Preconciliar versus Postconciliar Church

Preconciliar versus Postconciliar Church: Incommensurate and Asymmetric Realities
By Joseph Andrew Settanni

Pope Francis illustrates vividly that, today, some fifty or so years after the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965), there are, in effect, two truly different and diametrically opposed Churches, to wit: the Preconciliar Church and the Postconciliar Church. This oddly results in a Janus-headed reality.

Their fundamental orientations and attitudes, seen in prayer, liturgy, Mass, and otherwise, are definitely incommensurate and fully asymmetric as to foundational purposes and meaning. Two ecclesiastic positions, therefore, exist with no substantive viable means of reconciliation available because their integral natures and realities, in overt terms of reference, are so radically different, totally incompatible.

This rather notable major schism, now informal and unofficial, will certainly, over time, become (more) distinctly formal and official, if no strongly countervailing events dictate otherwise. There is no real way, under the present practical and empirical circumstances, as is so evidently indicated by the thinking and conduct of Pope Francis, of ever correctly reconciling, unifying, or, perhaps, fundamentally adjusting the Preconciliar Church with what manifestly acts as the now Postconciliar Church establishment.

A Practical Schism Unnamed as Such

Only someone with what might be called a diarrhea of the mind can still supinely insist, after 50 years of ongoing and open destruction, that the Council was all or mainly/mostly later somehow misinterpreted. No. It was, in fact, deliberately oriented, especially so in its perniciously intended, heinous aftermath, to be, in most respects, a crypto-Protestant attack upon the fundamental depositum fidei of the Church set directly as a demonic stake fixed upon the heart of the institution itself. One can note, e. g., that John Vennari, William Marra, and many others have written about this important matter concerning its greatly vicious attack upon (orthodox) Catholicism.

What had unfortunately occurred, over these past forlorn decades, was, thus, neither coincidental nor accidental as to the malicious intentions plainly involved. It was the integrally corruptive achievement of that quite subversive modernism, prefaced upon nominalism, rightly denounced by Pope St. Pius X. Furthermore, those who today still persist and seek to disagree do so willfully by credulously ignoring the obvious truth; they become, in effect, the allies of the many enemies of the Church, of the Catholic Faith.

Of course, a schism is, admittedly, not assumed to exist at all and is supposed to be something clearly unwanted and very abhorred; but, after all, the old Latin Rite is, in fact, officially now marked off as the “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass, which is to be then forever, one supposes, extremely different and distinct, necessarily, from the obviously mainstream ecclesial presentation known as the Novus Ordo (New Mass). The latter was seen, by Pope Paul VI, as a rather suitable means for helping to celebrate the modern Church’s version of the Cult of Man on earth.

Much can be readily said about the many conditions and related cognitive conceptions under which the two situations, the two versions of “church,” seem to critically confront each other, to obviously split apart one from the other, which is, in effect, the central or fundamental consideration at hand.

There are, in fact, two popes existing at the same time, though one is, yes, officially retired. However, Benedict XVI was tending, in his sympathies, back toward the thinking of the Preconciliar Church as seen obviously in his Summorum Pontificum. Pope Francis, in evident opposition, quite ardently supports the affirmed exemplification of the evolutionary attitude of the predominantly existing reality, which may be called the Conciliar Captivity, meaning the sorry aftereffects of the Second Vatican Council. It could be said to analogously parallel, in many ways, the Avignon Captivity of the Renaissance Era Papacy.

The authoritative Preconciliar Church (PrC) faithfully resembles, by its own inherent definition, the older, traditional Roman Catholic Church of immemorial generations from the honored past, present, and into the future; on the other hand, the Postconciliar Church (PoC), seen as ever evolving, is basically reminiscent, as could be rightly suspected, of a main Episcopalian establishment, widely ranging from its decidedly High Church to Low Church alignments, meaning, as could be then fairly guessed, in its so many and quite variable religious and spiritual fixations or passions that do exist. This so includes, of course, the Charismatic Movement definitely considered as being solidly within the scope of the PoC.

Contrary to all that, the PrC, for instance, can then correctly be referred to, in an integral and clearly substantive manner, as to what was, is, and will be, similar to simply reciting the prayer known as the Glory Be. The important reality of what is meant exists as being manifestly self-evident, as is the overt nature of self-evident truth contained in, e. g., the US Declaration of Independence, when it says that certain truths are to be simply accepted as known by nature.

Prior to the certainly horrid advance of philosophical nominalism in America and elsewhere in the Western world, such clear substantial matters were just held to be, thus, logically and reasonably indisputable, knowingly incontrovertible as to epistemological doubt. If a truth really needs or must be associated with a proper demonstration of it, then, by definition, it is not actually self-evident.

In sharp and revealing contrast, since the Second Vatican Council (VCII), the PoC has been in a state of (wanted) evolution or fluctuation; it is generally best, therefore, to speak of it in broad terms of what will be or may be as to the future, much like the changing or variable present during which, from time to time, there is much still left in religious and theological dispute. Again, Pope Francis, therefore, superbly and rather accurately exemplifies and underscores discernably the relative and inconstant nature and fluid reality of the PoC, of the ongoing rebellion against and, in fact, logical rejection of the PrC.

He makes decidedly clear things, through words and actions, which could seem implicit but do become rather decisively explicit, meaning as to the many troubling differences and serious points of suggestive and inevitable conflict. Whenever looked at closely and carefully, moreover, the PrC and PoC are then really opposed, divergent and, ultimately speaking, different ecclesial entities that, moreover, seek to consciously address and affirm quite different religious, spiritual, and theological issues and concerns. Similarities, if they seem so, are actually superficial, not deep in their many conflicting sensitivities and referents.

Unfortunately, one can intelligently note that the vast bulk of the people of the Roman Catholic Church today, inclusive of the predominant majority of the hierarchy, do yet thoroughly refuse to honestly or openly accept what has been here so plainly asserted, as to what ought to be the obvious truth. The supporters of the New Mass, regarding the majority of them, and all that it implies would wish for the Traditional Latin Mass Community to just disappear, though that does not seem at all likely.

What will be dramatically interesting to see is how the apologists for Francis are going to handle the predictable time, probably next year or sooner, when he finally comes out with an outlandish statement having wildly winsome theological implications and even more extreme ramifications as to, perhaps, doxology. The myriad mental gymnastics and contorted convoluted exegeses, putting this mildly as an understatement, would then be quite wondrous to behold.

This has been made mandatory, in a sense, since the arrival of the “new orthodoxy” based upon full or basic acceptance of VCII by the neo-Catholics (such as, e. g., Jeff Mirus), as they have been indicatively denominated. They have, repeatedly, sought to purposely corrupt and deform the depositum fidei of Holy Mother Church for the evil sake of their ideological preferences, though the majority may be ignorant of the evil that they do.

