and aggression. The amygdala is involved in the formation of emotional memories and helps to regulate responses to emotional stimuli. It also interacts with other brain regions to influence behavior and decision-making based on emotional experiences—engaging fear, anger, and pleasure centers more than rational analysis. This is neurological capture: inflaming emotional circuits to override deliberative cognition, keeping the brain in “us vs. them” mode.

       The incident is cast as a metaphor for larger ideological battles: conservatism vs. progressivism, order vs. disruption, “truth” vs. “wokeness.” It conditions viewers to see political discourse as a zero-sum spectacle, aligning them with a cultural narrative beyond just policy.

       The audience for this clip is clearly targeted: politically engaged individuals on the right who are fatigued by “woke” rhetoric. The language, editing, and dissemination aim to reinforce existing biases and trigger dopamine-rewarding outrage or schadenfreude—a German term that refers to the feeling of pleasure or satisfaction that one experiences from witnessing the misfortunes of others. It combines the words “Schaden,” meaning harm or damage, and “Freude,” meaning joy. This emotion can arise in various contexts, such as when someone feels happy about a rival’s failure or when they find humor in another person’s embarrassing situation.

       The clip’s virality is no accident. It is tailored for shareability—short, emotionally charged, adversarial. Social platforms algorithmically favor such content, turning it into a weaponized meme that deepens echo chambers and reduces nuanced discourse to winner/loser binaries.

       By elevating one lawmaker as a symbol of order and the other as chaos, this exchange becomes a tool to rally supporters and demoralize opponents. It sends an implicit message: “Our side dominates; theirs is irrational.” This plays on tribal loyalty, a cornerstone of PSYOPS.

       The viral framing—“Brandon Gill SHUTS UP unhinged Jasmine Crockett”—is a classic example of selective narrative construction. The title primes viewers with a judgment (“unhinged”) and a victor (“shuts up”), shaping perception before any facts are absorbed. This is cognitive framing designed to elicit emotional reactions, especially among partisan audiences.

       While various frameworks exist to understand cognitive warfare, one perspective outlines six key facets that collectively target neurological and psychological processes:

       1. The deliberate dissemination of false or misleading information to confuse, mislead, or influence target audiences. This includes tactics like spreading fake news, deepfakes, and conspiracy theories to erode trust in institutions and factual information.

       2. Strategic campaigns designed to influence the emotions, motives, and objective reasoning of individuals or groups. These operations aim to alter perceptions and behaviors to align with specific objectives.

       3. Utilizing platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to amplify divisive narratives, suppress dissenting opinions, and create echo chambers. This facet leverages algorithms and bots to manipulate public discourse and sentiment.

       4. Employing data analytics and machine learning to identify cognitive vulnerabilities and tailor messages that can influence decision-making processes. This includes personalized propaganda and predictive behavior modeling.

       5. Emerging technologies that interact directly with the human nervous system, such as brain-computer interfaces and neurostimulation techniques. These tools have the potential to alter cognitive functions and behaviors, raising ethical and security concerns.

       6. Shaping cultural narratives and ideological frameworks to align with specific agendas. This includes influencing education, media, and public discourse to gradually shift societal values and beliefs.

       Loading...

       Reply

     • Why Xtian “Heart felt prayer” compares to taking a dump in a stream and laughing at the people down stream who drink the water.

       The term “heartfelt prayer” qualifies as religious rhetoric pie in the sky nonsense/narishkeit in Yiddish. Xtianity rejects to this day the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 tohor middot. The inductive dynamic logic of this tohor logic system – impossible to employ Aristotle or Plato’s static deductive logic to grasp and understand an entirely different logic system all together and completely opposed to rigid block like thinking. The Egyptians logic based upon “block” thinking – its how they built the Pyramids.

       Inductive reasoning stands upon the foundation of Order. G O D vs D O G. Order changes everything. Hence the Jewish prayerbook called Siddur. This word contains the 3 letter root verb ס ד ר – which means “Order”. The Oral Torah which the church rejects, despite the fact that the mitzva of Moshiach – an Oral Torah commandment. Oral Torah dynamics stand upon the foundation of Order. Law intent learned by “ordering” comparative precedent cases that oppose one another like a prosecutor vs a defense attorney. Hebrew verbs build around 3 letter roots. ק ד ש this root verb can either mean Holy or Prostitute/whore. Hagel’s logic dialectics of the late 19th Century, his logic format too focused upon Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. This 3rd Law of Motion by definition dynamic and not static. Hence for Newton to derive this law he had to develop Calculus rather than rely upon static Algebra.

