“Who is GOD?”
The Loss of Christ to Ecumenism
and the Pantheon
of the “Post-Catholic-conciliar-church”
_________________________________________________
Christ will one
day return —
yes, imagine, even in this
cesspool of human and diabolical misery that we proudly,
even defiantly, call the “post-Modern World” where the only
ethic is the abolition of every ethic — that is to say,
the calculated repudiation of truth as the
vertex of all moral authority.
Of course, we can stand as Pilate did and ask with
feigned ignorance,
“What is truth?” 1
even as Pilate stood before Truth itself (Christ) — and
then go on to crucify it. In fact, ... we have!
But why?
Why this renunciation of Christ as absolutely singular and
indispensible to salvation, such that St. Paul unequivocally
declares:
“Neither is there salvation
in any other. For there is no other Name
under Heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.”
2
We must note that St. Paul does not say “can
be saved” — but “must be saved.”
The answer is quite pedestrian; in fact, it is strikingly
simple: the centrality and indispensability of Christ is
an impediment to something deemed greater than Truth itself
which, since Vatican II, has been the ecumenical project,
perhaps best understood as religious neutrality.
In Ecumenism, all religions (however absurd,
illogical, and in manifest contradiction to every other
religion) are not just “correct” — but are, in a way that
defies reason and logic (to say nothing of Divine Revelation),
equally true expressions of the “One, True, Religion”
— which becomes understandable when we realize that Ecumenism
is the unreserved affirmation of all religions. No
one religion is correct or true; all are true,
all are correct. Such a statement, of course, is
logically absurd. It is a statement in violation
of the Law of the Excluded Middle in Logic: p_¬p
To wit: one and the same thing cannot both be and
not-be at one and the same time in a univocal sense
without resulting in irreconcilable contradiction. It is
a necessary and inviolable function of human understanding.
We hasten to add that this is not Catholicism,
but a different religion altogether — which
had been mistakenly conflated with Catholicism for 60 years
— but which has emerged as a phenomenon of itself and in
its own right, having no distinct creed and in need of no
doxological credentials — the very phenomenon which we have
come to know as Ecumenism. Consider the following
which Francis proclaimed to the Plenary Session of the
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
on May 5, 2022:
“I
would like to emphasize that: today, for a Christian, it
is not possible or practicable to go alone with one’s own
denomination. Either we go together, all the fraternal denominations,
or we do not go ahead at all. … Alone, never. We cannot
do it. … Today, either we all walk together or we
do not walk”
This is Francis. This is also madness. It
is heresy, and possibly apostasy. It is absolutely
contrary to the Catholic Faith as it has been known,
understood, and practiced for the two millennia preceding
that calamitous Council we call Vatican II, and the disastrous
“oracle” of Francis within the Church.
The preceding citation is an affront, not only to Traditional
Catholics, but to the universal human capacity to reason
and understand in coherent and consistent terms. In Ecumenism
we confront the illogical, the emotive, the intractable
unwillingness to engage in anything construed as possibly
inimical to its own peculiar agendum. Any attempt to invoke
the canons of reason are understood as a threat to the Ecumenical
Project.
For this reason, we insist that Francis is not simply
the culmination, but the personification of
the failed logic of that malignant enterprise — a pantheistic
project, really — benignly dubbed “Ecumenism.” Since Vatican
II, reason, logic, and revelation have been effectively
abolished. Ecumenism — not Christ — is the ne
plus ultra, the summit of every religious aspiration
and impulse
Who is the True God?
We see this clearly in the three “Inter-Faith-Assemblies” initiated
by three successive popes in Assisi:
·
John Paul II on Oct. 26, 1986, “To be together
to pray”
·
Then on January 2002 his next pan-religious prayer
meeting in the same venue
·
to be followed by Benedict XVI’s “Meeting for
peace” on October 27, 2011,
·
Francis’s “Day of prayer for peace” in
Assisi, Italy, Sept. 20, 2016).
On these occasions, the absence of certainty
concerning The One, True, God was the sine qua non
of the merest possibility of Ecumenism.