There is to be no worship of or idolatry directed toward any pope; and, surely, no pontiff is ever to be a dictator. Each Holy Father is, moreover, duly bound to properly pass on undistorted the teachings and traditions, generation after generation, of the much honored Fathers and Doctors of the Church. In this noted regard, it is an appropriate defense of the religiously important institution of the papacy to say, in addition, that its monarchical and hierarchical structure cannot be renounced, any more than could a traditional king foreswear his royalty, in preference for a personal declaration favoring republicanism. But, Church politics seems to never cease in strident defense of the Conciliar Captivity.

The ideologically clever fast-tracking of the (now simply axiomatic) canonization of John Paul II added to that of John XXIII is meant to forever silence critics of VCII by, in effect, “canonizing” that odd council to make it, thus, seem forever sacrosanct in the too often ignorant minds of the faithful, by attaching such newly minted saints to its supposedly now hallowed reputation. There is even a movement to do the same for Paul VI, which is, in fact, no surprise at all. What, however, is really going on?

In the harsh realm of aggressive modernity, one perceives clearly that blatant ideology (read: secularist orientation) rudely enters into every corner of human life, including that of religion. These, in context, rather questionable, mean-spirited canonizations are certainly meant as in-your-face slaps against all the orthodox traditionalists who still righteously oppose the many obvious evils of that 1960s gathering, especially the majority of the known and, usually, sacrilegious features of its heinous aftermath.

The Church’s predominantly regnant liberals and leftists love the PoC, which suggests why traditionalist Catholics have more strangely in common with, e. g., today’s Protestant religious conservatives than they do with their liberal and leftist coreligionists. Again, one needs to see that this is an allied, ongoing cognitive function of the aforementioned pervasive ideology within the ever strange realm of blatant modernity. Catholicism is now, as a direct consequence of ideological divisions, split among orthodox, conservative, liberal, and leftist variations, which certainly goes against the notion of there being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It is a horrific scandal, of course, that was substantially, though not entirely, brought about under the auspices of VCII and, moreover, its always cognate radicalizing developments and ramifications, not just simple implications. Few people, it is said, really learn from history. There may be the natural suspicion, in addition, that Pope Francis is in certain ways repeating the dumb mistakes of Pius IX when he earlier had befriended, e. g., the Italian Revolution, only later to become a tormented victim of it.

The current pontiff, it is wisely suspected, seeks somehow to make curious friends with radicals, leftists, freethinkers, and liberals and, perhaps, broadly assumes that they will just sort of stay with him during the full course of his pontificate or, at least, most of it. If so, he will eventually be in for a deserved rude awakening, as with what had happened to Pius IX. Meanwhile, the current Vicar of Christ, who seems to want to deal with a healthy secularism, is enjoying his (false) springtime, as truly did that other properly chastened, aforementioned pope. He thinks that some amiable, charming atheists1 [see: Notes] can be his bosom buddies, his handy pals.

The Church can, in truth, never actually make “friends” with its certainly dedicated enemies; they have necessarily adverse and actually incompatible agendas that cannot be ever really mixed or mingled with the divine mandate given to Catholicism. Of course, the always morally corrupt ideology of the Conciliar Captivity is hostile to any oppositionist thinking, thus, Pope Francis has denounced political ideologists, especially, of course, if they may be political conservatives; if only the neo-Catholics could eschew their own ideology, which is almost hoping for a miracle; it would set a good example.

In any event, Francis, seemingly enamored of the enemies of Christ, must eventually decide if he wishes to remain a much widely celebrated media figure of this age or, embracing Christ, do the difficult and responsible pontifical business of defending Christian truth vigorously; both are, in fact, not possible at the same time, given the heavily secularist prejudices and biases of the mass media; his many erstwhile companions of the current time.

He must then, at the close of the religious business day so to speak, ultimately choose between being a tremendously glorified, contemporary, pop-culture icon or Pope Francis of the Roman Catholic Church. If he is truly a holy man of God, he will definitely take up the Holy Cross for “communication” purposes, as to teaching of the Faith, not the taking up of a telephone or iPhone. Moreover, his so amiable chattiness with prominent God deniers affirms their overt sense of self-righteous normalcy during a substantially Godless age; he, thus, gratuitously offers serene comfort, not moral rebuke.

The unctuous and vilely dispiriting example of Holy Father Francis is, therefore, of an obviously quite diminished and nastily impoverished Catholicism, not exactly a demonstrably superb version of the Church Militant surely. This affirms, as one ought to see, the rather too sordid truth regarding the Postconciliar Church and its inherent nature as such.

The Ultimate Dividing Line: Holiness of God

Of course, in marked and pertinent reiteration here, the Roman Catholic Church is always defined as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. To be Catholic is to be called to holiness. But, what finally divides the two positively opposed conceptions of the Church relates ever to the proper understanding and correct comprehension of holiness, of sanctity; in particular, one can here note the inscrutable and, ultimately speaking, always absolutely ineffable holiness of the Lord God Almighty.

It is fundamentally this and not, moreover, simply differences in various approaches to theology, liturgy, etc. that definitely and critically separates the PrC and PoC positions. How is this interestingly meant?

The proto-emblematic and inherently obscene disobedience of Adam and Eve2 that sadly resulted in the expulsion from the Garden of Eden caused the consequent creation of Original Sin. But, why was there such a problem or fuss made as pertaining to the fundamental nature of metaphysical order? The Deity is so extremely sacred and hallowed, exceedingly holy beyond any mere human comprehension, such that this permanently terrible act of disobedience became an offense that could not be forgiven until the Son of God Himself was crucified in requisite atonement for it.

Although the Sacrament of Baptism completely removes the vile stain of it, every mortal sentient being born into this world, except for the Blessed Virgin Mary, has consequently and logically suffered from what the First Parents wrongly and willfully did. Their direct disobedience was an act of unutterable, severe profanation set deliberately against the holiness of the Lord Almighty whose commands are not to be questioned or even doubted, for the Son of Man is the King of Kings.

Moreover, the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ means that all of man’s entire life, society, politics, and culture must be made subject to this fact, which was noted in 1925, when Pope Pius XI had courageously issued his important encyclical Quas Primas. As Western society has faded away from a Christocentric viewpoint, there have been many severe negative consequences; but, the rebellious failure to obey God had also lead to troubles in ancient times as well. One instance will suffice.

Moses, after seeing, many times, the literally many tremendous wonders, signs, and awesome powers of God, struck the rock twice, heedless of what he was told to do just once; thus, the great Prophet, subsequently, was not permitted to cross the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Moses, however, was very lucky not to have been immediately blasted off the entire face of the earth for such a major transgression. The punishment of Adam and Eve, becoming fallen creatures, was even more severe in that the wages of sin is death. Bodily death is, of course, due to the result of having had the curse of Original Sin.

Heaven, by their actions, was previously closed to all souls no matter how virtuous their lives might have been in this fallen world, according to Catholic teachings. That then must, among other major reasons, certainly show just how much the evil of Original Sin and the titanic offense it greatly represents against God needed a very suitable and most apposite means for its atonement, which could not, however, be accomplished by any mere human being(s).

It is ever exceedingly hard for human creatures, being imperfect specimens, to really know about the gigantic magnitude, universally vast enormousness, of the truly magnificent quality, the surely ethereal essence, known as the tremendously immense holiness of the Lord, the Supreme Being Himself. St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, says that about such metaphysical matters people can actually only think in analogous terms of reference, meaning as to even the furthest human limits of such related possible cognition.