       Algebra is essential in static engineering, particularly in the design and analysis of structures like bridges. While Aristotle’s syllogism itself is not directly based on a triangle, it can be represented visually in a triangular format to illustrate the relationships between the premises and the conclusion. In this triangular format, you can think of the major premise at the top, the minor premise on one side, and the conclusion on the other side. This triangular representation emphasizes the static nature of deductive reasoning, where the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed by the truth of the premises, provided that the premises are valid. It illustrates how logical arguments can be constructed in a clear and structured manner, making it easier to analyze and understand the relationships between different statements.

       The Church abhors to this day the Talmud b/c this codification of Oral Torah common law builds around inductive dynamic logic rather than deductive static logic. Court legal cases compare precedent previous rulings – a dynamic reasoning process similar but different than Newton’s calculus and Hegels bi-polar dialectics. Hebrew logic spins around the central axis of making the דיוק, roughly translated as logical inference. Case law compares to the 3 different views contained in a blue print. The Human aging process a slow dynamic of change in the body.

       The Mishna presents, using the blue print metaphor, as the front view of One or Two similar Cases argued before Sanhedrin common law courtrooms. The Gemara brings external Cases – known as halacha – from different mesechtot of the 6 Orders of the Mishna. The word Mishna which rabbi Yechuda named for his Oral Torah codification comes from the Book of D’varim – also known as משנה תורה\Mishna Torah (Not to be confused with the Rambam perversion, his statute static law code which presumptuously named Mishna Torah. This deranged rabbi did not know that Mishna Torah means “Common Law”. Hence Jews who have a bit of Torah education refer to his legal codification of Halacha as “Yad Chazaka/Strong Hand”.). The 5th Book of the Torah defines Torah law as a common law legal system! Hence rabbi Yechuda as head of the Great Sanhedrin named his common law codification – the Mishna.

       The Gemara commentary to the Mishna therefore brings other halachic precedents gathered from any of the other Orders of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna as Top or Side view precedents to understand the Front view of the cases – as presented by the basic language of the Mishna itself. By folding the Gemara precedents back upon the very language of the Mishna the Frontal view changes to a different perspective. Something akin to looking at different facets of a diamond. Herein defines how the Gemara “commentary” understood the simple language of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishnaot as partially codified within the Yerushalmi and Bavli Talmuds.
       ____________________________________________________________________________________

       With this introduction can now address the distinction between Hebrew tefillah from non Jewish “prayer”. The latter does not correctly translate the former. Non Jewish prayer similar to saying Tehillem/Psalms. Saying Tehillem a person never says שם ומלכות, an abstract term essential to comprehend a Torah brit alliance. Tefillah based upon its Order: 3 + 13 + 3 blessings, this Order recombines into 613, the number of commandments of the Torah according to the רשע, the Rambam. In his defense – his Yad static code perversion greatly contributed to saving the Hebrew language from going extinct and becoming just another dead language like ancient Greek or Latin. Its exceptionally important to validate the merits of the Rambam. He might be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.

       A bit of a digression but his code caused a Civil War among Jews which it appears to me caused the down water streams of Yiddishkeit to endure 3 Centuries of ghetto gulags. The Rambam has a tremendous impact upon Jewry. His code compares to Earth Tectonic plates! Orthodox Judaism stands upon the foundations of the static statute law codes introduced by the Yad, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch. These static codes served the petrified environmental conditions of the ghetto gulags perfectly. But when Napoleon freed the Yidden from the Catholic war-crimes, the “shit hit the fan”. Reform Judaism declared the static statute law codes archaic and the American and French Revolutions made the huge innovation – separation of church from state – which gave birth to secularism. Chiloni Jews in Israel and g’lut/exile\Jews living in foreign countries – secular non religious Jews. Judaism the religion which the chiloni Jews reject – based upon the perversion of deductive statute law halachic codes.
       ________________________________________________________________________

       The Order of tefillah 3 + 13 + 3 makes a numerical רמז/hint to the 6 Yom Tov + Shabbat. The 13 middle blessings contained within the body of the Shemone Esrei tefillah DeRabbanan, adjacent to tefillah from the Torah – the kre’a shma. This opening verse: Hear Israel HaShem our God HaShem One, contains – 3 Divine Names just as the blessing of the Cohenim contains 3 blessings. Hence the Shemone Esrei contains 3 ___ 3 blessings. The key concept that a blessing requires שם ומלכות, herein defines the key pre-condition of swearing a Torah oath alliance! Neither word can be translated. A טיפש פשט/bird brained translation of Name + Kingship = tits on a boar hog stupidity. Common law not read like a novel or Harry Potter gospel books of fiction. Xtians read their bible mistranslations. Common law learned through the dynamics of bringing Case/Rule precedents/halachot.