Praying to Islam’s Allah, Shinto’s Kami,
Hindu’s Trimurti, the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazdā,
the
African animist’s snake god
Dan, or the Buddhist’s Dali Lama (who possesses no
fewer than 108 “avatars”), was — in a quite uncertain
way — praying to the same god in a kind of iridescent
cope.
Each iteration of “god” was respectively acclaimed
the certain god, even while it was impossible
to reconcile all the alternating perceptions and contradictions
inherent in those claims.
The Catholics were the only faction in the
pantheon of contradictory gods who, through their pontifex
maximus Francis, conceded that they, at least, were
uncertain; in fact, quite uncertain about
the identity of the true “god,” and held the least tenable
position of all: that the contradictions were only, and
ultimately, illusory in the ecumenical schema. Those
brazen enough to insinuate the faculty of reason into the
ecumenical paradox and who raised the objection that the
contradictions were real— both baffled and infuriated
the “progressive” Catholic ecumenist who could, of course,
resolve these otherwise insuperable issues in the snap of
a chat. It is a strange, recursive world completely apart
from the world of men. And its epicenter is the Vatican.
It is a world that expropriates madness from the
narrow halls of the insane asylum, not only as emblematic
of, but necessary to, the absurdity encountered at every
level of “higher authority” and “higher learning” within
the Church — and most especially the Vatican and Francis-as-pope.
This mantra — “the certainty of uncertainty (except
the irrational notion of the uncertainty of certainty
…)” — appears to verge on something intelligible
… until one examines it more closely:
“Of
this alone are we certain: the certainty of uncertainty
(except the certainty of uncertainty …”
The religious epicenter of this
mental illness, as we have said, is the post-Catholic
Vatican — and its primary sponsor — and vector — Francis,
who infects with faux Jesuitical casuistry, everyone
in proximity to him. As such, Francis is indeed the pathogen
of this devastating disease that manifests itself in “certain
uncertainty.”
Ambiguity, we must understand, is the first symptom: state
nothing with unimpeachable certainty, and
never in unambiguous terms that possess the insolence
of exactitude. That is to say, apodictic (absolute)
certainty is the first organ infected. It then advances
through meaningless neologisms which sound meaningful
to the dull-witted — until they are rationally examined
by uninfected minds and reveal themselves as so much drivel,
or unembellished nonsense. But let us allow Francis, a heretic,
a Modernist, and the apex of evil in the Vatican, to prove
our point:
·
“A first principle for progress in building a people: time is greater
than space.”
·
“Space hardens processes”
·
“Spaces and power are preferred to time and processes”
3
Unless you are the keeper of, or an inhabitant within, an
insane asylum, such “Analects from Chairman Francis” would
be impossible to parse in rational terms, let alone attain
to something meaningful, or, for that matter, coherent.
Once this ambitious policy of ambiguity and uncertainty
infests the offices and bookshelves of every seminary
rector, pseudo-scholar, and all the “carefully groomed”
future priests in virtually every Catholic seminary — it
entirely suppresses and then ruthlessly supersedes (but
can never abolish) the 2000-year-patrimony and the
indefeasible competency of the quite certain Magisterium
of 2000 years. Together with the equally certain
Sacred Deposit of Faith, and Holy Tradition, which it contemptuously
disdains, it strives to replace all three with both spurious
and meretricious parodies — none of which possess
“certainty.”
“Pink Palaces”
There is a desperate, decisive, and crucial need to return
to sanity — and with sanity, certainty — through
a complete reversion of all things to what is and
ever was genuinely and unapologetically Catholic.
This entails everything that has been blighted or
obliterated since Vatican II, most especially a specifically
numinous and universal language crafted for divine worship
— Latin — which is unchanging and unchangeable and
hence in no need of meaningless improvisations, no
geographic or cultural inflections; it is a language that
— for two millennia — was not confined to time and
place; it transcended all geographical borders, all cultures
and every age, attaining to universality in a way that no
other language ever accomplished.