Only the angels and the Communion of Saints are said to be appropriately capable of withstanding being in the divine presence of such literally awesome holiness set forever beyond the ever meager mental grasp of poor mortals on earth. This eternally quintessential attribute of the Exalted Divinity exceeds all proposed human claims to whatever degrees of supposed perfection that might, perhaps, be assumed by all mortal creatures, past, present, and future. All and any earthly superlatives imaginable describing this forever remarkable matter cannot ever grasp the true importance and, literally, persistently cosmic magnitude of it, which absolutely extends beyond the entire universe forever.

The incredible greatness and incomparable grandeur of the hyper-superb holiness of God is, finally, beyond the mortal mind’s feeble imagination to adequately express; the furthest heights of human comprehension remain still inadequate. This inherent and definitional quality of the Unsurpassed Deity is naturally limitless and, therefore, comprehensively exhibits infinite limitlessness. In short, He only is independently, infinitely, and immutably holy without qualifications.

It is an axiomatic attribute of permanently indefectible moral perfection to the endless greatest extent. And, there are real consequences, implications, and ramifications to the integral existence of such a forever nth degree of undiluted and simply unparalleled, totally unmatched, holiness.

When, as is cited in the Old Testament in the Book of Exodus, that man Uzzah sought to prevent the Ark of the Covenant from falling, he was still struck dead; this was completely regardless of his plainly good intentions because his hands were considered to be so terribly defiled, when easily compared to the always comprehensive reality and, thus, unquestionably sacred contents of the Ark. No profanation or sacrilege, even if totally inadvertent, was to be ever permitted and, moreover, no matter whatsoever the overtly benign nature of the positive intentions involved. One of the important religious lessons to be learned is that good intentions are really not enough whenever compared to the truly incomparable sacredness of the Holy One.

It is this irresistible theological fact of such ultimately unspeakable holiness that allows for unbaptized babies to be sent to Hell, which shows vividly why abortion is a great moral and spiritual horror. (The thought here is that they are merely sent only to the far outer fringes of the Infernal Regions since no active, meaning deliberate, transgression was made by those poor souls. They do not experience any physical torment as punishment for sin, though they probably know there that they will never experience the Beatific Vision.)

As is surely expected, the modern mind, heavily influenced by secularist enlightenment3 (the Cult of Man) through many poisonous doses of pragmatism, positivism, materialism, subjectivism, rationalism, etc., is just repelled violently from this seemingly harsh thought and liberally or progressively insists, of course, that an all-loving and sweet, kindly Deity could not be so insanely and irrationally cruel, vicious, and vindictive. In addition, existentialism and phenomenology, heavily involved with the deliberations of VCII, cannot ever accept any contrary intelligent reasoning that is not fully consonant with humanist predilections and orientations in modern, enlightened thought.

It would, thus, be so extremely unliberal and unenlightened of God to ever unreasonably act in such a menacingly miscreant and mean manner. This is the solipsistic, terrene, anthropocentric point of view put on egoistic display, though, of course, often unrecognized as such; it then necessarily contradicts forever, therefore, the theocentric viewpoint always appropriate concerning any theological ultimates under intense discussion.

Again, what ought to be overpoweringly obvious, manifestly then known to be simply true, is totally lost upon all theological liberals, modernists, and progressives. Original Sin (the first mortal sin), on the part of the first humans, had grievously offended the Supreme Being who is, by definition, truly supreme for a good reason. The First Parents, in vilely rejecting all that the Lord freely gave them, wanted instead to have knowledge equivalent to God, the Holy One, and be, to some extent, Godlike; it was an insane and unjust quest for an ersatz equality with, by definition, the Infinite.

Without the requisite removal of Original Sin from the person’s soul, that soul remains permanently in absolute rebellion against the Almighty, the venerable source of all justice and right in and beyond the entire universe. If that so salient point is not correctly understood, nothing else really can be, for the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ ought not to be blasphemously reduced, as with the PoC, to a merely symbolic (read: unsubstantial) idea having absolutely no real-world consequences.

Resistance to God, especially what is known as the horror of Original Sin, necessarily forever carries fully with it the ultimate penalty of eternal damnation, without any question. Furthermore, all merely human and non-Deity related holiness, as of all the angels and saints together, still amounts to almost nothing whenever compared to the true and original foundation of it, meaning within and through the very definition of God.

Because, as really ought to be importantly known, the Lord is, by definition, eternally supremely holy without any real qualifications whatsoever; and, no opposition, no obstruction, to this theologically indisputable fact is or can be logically permitted. To admit of any exception, diminishes and, finally, eliminates the notion of the Deity toward meaninglessness. For further useful extrapolations and expostulations, one can, of course, read such pertinent volumes as Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

Based upon the above review and analysis, it should be clear that the final dividing line that will forever separate the Preconciliar Church from the Postconciliar Church is the highly significant epistemological conception of God’s holiness and its integral nature because it has critical ontological implications of the profoundest nature and meaning for any serious Catholics.

Nuances concerning, e. g., such matters as liturgy, Mariology, Christology, or doxology could be made rightly subject to certain intensive speculation and many endless disputations or disquisitions upon an interminably wide variety of points, both subtle and plain.

However, the particular issue here regarding the major fact of truly divine holiness sincerely focuses requisite attention to something that cannot be fashionably avoided or just supinely ignored, meaning as to what can be known about the magnificent sacredness and supreme purity of the Godhead and its simply necessary nature as such. For instance, the fully unquestionable holiness of the Lord refutes thoroughly the blasphemous heresy, gaining much strength in the Postconciliar Church, of a supposed universal salvation.

This warped thinking has been made possible because the Deity, in the minds of many, has been much reduced to that of an old, doting, Santa Claus-like, grandfatherly figure who is, thus, infinitely indulgent and easily forgiving (beyond reason), not the fearsome righteous Judge of all the living and the dead. Whether intentional or not, the high holiness of God gets absurdly and unjustly diminished into being some sort of a joke. It is not surprising, for instance, that the vile heresy of universal salvation keeps spreading among too many neo-Catholics. Such would never be the case, in any way whatsoever, within the context of the Preconciliar Church.

VCII unleashed the effort of a presumed spiritual enlightenment to catch up to and match a secular enlightenment by which the two streams of thought could pursue parallel lines of discourse in terms of having an expressive “openness” toward the world. This is the ideologically praised aggiornamento (“a bringing up to date”) concept of that terribly wayward council by which the then wanted Hegelian dialectic qua idealistic paradigm could then successfully take effect. Paul VI had taken the opportunity to speak about the Church now having its own “Cult of Man,” though he, also, smelled the “smoke of Satan” enter.

The Hegelian dialectic is thus seen: The Letter of VCII (thesis), the actual documents produced, was meant to struggle with the Spirit of VCII (antithesis) to help liberally and enlightenedly arrive at a new synthesis in an assumed continual dialectical progression set into the future; a deliberate kind of “Trotskyite” permanent revolution was, therefore, to be coldly, progressively inflicted upon Holy Mother Church; and, it has, no doubt, tremendously succeeded, as is seen obviously by the ongoing grave crisis earnestly afflicting the troubled ecclesial body. What, nonetheless, needs to be better understood?