       Hence to cut a Torah brit requires שם ומלכות. Neither the Xtian bible nor Muslim koran ever once brings the Name of השם ever within tomes/tombs homophones. Returning to _____ +13 _____. Why 13 middle blessings within the “Order” of the Shemone Esrei. The 13 middot of the Oral Torah revealed to Moshe at Horev following the Golden Calf “substitution theology” avoda zarah. Post the טיפש פשט, literal translation of “Golden Calf”, HaShem made a vow to substitute the seed of Moshe for the seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov as the chosen Cohen People. Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot concerning the creation of the chosen Cohen people by means of Av tohor time oriented commandments (both kre’a shma and tefillah qualify as Av tohor time oriented commandments). On Yom Kippur HaShem made t’shuva (as opposed to the טיפש פשט translation of repentance) upon His error of substitute theology and annulled the vow! Hence both a father and a husban can annul the vow made by a young daughter or a wife! But not even HaShem can annul a Torah sworn oath. Hence the טיפש פשט of the Xtian reading of Jerimiah “new covenant”; covenant does not correctly translate brit which actually means “sworn alliance”. To swear a brit alliance requires that a man swear this oath in the Name of HaShem. This Name absent in the bible and koran – different and strange tome/tomb nonsense. Translating the 1st Commandment Spirit to crude word translations = the Sin of the Golden Calf.

       To grasp the priority of Order, the Torah organized into 54 divisions called Parshiot. שם ומלכות … four (letters in the Name) X 13 (Oral Torah middot) = 52. The two remaining Parshiot contain the blessings and curses of the Torah. The Talmud in mesechta shabbat refers to these to Parshiot as the “two Crowns of the Torah”. A man in order to accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai must embrace, like a man does his wife following their wedding, responsibilities of Life or Death — blessing or curse — rule the oath lands with justice or endure Par’o like oppression in g’lut.

       Therefore the mitzva of tefillah, a man ideally stands before a Sefer Torah and swears a brit Torah oath which dedicates (just like a korban placed upon the altar of Zion) defined tohor middot לשמה. Meaning a man dedicates how he will conduct his social life with his family neighbors and people in the future! Herein separates and distinguishes the fundament differences between reading prayers of Psalms as read from a book and swearing a Torah oath with dedicates tohor middot as the king which directs a man’s future social behavior with others among his people. Why? Because Israel came out of the judicial oppression of Par’o corrut courtroom ‘Star Court’, to conquer and rule the land of Canaan with righteous judicial court room common law justice. Jewish common law completely different from Legislative statute law decrees — like Jewish courtroom common law absolutely estranged from Greek and Roman statute decrees ruled from some foreign Roman Senate.

       Tefillah a matter of the heart. Based upon the instruction of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna in ברכות which explains בכל לבבך\כם as the struggle between opposing spirits – tohor vs. tuma – within the heart. The mitzva of blowing the Shofar interprets שם component of the brit sworn oath as a breath blown. But k’vanna separates, like shabbat from chol, the spirit living within the heart from the air emitted from the lungs. Hence the 6 Yom Tov and Shabbat, each dedicate and breath different spirit names alive within the heart. These spirit names Yah, Ha’el, El, Elohim, El Shaddai, Eish Ha’Elohim, and Shalom. The 3 ____ 3 Order of the Shemone Esrei makes a רמז\hint to this deep kabbalah which answers why tefillah requires k’vanna.

       Loading...

       Reply

8. This white pope is just the another criminal public face puppet controlled by the gray pope hidden in the shadows. The black pope is even more secretive which goes all the way back to the Farenes family, one of the ancient blue blood families that rule the world. Everything the Vatican does is surrounded by evil. These ancient families are the reason for all the miseries, deaths, wars, financial collapses etc. through their secret societies such as the Jesuits, Freemasonry, Knights of Columbus, Knights of Malta, Knights Templar, Skull & Bones, Rothschilds Banks and many more.
   They hate President Trump because he and the white hat military intelligence are going after all of them.

   Loading...

   Reply