The return to sanity must embrace all that has been
corrupted: everything religious, liturgical, intellectual,
devotional, musical, every rubric, every response, enunciated
without ambiguity — everything must be restored
to the 2000-year-old form preceding the sacrilege of Vatican
II. Apart from this total return, we remain a Church without
reason in both its meanings: irrational and without
purpose.
This cannot be achieved by schism from — but reversion
to the One, True, Holy, Catholic Church of our forebears
for two millennia — and apart from which (as the Church
had constantly and tenaciously held until Vatican II)
there is no salvation. She is the Body of Christ
of which He is the head, and “there is no other Name
[or god, or goddess, or pagan idol]
by which we are saved” (Acts 4.12) except
Christ Jesus.
Our hot-bed-homosexual
seminaries, rectors, liberal and disaffected “teachers”;
our “carefully groomed” pederast, pedophile, and predatory
priests must first be immediately and unceremoniously thrown
out, and the buildings they partied in and “co-occupied”
must be thoroughly fumigated from the sexual filth that
has found fertile ground there, much as a bacterium in a
petri dish. They must be reassessed and reformed in stringently
Catholic terms that tolerate no aberration. The spectacle
of feminist ideologues (both female and male) instructing
Catholic MEN on how to become priests must be put to an
end and never allowed to experimentally emerge again. That
is madness! Imagine laymen instructing women
Religious postulants on how to become contemplative, cloistered
nuns! In what venue would that occur? In a papally enclosed
monastery? A Convent? Impossible! “Steel sharpens steel,”
as it is said, and manly men should be examples in the classrooms
and elsewhere to forge men for a manly task. The priesthood
is nothing less.
“Certain” ... “feelings”?
The notion of certainty is both epistemological
and invariable. The notion of feelings is
both emotional and variable. The two are completely
separate. “Certainties” pertain to universally accepted
definitions that cannot be contravened without contradiction.
Anything less would be mere opinion. “Emotion” and “feelings,
on the other hand, can consistently be contradictory. They
are not confined by reason or any other objective
constraint.
My
emotional “feelings” are different from your
“feelings” but my cognitive understanding, say, of a triangle
must correspond to, and be in agreement with,
your understanding of a triangle: there is absolutely
no latitude, or alternative definition: “The sum of
the three interior angles comprising a triangle will
always — without exception — equal 180 degrees.” That
absolute certainty may not please you, but you cannot
possibly make it otherwise. You can state that it
has 120 degrees, but simply stating it will not make it
so.
What we have Lost
Everything — everything we held dear and precious
to us, everything distinguishable as uniquely Catholic —
everything held sacred to us as Catholics has been has been
torn from us by those who deem themselves “intellectually
superior,” “aligned with the social issues of our times,”
“more “enlightened,” “progressive,” “liberal,” and fashionably
“dissident.” Understand that these are both subjective
and subversive credentials.
Virtually every aspect of genuine, historical, Catholicism
has been
thrown under the feet of Modernists: the avant-garde (that
is to say, the increasingly Protestant) cardinals, bishops,
theologians, and “liturgists” — together with the “ever-experimental”
priests incardinated by apex homosexual predators with an
impenetrable network of homosexual advocates both inside
and outside the Church. We absolutely must remember
Christ’s admonition: “Do
not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls
before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and
turn and tear you in pieces.” (St. Matthew 7.6)
Every traditional Catholic understands the force behind
this admonition. It is not simply marginalization, exclusion,
and ridicule — but open hostility. Calvinists,
Lutherans, animists, atheists, or pagans are much more likely
to encounter a warm and welcoming reception from “progressives”
in the Church than a traditional Catholic. Why? Because
a traditional Catholics are in possession of a certainty
foreign to their “progressive” counterparts — and central
to that certainty is Jesus Christ Who is largely ignored
in “ecumenical gatherings” as an impediment to Francis’s
program of “Accompaniment” with all men, and all gods, and
under all conditions.