More to the immediate point, the seriously critical realization should exist that the nominalist existential and phenomenological ontology, relating to Hegelian idealism, freely accepted by the adherents of VCII is forever at odds with and, logically, opposed to the firmly Aristotelian-Thomistic ontology behind the epistemological-realist viewpoint of the Preconciliar Church. How so? This is fully shown, moreover, by the two significantly conflicting conceptions of the holiness of God that are held, which is, indeed, no small or simply trifling matter presented here for candid consideration.

Support given for the PoC is the playing out of a mere masquerade because it is the ingenious façade for cleverly disguising the base desire to hide adherence to an immanentist eschatology that reifies faith as it deifies Man. The, as a direct effect, implicitly questioned sacredness of the true salvific Deity is, thus, conveniently made to take second place to these many often barely hidden secular-humanist aspirations toward a perfectionist neo-theology that just uses religion as a rather vile ideological vehicle or weapon for worldly dominance, influence, and power.

Either the Lord God Almighty is infinitely holy or He is not; there can be no compromise or equivocation. The Preconciliar Church, as one could reasonably guess, never had any religious or theological doubts whatsoever in either its epistemology or ontology, which illustrates best the integral character and true moral soundness of the adamant argumentation that, thus, has been made and advanced in this present article defending it.

Conclusion

What now exists, as a result, is the anthropocentric attitude of the PoC aimed against the theocentric, specifically Christocentric, viewpoint of the PrC; these are ever, of course, two totally incommensurate, incompatible, and asymmetric realities incapable of any actual resolution within the same universe of discourse. Ultimately, this is because the superlative holiness of the Lord God Almighty, directly and indirectly, manifestly and obliquely, has been put into complete and endless dispute, due mainly to the terrible epistemological victory of nominalist philosophy. What is philosophically and religiously meant?

The rotting away of the modern mind, caused primarily by nominalism in cognition, then, in turn, necessarily destroys any proper appreciation of true theological ontology, including allied assertions concerning the (previously) undisputed holiness of God. In this significant regard, concerning the crisis in the Church and the disastrous ongoing predicament it represents, only the firm ending of the Conciliar Captivity will, therefore, bring about a major change of religious and theological direction back toward needed orthodoxy, the definition of Catholicism.

This may splendidly occur either when some saint(s) do the equivalent of what St. Teresa of Ávila did to help end the Avignon Captivity or a tremendously serious precipitating event (or scandal?) of some kind finally topples that truly ill-conceived monument to human vanity and demonic hubris known as VCII. Which suggests why prayers for Pope Francis, an admirer of Paul VI, are needed. Furthermore, it can be easily added, in a substantial statement, that any unwanted PoC ambiguity concerning Catholic religious and theological dogmas and doctrines could only be abhorred mightily by a truly Holy God.

The evil Conciliar Captivity and its ideology ought, therefore, to be righteously and logically condemned by all believing Catholics, by all of the faithful. One can, in conclusion, perceive it to be a nominalist-inspired attack directed at, and an unmitigated, unalloyed, offense of a great magnitude set deliberately against, the always unimpeachable holiness of the Lord.

Once this monumental and critical theological issue is clearly recognized as such, no loyal Catholic, therefore, ought to be sympathetic, in any way whatsoever, toward the doings and aftermath of the Second Vatican Council regarding its much needed condemnation and rejection. The ever unquestioned sacredness of God, aligned with the spirit of St. Athanasius, must be placed before and above all human ideological (read: secularist) fixations.

Athanasius contra mundum!

Notes

1. Except for those people, as an extremely tiny and insignificant minority, who are both pathetically ignorant and, also, necessarily stupid as well, almost no atheists actually disbelieve in God. Is this truth rather shocking to the rational mind? Consider: Only someone who is inherently irrational and mentally dysfunctional could ever possibly get so angry, annoyed, frustrated, agitated, or plain upset or, perhaps, object strenuously to the existence of nothing.

Atheism is, in fact, the total denial of the actual existence of metaphysical order qua reality. If it (aka God) does not exist, no one in his right mind, therefore, would care, reasonably speaking, to ever be truly disturbed, much less justly object to, something that does not at all exist. Few people are that insane, demented, or absurd. Thus, most atheists are not simple morons.

The vast majority of atheists, as can be logically deduced, know that metaphysical order exists, the Lord God is real, but obstinately yet choose to think and live otherwise, which makes them, axiomatically, all liars, hypocrites, and knaves. There are, in fact, too many militant atheists around for it to be otherwise, which serves easily, nay, abundantly, as empirical proof. Q. E. D.
Pope Francis, therefore, ought to really know better than to attempt any genuine dialogue with such inveterate liars, hypocrites, and knaves.

2. Adam and Eve, if one thinks about the matter, were the first humanists who, also, wanted the Cult of Man to exist, of course.

3. Many at the Vatican and outside of it have been so influenced by modernism and its laicist beliefs.

Pope Francis Exemplifies the Decay of Religion

Pope Francis Exemplifies the Decay of Religion: Observations upon the First Neo-Hippie Pontiff
By Joseph Andrew Settanni

Pope Francis came of age, as to his young adulthood, during the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965); he absorbed fully the (nominalist) “Spirit of Vatican II” as it was called. That Spirit, as to its inclination, had crushed the once traditional or classical understanding of (Western) religion in terms of Roman Catholicism in that the postconciliar Church was created opposed to and opposite from the preconciliar Roman Catholic Church. NOTE: If this fact is not accepted as being the truth, however, then nothing in this article will make any sense whatsoever.

The religious sense of vital and serious theology and profound theological speculation qua philosophy, decade by decade starting in the fateful 1960s, began its still unfortunate negating process of gradual degradation and decline, the disintegration of religion once properly understood as such. Of course, many outward appearances can be still maintained, while the inner rot and decay remains a growing and real problem.

How can this be easily and empirically proven to be a virtually indisputable fact? Only a tiny minority of Catholic theologians are today fully aware of Thomistic philosophy and theology, absolutely contrary, e. g., to the once publicly expressed wishes of Pope Leo XIII (1810 – 1903). It is well known, as to the particular matter under consideration, that he had founded the Institute of Thomistic Philosophy at the University of Louvain in his open favoring of a revival of Scholasticism.

He wisely foresaw the important necessity for strongly upholding the critical need for the ever proper teaching and inculcation of Catholic theology, of the ever righteous defense of the Faith. Why might this be needed?

The evil heresy of Modernism, vigorously condemned by Pope St. Pius X (1835 – 1914), his immediate successor, was rightly intended, moreover, to alert both laity and clergy as to the then latest assault being viciously perpetrated upon Holy Mother Church. Secularization, rationalization, and pragmatism were notably encroaching, more and more, into the main considerations of the clergy as they sought enlightenment rather than the fullness of religious inspiration from the three traditional pillars of the ancient and still living Faith, meaning Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

Religion Becomes a Form of Therapy

Modernism, in its main essence, substantially triumphed at the Second Vatican Council, though this fact is, of course, usually peremptorily denied by the avid supporters of what happened, back in the mid-1960s, at Rome. It had produced the Conciliar Captivity of the postconciliar Church, as an analogy of the Avignon Captivity of the Renaissance Papacy.

Since then (the era of the Second Vatican Council), one easily sees that it has become very intellectually fashionable to encourage the dreadful decay of orthodox religion, especially in its specifically Catholic manifestation as to the more precise matter set here in question. What is really going on would seem to benefit more from a study of contemporary demonology, not ancient or medieval Christian literature. This surely concerns, in particular, how any precision connected directly to the science of theology has been, in truth, gradually divorced from what really ought to be the very appropriate understanding, comprehension, and teaching of sacred religion for and to Catholics.

Pope Francis, seen as the first neo-hippie Pontiff, is a truly “superb” product of just such an environment basically inhospitable to the more rigorous and intense demands of systematic theology and its rather profound epistemological dictates. What does this mean? Religion has sadly decayed, over the course of time since the 1960s, into just becoming a mere affectational therapeutic mechanism for inducing emotional stances, oriented toward preferential attitudes of a benign nature, in that it seeks basic unity of public expression with overall spirituality, in a syncretistic mode of social and cultural acceptance of modern life experiences. The larger meaning of all this prior needed analysis can be vividly shown.

Thus, for instance, the Holy Pontiff explicitly wants to get away from depressingly overstressing any condemnations of abortion, sodomy, and artificial contraception that may interfere with the affective demonstration of Catholic religion as a form of social and cultural concern expressed in spiritual terms of reference.

This is put, interestingly, beyond what would be considered cold or indifferent theological formulations of moral right versus wrong to show much more (assumed) concern for actual human beings qua persons; this is made substantively congruent, furthermore, with the postconciliar rejected rigidity of rendering any old-fashioned or supposedly obsolete religious judgment(s), meaning any relational condemnation (aka judging the sinfulness involved).

This above noted affectational therapeutic mechanism (ATM) incorporates many diverse elements of secular thinking centered around the cognitive orientations to be found in psychology, sociology, and psychiatry; the proper Catholic and preconciliar idea that the vast majority or almost all social and moral problems can still be spiritually and coherently addressed in the confessional, through the sacrament of Penance, has thus been substantially rejected now in strong favor of mainly secular thought on these matters.

Sin, related to the status of a human soul, as to its nature and reality is to be diminished as a topic of conversation or, moreover, central religious concern on the Christian road toward holiness, which presumably is the spiritual nature of the main journey.

The ATM approach has, therefore, replaced the classical salvific paradigm once religiously cherished by Church traditionalists and, e. g., still advocated and practiced by the supporters of the traditional Latin Mass Community. Ultimately, the attitude involved is related to the conception of the Communion of Saints, now relegated to the status of a simply quaint notion.

What used to be condemned as (mere) worldly wisdom has gradually come to inform Church councils and associated policy regarding the main direction of progressive ecclesiastical efforts, which yet continue unabated, e. g., in spite of the quite massive de-Christianization and vast apostasy of the Western world; this is certainly, quite undeniably, a part of the true, horrific, ongoing crisis within the Church started by both the promulgation and then the vainglorious results of Vatican Council II.

It is freely allowable, nonetheless, for Pope Francis, for instance, to still use most of the same kinds of words and phraseology, standard rhetoric, that may sound fairly Catholic in formal terms of the old religious vocabulary and sensibility; however, there are still actually new meanings quite subtly involved more logically in positive tune with secular values and aspirations, not Catholicism certainly. He puts new wine in old bottles.

This is a critical part of the postconciliar Church’s endless openness, aggiornamento as it was lovingly called (a bringing up-to-date), toward the world, announced during Vatican Council II (VCII), by which, over time, clearly anthropocentric, humanistic, values would then mostly replace theocentric ones in line with Modernism and its then intended laicist effects and affects. The results have, obviously, been noticed as with Western de-Christianization and secularization in general.

Endlessly “talking tough” on such terribly disagreeable or hot topics as abortion, sodomy, and artificial contraception, thus, wrongly offends the very nominalist-inspired drive toward secularization inherently desired by Modernism and, in light of the ATM attitude, seemingly then cuts off the supposedly wanted effectiveness of the Church in trying to communicate with people. It is, of course, a self-fulfilling kind of basic circular logic, a biased tautology, which certainly must, sooner or later, succeed in its pragmatic mission to take the “Catholic,” in terms of theological meaningfulness, increasingly out of Catholicism.

For Pope Francis, the task or mission of converting people to Christianity is “solemn nonsense” as he had declared, and the supremely chief cleric of the Church, the Vicar of Christ no less, has ironically also pontificated that “clericalism should not have anything to do with Christianity.” And, some thoughtful cynic would be logically provoked to say, then just what the heck is he doing pretending to be some sort of a Supreme Pastor? But, perhaps, neither apologetics nor doxology is a strong suit for this priest, which suggests mightily that he is not yet ready for prime time appearances. What a major disaster has befallen the Church, indeed.

The supine way he gratuitously grants an interview with, e. g., a prominent Italian atheist shows that he has so little rigorous sense of the high responsibilities of his important office; he so lacks a fundamental sense of proper etiquette and appears boorish and vulgar; as the leader of the Church, he’s not just some sort of common parish priest improperly conducting an informal life at large. It is appropriately clear (or ought to be) that certain irregular things or actions are just not to be ever done, for the sake of basic propriety if for no other rational reason. Such writers as George Neumayr, Paul Kengor, and others do sustain the kind of criticisms, moreover, found in this present article.

The banal attitude can be seen perfectly exemplified, e. g., in Pope Francis also recently saying that: “A Catholic God does not exist…” Really? Is, therefore, the Catholic interpretation of the Deity simply too faulty? Such an intriguing and troubling thought, filled ever with at least an implied relativism, leads to the logical notion that Catholicism, in fact, is not that essential for salvation.

This is since, by implication, it does not at all thoroughly and correctly define the proper and true nature of the assumed Godhead qua Almighty Being, which, by definition, is of the precise nature of theological ontology qua requisite metaphysical beingness. In short, he has no right to play fast and loose with theology, as Neumayr and many others would totally agree. His liberal/leftist supporters put politics over God’s word, as with, e. g., the Communist Party USA’s publication, People’s World, so effusively praising Pope Francis’ ideologically PC positions.

One should not lightly dismiss this matter due to its many unfortunate implications and ramifications; some concerted profound thought and important reflection is appropriately merited. Many of the very same people who do look benignly upon such endorsements or are plainly dismissive of them would be justifiably horrified if, e. g., Klu Klux Klan, Nazi, or Fascist publications would remarkably sing the praises of any pope. Orthodox-traditionalist Catholics have a good reason to be worried, regardless of the many assurances of his liberal and conservative supporters (aka defenders).

Therefore, this admittedly charismatic Pope should greatly shudder, not be delighted certainly, that the publicly avowed and strident enemies of Christ think so highly of him, meaning if he were just a normal pope. It is, furthermore, completely inconceivable that any loving words would have ever come from ideologically dedicated Communists for a John Paul II or Pius XII. His growing army of far Left fans ought, at the least, to still be a tremendously troubling and disquieting, disturbing and unsettling, phenomenon.

It is yet admitted, however, that the vast majority of the dedicated perpetrators of this anti-theological subversion and devastation of Catholic religion would quickly deny the truth of what has been asserted. Nevertheless, if the overt results being here observed, regarding the ongoing monumental crisis in the Church, seem to effectively and efficiently parallel neatly what has been said in confidence of the truth, it is no mere assumed accident and, rather, lends much notable veracity and cognate credibility to the quite keen analysis and observation here cogently rendered upon the subject of papal misbehavior. Personal charisma cannot save anyone from going to Hell, including any worldly-popular pontiff.

And yet, proper qualification of what is meant may, however, need to be appropriately rendered for further requisite clarification and expostulation. Of course, as an allied consideration, it is usually quite difficult for any human beings to maintain an absolute consistency in terms of all thought or actions. This is simply a normal part of human nature and its own inherent imperfection or grace, depending upon one’s outlook on life, especially the spiritual life defined by an openness toward grace.

Pope Francis, for instance, will sometimes act or speak against the Spirit of Vatican II because there is still, as is known, the overall reality of Catholicism as a religion, which is regardless of many duplicitous efforts to now eviscerate it entirely within the general context of modern Church practice. Occasionally, therefore, the Holy Father will do something dramatic contrary to his essential orientation since even he, e. g., finds it very difficult for anyone to seem to oppose his papal authority. Appearances need to be maintained; the show, after all, must go on. And, the apologists for him will simply have to redouble their efforts at highly impressive mental gymnastics to presumably sanctify whatever comes out of his mouth, meaning his adopted role as the spiritual disciple of optimism.

With the unfortunate arrival of the postconciliar Church, however, a sort of weird switch occurred from axiological pessimism, rooted solidly within the fallen nature of sentient beings in a fallen world, to the odd celebration of axiological optimism; enlightened mankind is now thought, more and more, to be capable of degrees of ethical and moral perfection unknown to prior ages, for the “childhood” of man had ended some time ago.

What were thought of as supposedly superstitious formulations of spiritually dry doctrines and dogmas could be, therefore, intelligently replaced by variously innovative and creative orientational statements incorporating living and dynamic concerns for humanistic appeals; this is particularly regarding ethical and moral conduct evaluations as such set well beyond atavistic concerns about such “trite” matters as either venial or mortal sins. Such hoary notions have no valid moral place in this modern age.

Totally unlike the spiritual oppressiveness and backward-looking attitude of the preconciliar Church, the new or postconciliar establishment is always to be a liberating spiritual-experiential movement, a kind of permanent revolution, by which a progressive or enlightened Catholicism is to splendidly maintain its significant relevance in the ever contemporary world.

According to this point of view, there is no real crisis, only the needful birth pangs of the coming-to-be of a seeming new creation that will come to so wondrously engulf its critics with its loving embrace, meaning as the glorious Spirit of VCII seeks to find its appropriate ecclesial fulfillment. In set opposition, wise supporters of traditional, orthodox Catholicism qua the Roman Catholic Church reply that this contention is just utter nonsense, contrary to common sense, and bespeaks a naivety worthy of self-deluded fanatics off searching for their Utopia. For the progressives/liberals, Pope Francis becomes the Chief Therapist, not the Chief Vicar of the Church.

As there can be no rational compromise between truth and error, one side or the other must contain the truth directly pertaining to the means needed and requisite for the salvation of souls; both cannot be true. The crux of the matter, religious, theological, and otherwise, resides in the consideration of irresponsibility. Supporters of VCII are routinely said to be filled with good intentions and the proverbial road to the Infernal Regions is, of course, paved with such grand illusions. There is no sense of spiritual accountability involved when Utopia, by whatever euphemism, is the implicit but unnamed goal that is forever sought, never attained. The Spirit of VCII, thus, epitomizes irresponsibility on a grand scale.

Who Needs a Faithless Faith?

Catholicism, in this perspective, is then increasingly drained of its meaning as a vehicle for providing true salvation from this world as to the final dispositions of souls; it becomes, in effect, the gross oddity of a faithless faith, as the current Holy Pontiff seems to rather strongly show that the “regime” of his two predecessors has definitely ended. The organizational ecclesiastic structure of a church becomes, at some future point in time, virtually unneeded, as long as Pope Francis desires to seriously shake up the existing system of dogmas, doctrines, and traditions. But, could such an orientation, consistently tried to the limits, come up with a strange thing such as a faithless faith?

Thus, de-Christianization and its attendant apostasy are to be normally just dismissed as merely slight bumps in the road toward a supposed sort of attainable nirvana on earth, of the truly evil desire to achieve some esoteric version of spiritual immanentism, contrary completely to the always true nature of Catholicism as an incarnational and exoteric religion. Such heresy is as ugly as it sounds.

And, furthermore, this critically important point assists greatly in illustrating why irresponsibility and unaccountability are significant realities that must be apprehended as demonstrable consequences of the demonic desire to adopt an anthropocentric orientation, not a Christocentric one. It becomes, certainly, a highly personalistic viewpoint.

What needs to be properly understood, moreover, is that most of modern thought is plagued by what can be rightly seen as being neo-Pelagianism, the ideological belief, meaning set in a secularized form, of the older religious heresy thought up by that heresiarch Pelagius, so many centuries ago.

This now so directly relates to the absurd seeking of intramundane perfection through religious means by which sin, venial and mortal, is then pushed aside rudely in the then assumed liberating pursuit of humanism and cognate humanistic values and attitudes. As a direct result, the Church as a mediating structure is to be appealed to less and less, into the future, because mankind has left behind its stage of infancy and has advanced crescively toward a higher level of modern spiritual development.

When this assuredly grave matter is appropriately perceived, the often curious words and actions of Pope Francis can, thus, be better understood and comprehended within such a very revealing context when aimed, basically, at the implicitly wanted dissolution of all traditional religious beliefs. Is all the aforementioned thoughts pure speculative fantasy without any legitimate support or, rather, is there a definite substantial basis in fundamental truth? One quite interesting instance below, among many, can be keenly rendered, sagaciously presented, for manifesting what really ought to be perceived by all knowledgeable Catholics.

On September 27, 2013, Fr. Richard Cipolla, DPhil, wrote on the rorate-caeli.blogspot.com website: “The media is awash with positive fascination with Pope Francis. Secular blogs known for their hostility to the Catholic Church are effusive in their approval of Papa Bergoglio in whom they see as the man who will transform the Catholic Church into a religious version of liberal secularism. But whatever adjectives one applies to Pope Francis, the most apt is really “inevitable”. That the Church should have a Pope like Francis was inevitable, for he is the first Pope who is a product of the post-Vatican II Church.”

That he was simply inevitable in the correct sense of what was pointed out by Fr. Cipolla is, without any rational questioning of such an assertion, not really astonishing to any informed observer of such things. What is dramatically astounding, however, is that many tens of millions will be quite profoundly deluded into thinking that Pope Francis is truly capable of seeking a revival and reinvigoration of Catholicism in the contemporary world; the opposite opinion is, on the whole, much more nearly true. It is predicted, prefaced knowingly upon the cognition and analysis in this article, that he will preside, willingly, over an ongoing substantial destruction of the Church in continuing satanic pursuit of the harmful Spirit of VCII.

It cannot be otherwise. Why is this confidently said? Given the espoused predilections and outlook being entertained by the Holy Father, the ugly path of ruin and wreckage becomes fairly inevitable; in contrast, the further prediction can here be so easily asseverated that even the (normally historically despised) Renaissance Papacy will seem functionally sober and judicious versus the inopportune and unpropitious public ways and habits of this religious enthusiast from Argentina. Many, including Fr. Cipolla, are currently filled with papal-directed hope, which is freely admitted, that Pope Francis will go on to confound those liberals and leftists, in and outside the Church, who are among his present ardent supporters.

But, such mainly baseless hope is actually founded more upon wishful thinking, not the basic empirical circumstances of this contemporary papacy; there are, in fact, the practical realities of a mainly spoiled hierarchy more concerned with secular approbation than with the maintenance of intense spiritual piety and adherence unalterably to the Catholic dogmas and doctrines.

Rather than wasting their value time worrying about the poor condition of their immortal souls, they do try, quite mightily, to usually avoid getting bad press coverage; public image, above most sacramental duties and obligations, truly means a great deal to the largely jaded and, of course, oh-so-sophisticated Vatican establishment, not proper and religious concern for Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium for upholding the Faith.

As with a proverbial bottom line, the desire to not greatly offend the secular Western world holds the bulk of the hierarchy in thrall, certainly not spiritually pious thoughts about their preparation for the life of the world to come. This creates, on balance, a sense of freedom for the Holy Pontiff. Consequently, Pope Francis can, on average, be expected to usually choose paths and trails that would rarely, if ever, converge upon major traditionalist or orthodox highways of thought.

Francis has publicly spoken of “a more human Christianity, without the cross, without Jesus…” One wonders if he knows what kind of organization he heads right now; but, then again, maybe too much Jesus talk upsets him and the Cross offends him? He is savvy enough to properly know that, in this day and age, perception matters more than reality; what people perceive him to say matters significantly, not purportedly what he meant to say. Perhaps, a welcomed maturity of “faith” is being warmly desired that leaves all the old superstitions behind, inclusive of traditional orthodoxy qua the truth.

He is a spiritually lofty man, as many seem to allege, very solidly within the main postconciliar Church environment; and, he has no supposed time for ever uselessly considering any simply lifeless notions, more plainly suitable to the preconciliar Church, meaning with its made-up and terribly antiquated rules and regulations, antediluvian strictures and demands. The postconciliar Church, thus, has a wanted sense of assumed vitalism, of expressive liturgical dynamism, which can fruitfully evolve and change as may be needed. This has consequences.

Pope Francis’ quite obnoxious (in-your-face) fast-tracking of John Paul II’s hurried canonization and the related future sainthood of John XXIII is, of course, meant to forever silence all the critics of VCII; rather than to supposedly eliminate all valid opposition, however, this can then be so reasonably predicted to enormously enrage the persecuted opposition by such an unconscionable display of raw Church politics that will lend (what ought to be an unwanted) dignity to outright schism and solidify even further the adamant position of the sedevacantists, the total rejectionists.

This too obvious attempt, contrary to a vain hope, to simultaneously also “canonize” VCII is inevitably going to backfire; the many orthodox critics of this terrible heresy, some of whom may have tried to (wrongly) compromise with such blatant error, do clearly know now that all compromise is just forever impossible and futile; the always righteous fight for true orthodoxy must, instead, be greatly intensified unto death. Choice has been removed by the power Church politics put upon open display; these Vatican players are surely adept Machiavellians with pragmatic and positivist leanings.

Thus, the remarks given out by the current pontiff create uncertainty in the minds of many Catholics, especially due to the increasingly bad catechesis since VCII. Non-Catholics, moreover, are plainly and simply ignorant (which is not the same as being stupid) of the specific directive weight to be given because they certainly do have no sound knowledge at all with which to properly judge.

Since he knows, being that he is really neither stupid, naïve, nor ignorant, that the popular press will eagerly distort, manipulate, or twist his words to fit their ideologically progressive agenda, the outcomes cannot then truly be in any significant doubt. What is meant?

When the Holy Pontiff makes certain statements, therefore, it may give the formal appearance, whether intended or not, of playing fast and loose with various dogmas and doctrines held sacred by the Church. This ambiguity or vagueness is then not really psychologically or emotionally good for either Catholics or those non-Catholics who may try to pay attention to such pronouncements for the purpose of acquiring some sort of understanding.

For the latter, it is fairly logical and reasonable for them to think that he is, in fact, the main voice of the Catholic Church on earth, its legitimate religious and theological head or representative, since he is, of course, the Vicar of Christ in this world. The malevolent minions of malice are cheering him. Among others, Jon Stewart, Garrison Keillor, and even the would-be tyrant Barack Obama have freely expressed their heart-felt admiration. A good Catholic with normal sensibilities, however, would be thoroughly ashamed to ever be lauded by tyrants. What, however, is here the intrinsic difficulty involved?

Unfortunately, what seem to be the majority of his unclear or debatable statements are neither that profoundly prudent nor substantially circumspect, meaning as they rationally and theologically ought to be, of course; this inherent kind of ambiguity is part of the natural intellectual fallout of VCII and directly relates, most integrally, to its continuing horrid, despicable, aftermath. Such vile exercises of sustained irresponsibility aggravates and does not tend to actually silence the opponents of the Modernist heresy seen vigorously manifested in the often contemptible outcomes of that very spiritually deformed Church council of the 1960s.

The rather prominent and, moreover, dual canonizations of the originator of VCII and its greatest papal defender and expostulator will not, therefore, really come to mute the much needed ongoing and future criticism that ought to be expected, as just a normal part of a fundamental rejection of religious and theological error on a massive scale. The entire Latin Mass Community would have to be crushed out of existence to effectively stop the rejection of that past gathering and its results.

Meanwhile, it is known that the vast majority of the Novus Ordo (New Mass) Community is, however, basically contracepting and aborting itself out of existence. Demographics (typically large families), vocations and money, in sharp contrast, are on the side of the Latin Mass Community (LMC) filled with people who could be denounced, by their ecclesial enemies, as being mere theological narcissists.

Pope Francis choses quite absurdly, in terms of proper orthodoxy, to fight for a terrible cause that will, therefore, someday ultimately lose; the LMC is steadily going to be on the side that decisively will, as could be guessed, eventually win. He seems to support that well-known and crass oxymoron known as Christian existentialism (Hint: If it’s genuinely Christian, it cannot, by definition, be existentialist and vice versa). He has stated, however, that he wants to abandon “theological narcissism” for the sake of assisting “the Church to emerge from itself to arrive at the existential limits.”

In context, one can, therefore, naturally appreciate the solid major fact that the ATM approach toward religion and theology, which was previously talked about, has no real substantive religious future, fully regardless of any/all phenomenological efforts mounted on its behalf. Most people most of the time, meaning if they are honestly serious about wanting a truthful faith, chose the tested and traditional authority of orthodoxy, not scandalous variants of a religious-oriented therapy having its ultimate basis in an ersatz pragmatic theology, the spurious Spirit of VCII.

It is good to critically remember that the intellectually and religiously infamous interview, with the atheist Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, ends by quite significantly saying: “If the Church becomes like him and becomes what he wants it to be, it will be an epochal change.” Truly, if that unwanted epic nightmare occurs, one could then supposedly bank on it, except that the Holy Ghost, according to Catholicism, always guards popes against making any ex cathedra heretical statements. The Church Triumphant, after all, only exists in Heaven, while the Church Militant resides on earth and the Church Suffering is in Purgatory.

But, as with the first scandal of St. Peter denying Christ three times, there is no guarantee whatsoever against scandal, including that of the current pontiff. The fallacious thinking of the sedevacantists, as an example, does not understand that scandal is an inherent feature to all great endeavors involving sinful creatures. And, from time to time, such notable saints as St. Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Ávila have openly admonished popes. Yes, there are those clerico-sophists who myopically insist that only saints may admonish popes, forgetting ever quite conveniently that Catherine and Teresa were not, of course, declared saints during their own lifetimes.

Equally, as ought to be better known, St. Thomas Aquinas himself, the Angelic Doctor, justly defended the important Catholic necessity of papal criticism for upholding the Faith, as when, e. g., the convert Saul of Tarsus, who became St. Paul, thought it rightly needful to correct (see: Letter to the Galatians, Chapter 2) St. Peter concerning the matter of Gentile converts. Paul had, thus, rebuked the first pope of the Church, which is, indeed, quite an interesting historical and religious precedent that can be noted.

The admonition of popes, though to be done respectfully, is obviously perceived to be a rather ancient, venerable, and honorable tradition fully set within the Church, since no pontiff is to ever act as a mere dictatorial and unquestioned tyrant. True fidelity to the papacy is, therefore, not to be ignorantly founded upon absolutely blind obedience as if Catholics are supposed to be mindless slaves or mere robots of the Church Militant.

In any event, the Roman Catholic Church has historically survived the Arian Heresy, Albigensian Heresy, Protestant Reformation, French Revolution, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and much else; it will, no doubt, survive Pope Francis and the Conciliar Captivity. But, further than this, let true honesty prevail. There is the need to stop beating around the proverbial bush.

The field of discussion is simply too narrow if it concerns only abortion, artificial contraception, and sodomy; there is a late modernist preoccupation qua obsession with a certain bodily function; the real matter in dispute, one ought not to have to guess, is actually sex. New flash: the Catholic Church is not opposed to sex. Of course, it is to be only in the traditional context of real marriage, not, e. g., sodomite relationships (or others) so falsely, these days, called marriage.

Let’s get real! If Pope Francis has come up with a truly revolutionary concept of sex, then that, in fact, would be substantially newsworthy, not any of his flaky, flashy, or freaky chats with a God denier. It is to be expected that papal apologists are yet going to be working overtime and bending over backwards extremely so to perform the rather excessive mental gymnastics required; they make the unfortunate mistake of thinking that almost anything/everything that a pope says must be supported by Catholics, which is simply not true. One example of this error may suffice.

Gregory R. Erlandson, president of the Publishing Division for Our Sunday Visitor, one of the largest Catholic publishing companies in the United States, has greatly lauded Pope Francis concerning this new direction for the Church. Erlandson, about as mainstream a Catholic as one can get, is on the board of directors for the Association of Catholic Publishers and has served previously as president of the Catholic Press Association, and adviser on the U.S. Bishops’ Communications Committee; moreover, he is now a consultant to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications.

For Erlandson, it may need to be stated that the “holy” in the term Holy Father refers only to the formal nature of the holder of the office of the papacy; it does not, in any way whatsoever, axiomatically or otherwise, confer (spiritual) holiness upon a pontiff. If that were ever actually true, then, e. g., Pope Alexander VI (Borgia), would then be classified as having been holy, which is forever quite doubtful. Extremist papal apologists are, therefore, wrongly engaging in a form of idolatry, not true fidelity to the Faith. They are idolaters, not genuine papist Catholics loyal to the papacy.

It is being repeatedly said that, e. g., he is quoted out of context or misquoted. If there is to be any reasonable benefit of the doubt, however, let it appropriately be on the side of Catholic dogmas and doctrines, not the winsomely effusive and disjointed, hair-brained fixations of just any pope.

Conclusion

Within the now specific provided context of this present article severely questioning what has and is happening, it is not surprising that, generations ago, there were needed warnings written against all of liberal/progressive Catholicism, such as Dr. Don Felix Sarda y Salvany’s What is Liberalism? (1899) and Cardinal Désiré-Félicien-François-Joseph Mercier’s Modernism (1910). All this can be easily added to Pope St. Pius X’s ever magnificent Encyclical Against Modernism, Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

Good reading in proper support of requisite orthodoxy would include such works as Rev. Charles Alfred Martin’s The Catholic Religion, Fr. Heinrich Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Fr. Francis X. Doyle’s Defense of the Catholic Church, Rev. Heribert Jone’s Moral Theology, and, of course, as ever, the Catechism of the Council of Trent. People can, therefore, still get at such significant sources of the truth versus religious error, though, admittedly, the postconciliar Church remains dominate.

Neither the Pope nor the hierarchy is, however, to finally win in this truly mighty contest for the proper salvation of souls, meaning as to their here condemned negative and negating efforts. Fortunately, one can yet invoke the ever lively spirit of St. Athanasius; he had to deal with the notable problem of such massive examples of adherence to heresy in his era; the eventual defeat of the evil Arian Heresy was the joyous outcome of such a titanic struggle. Athanasian Catholicism will, eventually, crush the power of the Conciliar Captivity.

This can be, moreover, easily proven by keenly knowing about a still rather significant historical fact: For centuries after the saint lived, Athanasianism then became a popular synonym for (orthodox) Roman Catholicism, though prayers for the soul of Pope Francis ought, of course, not to be ever excluded from needed consideration. The Holy Father could never get enough prayers said for him as he seeks, putting it mildly, to significantly reorient and revamp the Church. Perhaps, he shouldn’t place his faith in “Lesus” (whoever that might be named on that recent Vatican medal*) and, instead, keep true to belief in Jesus as the Christ.

Athanasius contra mundum!

*To commemorate Pope Francis’ first papal year, the Vatican recently issued a medal engraved with a Latin phrase, except someone forgot to do a spell check. Six thousand were, in fact, manufactured and four were sold before anyone there had noticed the error, which might be rather frightening not knowing the correct spelling of the name of the Son of God, the Lord and Savior Himself.