Christ sometimes spoke analogically, but for the greater
part of His (that is to say, God’s) discourses or simple
utterances, He spoke with forceful clarity, unmitigated
austerity, and absolute unambiguity. There was no misunderstanding
Christ — or St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John, or any of
the Apostles. No effort was made to accommodate the “sensitivities”
of men, or the antagonism of the world. As St. Peter succinctly
stated, regardless of consequence,
“We ought to obey God, rather than men.”
(Acts 5.29)
Judge for yourself: if the absence of certainty
is not ineluctably the absence of Christ — and of what He
taught, what He commanded, and what He mandated for all
who presume to follow in His footsteps — we have no warrant,
no reason whatever, to appeal to what is uncertain — and
being uncertain, inconsequential.
The corruption, estrangement, and ultimately the
rescission of central aspects of Catholicism by Vatican
II to accommodate non-Catholic “denominations” (Lutheranism
in particular, Protestantism at large, and increasingly
other “practices” it factitiously subsumes under the concept
of “religion”) must be recognized, confronted, and not simply
“resisted”
— but actively challenged in the tribunal of reason and
demonstrated to be wanting. Contradictions cannot be politely
put aside to simply accommodate consensus. The very notion
of contradiction denotes conflict and disagreement.
We must remember that the Church has consistently taught
and maintained that the relationship between Faith and Reason
is both mutual and reciprocal — not contradictory.
It is both doxastic and evidentiary, and so understood,
the one involves the other.
It is on these grounds that the documents and propositions
— however much subversively presented as “practical”
in nature — that issued from Vatican should be decided.
If they do not accord with reason (especially the Law of
non-Contradiction), then neither are they consistent with
Faith, specifically the Catholic Faith. We must soberly
ask, “Do they accord with the Mens Ecclesiae” (the
Mind of the Church”) distilled and meticulously articulated
through the two-thousand years preceding “the Council” which
has sought to mitigate the stringency of those teachings
(for example, Nostra Aetate, otherwise known
as the “Declaration on the Relation of the Church
with Non-Christian Religions”, and Gaudium et Spes,
the “Pastoral” Constitution on the Church in the Modern
World— which seeks the engagement of the
Church in “the world,” through a pastoral “activism”
much along the lines of the social and political
activism that became prominent in the 1960s and 1970s.
No longer obsessed with issues eternal (such as the
salvation of souls), she was called away from them by
Gaudium et Spes to what it deemed more immediate
and practical issues, issues concerning the social
and political dimensions of man to the end of
improving the secular world — now firmly in her
embrace.
Here we would do well to pause here and to remember that these
documents, among many more, are pastoral in nature,
— not dogmatic — and unlike dogmas which are
divinely revealed, infallible, and binding on all
believers, whatever the nature of their authority, they
are still open to being reformed, that is
to say, revised and changed. They are not
dogma which, by definition, is irreformable or unable
to be changed. Since nothing infallible accrues to
these teachings (nor is held to), then they are, indeed,
subject to the criteria of reason and competent to stand
before the Tribunal of Reason. We must then ask, do these
pastoral documents accord with the canons of reason such
that no contradiction is implied between these documents
and the constant teaching of the Church prior to Vatican
II? If no contradiction obtains, then the Council had done
well. If not — and contradictions exist — they must
be reconciled, or failing that, the teachings abandoned.
But where could such a forum be convened? Rome, of course. And
convoked by whom? A pope, of course — which means that such
a convocation will likely not occur within the lifetime
of any present cardinal created by Francis or either of
his two predecessors. They have been too thoroughly indoctrinated
with Ecumenism to make such a leap into reason and logic.
For this reason, it is vital for us, in the
meanwhile, to find a Traditional Catholic Church where
the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated in Latin
and according to the long-established rubrics prior
to 1962 and the outrage that the
post-Catholic-Conciliar-church imposed upon us and our
children. Wherever the Latin Mass is celebrated, it is
an outpost of sanity in a wilderness of ecclesiastical
and liturgical madness.
In a very practical aside,
when we “support” your local Novus Ordo church or
when we donate to every diocesan plea for money, we must
recognize that we are paying, at least in part (perhaps
in large part), for the exorbitant fees of lawyers hired
by the diocese to settle lawsuits against homosexual-predator-priests.
Entire dioceses around the country have been bankrupted
as a result. What is more, much of that (your)
money is sent to the Vatican in billions of dollars used
for countless capital ventures having absolutely nothing
to do with alleviating the condition of “the poor” or “evangelizing
non-Catholics in poor nations; rather, it is used to sponsor
films like “Rocket Man,” a bio of the openly homosexual
Elton John, to the tune of $4.5 million USD, in what the
Daily Beast describes as,
“Elton John’s rather steamy biopic Rocketman, which
portrays the entertainer’s drug problems and is the first
studio movie to portray gay sex between men in an authentic
way.”
Or, it may
go to totally secular real-estate deals such as the
€350 million investment in a luxury London real estate
venture. Because of a blatant lack of transparency or accountability,
your donation may simply be used in money-laundering for
gangsters.
On the other hand, it may have
gone to building the $2.2 million Tudor mansion by LBGT-friendly
Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory (now a cardinal
of Washington, D.C.), or Newark New Jersey's Archbishop
John Myers whose archdiocese spent $500,000 “to expand his
retirement home, adding an indoor therapy pool, fireplaces
and an office library.”
It is not only American Catholics
who are getting fleeced: German bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van
Elst spent $43 million on a new residence and related renovations,
including a 5-foot-deep fish tank, filled with Koi carpfish,
at a cost of $300,000.
Is this really where
you want your very hard-earned money to go? Of course
not! — but it routinely does.
Refuse to legitimize this
travesty.
As we encouraged you earlier, find a Traditional Catholic
Church not associated with the religious and financial scam
that the Vatican has become since that tragic Council in
1962 — the year when the children sold their Mother into
shame.
A Lingering Question
Should we,
then, dismiss Novus Ordo Catholics? No! The vast
majority of them do not know — for they were never
taught — the most basic concepts of genuine Catholicism,
let alone proper comportment and apparel at Mass (which,
for all appearances, is not a free-for-all for every
religious impulse and expression). The blame lays squarely
on the narrow shoulders of their “bishops” who never exercised
oversight or authority over their priests — and their priests
who never assured the proper catechesis of their flocks.
Let us be frank, for the past
60 years Catechesis essentially became crayons and insipid
but expensive glossy books with not so much as a crease
in their bindings. Most Catholic Masses remain effectively
Protestant in tenor, presentation, architecture, statuary,
stained-glass, Marty Haugen (not a Catholic) music and “I’m
okay, you’re okay” homilies geared to the brainless.
This is not to impugn the piety
of the aging congregation who — in the absence
of proper and authentic Catechesis — never took the
time to examine the unimpeachable credentials of
their own religion, or even its differentiation from every
other religion.
Despite the ignorance (understood
in its actual definition as “a lack of knowledge, an absence
of information”) of doctrine and dogma that we almost universally
encounter in the post-Vatican II church, it is vital to
us, as traditional Catholics, to understand — and answer
— two essential points of confusion:
I.
Does this mean that the Eucharist
confected by a Novus Ordo priest at a Novus Ordo
Mass is not Sacramentally valid?
No. It is still the Holy
Eucharist, providing that the priest “does what the Church
does.” This is a very real and canonically explicit
imperative:
“The Council of Trent does not
mention the purpose of the sacrament
or say that the minister ought to
intend to do what
the Church intends
but what the Church does. Moreover, what the Church
does refers to
the action, not the purpose. There is required the
intention with regard
to the action, not in so far as it is a natural action,
but in so far as it is a
sacred action or ceremony, which
Christ instituted or Christians’
practice. If one intends to perform the ceremony which the
Church
performs, that is enough.” (St. Robert Bellarmine,
de
Sacramentis in
genere, chapter 27)
II.
Traditional
Catholics who (justly) defy Vatican II should be paradigms
of humility and holiness, remembering the admonishments
of the Apostles: