The greatest site in all the land!

Discerning the Higher Magisterium

Discerning the Higher Magisterium: Catholic Orthodoxy Demands Allegiance to Truth

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, unto the consummation of the world.”  (Mt 28:18-20)

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”  (Mt 16:18-19)

Who was it who once said, I smell a skunk?  There must come here a knowledgeable prolegomena, so to speak, introducing discernably right from wrong cognition, on this important subject, so often distorted by partisan pleadings.  Things are happening, have no doubt, that are in the nature of the truly demonic.  However, what’s the more immediately serious matter, one may ask?

Prevarication, increasingly, has been the prevalent modus vivendi coming from the Vatican, especially since the current pontificate started to really get into high gear, in the last few years.  Clarifications and definitions do aid clear thinking and right reason, nonetheless, as St. Thomas Aquinas would have fully agreed.

Before discussing many details of the magisterium proper, it is necessary to distinguish between what is known as the infallible sacred Magisterium (that will be noted by giving it a capital M) and the fallible ordinary magisterium; this is because many theologians and sundry others, religious commentators and pundits, often do erroneously confuse and confound them as being, perhaps, so necessarily or supposed as ultimately the very same thing.

This is overtly false and should, moreover, be always appropriately recognized as such, for the significant sake of theological truth in particular and overall religious veracity in general.

History and Theology Here Unites

When, e. g., any bishops, in the 15th century, had called Joan of Arc a witch, heretic, and/or apostate, that or those designation(s) used were only a part of the exercise of the ordinary magisterium, which can be wrong, not infallible.   Moreover, though 500 long years later, the young Maid of Orleans was, in fact, finally and solemnly canonized; but, it often takes the Church some time, in this case centuries later, to properly correct any errors or mistakes possibly made in the course of exercising the ordinary magisterium.

And, this properly noted fact, in the course of this entire article, should be studiously kept in mind as an important reference and supportive evidence solidly positing, postulating, the religious and theological argumentation and demonstration of the overt truth presented for logical consideration.

Centuries earlier, when about 90%, approximately, of the hierarchy of the Church was then basically dominated by the Arian Heresy, no rational theologian, no Catholic prelate worthy to be listened to, would dare to facetiously say that such heresy should be regarded plainly as being exemplary of the infallible sacred Magisterium.   No heresy whatsoever can become incorporated into Catholicism, even if it gets generally approved of, for centuries of history, by the majority of the hierarchy.

It was not at all rightly aligned, for instance, with any surely orthodox knowledge and teaching of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or any of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Furthermore, anyone who contends otherwise, against all the historical facts, is just a bold liar deserving of complete contempt.

At best, it was just a faux example, an imposture, of a (supposed) ordinary magisterium that, indeed, had contradicted the true Magisterium, which is, of course, always the truly authentic, universal voice of the entire ecclesiastical organization qua Church founded by Jesus Christ.  No Catholic, moreover, is ever supposed to deny this obvious truth pertaining to the core reality of Roman Catholicism.

Let a useful and informative definition be suitably given: The infallible sacred Magisterium includes the extraordinary declarations of the pope when, in fact, officially speaking ex cathedra and of those validly declared ecumenical councils, which are traditionally expressed in conciliar creeds, canons, and decrees, as well as of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.  It is also known as the solemn Magisterium.  This then appropriately conforms to the strict and known requirements of orthodoxy within Catholicism.

Let another definition be rendered: The ordinary magisterium, in easy contrast, includes a wide variety and different degrees of potentially fallible teachings of the pope (i.e., not given ex cathedra), bishops, and ecumenical councils and, as is normally more commonly the case, of individual bishops or possible assemblages of bishops as taken separately from the whole College of them, as with, e.g., the College of Cardinals.

Such teachings, usually filled with personal opinions, subjectivism, and speculative assertions, are yet fallible and could possibly contain various kinds of errors; they are necessarily often subject to revisions or even, though rarely, actual revocation.

In the case of the teachings of individual bishops, as an instance, announced to their diocese, there can, of course, be even major or severe disagreements among the different individual bishops on a potential variety of issues. With this matter, orthodoxy can and may just play a secondary or, sometimes, tertiary role, before certain issues get resolved, that can then and only then substantially and substantively raise the decision(s) to the more imperative and, thus, much higher level of the infallible sacred Magisterium.

The infallible sacred Magisterium, and whatever gets attached to it, is always fundamentally definitive, absolute, permanent, decisive, unquestionable, and, therefore, necessarily becomes de fide as to primary beliefs that must be, unreservedly and unconditionally, believed in by all faithful Catholics; in set contrast, what may exist as merely the ordinary magisterium is not de fide, absolute, or beyond questioning; it is rather conditional and can, moreover, be reviewed, revised, modified, amended, and, if found necessary, even discarded or totally revoked as to any real claim upon belief.

Therefore, it is clear that the two very different kinds of magisterium should be easily distinguished and understood as ever having two quite different levels of authority and affirmation, applicable degree and possible confirmation, pertaining to the demands of Catholic belief.

It is to be correctly understood de fide that whatsoever has been imparted by the Church since the time of Christ’s ministry, whether instituted formally through any “solemn” declarations made by councils or popes, or if done by undisputed or unanimous “ordinary” every day teaching given by the Church, must be unquestionably believed in by all Catholics.

This is an absolutely mandatory aspect of Catholic belief, furthermore, that refers all the way back to what Jesus Christ Himself said in Scripture and, in addition, what the First Vatican Council had publicly affirmed.  Any member of the faithful who may obstinately refuse to do so is to be called a heretic, as had happened with Martin Luther, and is placed completely outside of the Holy Catholic Church as an excommunicate.

But, let Pope Leo XIII, in his Satis Cognitum,  speak definitively to this highly important issue, as when he properly said, ”Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative, and permanent magisterium, which He strengthened by His own power, taught by the Spirit of truth, and confirmed by miracles.  He willed and ordered under the gravest penalties that its teachings should be received as if they were His own.”   None of this Catholic truth would have been denied by either Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman or St. Thomas Aquinas, of course.

One may, also, say that Pope Pius XII, in his Humani Generis, further insightfully extrapolates that, “God has given to His Church a living teaching authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly.  This deposit of faith our divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the teaching authority of the Church.”  No facts could be clearer.

Such “teaching authority” is to be absolute and universal, meaning that it is to equally apply to all non-Catholics as well, though the Church has, in fact, long ceased to have such any extensive power of enforcement, of course, or evenly to publicly claim it.

In this light, the immense gravity of the profound harm deliberately intended by the Vatican, by the “traitorous” Vicar of Christ, should be here exposed as both seriously violative and integrally abusive of permanent Church teachings.  Therefore, in any proper discerning of the higher Magisterium versus the lesser kind precisely means that Catholic orthodoxy, in this matter, certainly demands allegiance to the ultimate truth, to the Catholic faith, not to the Pope.

And, this theological and religious admonition is totally unconditional, for as St Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, had correctly said, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”  Catholicism always takes full precedence to any pope (or even an “angel from heaven”) uttering mere opinions or speculations, even if formulated and presented in Papal-approved statements.

Clever defenders of the heretic1  Pope Francis are falsely claiming, e. g., that his very controversial Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) is not shockingly filled with a number of clearly blasphemous and sacrilegious notions absolutely unworthy of any papal sanction, much less supposedly appropriate Catholic teachings.

Nonetheless, the Holy Father and his so solicitous knaves and rather crafty tergiversationists wish to yet foist upon the laity and prelacy the disingenuous idea that these greatly illicit and immoral teachings are just a plainly genuine coin of the realm, not just the bogus relativist-subjectivist nonsense that it actually undoubtedly is.

The untruthful, deceitful, assertion is made that what was pushed forward so awkwardly is authentically done by the promptings of the Holy Ghost and, moreover, so fully conforms to all the right, proper, and appropriate requirements of the infallible sacred Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.   As this pointed disquisition written for the reader sustains and maintains, nothing could ever be further from the truth, including the more important holy matter of Divine Truth, which is to be defended vigorously.

Of course, being clever propagandists, the advocates of Amoris Laetitia mixed up truths and falsities in that Jesuitical document, so it is often very hard to ever accurately know where a lie begins or ends, when set in the middle of often religious-sounding or just somewhat too sanctimonious language.  It becomes, to uninformed minds, a seeming analogous concoction of “Mom and apple pie” dynamics that do become hard to make objections against or, at least, not so often effectively.

They deliberately seek to extremely confuse and confound matters with suggestive wording that turns the unwary or theologically uneducated mind toward many both unfortunate and improper thoughts of (false) charity, (untrue) compassion, and a needless misinterpretation of (incorrect) love for fellow Christians.  Yes, delving here into the vernacular, it’s quite an elaborate con job, done by professional hucksters, knowing full well the tricks of the trade.  The equivalents of much Aesopian language and Orwellian-style semantics abound with such demonic trickery.

But, as was discussed earlier in this article, the very best that might be said, one assumes, is that Amoris Laetitia (AL) is merely a sad composition to be seen in the lesser light of the merely ordinary magisterium, though its lying supporters, including Pope Francis, will tergiversate oppositely to the truth; this means, incidentally, that simultaneously they do quite knowingly violate the Divine Truth, for which God will, certainly, so hold them totally responsible.

This vilely inordinate and wrong pushing of AL, under an unpleasant disguise, is morally unworthy of those consecrated prelates of the Catholic Church who may, in fact, support it, as if they meanly wish to exemplify the most usually unctuous status of used car salesmen, not honored Fathers of the Faith.

The true actual but surely masked thrust of this heinous document is strongly against family life and children, which are supposed to be the normal products of familial reality; this is, certainly, because the intention of AL, though hypocritically denied, is to substantially and substantively help to destroy any semblance of genuine family life and, thus, the having and raising of children.  As William F. Buckley, Jr. was oddly fond of quoting Leon Trotsky: Who says A must say B.

It is, in clever camouflage, a viciously anti-family tract having very little to do with compassion, mercy, sympathy, clemency, or Christian love, when properly analyzed to get righty past the seductive and so deliberately misaligned verbiage.  It is, no doubt, an Aesopian production viciously formative of much mischief and calculated deception because God’s mercy is synonymous with His justice and love.  (And, the References appended to this present article do, thus, cover the extensive details of the tremendous deception being deliberately perpetrated in the name of religion.)

Opposition to AL is, therefore, founded firmly in Catholic truth, not heretical lies, as are, more and more, coming constantly from the Vatican these days.  While many parts or aspects of AL, of course, are not objectionable; certain questionable sections and assertions most certainly are, therefore, so absolutely subject to needed dispute and requisite refutation in proper and righteous support of Divine Truth.

The cheap canard is asserted that only certain limited pastoral practices are to be somewhat modified without changing the doctrinal or dogmatic standards to be always kept.  This is a part of the verbalist semantic manipulation and, upon reflection, liturgical sleight of hand going on by deceitful prelates and their epigones.

They do studiously wish to ignore the logical demands of recognizing the theological meaning of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi as being formative and imperative for Catholic community and culture as the only One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church.  It is, therefore, theologically impossible for pastoral practice not to eventually reflect back upon and set de facto if not de jure changes of one against the other, which is overtly illustrative of the wanted confusion and chaos brought on by desiring heresy.

And so, this observation of truth is ever regardless of any and all necessarily fallacious and mendacious, specious and illogical, arguments set to the contrary.   For Catholicism, especially for orthodoxy opposed to heresy, doctrine equals practice and practice equals doctrine because the dogmas of the faith are theologically controlling, not mere religious practice.  The proverbial tail is not meant to wag the dog, though the supporters of AL do freely and facetiously contend otherwise, meaning in their enormously evil arguments for, thus, boldly upholding heresy.

The very sly and utterly disingenuous champions of this so wayward document know full well that what pastoral practices were once said to be for only (rare) exceptions to the rule will eventually become, as they actively do wish, new rules themselves.   Although they tergiversate on the issues, they want what is said, for now, to be exceptional to become the norm.

Contrary to what is too often supposed, this is how relativism and situation ethics become absolutes, in the way that each heresy seeks to become its very own orthodoxy.   And, because of the ongoing and massive corruption in the Church, it seems necessary for every mature adult to try to become, if thought possible, a theologian for properly discerning such important matters as the higher versus the lower level of magisterium.

This is instead of doing, on average, what most Catholics do by simply conflating or confusing the lower into the higher, as all being just one type of magisterium.   One might ask, why is all sorts of primary theological knowledge good to have?

There are surely real-world consequences, usually for ill, due to such unfortunate aforementioned acts of ignorance and unknowing. Ignorance may be bliss, but it opens the mental door to wrongly go about embracing heresies, perhaps, even by default, if not ever through any active intent.

What is Really Going On?

What is the ugly reality behind the mere benevolent mask? The radicals, the theological deviants, in the Church are seeking to create or develop bridgeheads by which they can reach out to the secularists and humanists, for supposedly heading toward a wanted higher synthesis of enlightened cognizant reality, which is existentially and phenomenologically thought possible of anthropocentric formulation.

Once, again, for those who are informed and do have a fairly sophisticated breadth and keen depth of knowledge, this is the obviously nominalist Hegelian dialectic, as was seen with the Second Vatican Council.   The radicals are seeking a supposedly viable means and condition of attaining cognitive and existential reciprocity and complementarity leading from (mere) modernity to postmodernity, to create a reified reality for a triumphant humanity, which is thoroughly consonant with the nominalist heresy of current neo-Pelagianism.

The thesis is a perpetually evolving and reformed Protestant-style Church to, thus, basically replace the existing existential ecclesial situation; the antithesis presented is the progressivist, radical-bourgeois world order, sometimes called the New World Order, and, the then planned, attempted, and hoped-for synthesis is a combined or, rather, skillfully conglomerated composition that will so be, ultimately, both derivatively post-Enlightenment and postmodern, meaning in its then various plastic salvific insights and necessarily evolving directions of cognition.

Thesis, synthesis, and antithesis creates dialectical insight and a superior intellect (as it is thought by the cognoscenti) that commands the power to assist in the transformation of humanity itself, to perfect the ugly imperfection, due to God’s assumed failure or, perhaps, misplaced “benign neglect” as the Creator.

This is all meant to be esoteric knowledge; however, it goes well beyond plain Gnosticism as was, e. g., thought of by Eric Voegelin2 and finally ends by fully and sadly supporting the ongoing heresy of neo-Pelagianism, the making of ideology into an ersatz religion to enable the perfectibility of Man, meaning without God.  For knowledgeable observers, what is really happening is rather too obvious; it is the presented case of properly seeing the correct considerations of the assumed pretext, correct context, and elusive subtext of the entire war or protracted conflict.

The manifest pretext is found in the workings and language of AL, the context is the latent utopianism being favored, and the subtle subtext is the subversive effort, by the Holy Father and his inner circle, to revolutionize the Church, for making it compatible with the progressivist, radical-bourgeois world order.  All this such a mind as was possessed by James Burnham would, surely, have recognized correctly the radicalism, the revolutionism, involved, as are the ideological implications and ramifications discussed in this too brief article.  Have no naïve illusion, as with the above cited pretext, context and subtext, that what is involved is definitely a real power play, not a polite parlor game.

A revolutionary situation is being called into existence by the Bishop of Rome who is lining up his cadres and assembling and appointing his comrades; meanwhile, almost none of the opposition knows what is really happening, as a surely public proponent of Marxist Liberation Theology presides in the Vatican.   For as (the former Marxist-Trotskyite) Burnham would have noted, they are woefully ignorant of dialectic, naïve about practical propaganda, and functionally unware of the devious workings of the subversives who, feverishly, do work toward the elimination of any effective opposition.

Those who are dissenters from what AL is trying to promote are basically scattered and fragmented, largely dispersed and split into some factions; the often energized cadres of the Pope are typically united, mostly concentrated for action, and organized for battle. Logically, when one side is so fully conversant with power struggle but the other not, guess which one will win the protracted conflict?

Such Catholics opposing the Pope are like mere simple and trusting sheep confronting many wily foxes. The object of the revolutionists’ desires is, decidedly, mundane (power on earth), but yet stimulates their ever wildest dreams for an anti-Christocentric notion of terrene reality, which seems still so salvific to them.  The vast majority of the really top players are not to be ignorantly seen as mere old-fashioned, normal Vatican intriguers; these dedicated and ideologically-hardened radicals are truly fighting and fighting to win at all costs.  This needs to be kept in mind for better understanding what will be said.

The main adversaries, usually so weak and fairly timid, are pleading for some compromises, requesting redefinitions to soothe some harsher critics of Papal policies, and seeking some means of balancing the overt abnormality, sought by AL, with the normalcy expected by orthodox Catholic doctrines, dogmas, and teachings. It is, at least on the rather plain surface of affairs, an uneven or lopsided kind of unfair confrontation.

The Pope and his loyal minions steadily have their “eyes on the prize,” while the vast majority of the critics do not seem to properly realize the deeper issues involved.   They uselessly attack the manifest issues raised that help to better conceal the latent matters undiscussed or undisputed that are then allowed to fester and grow more infectious, seemingly, month by month, year by year.  As a result, few keenly notice that the immoral quest for immanentism goes fundamentally unresolved, as doxological or, perhaps, soteriological issues are to be debated endlessly, meaning as the real damage gets done.

Most commentators and critics mainly concentrate almost exclusively at seeing the individual trees, meaning issues raised, in AL but are, basically, oblivious to perceiving the overall forest.   Many brilliant and learned exegeses have been composed exposing the notable faults and flaws as to, thus, covering minutely the various details involved in expounding the errors uncovered, however, the covert meaning of this document escapes almost always much needed attention.

The detractors are well meaning but still fundamentally unfocused and usually unorganized.   With his cadres of wolves in sheep’s clothing, the Pope, therefore, holds the high ground and he so well knows it; his sinful hope is to plant evil seeds that will, over time, yield bad fruit.

Guess which side, in the short term, will then definitely win?   Bets would seem to favor the enthusiastic revolutionaries, not the mostly unsure, distracted, uncertain, or wavering opponents usually desiring, more or less, a rather gentle respite for recuperating; they appear mainly unwilling, more or less, to take up the Cross.  But, the advocates for AL do not hesitate to agitate for acceptance and action done on its behalf as an imperative matter; capitulation or any kind of substantial backing down need never enter their aggressive minds set upon further and further victories at the expense of the old guard.

It is a pubescently bold step forward for a New World Order (NWO), as ever, verging toward the chaotic New Eden on earth that, as truly mature minds do recognize, is the ever dazzling chimera of Utopia, of course, by whatever euphemism. As the great Malcolm Muggeridge would have noted, this is the real argument beyond what appears to be the merely ostensible matter or matters being discussed publicly.

The ever proud and egotistic champions of Utopia, believing that both history and the earthly god called Progress on their side, are waging a deliberate war in opposition to those adversaries (the adults) who always realistically deny that such a NWO can be actually achieved in this world. Whatever else it may be, radicalism, whether about Nazism, Communism or Fascism, is essentially a youth movement against intellectual maturity and the accumulated wisdom of generations.

The final end game of the radicals, the assumed adept or enlightened cognoscenti, is the attainment of realizable immanentist power, as aided by pragmatism, positivism and subjectivism, to finally build the secularized society and culture of deified Man.

Thus, be not enthralled by those, who with Pope Francis, go whoring after (a false) righteousness lest, catching the contagion, to be then consumed in the process of seeking to attain that which is objectively sinful. Pursuit of any New Eden is the hubristic failing of sinful men who are scandalized by an imperfect God, meaning in their warped minds.

Those Catholics and others, however, who are not truly familiar with Hegelian dialect and the rarified discourse that it engenders are unable to actually grasp what the real contention is all about, meaning in terms of what is demonically intended.

They simplistically think that the real debate solely concerns such basic matters as family, sexual issues, homosexuality, divorce, children, etc. All that, in terms of AL,  is just the mere religious façade; the Hegelian dialectic is the (unspoken) core or key reality, the quest for immanentism incarnated within only earthly means toward that end, which the often pleasant semantics and rhetoric are so craftily, slyly, designed to conceal, not reveal; nor are the ideological, radical-bourgeois urgings and promptings easily discernible.

Of course, the fallacious claim made by the radicals, because they do wish to ignore Divine Reason, classical Natural Law, and the Justice of God, is that they only wish to accomplish good and not evil in their eyes. It is ever, nonetheless, the nominalist pleadings of subjectivism and relativism glorified.

Most existent disapproval of the radical program is still ever an exercise of powerlessness, of course, since they deal with the surface effects, not the deep causes, of the religious radicalism.   And, the same was, e. g., quite historically also true for Lutheranism, Calvinism, Puritanism, and Jansenism.  In both the age of modernity with its attendant Protestant Revolution and, now, increasing postmodernity, all manner of intellectual, moral, and religious errors seek, thus, to reign triumphantly.  This should be obvious.

It is recognized, freely and admittedly, that the most insignificant author of this article has chosen, for now, what is the losing side; this is because the corrupt hierarchy is being filled with the many agents of Pope Francis, who willingly adhere to the great intended revolution, so urgently wanted by the Holy Pontiff, against the important need for Catholic truth, meaning his evil struggle against orthodoxy, thus, transversely to truth itself.

In this quite morally perilous struggle, one ought to then critically recognize, therefore, that that these forces must so inevitably be demonically ranged athwart all needed concern for Divine Truth. Unfortunately, for those who are theologically ignorant of Catholic teachings, AL has just enough sentimental and qualified orthodoxy to make it fairly palatable to many prelates, clerics, and others who, of course, really ought to know better.

Catholic catechesis, for at least the past 50 years now, has been so highly deficient, it is no real wonder at all that theological ignorance is so generally pervasive as to be fairly pandemic by now.4

An uninstructed laity and prelacy, predominantly settled in observed unawareness, readily seems to mainly accept and acquiesce in the prevarication and equivocation done in the attractive names of charity, compassion, and love. And, so, who can vigorously and constantly fight counter to and presumably revile “Mom and apple pie” emotionalism in the observed face of hierarchical collaboration and appeasement?

Any opposition to all this requires an adamant determination to fiercely defend orthodoxy, in the spirit of St. Athanasius3, by being prepared, in one’s own parish if need be, to stand alone, confronting the majority, who are clearly wrong.

To appropriately cite the words of Woodrow Wilson, as to the grave point being made here: “I would rather lose in a cause that will some day win, than win in a cause that will some day lose!” While the defense of orthodoxy is rarely rewarded on earth, the greater knowledge is that the true reward is not in this passing world that disappears with one’s own passing.

Loyal Catholics should, determinedly, stay always faithful to the true Faith and its traditional teachings, supported by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, because they do correctly conform to the actually infallible sacred Magisterium, not the ever absurdly pietistic quasi-truths and seemingly pious-sounding phraseology of AL.   Orthodoxy, nevertheless, will be ultimately rewarded.

St. Athanasius himself, have no doubt, would surely approve of such righteous thinking, as would be morally recommended by the Patriarchs, Fathers, Doctors, and Scholastics.  To be most orthodox is to be most Catholic as well, though this would be denied, of course, by the current and heretical Bishop of Rome and his many evil cohorts.  For useful clarification here, however, one must be, in reiteration, certain in knowing that the infallible sacred Magisterium is definitively disparate from, firmly opposed to, the obnoxiously unorthodox presumptiveness and posturing unquestionably to be found in AL.

For those blinded by appeals to semantics or rhetoric, this is fraught with the corruption and dilution, the sleaze and attenuation, of requisite Catholic dogmas and doctrines being pressed harmfully forward, more pleadings to be done for the supposed fulfillment of the “Spirit of the Second Vatican Council” can be observed, and this revolution will be then presented as a true Catholic Enlightenment, a “wrongly” delayed acceptance of the 18th century Enlightenment.

It seeks, of course, to be a paean for the essence of what Pope St. Pius X had condemned so completely and vigorously in his very needed attack on Modernism entitled: Pascendi Domini gregis. Within such a context, opposition to AL will, consequently, separate the Lord’s adoring and faithful sheep from the too often confused and witless goats versus the radicals.   As always, one ought to know that the traditional, Catholic guiding principles of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi shine forth as being directive toward authentic Catholic life, culture, and conduct differentiating all the genuine, practicing faithful from the mere heathens, the unbelievers, and pretenders.

Being simple and forthright in one’s devoted faith is not, therefore, to be wrongly ever confused with being a just a religious simpleton. Orthodoxy and devotion to its holy cause requires a strong religious character able, if needed, to endure even the pains of possible martyrdom for the greater Glory of God.  Religion and martyrdom, furthermore, will be, more and more, intimately connected in America and the Western world, as the enemies of the Church grow stronger and multiply, as they have, in fact, been successfully doing.  Satanism and its logical concomitant witchcraft, the Wicca cult, have truly been gaining strength and spreading in the 21st century.

However, it is not just these enemies and the active Moslem world and its horrendous aggressions that are to be noted; secularists and humanists, atheists and freethinkers, really do hate all of Catholicism and any/all of its committed followers. Metaphysical warfare, its real instigation by the forces of Hell, usually precedes physical conflict in this world, though many people, leaning upon their vain devotion to materialism, naturalism, or nihilism, do not ever believe in this supernatural reality as to the true and greater confrontation involved.  But, Catholics are required to believe in all that is “seen and not seen” in this fallen creation, on this sad planet.

The Machiavellian path of AL is, moreover, rather too obvious for those who know and care to see. The Progressive and Leftist elements that have increasingly infiltrated the Church, for pressing hard their evil modernism and postmodernism, vilely seek to find easy ways toward an accommodation with the world, through this horrid appeasement and spineless collaboration.  They will not, however, come to really fool the many committed enemies of Sancta Mater Ecclesia.

The followers of Islam, from their hate-filled perspective, detect only weakness; the same is, invariably, true for those who ever sinfully demand absolute surrender, through the total secularization of all of culture and civilization, and without any actual exceptions whatsoever. But, Divine punishment will, nonetheless, come, especially in the infinitely more important life of the world to come, for Amoris Laetitia is, ultimately, an attack upon all human axiology, epistemology, and, finally, ontology itself.

Of course, it is usually unrecognized as such, by typical readers of this troublesome and profoundly flawed document, having a vain pretense purporting toward claiming theological truth and spiritual veracity. But, the Church’s advanced intelligentsia, gathered around Pope Francis, see AL as a good opportunity, though a slight one from their point of view, to help advance the dialectic and better pave the way to the NWO, or whatever euphemism various participants in the revolution may wish to apply.

And yet, this titanic conflict within the Church is more than just an academic versus populist dispute. How so?   Satan and his minions are also actively engaged.  There are, in fact, supernatural forces at work more than is ever commonly suspected.


Nonetheless, metaphysical reality is no less real merely because it is unseen. There is the true need for much continued spiritual warfare; and such spiritual fighting must now be done against the Pope and the majority of the hierarchy who do, in fact, side with the vile sentiments expressed in AL.

The defense of family, children, love, charity, and compassion both logically and reasonably demands that the higher Magisterium be powerfully upheld by always rightly rejecting this Orwellian-titled, Trojan horse: The Joy of Love.  It is a, thus, misbegotten and morally joyless celebration of much true evil, a malevolent kind of sweet poison, set firmly against proper and traditional Catholic dogmas, doctrines, and teachings, the sensus fidei and orthodoxus sensus fidelium.

The Doctors of the Church, besides the Patriarchs and Fathers, would be absolutely appalled at how the Pope is acting and what he is doing to actively subvert Catholicism.

While he and his contemptuous supporters do possess the majority of the buildings and, of course, the Vatican apparatus (as was true of the ancient Arians), the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Communion of Saints, the Heavenly Hosts, and the Lord God Almighty all grandly stand in unyielding and purposeful opposition.   And, in this sense, the war is manifestly lopsided in actual favor of those who rightly side with orthodoxy, with the ardent and sincere righteousness of Catholic truth.

Meanwhile, there is yet the truthful consideration of what Fr. George W. Rutler notes, in an aptly titled book that forcefully summarizes the chief problem and stumbling block of present times, quite sadly entitled: A Crisis of Saints.   In contradistinction, nonetheless, this is why what is needed vitally is for a “Great Lion of the Church” to arise and lead the orthodox forces on to a glorious and valiant victory, rather, than to give in to any unwanted despair or so worthless despondency.

God is ever on the side of justice and right by having, of course, no respect whatsoever for the various blasphemies and sacrileges to be found in the assorted theological vileness and religious turpitude freely contained Amoris Laetitia.  This fiendish effort at the attempted bastardization of Catholicism must be unequivocally censured and needfully exposed to the light of truth, of Catholic truth.

Therefore, the absolute condemnation, total denunciation, of it, with its vile laudation of heresies, ought to be only unqualifiedly resounding and firmly unremitting until it then gets completely revoked and repudiated in its ugly entirety.  Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

Athanasius contra mundum!


Catholic Encyclopedia (1914 Edition)

Catechism of the Council of Trent

Avery Cardinal Dulles, Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith


1.  Good news and bad news exists. It is so truly a shame that the following needs to be said, but Catholic catechesis has, unfortunately, fallen to such a low state these days.  While the Holy Ghost, according to all orthodox Catholic teachings, absolutely guarantees that the Pope, in making any truly ex cathedra statements cannot ever fall into any real heresy whatsoever; a pope can still be a heretic.  Distinctions and qualifications are, therefore, admittedly needed for better providing here clarification.  A pope, of course, can still sin and must go to confession for, if he has any, his holding of heretical, blasphemous, or sacrilegious thoughts to be, thus, repented very sincerely and by doing his assigned contrition.  Popes are not guaranteed against sinfulness nor are they rendered sinless for life by the Holy Spirit.

The Vicar of Christ is not at all axiomatically exempt from committing either venial or mortal sins, for all people are fallen creatures living in a fallen world, due to Original Sin.  It is, much more significantly, a definitely greater shame, however, that the noted Magisterium of the Church must here be strongly defended against the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, which ought to be so absolutely anomalous, without any question, to the nth degree.  What is the evident problem revealed?  This then extremely peculiar and shocking condition, consequently, would not, should not, and ought not to ever logically exist – unless, of course, the Pope is a heretic.

Defenders of Pope Francis do “reason,” however, backwardly, in a very suitable Jesuitical manner, by ridiculously so postulating that since the Holy Ghost prevents heresy, then all heretical popes are also prohibited. This is, nonetheless, the classic fallacy on display of post hoc, ergo propter hoc ratiocination by, preposterously, saying no heretical statements can be made, thus, no heretical popes can exist. This could only be true if, in fact, a pope were to be miraculously freed of ever committing the mortal sin of entertaining, agreeing with, what are heretical thoughts.

The Pope is called the Holy Father because of the highly sacred office held, not because he must then be regarded, without question, as being magically transformed into a then holy man, as witness, e. g., Pope Alexander VI (Borgia) being not exactly exemplary of holiness. The Papal title given and human quality attendant to are not, therefore, so simply transferable, though most Catholics do simplistically believe otherwise, of course.  This so strongly affirms here easily, furthermore, the notably poor level of the aforementioned catechesis that both surely and sadly exists.

Too many Catholics childishly believe that once a priest, bishop, or cardinal is raised to the Papacy he is then inoculated against serious sinning; they wrongly confuse and confound the sacred office with the (less-than-perfect) man occupying it. But, popes do come and go, Catholicism and its truth remains.

2.   The 20th century philosopher Eric Voegelin (1901 – 1985) was an author of many works, including, of course, Science, Politics and Gnosticism and his very ambitious, multivolume Order and History. He had started out by finding Gnosticism nearly everywhere imaginable, but its pervasive application got so very broad as to become, in effect, meaningless as critical analysis; he himself eventually, in later years, did recognize the basic problem heuristically created and, thus, substantially modified the meaning as to become fairly or almost meaningless.  The hand was simply overplayed; it then needed to be rationally delimited.

While it is clearly undoubted that many or, at times, most elements of what constituted modernity were Gnostic, as Voegelin correctly found, or, at the least, neo-Gnostic-influenced parts of beliefs, however, the main or central Zeitgeist or inspiration for and of modernity had been Pelagianism, the total denial of Original Sin and all that this implies.  With the advent, however, of ideological thought as being ersatz religion, starting in about the late 18th century, it then became neo-Pelagianism; this is as to its much substantially heightened cognition easily seen trending into politics, religion, culture, and elsewhere.

By the 20th century, for instance, the many committed ideologists of Communism, Nazism, and Fascism were all convinced that they could really bring about, through a reified or second reality, the New Eden, Utopia, which is now seen, of course, in many immanentist aspirations for creating the New World Order.  One, therefore, sees here how neo-Pelagianism is vitally integral to the intramundane belief in the various versions or kinds of Utopia, meaning by whatever euphemism for such nominalist belief.

3.   It may be highly curious and significantly odd to note that Dr. Ludwig Ott’s classic Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, in its index, has no term of “Magisterium” present. And, such a rather major, and so presumably authoritative work, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) only mentions that term in connection with a matter pertaining to the subject of prayer.

Although the Sacred Magisterium, with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are, in fact, the three main pillars of the Faith, one would not get that impression from either the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma or, more shockingly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church!  One can only imagine the other rather glaring and major deficiencies of yet future theological texts.  God help the Church!

See also:

4.   For several centuries after his death, because St. Athanasius had such a truly tremendous impact on the upholding of orthodoxy in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, Athanasianism then became a synonym for Catholicism. At times, he seemed to be the only man in the entire Christian world holding out for all the truth of the dogmas and doctrines of Catholicism in their purity, in their devotion to God, athwart the Arians and their persecutions.

During his majestically heroic life quite filled with (unwanted) adventure, and through many torments, beatings, three exiles, being hunted down and greatly hated by the predominantly Arian ecclesiastical hierarchy, and much more, he, then, most definitely was – Athanasius against the world. More than ever, today, there is the genuinely urgent need to fervently pray to this great saint for help against all heretics, especially those residing in the Vatican.

References: [Just a “few” given below as to examples.]

Amoris Laetitia: A Deceptive Joy

“Amoris Laetitia” and the Coming Schism: Retrospect & Prospect

Does Amoris Laetitia Retreat from Absolute Moral Norms?

Separating Opinion from Doctrine in Amoris Laetitia

Cardinal Brandmüller Again Warns About Amoris Laetitia

Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter Publishes a Critique of Amoris Laetitia

Another Catholic Scholar Raises Objections to Amoris Laetitia

Sedevacantism, a Form of Neo-Jansenism/Puritanism

Sedevacantism, a Form of Neo-Jansenism/Puritanism: A Disguised Neo-Protestant Movement

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

What to do when the rightly notable holiness of the ecclesiastical representation, the Roman Catholic Church, is absolutely perfect but the people, obviously, are not at all perfect?   Have a peevish temper tantrum?  Or, perhaps, come up with truly tautological doctrines that can, of course, completely and conveniently accommodate prejudices to suit a bigoted religious mind?   One yet might interestingly ask, however, what’s really going on here?

Get real!  A true and committed sedevacantist cannot withstand scandal.  And, when all the other fancy verbiage gets so said and disputed unendingly, that is the actual bottom line.  The great scandal of St. Peter having denied Jesus three times should, in fact, make him want to, also, disqualify the very first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.  Why waste the effort or anger, as they do, by only starting, usually, with Pope John XXIII?   The Fisherman was a sad miscreant himself, obviously.1

Moreover, every genuine and true sedevacantist should, upon true reflection, be seriously concerned about being, in effect, more papist than any mere pope.  For they do, in fact, impiously and vaingloriously both judge and condemn the entirety, the Apostolic ampleness, of the Papacy itself, meaning typically since the end of the reign of Pope Pius XII.  But, why isn’t St. Peter, a perpetrator of scandal, equally held in contempt?

Of course, there is the acknowledgement, the free admission, of a continuing and monumental, real and substantial, genuine crisis in the Church, which manifests no truly visible signs of any “quick fix” any time soon.   But, however, the still awful embrace of heresy is not the amenable “solution” or, perhaps, supposed panacea to be sought.

A Way to Normalize Heresy … or Here We Go Again

The heretical Catholic version of Puritanism, known as Jansenism goes well, therefore, with any form or variety, type or manifestation, of sedevacantism.   Historically speaking, it can be interestingly noted that sedevacantism’ s most significant period was the time of the Great Papal Western Schism (1378 – 1415), when as many as three different popes had all claimed the loyalty of Catholics.  A sociological “law” of an inverse ratio seems to exist as seen critically pertaining to this particular matter.  It needs to be put into italics to stand out better for an added emphasis:

There is, genuinely, much less overt reason for this vain effort’s persistence than there surely was, in point of fact, during the height of that noted Western Schism; but, a yet greater fervency persists, among a very smaller minority, with a substantially and markedly decreased right of legitimate justification.   Of course, the stalwart opponents of the Papacy, seemingly being ignorant of such cognition to a fault, do normally fail to notice this absolutely obvious truth staring at them, directly in the face, every day of their yet ongoing absurd dissent.

Today’s sedevacantists, however, are truly a relatively tiny group, as with, e. g., the Old Roman Catholic Church (Altkatholische), mostly based in Germany,  in the late 19th century and its members, who turned heretical and could not agree with Blessed Pope Pius IX’s assertion of papal infallibility.  For such people, it is a kind of siege-mentality nostalgia suitable mainly for a despoiled romantic notion of “church” that never actually existed in reality, only in their fertile imaginations.  How may this be much better known?

This is clearly because these unfortunate nonconformists or dissenters or, rather, neo-Protestants of a strange kind do, unfortunately, have a very skewed and corrupted understanding and comprehension of actual orthodoxy, authentic traditionalism, and genuine fidelity to both the Catholic faith and Church.  They really want or desire only to know of the Church Militant (on earth) and Church Triumphant (in Heaven) by always, however, selectively excluding the substantial fullness of the Church Suffering (when persecution or, in fact, any such major suffering or, perhaps, serious moral disorientation occurs to it).

This heresy is not “radical traditionalism” of any kind as is often falsely alleged; it is actually more done in the spirit of Protestant so-called Reformed Religion, not any good effort to, supposedly, protect real Catholicism.  But, to be a committed, practicing Roman Catholic, means affirming all three aspects of Catholicism as each being a legitimate component part of the entire Trinitarian faith.  The Church Suffering is, then, dismissed as just a mere unwanted orphan child because it may be seen as being extremely inconvenient to the so pleasantly desired sedevacantist beliefs, a pseudo-religion of quite continuously profound and integral despair.

But, the Church Suffering has included, e. g., such times as the many Roman persecutions, Arian Heresy, the Babylonian/Avignon Captivity, the sinful reign of the scandalous Borgia Pope Alexander VI, and, of course, the now postconciliar era brought on by the many terrible and still festering evils of the Second Vatican Council and its truly horrid aftermath.   Of course, as to any misbehaving popes, none of those blasphemous or sacrilegious repercussions and consequences of the significant and often persistent errors, mistakes or maladministrations committed are to be denied here.

The sedevacantists, however, would rather not seek to suffer and endure with the Church Suffering and so construct, in their rather pitiful minds, a much neater and tidier version of “church” more psychologically, sociologically, and culturally suited to their ever much more aesthetic and so refined needs or wants.  This was, as is known, equally true of the Jansenists and the Protestant Puritans, of course.

They had both wanted to be constant dissenters from the existing ecclesial establishments in a prideful effort to supposedly purify or perfect their version or kind of a church.  It is supremely typical of both types of nonconformists as perfectionists to seek to avoid being associated, in their minds, with any scandal.  It is too nasty to handle.

They possess a Protestant-style selectivity, partiality, and willfulness of belief; the basically same kind of “cafeteria Catholicism” mentality that they, typically, accuse the Novus Ordo adherents of having, so it does, indeed, take one to known one, as the old saying has it.  These people are, therefore, the mirror imagine of the very types that they publicly claim they would wish to oppose, as to such differing beliefs pertaining to Catholicism.2

As to sedevacantists, one can only sarcastically say that their ever questionable and severely attenuated senses of supposed “orthodoxy,” “traditionalism,” and “fidelity” cannot really endure any scandal.  Thus, by such “sensitive” logic, St. Peter, therefore, should be, must be, then rationally considered, by them all, as just having been only illegitimately the first Pope.  It could not be thought otherwise.

This notion quite shockingly raises, of course, quite a greatly fierce conundrum and very allied strange quandary, at just a truly bare minimum, of such surely and necessarily troublesome thought, theological, religious, or otherwise so considered.   For those deeply interested in doing more intense reading on this subject, they can consult John Salza and Robert Siscoe’s True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors, which appears, as a 700-page tome, to be now well on its way to logically become the fairly veritable “Bible” for so totally disproving and denouncing all of sedevacantism and its various implications.

The Church certainly has, through the many centuries of its earthly existence, undergone periods of moral laxity, degeneracy, and decline; it is experiencing significantly critical problems today; no doubt, when this current postconciliar era has finally run its entire course of destruction, there will be other times of confusion, disturbances, and, yes, actual severe scandals.  The often sad human side of the Church is, therefore, administered and staffed by  many imperfect, sinful people, meaning fallen creatures, suitably living in, of course, a fallen world.

Being neo-Jansenists themselves, the prideful sedevacantists, as did the aforementioned and similar Jansenists and Puritans, expect a level of perfection not to be ether had or truly seen in this sad world of misfortunes and limitations.

Therefore, all or any religious, theological, or other such protests or objections of these many odd neo-Protestants, in the light of the Church Suffering and all that it involves, are, by definition, absurdly made.  Moreover, if no valid Papacy exists, since 1958, for the Church that Jesus Christ Himself had so created, then there could be no real Church and, more than that problematic matter in and of itself, one must, logically, so completely conclude that the Messiah, the Christ, had been, in fact, a simply great liar of definitely and unquestionably magnitudinal proportions at that.

For it means, since 1958 or, of course, whatever cutoff date a particular dissenter choses, the Gates of Hell had, therefore, prevailed against the Church, directly and explicitly contrary to the words of the Savior of Mankind that such would and, therefore, could never ever happen.

But, the vital essence of any kind of fundamentalist sedevacantism really worth the effort of boldly asserting must, by clear definition, agree so fully that the evil power of Hell had, indeed, reached out quite successfully and vilely gained an observably true dominion over the Church. Nothing less can be true, meaning if sedevacantism is held to be true.

Nothing less of this extreme magnitude of a monumental disaster of gargantuan proportions can be asseverated validly, therefore, by any genuine sedevacantism worthy of that particular heretical name or, perhaps, denomination. Sedevacantists, therefore, want to make the worship greater than the God being worshipped, which is, of course, idolatry.

One must here say that their totally unrighteous or self-righteous misunderstanding and misinterpretation of an enormously skewed orthodoxy, traditionalism, and fidelity is, thus, made idolatrous by raising them as assumed objections to the present suffering of the Church.  Can some analogous cognition be presented for better illustrating the idolatry involved?

Saul, before he was named Paul, had been disgustingly filled with a (very false) righteousness that was merely his own myopic self-righteousness; this was when he most quite zealously and fervently had persecuted and hunted down the Christians, before being so rightly chastised by Jesus on the road to Damascus.   Saul too had been a terrible idolater, prior to his good conversion, by making his understanding and comprehension of Judaism the exact measure by which he had then intolerantly measured out injustices against the harshly tormented followers of Jesus the Christ, the living Messiah.

Those who impiously dare to actually say that the Chair of St. Peter is truly vacant can reasonably be called, to coin a suitable term here, “Saulites” who are, thus, unrighteous idolaters who, in their terrible zeal, sinfully seek to follow that which is a theological and religious fraud, a total lie, vilely known as sedevacantism.  It is an abomination before Almighty God, not just a simple error or calm disagreement.

One easily sees how these pretentious Saulites are, increasingly, gloating, triumphing over, and enjoying the sufferings of Holy Mother Church by saying how they were the one who were, in fact, totally right concerning the true direction of the many horrid evils that have manifested themselves.   The evils are, thus, real; they were foreseen, however, by many others who did not leave the Church and by those, in a minority admittedly, who stayed loyal as the remnant with the Traditional Latin Mass (called now the Extraordinary Rite), which ought not to be limited to just the Tridentine Mass.  Many in the Novus Ordo have, with many mounting difficulties and real travails, sought to be orthodox in their Catholic beliefs and practices.

The virulent and boastful triumphalism of these hard Saulites will, nonetheless, be held against them on Judgment Day because they had unrighteously lacked charity, which is a greater theological virtue than either hope or faith. But, more to the point, they sought, they seek, to exempt themselves or, perhaps, excuse themselves conveniently from having compassion for the sincere and dramatic, the profound and remorseful, great distress of Sancta Mater Ecclesia by yet staying committed and within the flock of the faithful.

Instead, they had opted out, with their titanic unmitigated hubris, by trying to be superior to the vast majority and even by outdoing in their minds, supposedly, the orthodox remnant who do stay with the Traditional Latin Mass.  This is highly perfidious conduct completely unworthy of any who say that they do think of themselves as being Catholics.

They seek, in a sense, to be the “perfected ones” untouched by the filth of ecclesiastical troubles by specially setting themselves apart as the then self-selected judge and jury pronouncing the necessarily prejudiced sentence of their neo-Protestant condemnation, in particular, upon the entire Papacy itself, not just a wayward Church in general. It could not, moreover, be otherwise given their theologically and religiously corrupted and tainted principles and many allied suppositions.  But, one must take note of the fact that truly much more serious matters are here, unfortunately, involved.

Sedevacantists, because they claim to really know what many hundreds of millions of the faithful do not know, are then necessarily claimants of an esoteric knowledge, though Catholicism, in sharp contrast, is an exoteric faith that both the simplest peasants and highest prelates can equally know as to fully all of the basic truths of the religion.  Thus, it seems clear that the noted deniers of the legitimacy, the rightfulness, of the Pope must possesses a special Gnosis making them, by definition, Gnostics, not true Catholics.  Sedevacantism is, therefore, a Gnostic faith fully at odds with true Catholicism.

One could easily challenge them by asking if they can really pick any 500 year stretch of Church history during which there was, in fact, absolutely no major and considerably serious problems that afflicted the ecclesiastical organization.  It would not, of course, be possible.  Nor could they honestly cite any 500 period, in the entire life of the Church, when the Papacy itself completely reigned, with a totally pristine purity of intent and action everywhere, within the vast domains, regions, and territories of Christendom.  But, more than all that, the serious matter of the harmful nature of what is being contended must be confronted.

Sedevacantism is a heresy in that only a heretic would dare to claim that Jesus had, in fact, abandoned His Holy Church by allowing the Chair of St. Peter to be vacant of any legitimate pope.  And, make no mistake, that is the ultimate bottom line of the contention being made by these supposedly clever neo-Protestants who, as with all such Protestants, contribute freely to the ever terrible fractionalizing of Christian belief.

A certainly grave suspicion rightly exists, therefore, that this is sought after or claimed as a rather clever way to supposedly normalize an ugly heresy, which mightily offends both the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. Nothing less is really involved.

A Form of Gnosticism and Idolatry

Their so holier-than-thou protestations are Jansenist in inspiration and Puritan in their adherence by neglecting all arguments and evidences to the contrary, by their hubristic certainty duly backed up by much tautological nonsense.

Circular reasoning, therefore, forever confirms them in their so absolutist obstinacy of retroactively specious reasoning; this is by which conclusions are, therefore, reached by merely having to assert their posited validity: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc ratiocination boldly on display.  For if the conclusion is “logically” suspected to be capable of being actually positively found, arguments will be discovered, no doubt, in basic or general support of the assumed end result then expected.

The alleged “signs” of there being sedevacant conditions are looked for by which the then prepremised conclusions, in turn, do support – no real surprise – the gathered signs expectantly so found. Thus, as night follows day, yet another sedevacantist (read: neo-Protestant) is self-born of such Jesuitical, in the worst sense of that term, deliberation and argumentation.  It is a manifestly most self-reinforcing mode of deliberation that, in its turn, consequently corrupts any such error-filled argumentation attempted.

One would think that the scandalous behavior, early on, of the Fisherman, the chief Apostle, would have been warning enough to Church members that no cultic papacies should be created, much less honored, as in the vainglorious and ironic examples of Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis.  But, the preaching of Christ crucified will be, as ever, a scandal to the Jews and a folly to the pagans.

Christianity, scandal, and folly are, necessarily, ever concomitant realities of what human beings can realistically expect as just fallen creatures in a fallen world; the Christianity for pointing toward the means of salvation; the scandal for, thus, warning about the usual consequences of sin, and the folly always exhibited by the “wise” of this world who would reject Christ and His Church because of their ever supposed sophistication and enlightened minds.

Could nothing be more clearer to truly fair-minded and objective intellects?   But, if all the presuppositional foundations of such a horrid and odd belief are demonstrably, palpably, false, how can the then ever questionable conclusion of sedevacantism be true?

To better enjoy psychological, sociological, and cultural pleasantries connected to a narrowed definition of religion, the sedevacantists wish to avoid the obvious ugliness, sloppiness, harshness, and unpleasant realities of the Church Suffering, for it is a scandal to be avoided in the desire for comfort and the finding of a safe harbor.   It then reduces, substantially, the need to ever seriously challenge one’s self morally by recognizing the traditional Catholic need to chastise one’s soul for requisite spiritual improvement aimed at seeking salvation, not moral comfort or sociocultural and psychocultural safety, which excludes unwanted grief, anguish, or anxiety.

The modernist ethics of the Therapeutic State, it can be suspected, have been well absorbed by these egotistical people who do claim, whether admitted or not, their form of enlightenment and, thus, superiority.

For orthodoxy, i. e., real orthodoxy, also concerns actual thoughts of at least potential martyrdom, not just, e. g., the pious contemplation of the lives of the canonized saints.  And, moreover, true Catholic fidelity is much more than being steadfastly loyal to one’s own need to, once again, ever avoid scandal, meaning the Church Suffering.  This because sedevacantists are quite deficient, morally and spiritually, in those religious areas and theological issues involving authentic tradition, orthodoxy, and fidelity as true Roman Catholics.  To have a change of heart and mind is to develop a surely greater sense of good Catholic charity incapable of being grasped beyond the effort to maintain the heretical belief itself.

The central realities seen are that this theologically and religiously untenable position goes question begging, seeks ever unanswerable paradoxes, presents, in the end, just a few totally unacceptable alternatives; reasons backwards, when forced to admit, in effect, very serious flaws in its reasoning, and is the most terrible “solution” to the admitted and rather disastrous ongoing crisis in the Church, in the Church Suffering.

It is so unquestionably myopic to an extreme degree, nonetheless, to make the Papacy the primary and, sometimes, the absolutely centered focus of all concentrated attack for, in effect, rejecting the need to stay loyal to the Catholic faith.   Rather, it is best to stay so keenly and religiously focused upon Catholicism, while surely acknowledging the various flaws, faults, failings, or imperfections of popes.

Popes come and go, the Faith remains.  The fundamental logic of Catholic religious fidelity is clear.  One here easily perceives how, ultimately, that all of sedevacantism meaninglessly dissolves into the basest of absurdities imaginable, considering the cogent analysis in this article.

While a strongly pro-papist Catholicism is the pleasant ideal, real popes can be real problems.  Practicing and living out faithfully one’s Catholicism, however, is yet the genuinely needed answer, not the act of complaining interminably, by just despairing of any solution, short of going the sedevacantist route that embraces this heinous heresy against the Faith and athwart the Church as well.  The difficulty of having bad popes, a punishment sent by God as a scourge, is not really solved by dramatically jumping from the proverbial frying pan into the fire of Gnostic idolatry.

One needs to appropriately see that the Church Suffering is a cross, as Catholics ought to understand, to be willingly borne as a means of gaining grace, though there will be, in truth, much sorrow and severe travail involved in doing so. Instead of, as good children naturally filled with overwhelming filial love, rushing to the side of a suffering mother (Sancta Mater Ecclesia), they, on the contrary, are utterly appalled and disgusted at scandal and revile her by repudiating, disclaiming, the Papacy in the form of the popes.

Such is not the right attitude of a truly faithful Roman Catholic, rather, the noted proclivity of a dissenting neo-Protestant or, of course, a sedevacantist.  And, that is the least that could be rightly said.

Thus, the proper religious-centered reply to having immoral or hereticalpopes ought not to be either a bad laity or bad prelacy by, then, being in sinful dissent as sedevacantists, as “traitors” to the Church.  Admittedly, a religious institution that is a living organism is filled with sinful people, and it is, equally, not a museum where things are to be kept in perfect order as to a sense of perfection that is unreal.

The Gnostic Saulites, thus, should not absurdly demand a level of perfection not of this world. The sinfulness exhibited abundantly by those who attack Catholic dogmas, doctrines, and traditions should not be wrongly met by the reciprocation of heretical belief that adds insult to injury against Sancta Mater Ecclesia.   Only a rather perverse sense of warped logic could endorse such a strange reaction productive not of religious virtue but of just more real sinfulness.

To here borrow a rather grand sense of irony from the great G. K. Chesterton, author of Orthodoxy (written, interestingly, while he still was a Protestant), one can, intriguingly, play a good game of one-upmanship to then illustrate better the quite enormous and inherent fallacies of sedevacantist cognition, as to its religiously dangerous implications and even harsher theological ramifications.

Following studiously the argumentation and deliberation, however convoluted, of what sedevacantism really advocates, why not here derivatively and logically contemplate being an ultra-sedevacantist? In the 19th century, there were, for instance, those of the faithful, called ultramontanists, who had publicly declared their unswerving Catholic allegiance and faith-filled apostolic fidelity to the Pope.4

Would not, thus, an ultra-sedevacantist, in an appropriately opposite but still fairly parallel sense, find true comfort and approbation, reassurance and more vindication, by taking up such a designation proudly and publicly?   Might not others willingly rally to such a brave banner of dedicated defiance?

Being a mere sedevacantist should not ever truly be enough wanted radicalization or vindication.  Simple opposition to the Papacy does not at all, therefore, express the requisitely needed intensity of such absolute disapproval.  Much more is required to satisfy this massive urge to affirm both adamant and permanent disapproval on a yet still greater scale of added intense emphasis.

A “church” situation and formulation ought to logically develop by which the various dedicated adherents have legitimately their own oppositional (or protest) views set on Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium affirmed.   Nothing less should do, given the rather too profound grievances and allied logic necessarily involved.   And, thus, this would be properly denominated as being ultra-sedevacantism.

Some or, perhaps, most committed sedevacantists, however, might object, upon serious reflection, to any such extreme scenario, as to much further radicalization; this is because there may, in fact, be no rational stopping or end point when such dynamic decisions are actually made.  But, this is the critical danger here.  Thinking any such disturbing thoughts really opposing this now theoretically proposed ultra-sedevacantism should, logically, be used so more appropriately – against any sedevacantism.

In any event, however, both Christian love and charity should be extended to these wayward Catholics who do, therefore, truly need to return to being proper practicing and believing members of the faithful, of the one true flock of Christ.

The best that seemingly can be done is to pray fervently for all the sedevacantists in hope that they may, someday, see the full Light of Christ and repent and return to the Church; polemics, over almost three generations by now, has done little to convince them of the grave error of their ways.  This article may convince those who might have inclined, toward such an absurd and unfortunate position, to pull back and reconsider seriously the great rashness and folly of defending the impossible sedevacantist position that Jesus has, in fact, abandoned His Church.

Although John Paull II was, of course, quite fast tracked to sainthood, however, merely becoming a pope is no set axiomatic guarantee (prior to the fast tracking?) of either true holiness or a future sainthood.

Having very terribly flawed prelates, as Vicars of Christ in slightly before the late 20th and into early 21st century, does not, in fact, invalidate the Papacy itself.  Illegitimating the Papacy also, thus, illegitimates Catholicism since it is, in fact, a hierarchical religion with a cognate theology that so confirms the need for hierarchy and its recognition.  Furthermore, the doctrines of indefectibility, visibility, and apostolicity are ground into the complete reality of the Church and its inherent nature; they cannot be separated from the Papacy.

Therefore, the lack of saintliness in a Holy Father and related waywardness, more or less, is not any valid argument that all or any legitimacy is, by definition, to be just fully withdrawn or withheld. But, would should be thought about to encourage holiness?  The Church Suffering should be embraced, not just the Church Militant or Triumphant.

And, yes, there are admitted difficulties involved by taking up the Cross, for Jesus, rather intimately, knows this “scandalous” fact.  Nonetheless, the Church still preaches Christ crucified and as it theologically must.


Suffering and scandal are, however, yet opportunities for gaining grace, through dedicated prayer and by enduring spiritual torments, for the love of Jesus and His saints and Holy Mother Church. The faithful are obligated, of course, to pray for the Pope’s soul and his salvation, for his ever proper need to obtain grace.

Since even popes are, of course, still required to go to confession, they are fallible human beings as to their personal lives and conduct. The entirety of the Catholic faith is, however, a greater topic than just the Papacy.

Catholicism has been, is, and will be much more important, therefore, than any popes; the larger sum, meaning the Church, is always greater than the total of any of the individual parts. Thus, the Gnostic Saulites are to be solicitously, fraternally, and solemnly admonished for the grave error, a persistent mortal sin, that they have, so willingly, made their own.  This is yet a call for Christian charity.

Keeping the Faith is certainly what matters by strongly rejecting sedevacantism, though not by being, perhaps, just absurdly blind or immorally indifferent to the ever capricious behavior, the immoral attitudes, or the notably downright morally poisonous, putrid perfidy of parlous popes, meaning Pope Francis included.  Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

Athanasius contra mundum!


1.  This sorry episode, in the very earliest history of the Church, was a major warning, given by Jesus, that scandals were to certainly occur, from time to time, as a normal part of the reality of living the Christian life.  Given the necessary fact that sinful people, meaning human beings, were to govern and administer the Church, such allied difficulties and travails were to be known as being among the permanent kinds of consequences of Original Sin.  Thus, sinfulness tends to be pandemic among people at large, which might as well be seen as still another scandal.

There were, e. g., some Avignon Popes who were practical atheists that had lived like luxury-minded, secularist, Renaissance courtiers, but were validly still popes; it is sadly known that Pope Alexander VI, Borgia, was a contemptuously vile and degenerate moral reprobate with a filthy mind, but, again, yet genuinely being the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Bishop of Rome, the true Holy Pontiff. Compared to him, therefore, Pope Francis is, surely, both a religious priest and true moral paradigm, regardless of his other obvious severe failings and extreme flaws.

To righteously speak and assert here the final truth, the sedevacantists are really scandalized (dare one say it?) by God, not just the mere Papacy.  And, the Jansenists and Puritans were also of exactly the same morally and theologically vile opinion, not surprisingly, as both were religious radicals as are all, in fact, the (prideful) sedevacantists themselves.

2.  This shocking phenomenon, which can be carried to an excess, is the irony of how struggling too deeply, too long, against an opponent will, over time, transform your side into the mirror image your adversary. It is, ultimately, a function of the continuing results of Original Sin. The ruthlessness, e. g., of the Nazis in World War II and the Communists during the Cold War made, in turn, the United States and other countries just as ruthless, meaning when absolute objectives were then thought to be found so vitally necessary and, thus, quite often heartlessly, callously, sought.

The Allies, for instance, did not hesitate to deliberately bomb civilian targets, as with Nuremberg, in an effort to end the war much sooner rather than later, for the end came to so justify the means; and, one might, felicitously, add that Machiavelli, of course, would have fully approved of this cold and calculating rationalization for immoral terrorism and raw brutality done, of course, for a higher cause.

The Gestapo, CIA, MI5, Mossad, and KGB are all very correct illustrations of how almost any conceivable inhumanity to man can, more or less, be better proposed, justified, and perpetrated, whenever morality gets suitably rationalized (conveniently) as to the purported need to achieve the assumed greater good. And, of course, an ideology, being an ersatz religion, helps to greatly supplement the justifications for barbarism and cruelty when pragmatically thought to be needed.

Among others, in moral contrast, such social prophets as the great Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn spoke of this matter as to the moral errors of Soviet behavior and conduct. He, logically, stated that any asserted morally great ends or goals should only be sought after by proportionately morally sound means, not through acts of brutality or ruthlessness.

Both hearers in the East and West, even unto today, have basically turned a full deaf ear to this vital admonishment and warning, against any flexible morality or situation ethics, to the grave peril of higher civilization.

3.  Most Catholics are improperly or inadequately catechized these days and even, sadly, for about the last 60 years. When a pope formally speaks ex cathedra, meaning from the Chair of St. Peter, on the Faith, dogmas, morals, or ethics and, in addition, stays within the confines of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium and, also, does not violate any classical Natural Law teachings, he can make statements or pronouncements, verbal or written; these are absolutely binding on all Roman Catholics without any question. It is a genuine and undisputed part of the powers, rights, obligations, and duties of the Pope.

This is directly related to the subject of papal infallibility in that the Holy Ghost, a belief of faith, always guards against any possibility of heresy’s involvement. His personal opinions, however, have absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with what the Church officially teaches as to what gets called the economy of salvation.  Unfortunately, most Catholics today do not correctly understand and comprehend the proper needed distinctions.  If His Holiness expresses, for instance, an opinion on global warming or carpooling, the bulk of the faithful do accept it, as if it must be dogmatic in nature, as to a papal pronouncement having supposed doctrinal weight and substance.

If Pope Francis issued a statement demanding, e. g, that Catholics now refrain from belief in the reality of gravity or, perhaps, of Sir Isaac Newton’s Laws of Motion, no Catholic (or, in fact, any other rational human being for that matter) is obliged to ever obey. It has, thus, simply nothing at all to do with papal infallibility.  A directly contrary pertinent example can be rendered here.

When, in 1854, Blessed Pope Pius IX issued the official formalization of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, such prominent people as England’s Lord Acton publicly (and, one hopes, privately for the sake of his soul) dropped all of his once vehement objections and stayed within the Church.

Consciously rejecting even a single dogma of the Faith then results axiomatically in committing a mortal sin that, if unconfessed and unrepented, gains access to Hell permanently. All the dogmas of the Church, without any exceptions whatsoever, are to be totally believed and accepted unconditionally.

But, as to the particular issue at hand as to actual papal prerogatives, even a heretical pope is held to be spiritually protected, by the guiding power of the Holy Spirit, from ever issuing any ex cathedra statement for then binding all the members of the Church.  Of course, the Holy Pontiff can still be a rather sinful so-and-so.

4.  The ultramontanists or ultramontanes, speaking as to the 19th century, developed due to a clerical political conception regarding papal authority and, moreover, the matter of proper loyalty toward papal prerogatives and privileges. Ultramontanism, adamantly supporting and affirming both integral and active Catholicism, found its major public vindication, in the First Vatican Council, in 1870.  It had many practical political consequences.  Instances can be given.

The Catholic Bishops of Germany, who then opposed Chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s Kulturkampf attacking Catholicism as being foreign and anti-German, had logically taken up the necessary opposing point of view, in strong defense of Catholicism, by strongly affirming the ultramontanist position.

This included, of course, open support for Blessed Pope Pius IX who suffered the great indignity and injustice of having all of the Papal States stolen from the Church by the Italian Communist, Freemason, and other secularist revolutionaries to form (what is usually not seen as) the rather ill-conceived Italian State.


Christopher Gerard Brown, Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem

Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey, No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth

Brother André Marie, The Popes and the Modern Crisis (on Sedevacantism)

John C. Pontrello, The Sedevacantist Delusion: Why Vatican II’s Clash with Sedevacantism Supports Eastern Orthodoxy

John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors



The Four Fatal Errors of Sedevacantism

Cursing the Enemies of God and His Holy Church

Cursing the Enemies of God and His Holy Church: Such Malediction Used to be Admired

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni


Although it may seem like some nostalgia for the days, long ago now, of militant Catholicism or the Church Militant notion, however, if there is any hope for building a future new Christendom, then truth must be told and defended, persuasively argued and convincingly affirmed.

What’s needed, more than ever today, is to loudly and confidently curse the effeminate and degenerate kumbaya spirit of and provoked by the Second Vatican Council and, instead, proclaim quite fearlessly and manfully the true righteousness of the Lord God Almighty.

Why is this not critically understood, as requisite to the tasks of a Christian life?   Catholic virility, Catholic action, is importantly needed now, not obnoxious vague protestations of the need to just ever meekly, so docilely, submit to every or any imaginable injustice committed directly against Christ and His Holy Church.   Where are Christian soldiers ready to battle for the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Faith?

Imprecation and deprecation should be called upon, when and where held both morally and spiritually appropriate, for obtaining the correct invoking of the manifest justice of truth; for the many known lies of modernity and postmodernity, whether, as examples, transsexuality, multiculturalism, diversity, or otherwise, are to be strongly and unequivocally condemned by all the faithful, day in and day out.

Catholic truth matters, not the odd fear that, well, somebody somewhere or somehow may get possibly offended by such overt veracity: For the truth, as is explicitly known from Holy Writ, can set people free.  The perpetuation and guarding of lies wrongly imprison people because of an evil desire to so conform worldly, for always reprehensible PC reasons, as if such secular “sins” are considered, by God, to have real meaning for Christians.

Only disgusting heretics, such as, e. g., Pope Francis, actually want the faithful to be fearful, e. g., of not carpooling or possibly offending Gaia by not being supposedly ecologically or, perhaps, environmentally friendly or conscious.  On the contrary, it must be here forcefully asseverated, therefore, that what is now absolutely needed, rather, is to have a good and solid Catholic consciousness.

The faithful are to be completely loyal to Christ, not this world.  Could that obvious fact be more plain, even to those who may be blind?   Let it be ever forthrightly proclaimed: Be not afraid!

Spiritual Armament: Proclaim the Great Righteousness of the Lord

Imprecatory, to invoke or call down an evil upon a person or people, and deprecatory, expressing open disapproval or negative feelings against a person or people, are not words heard very often by Christians these days; and, certainly, not heard among Roman Catholics, especially since the end of the vile Second Vatican Council, when everything now is to be then supposedly spiritually governed by just sweetness and light, mere goodness and truth.

The so-called preconciliar Church, in a notably direct difference, was neither reluctant nor embarrassed, meaning neither excessively unwilling nor ashamed, to issue any appropriate anathemas, curses, or excommunications, whenever thought needed. The theological logic should be clear.  Thus, one could, e. g., relatedly cite St. Louis Grignion de Montfort.1

In sharp contrast today, kumbaya is now the ever absurdly “loving,” mindless password for all the modernist Christian or neo-Catholic world, where no one is really an enemy either of God or the Church, or, at least, that’s the typical, droll argumentative supposition to be just languidly acted upon these days.  It is a lie.  Ignorance supports this lie sustained by what has been called the neo-orthodoxy of the Second Vatican Council that covertly glorifies relativism and subjectivism by citing the higher Spirit of Vatican II.

However, the Bible, in marked contrast, is literally filled with many maledictions, prayed by saints and usually answered quickly by God, against the extremely impenitent enemies of Godliness, righteousness, or even human liberty.  People, in the morally degenerate and decrepit contemporary world, especially Christians, have largely now forgotten that they are to be the willing servants and defenders of the great Supreme Being of absolute righteousness.

It went well, of course, with the crusading spirit and chivalry, unlike today, so unctuously filled with both just too many weak-wristed beta and metrosexual males, so terribly “good,” as the true old Italian expression has it, as to be just good for nothing.

Is there any clear citable evidence, researchable proof, of the truth for these assertions that sound so extremely harsh and alien to modern ears?   Are, for instance, many Muslims who, as is well known, do seek to actively massacre or brutalize Christians to be hotly reprimanded, sternly reproached, in this rather extremely tough manner?

One could here cite the psalmist who pronounces a curse over the enemies of God and God’s people, as when King David imploringly prays, “May no one be left to show him kindness, may no one look after his orphans, may his family die out, its name disappear in one generation.”  It is, one suspects, very hard to imagine almost all Catholic priests or bishops, nowadays, using such needed language against Moslems.

Nonetheless, such very obvious imprecations, execrations or stern abominations, were still traditionally regarded as being true expressions of religiously-minded people and, moreover, surely composed under divine inspiration.  This should be carefully and cogently kept in mind by good Catholics.

They also were, in context, not simply the mere words of the human speaker, as to asking the Lord to righteously punish evildoers, but in clearly prophetic terms, had then predicted the so severe divine intention concerned, meaning that God would, in fact, chastise those who deliberately attacked His will.

What was said must be thought of as theologically valid in that the Bible, as it is, in truth, supposed to be for all Catholics and Christians, and, thus, remains the forever inerrant word of God.  Occurrences were recorded in Holy Scripture for an important divine purpose, not just for simple theological edification alone.

The Divine Will of God is, without a rational doubt, both forever and unquestionably holy, not any or all human sensibilities or feelings put together or, for that matter, separately considered.  For as no less a proper authority on Catholic theology than St. Thomas Aquinas correctly wrote, the Lord owes human beings nothing, not even justice.  Humanity, however, forever owes everything to the Almighty God without exception or qualification, which should then here put such matters into their accurate important perspective and truthful focus.  God is the measure if all things, as even Plato knew, not man.

Such a point ought to be forever retained clearly in mind by those who, wrongly, think that Christianity and (morally righteous) cursing, maledictions, are to be just kept always far worlds apart.   This is not at all true, and Holy Scripture, furthermore, testifies quite splendidly to the significant untruth manifestly involved.  It knowingly needs, therefore, to be properly said that righteous cursing, directed against all the evil opponents of God, serves, in fact, the Divine Will.  And, this is the truth as will be here below shown.

Some examples, among many, of imprecatory prayer in the Old Testament would, therefore, so surely include: Psalm 55:15; Psalm 58:6 ; Psalm 69:28 ; Psalm 109:9 ; and Psalm 137:9.   The Holy Scriptures do affirm the truth of what is said.  Just a few examples, again, among many, in the New Testament could be here rendered: Matthew 23:13; Matthew 26:23-24; 1 Corinthians 16:22; and Galatians 1:8-9.

In the Acts of the Apostles, one clearly reads that Ananias and Saphira were struck dead, at St. Peter’s feet, after he had put a curse upon both of them for lying to God, for fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.  Not a sickly modernist “belief” in kumbaya meditations or recitations thereof.

And yes, that was certainly some very serious cursing to have such extremely fatal results to those made the objects of the curse of the first Pope.   Since it is rather doubtful, furthermore, that either Ananias or Saphira had time enough to actually repent, they are both burning in the eternal fires of Hell for having committed mortal sin.  One instructively sees, moreover, that such rather proper Christian cursing is not at all immoral but, in point of fact, can be most spiritually and morally necessary.  St. Peter himself, of course, thought so.

These incidents, involving Ananias and Saphira, should be both appositely and correctly noted for doing a much better elucidation of what had happened and why.  The true chief Apostle of Christ, the Fisherman, did not act in a typical or, perhaps, stereotypical modern manner having reference to any subjectivism or situation ethics.  He did not expatiate philosophically about them by supposedly citing a diverse array of existential, phenomenological or, for that matter, vague gestalt reasons why they could or might be forgiven, meaning somehow or other.

He, in effect, did not “turn the other cheek” toward them, nor say just ho-hum or ask them politely and timorously to please stop, if at all possible, being so unpleasant or nasty in their evil thoughts or deeds. Such absurd kinds of consideration would never have occurred to any normal preconciliar Church priest, much less the true Vicar of Christ on earth.

Let it, thus, clearly be known that having the Power of the Keys, Pope Peter had, without any hesitation, fully damned them to the Infernal Regions forever, where they, in fact, both belonged.  If there be any doubt, go read the Acts of the Apostles.  It is well known that the Fisherman, therefore, knew his priestly and papal prerogatives and duties, proper rights and obligations.

One can here readily note, furthermore, that he did not attempt to casually overlook matters and then chant an ancient, relativist chorus equivalent to a lovingly slaphappy kumbaya.  Nor did he so vacuously say, as with that contemptible heretic Pope Francis, “Who am I to judge?”  For Peter intimately knew that the proper example, as to righteous cursing, was previously and definitely set by Jesus, meaning in His recorded public ministry.

It is so scripturally known, moreover, that Jesus Himself had, without any real hesitation, actually and publicly cursed, in a surely righteous manner, the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees, and in no uncertain terms. Christ demonstrated, for all times, that the enemies of God are to be openly and actively cursed, not just loved in a Christian manner.  The New Testament, therefore, witnesses to the noted facts involved.

Jesus swore unembellished oaths, curse words, against His quite real and vicious enemies: “Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.”  His intent was not obscure.  His profound ire was so genuinely real.  Thus, no one should ever doubt that such malediction had a divine and important purpose, consonant so fully with the anger and righteousness of the Lord.

The Messiah didn’t hold back at all as to the truly major extent and profound nature of His real anger and deep hate for them. This Prince of Peace, this Son of David is, in addition, recorded in the Gospels as having, at least twice, physically whipped the money changers out of the Jerusalem Temple.   Such a depiction, admittedly, goes not well with any kind of a false portraiture of an effeminate, touchy-feely Jesus who supposedly spoke only syrupy sweet words and many gentle parables.2

But, no, there were/are not two assumed different “Jesuses,” just some typically and profoundly wrong misinterpretations of the nature of the God-Man, the Christ. Nobody would have cried out so loudly, one should take the hint, for brutally crucifying only an ineffectual and timorous fellow.  Therefore, what needs to be here most carefully and pertinently reflected upon, as to a very realistic understanding of true Christianity and genuine Christian love?

Among others, Dietrich von Hildebrand, explicitly, wrote of the genuine need for using, against those who seriously sin, the “charitable anathema.”  More importantly, the Savior was never a believer in any kind of kumbaya sentimentality.

A theologically proper curse is a just and valid reprimand, full admonishment, for openly showing a very adamant disapproval. Let one more quite pertinent example suffice.  Jesus, once, in His many various journeys encountering a fig tree that was totally barren of fruit, had cursed it and the tree then instantly died, which is notably indicative of the strict but real truths being advanced in this present article.  Christ is the way, the truth and the life; the lies of this world are death.

The fig tree was naturally supposed to give off fruit for aiding human life, but its too obvious barrenness made the tree a living lie, so the “sentence” was death; it was not kumbaya forgiveness or “tolerance,” the latter being only a secularist virtue, not ever a Christian one.  The much larger point, however, is that tolerance of gravely serious sin is a moral evil.

Christian loving, which involves merciful reprimands, the real need for sincere penance, and charitable chastisements and anathemas, is, in fact, not all-forgiving, as some forms of pseudo-Christianity seem to so typically imply.

In the Old Testament, one can readily recall that when the Hebrews got very terribly obstreperous, Yahweh had punished them freely and harshly without apparent hesitation; when Saul, later called Paul, blinded by hate, had enthusiastically both tormented and persecuted Christians, Jesus chastised him by, literally, knocking him fully off his high horse, so that he then would, later, come to see the true Light of Christ.  Prior to his later requisite baptism, this was only after a real period of needed physical sightlessness, cured by the disciple Ananias, which had matched his once intolerable spiritual blindness.

Curses are surely insults. Ironically, almost all the very same neo-Catholics who would worry about such insults, which do logically cover deprecations used against people, usually do get somewhat ambivalent or just lackadaisical if the matter, e. g., concerns verbal or other actions constituting abuses directed against God.  The status of the person insulted, especially if disproportionate, ought to be considered.

Thus, those who so grievously offend the Lord do greatly much more evil, due to the Supreme Holiness of the Almighty, than merely being abusive by just placing a theologically and righteously justified curse against some miscreant human sinner. And, this noted matter is, moreover, too often never considered by radical, liberal, or moderate Catholics.

Although the canonical penalty of anathema was, in fact, removed from the Canon Law in 1983, the Council of Trent, as to the quite tremendous weight of Church history, has not been ever held null and void.   And, though anathema is not mentioned in the new Church Catechism, however, this does not at all invalidate or nullify, nor undermine or reverse, the curses of Jesus nor those of St. Peter, among many others.

But, some other nonsense needs to be yet dispensed with here for clarification. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (a convert from Lutheranism, who never really converted), in Evangelical and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, expresses the very bold and odd absurdity, in his chapter, that most people, whether Catholic or Protestant, had then simply historically misunderstood the so-called Reformers, when it came to the doctrine of sola fide, which is, blatantly, utter nonsense.

St. Thomas More, St. Robert Bellarmine, and an educated plethora of others that could be so pertinently named who did, indeed, both correctly understood and theologically comprehended so exactly what Luther, Calvin, etc. said and meant.   It was, in fact, just an ancient heresy putting on a new dress, as a convenient disguise.

Could all the scholars and theologians of the Catholic Reformation, many very highly learned people, such as was St. Bellarmine himself, have, moreover, been that incredibly, amazingly, mentally dense not to accurately know what the Protestants exactly said and heretically contended as supposed truth?   This is not in any way, shape, or form either realistically tenable or theologically credible that the Protestant Revolution was merely, simply, an unfortunate misunderstanding, as was, thus, so idiotically stated by Neuhaus.  It was not mere semantics.

The bold heresy of sola fide had and, of course, still has a rather definite meaning, especially empirically considering, as a surely great and overt example of substantial and substantive proof, that Protestantism yet continues to exist today.  Since the alleged “Reformers” willingly knew what they were exactly doing that, if sincerely unrepented, would send them to the Infernal Regions forever, how can forgiveness of them be expected?

Catholicism is not, in fact, an all-loving, all-forgiving postconciliar religion having limitless love, mercy, kindness, clemency, generosity, charity, and tolerance unending. For instance, theologically speaking, no sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven, thus, e. g., Judas Iscariot dying fully unrepentant because he could not actually forgive himself by the power, of course, of the Holy Spirit, by being so absolutely recalcitrant, hung himself and went straight to Hell.

Equally, this artificial spiritual division set between the preconciliar versus postconciliar Church is a lie, especially whenever theological orthodoxy is properly known to represent solid Catholic truth, for how could it be otherwise?

Those people, furthermore, who die with even a single mortal sin still unrepented should, in fact, know where they are necessarily going to go after their deaths; while the destination is certainly mysterious, however, the above-noted direct causality ought not to be.  There is no universal salvation; it is a heresy. God’s blessed forgiveness is, therefore, not unlimited.

In proper theological context, one then ought to reasonably perceive how truly fair and understandable the practice, with much historical precedence starting, in the New Testament, with Christ Himself, of so doing suitably and morally righteous cursing, actually is.3

However, let it be properly understood that this article is not a supposed call for making imprecations or deprecations the major or central teachings of the Church, or even of Christianity in general; what has been noted and discussed was, thus, mainly done and presented for making sure that Catholics ought not to be ever wrongly embarrassed or, perhaps, ashamed of what is a true part of the rightful historical heritage and culture, the theological legacy and religious practice, of Catholicism.

This is similar, in many ways, to the various controversies that have been made to surround, e. g., the Crusades, the Galileo Case, the Inquisition, and other such important matters.   Typically, many atheists, Freemasons, Protestants, and other non-Catholics vilely distort or excessively overstress what is then rendered, as usually only negative Catholic portraits of these historical events or issues; they are often vulgarly displayed so simplistically or quite crudely to, obviously, smear the Church and very heavily besmirch Catholicism in the intended critical process.


As was just above extensively demonstrated, therefore, one can honestly say that, in fact, imprecatory and deprecatory psalms or prayers are, thus, both totally theologically and religiously acceptable to God.   Such maledictions, severe animadversions, are neither sinful nor evil in any way whatsoever and should be, moreover, a truly genuine part of a religious, i. e., Christian person’s actually lived spiritual life.

An insipid, wishy-washy kumbaya forgiveness is, therefore, just anti-Catholic nonsense, filled with rancid existential and phenomenological sentimentality, beyond any proper reason or right Christian charity.

Whatever is grievously offensive to the Lord, meaning especially extremely so, is to be equally held as undoubtedly evil and execrable, completely appalling and disgusting, to all the believers in Christ.  It is to then be, of course, openly cursed.  This necessarily and rightly includes, e. g., all of sodomy and all of the so-called transgender movement, with any interrelationships or arguments for such evils included and, of course, without any question whatsoever.

It is to be, thus, morally censured in no uncertain terms, including intense moral animadversions, when held to be both spiritually necessary and appropriate; harsh verbal chastisement, when so done with a noted Christian consciousness, is charitable and shows mercy to those who may be then shown the path toward salvation, by avoiding their own damnation.

There should be no surprise, however, if it be well said that some “Great Lion of the Church” needs to valiantly and courageously come forth to so adamantly denounce, vehemently condemn, the massive number of evils that do sadly beset and beleaguer the Church today.   And, additional thoughts are also needed here.

Many prayerful curses, religiously beseeching maledictions, should, thus, be directed forcefully against, for instance, any Muslims who do seek to forever destroy Christianity, especially, of course, by their evil and persistent murdering of any Christians.   It should just then be, moreover, a quite simply normal part of militant Christianity, of the Church Militant on earth, a feature of Catholicism whenever it is so vilely attacked, whenever the people of God are wrongly persecuted for their faith.

Evil, therefore, is to be vigorously cursed, not ignored or rationalized into becoming, somehow or other, immorally acceptable.   And, when considered quite suitably and very morally appropriate to the great offense intended or committed, the real enemies of Christ are then to be cursed.  This was, in fact, the public response that Jesus with His absolute righteousness had, as one can so plainly perceive, toward those notably evil Scribes and Pharisees.


Athanasius contra mundum!




  1. St. Louis Grignion de Montfort, some centuries ago, had righteously cursed some evil people.
  3. See: Mark Giszczak’s Anathemas in the New Testament, which, also, covers the Old Testament’s anathemas; one could also consult The Catechism of the Council of Trent; also, Blessed Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus Errorum and his Quanta cura. The Catholic truth was not, therefore, supposedly changed by the Second Vatican Council, nor really by the Hegelianly-alleged Spirit thereof either.
  4. See, as but a few examples among many: Diane Moczar’s Seven Lies About Catholic History: Infamous Myths about the Church’s Past and How to Answer Them; George Sim Johnston’s.The Galileo Affair; and Thomas F. Madden ‘s A Concise History of the Crusades and co-author of The Fourth Crusade; The Glory of the Crusades by Steve Weidenkopf. See also: Understanding The Inquisition by Christopher Check.

Heretic Pope Francis: Vatican’s Embrace of Lutheran Quincentennial Celebration

Heretic Pope Francis: Vatican’s Embrace of Lutheran Quincentennial Celebration

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni


“And in this masquerade of mirth and


Mistook the bliss of heav’n for

bacchanals above.” – John Dryden, The Hind and the Panther [denunciation of Martin Luther]


Next year, one of the boldest and incredible acts of both personal and institutional insanity and perfidy will surely occur.  It will have morally and spiritually catastrophic consequences of the surely greatest magnitude, though filled with so-called “good intentions,” as is the infamous proverbial road paved to Hell.  It will be a bad cause, though proclaimed for pleasant reasons.   Yet, true infamy is to be involved.

Pope Francis, the Holy Father, and many other so morally deranged Roman Catholic prelates will then, joyously and enthusiastically, co-celebrate the horrid birth of the Protestant Revolution; this will be in the supremely amazing form of recognizing Martin Luther as a great Christian champion of faith and religious devotion, though any sought after Christian unity should never be founded upon any such lies.

Why is this manifestly insane or, at the least, morally and spiritually crazy to any rational intelligence worthy of the name? Why is this not a sincerely valid step toward true Christian brotherhood and, instead, an evil chance to dance with the Devil himself?

Let this event or, rather, series of interrelated events, be put here into a sharp perspective, for needed emphasis to properly give it the right and requisite impact, as to its definitely implicit and rather quite explicit enormousness. It will be done with fallible human reason and disregarding divine cognizance.  What might be, perhaps, thought equivalent as to be a startling enough kind of analogy?

Being Blunt and Honest about Heresy

It would be fairly comparable to the chief rabbis of the world deciding to proclaim that the election of Adolph Hitler, as Germany’s leader in 1932, was to be interpreted as a truly most positive event for the actual advancement of humanity. Nothing less, at a minimum, would be then necessarily meant.

Or, it would be, supposedly, as if an internationally prestigious conference of historians made the public pronouncement that Cesare Borgia was, indeed, the most exemplary, enlightened statesman that the world had ever known, who needed to be, thus, appropriately emulated by all politicians in the world.  The resulting gigantic uproar and expected tremendous commotion, by all decent human beings aware of the obvious evil concerned, made against either the chief rabbis or the historians would be logically and morally expected, as the night follows the day.  There should be no need to further explain why.

With either situation and without any rational question whatsoever, there would be, at the very least, the great suspicion that gross insanity had so malevolently gripped the fetid minds of any who had, in fact, seriously and thoughtfully proposed such quite absolutely aberrant and terribly evil nonsense to the very nth degree imaginable.

It would be the perpetration of satanic nonsense and prevarication beyond all right moral and mental reason, done in a distinctly anti-Christian manner. And, this is just what the Holy Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church is, in fact, going to do next year.  In quite obvious contrast, Pope Leo X, in his Exurge Domine, had, openly and most definitively, called Luther “a true heretic.”1

Francis, the pop-culture celebrated Vicar of Christ on earth, is, therefore, knowingly readying the very fiendish proclamation of a certainly irredeemable and despicable moral and spiritual obscenity, which cries unto high Heaven and low Hell for both outright redress and unqualified condemnation; the ever honored and sacred blood of all the Catholic martyrs denounces, vehemently and unequivocally, such a true evil.   The resulting Protestant Revolt had shockingly and sadly ripped apart Christendom forever and terrifyingly caused centuries of many wars, bloody tumults, and ugly divisions as direct and horrid consequences thereof.

Fortunately, even many Protestants and non-Christians will, in fact, easily recognize the absurdity and gross abnormality, obvious contradiction and blatant stupidity, definitely and inherently involved. On the other hand, any Roman Catholics, whether laity, religious or prelates, who agree to or participate in such matters are manifestly complicit with the evil then obviously involved.

This then directly relates, if unrepented, to the actual damnation of their souls for eternity, not just what might be a mild social or religious reprimand, if ever possibly given. To actively and knowingly embrace great evil is a mortal sin truly worthy of damnation to the Infernal Region eternally.  The real permanent and significant disputes set forever between Lutheranism and Catholicism, to say the least, are not simple or dismissible mere quibbles having no great consequences for tremendous spiritual, meaning eternal, welfare as to the highly important salvation of souls.

It is not a supposed matter of “childish semantics,” as seen centuries later, which are no longer held to be significantly relevant to all religious life and truth today.  Luther, let it be appropriately recalled here for rightly stressing requisite truth and justice, really and firmly hated Catholicism; he had spat upon the Body and Blood of Christ, regardless of any modernist or existentialist tergiversation to the contrary.  How can he, therefore, be properly and enthusiastically admired for that?   Would it not be terribly infamous to do so?

As of this writing, nonetheless, the majority of the Church hierarchy is expected to either go along with or, at a bare minimum, to simply conform to the demonic desires of wicked Pope Francis to, thus, co-celebrate such a noted moral and spiritual horror.  Calls for much new thinking, new attitudes, matured judgments, humane reevaluations, Christian inclusiveness and abundant charity, etc. have and will pour forth with no real moral justice in support.

The Protestant Revolution, as with all such great ideological upheavals done in the evil spirit of modernity, nonetheless, had cost millions of lives as to martyrdoms and mortal persecutions, besides the many tens of millions of souls so necessarily damned to Hell because of  the many serious and permanent errors of Protestantism itself.

This should and, moreover, ought never to be mindlessly or, perhaps, flippantly forgotten.  The so-called Wars of Religion of the 16th and 17th centuries, though not really about religion but conveniently used as a mere pretext, did occur and millions died.  For Christianity is meant to signify a singularity of truth, not an assumed diversity, so that all may finally be one in Christ, one Shepherd, one flock; this notion is, for instance, excellently illustrated in the traditional American political slogan: E pluribus unum (One out of many) and not the opposite, as is, necessarily, so true with the overtly inherent nature of Protestantism.

Although, e g., the descendants of (most of) those butchered by the French Revolution of 1789 would not normally gather for a great celebration of such an event centering around the figure of Maximilien Robespierre, however, Pope Francis, essentially speaking, proposes doing the exact equivalent without any hesitation whatsoever.  What can explain this excessively massive and masochistic self-contempt, self-loathing, self-hate, and self-abasement on, it should be properly added, such an unprecedented scale of surely unholy endeavor?

Nominalism, as in philosophy and theology, rots away the human brain’s ability to think logically and rationally; this is because moral subjectivity eventually replaces all moral objectivity until cognizance itself goes from mere stupidity to the embrace of nihilism that leads, ultimately, to insanity as the final destination for human depravity.

One must know that heterodoxy and Catholicism are, by definition, natural enemies, not friends of any kind, for the alleged “Reformation” had so split apart Christendom forever yielding an endless multiplicity of religions, sects and cults (all heresies) so productive of distinctly centrifugal, anthropocentric enmities and ill feelings, not centripetal, Christocentric Christian unity.

In opposition, Pope Francis, the Bishop of Rome, wishes to foist upon unsuspecting Christian people the ever false “two-truths theory;” one truth for Lutherans and another for Catholics, as if both represent the same truth, as to proper belief in Jesus Christ and His Church, which is one and the same truth, not two.  There is only the orthodoxy, the rightness, of Roman Catholicism qua true belief toward which, logically, all of Christianity is to concentrate in a, thus, necessarily Christocentric manner, not otherwise.

There is no one truth at Rome and another, say, at Athens; there is not one Christ at Catholic churches and another at Lutheran churches. Why is this ever truthfully and fully so?  Orthodox faith knows and proclaims, unendingly, the true unadulterated unity of one faith to be found only in the one true, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church, meaning the one founded by Jesus Christ, not Martin Luther.

The two-truths theory is, therefore, both clearly such theological and religious nonsense, a nominalist-inspired absurdity set from beginning to end, completely unworthy of any serious consideration or honorable respect.  It is, thus, always righteously condemnable and sincerely reprehensible without question, as St. Thomas Aquinas, the Common Doctor of the Church, the Angelic Doctor, and others had properly agreed and taught.2

And, make no mistake whatsoever, the Roman Catholic Church’s future public celebration and positive commemoration of Luther, an excommunicated viper, and Lutheranism is, in fact, an integrally vile depravity, set on a very decidedly gargantuan scale.  It is easily as if the ecclesiastical establishment were to make cannibalism into the 8th sacrament of the Church, almost nothing less would, in truth, be fairly equivalent.

This now future profanation and bastardization, unorthodoxy and illegitimatization, of sound Catholic thinking, which would have been reviled as untenable by the Church Fathers, Doctors, and Scholastics, ought not to be permitted or sanctioned by anyone, only just properly condemned.  Neither Scripture, Tradition, nor the Magisterium, when properly understood, would ever condone such blatant nonsense.

Sacrilege and blasphemy will be then, also, greatly involved as many uninhibited heretical notions and ideas, immorally heterodox opinions and thoughts, are to get favorably overviewed and commented on by the Pope and his followers; this is certainly regarding this so insane travesty, concerning a disgusting and vile mockery of truth and justice to be demonically accomplished in the false names of Christian charity and brotherhood that will promote, as a result, sinfulness. Why so?   What are the errant thoughts to be, if not always spoken openly, then at least projected so suggestively for a most terrible consideration?

All the Catholic martyrs in, say, England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland were, in effect, just morons who so needlessly, uselessly, died because they refused to be better, enlightened Christians, and so had, stubbornly and stupidly, remained orthodox Catholics instead.   They, however, knew that the so-called Reformation was just the glorified foundation of ignominious heresy, and the Reformers were enemies of true faith in Christ as to orthodox qua Catholic beliefs.

But, what are ordinary or typical Catholics now to think because of the Servant of the Servants of Christ’s endorsement and approbation of Lutheranism and, by logical extension, Protestantism in general?

All those who had meaninglessly died for the Holy Faith, starting, e. g., in at least the 16th century and onward for several more, had then needlessly sacrificed their lives, or those others who had endured many vile persecutions for the true faith, were, thus, misled by mere orthodox nonsense and priestly balderdash, just some pre-Conciliar claptrap and baloney.   No doubt Luther is laughing in Hell, as a dedicated heresiarch (basking in the horror of the Second Vatican Council) and having the last laugh on these contemporary degenerate and immoral Catholics, as is Pope Francis himself one of them.

In strident opposition, the venerated blood of the martyrs, most honorably and righteously, cries out loudly and vehemently against this absolutely and unmitigatedly abhorrent injustice, blasphemy, and sacrilege unendingly; this heretical nonsense will be, however, not merely or simply condoned positively but approved of joyously by the so vilely wicked Holy Pontiff.   To this, what can one reasonably say?

In only England alone, starting with St. Thomas More and St. John Bishop Fisher, in 1535, to Edward Turner in 1681, meaning for almost 150 years of persecution, there were thus over 500 “unreasonable” Catholics, i. e., obstinate pre-Vatican II types, who had then paid the ultimate price (or folly) for resisting Protestantism.   Of course, the official Church listing is simply incapable of really including the countless numbers of other English men and women who are now the unknown saints in Heaven, residing there among the blessed eternally.  This is even though they were not “enlightened” Christians of a modernist persuasion, of course.  But, returning again and more to the point concerning Luther.

How can we honor such an evil man, who in his Trish Reden, (Weimer Edition, Volume 2), had there so impiously and blasphemously written: “Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’  Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly.   Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”

Of course, in addition, the many contemptible slanders and despicable aspersions, cast by Protestants, against the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, should not need to be explicitly recounted here.

Luther was a truly perverse, neo-Manichean purveyor of a terribly corrupted Augustinianism, deformed Christology, debased doxology, mangled dogmatics, and weird soteriology that, when all combined, had quite fundamentally befouled and corrupted, polluted and tarnished, Christian theology, religion, and apologetics for all future ages to come.  This is the historical personage, who is to be publicly honored by the Holy Pontiff himself, and who sinfully helped to wreck Christendom, the Kingdom of Christ, due to his willfully inordinate and imperious pride.

For as St. Thomas More rightly noted, in his Apology strongly written against heretics, that, “The Church was gathered and the faith was believed before ever any part of the New Testament was put in writing.  And which writing was or is the true Scripture, neither Luther nor Tyndale knoweth but by the credence that they give to the Church.”   So, what does this then tell any fair and intelligent mind, meaning as to the falsely alleged merits of Luther and his necessarily always corrupt and religiously bankrupt theology?

He was, no doubt, a true and notably contemptible, unrepentant and defiant, heresiarch of the worst kind spewing forth his pseudo-theological filth, lies, wrath, and bile upon often unsuspecting people seeking Christian truth, all in vain; for this was, disgustingly, done at the degenerate and compromised hands of Luther, a bold nominalist in religion and theology, with his evil Augsburg Confession attached.

It can only be rationally considered that, in the second decade of the 21st century, the top leadership of the Roman Catholic Church has, therefore, gone stark raving mad. Sanity alone would prevent the evil acknowledgement of this 16th century German “Reformer” as being ever a supposed champion of true Christianity, instead of an authentic supporter of solid moral darkness disdainful of truth.

Lutheranism is ever the ongoing defense of blasphemy and sacrilege, as part of the heinous Protestant Revolt, against faith and reason, contrary to justice and truth; it was a fundamental feature of the sorry past death knell of Christendom, the once highest, universalized political expression of a broadly based Catholic koinos kosmos posited against the idios kosmos of selfishness, materiality, and covetousness of nominalist modernity and a supposed, allied enlightenment.

Heresy, truly beloved by Satan, is to be always knowingly reprobated unequivocally, not condoned or praised as “enlightened” nor obnoxiously commemorated under the disagreeably specious, fallacious, nonsense of being a supposed sign of Christian brotherhood or fraternity.   For the obviously good sake of correctly defending Catholicism, all such ethical, moral, and spiritual error, consequently conducive of fostering mortal sin must, therefore, be forever rigorously condemned and without any hesitation or question.

What Saints and Scholars Have Said

In the 2nd century, St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Trallians, said, “I exhort you, then, to leave alone the foreign fodder of heresy and keep entirely to Christian food.”   He righteously continued, “For heretics mingle poison with Jesus Christ, as men might administer a deadly drug in sweet wine.”  In the 3rd century, St. Cyprian, in his On the Unity of the Catholic Church, stated, “Who has not the Church for mother can no longer have God for father.”   And, no one should doubt the ever greater meaning of what he, for the obvious sake of proper Catholicism, had directed important attention toward.

In De Fide et Symbolo, St. Augustine has there written, “Hence neither do heretics belong to the Catholic Church, for it loves God …”   Those who truly adore the Lord will loyally, with fidelity, stay with Mater Ecclesia and not seek separate or competing churches, as with, of course, centuries later, Lutheranism.

He interestingly continues as a good way of yielding spiritual enlightenment, in his Contra Cresconium, that, “ … whereas heresy is a schism grown old.” The holy Pope St. Gelasius I, writing in the 5th century, admonishingly said, “The toleration of heretics is more injurious than the devastation of the provinces by the barbarians.”  Two centuries later, St. Isidore, in his Etymologies, well noted that, “We have the apostles of God as authorities …” but the heretics, by definition, do not as to their permanent lack of the whole fullness of truth, of Catholic truth.

St. Thomas Aquinas, writing in the magisterial Summa Theologica, noted correctly, and with authority, when he had there stated, “Heresy is of its very nature opposed to faith …”  This is to be noted as a most critical understanding, within substantive theology as it correctly informs religion, that, in turn, then illuminates significantly the horrendously great errors of Luther and his Lutheranism.  There is to be truly Catholic (read: universal) faith in God, not heterodox beliefs in the many and various peculiarities of heretical Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, etc.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, also, authoritatively states of what a heretic uncharitably does, “in defiance of the authority of the Church he maintains impious opinions with unyielding pertinacity.”  This supremely and immoral unyielding pertinacity is, in fact, the very definition of the prideful and arrogant Luther, for he knew that even the Devil is good at quoting Scripture.  Among the greatest poets of England, John Dryden, putting it poetically in The Hind and the Panther, a Catholic apologetic work, both mockingly and knowingly wrote: “Have not all heretics the same pretense, to plead the Scriptures in their own defense?”

In his notable Oxford University Sermons, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman intelligently wrote of the permanently distorted and contemptible thinking and writing of heretics: “Deduct its remnants of Catholic theology, and what remains?  Polemics, explanations, protests.”   Whether considering any of Lutheranism or whatever heresy, drain it of its remaining substantive Catholic substance and nothing of important value can there spiritually or religiously endure as to the theological solidity of universal truth.

Thus, as with a certainly fraudulent “hope” of the ever optimistic and relativistic ecumenists, supposedly “uniting” Lutheranism to Catholicism actually adds nothing, which obvious fact they are just too blind to see.  For instance, the Scholastics, of course, would also have taught this same manifest lesson of plain fact, though Scholasticism, sadly, has been basically lost to the vast majority of contemporary Catholics.

Moreover, many saints and scholars, as members of the same Church of Rome, the Church of St. Peter as the Vicar of Christ, have fundamentally said the same things for many centuries, as is so easily noted in this present article. Therefore, one must conclude that Pope Francis, no real theologian he, is just both categorically and absolutely wrong; based firmly upon Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, meaning always that, thus, the most indicatively true and magnificent sensus fidei Catholicus is, quite manifestly and without any question, eternally right.  Heresy, in short, is then forever wrong.

Back in the 20th century, Hilaire Belloc, in The Great Heresies, noted that, “It is of the essence of heresy that it leaves standing a great part of the structure it attacks.”   Thus, the seductive appeal of supposedly finding a common ground with heretics, as with the errant Lutherans, becomes impossible because, in fact, they do lack the requisite commonality of Catholic truth and, therefore, are not grounded in the love of faithful orthodoxy, of true Christocentric fidelity and devotion.

This, in turn, relates to the correct love of God, since Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church made forever Roman by it, in fact, being the true See of St. Peter, the first Vicar of the Good Shepard. The Lord’s people are actually all just meant to be Catholics, not followers of Lutheranism, Calvinism, Mormonism, Methodism, Unitarianism, Pentecostalism, Adventism, Restorationism, Nontrinitarianism, Southcottism, Universalism, Swedenborgianism, etc. and etc.   None of them, therefore, are really united spiritually, religiously, and theologically with Christ and His Church, as ought to be rather obvious.

But, merely citing saints and other against heresy is not entirely enough.  The Pope and his subtle and loyal minions are going to be as elusive as clever foxes who will, whenever needed, shift the ground, yes, even that common ground with Lutheran Christians, in sly terms of the dialectical usage of semantical language.  The Hegelian Dialectic is to come into play.

Look for the supposedly so clever thesis, antithesis, and synthesis approach toward an evolving or plastic conception of “truth” both existentially and phenomenologically considered.  Few will notice the “shell game” to be conducted, unfortunately, because of not being that highly educated sufficient to deal with the complexities of the most elaborate, fancy, semantical legerdemain to be so willfully conducted.3


But, now, the Church, 500 years later, is supposed to be reduced to this contemptible condition of mindlessly praising a filthy-mouthed, filthy-minded, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic bigot; he was the one who most virulently, in mainly unspeakably coarse language so unworthy of any repetition, both notoriously and repeatedly, infamously and vengefully, called the Holy Roman Catholic Church the “Whore of Babylon” and the Pope “the Antichrist.”

How can any solemnly valid and real “common Christian ground” be genuinely found with the memory of such a surely brutishly degenerate scoundrel who had openly despised Catholicism, apostolicity, most sacraments, transubstantiation, the Sacred Mass, and, moreover, Holy Mother Church?  What excessive force of evil has both unfortunately and sadly come upon the Catholic ecclesiastical establishment and, in particular, the Vicar of Christ?

Breaking Luther’s own sacred vows and those of an ex-nun, they then fornicated together (since not validly married in the eyes of the Church), in their foul family nest, meaning in repulsive and deliberate defiance of holy orders. Cannot even a blind man by now, therefore, see what is terribly wrong and, moreover, unutterably perverse, unimaginatively disgusting, in ever honoring greatly (or at all!) such a vilely fiendish and surely contemptible degenerate swine?  What could the Holy Father be thinking?

Given such a historical background, Catholics are now, however, to be senselessly urged to reconsider and reappraise this contemptuous monster who, by his evil and pernicious heresies, helped definitely lead hundreds of millions of souls to Hell, over the centuries, for all of eternity

Instead, let all good Catholics and morally decent people everywhere strongly denounce the Pope and those of the hierarchy or priesthood who will immorally follow him, in this example, which must, thus, inevitably lead yet many more millions of souls to the Infernal Regions without question.   Some “Great Lion of the Church” must urgently arise and strongly come forth, therefore, to boldly challenge this evil forthrightly with true courage and conviction to defend and exalt both Holy Mother Church and the Holy Faith against such a horrible and malicious scourge.

The duplicitously heretic Pope must, thus, be both so righteously and courageously denounced, most effectively and adamantly, to the entire world resoundingly, as a genuinely blessed clarion call for all Catholic truth and justice, now and forever.   Mater dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.


Athanasius contra mundum!




1.    There have and will be substantial abuses and acts of wrongdoing in the Church, meaning as to the people, sinners all, who struggle in this fallen world; the abuses and problems existed, on and off, for many centuries long before Luther decided to become a heretic. Genuine reformers, over the different eras of the Church, had stayed within the ecclesial establishment and hashed out the messes bravely and valiantly; prideful Luther, however, thought he had a better idea: Replace the corrupt organization with a supposedly reformed church, meaning to his liking.  That was not at all needed.   And, more than that, Lutheranism, moreover, was not really needed either.

The Catholic Counter-Reformation or Catholic Reformation certainly answered him with the significant Council of Trent that encouraged many disciplinary measures, righted some real wrongs, and, moreover, created a quite considerable catechism that is still of rather highly substantial use today, if it were only followed as it ought to be, of course. The Protestant Revolution, which was, indeed, a true revolution, created no universal panacea as was supposedly expected by the so-called Reformers and, moreover, ended up exacerbating greatly many theological and religious problems; this was by making, through an evolving and fracturing Protestantism, each man as, in effect, his own pope!  The obviously nominalist spirit of Sola Scriptura allows, e. g., tens of millions of people to freely interpret or, as they may also so wish, simply or broadly reinterpret Holy Writ, as much as they may dang well please.

Protestantism, by its inherently fracturing nature, has created a multiplicity of church establishments each claiming its divine authority unlimited that, however, still humanly allows for a large diversity of potentially corrupt churches having their very own abuses. Foolish Luther, cutting himself off forever from the accumulated and vast wisdom of Holy Mother Church, absurdly sought to slay the proverbial hydra, but each head cut off the hydra produces yet many more to further try cutting off in perpetuity.

The pridefully claimed effort to somehow halt, enormously mitigate, or, perhaps, destroy many abuses in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has, instead, multiplied them unendingly. He became a victim of Murphy’s Law on a truly grand scale, as with, e. g., the Peasants Revolt that he had so explicitly told the princes to suppress as violently, meaning as ruthlessly, as possible.  Of course, it will be claimed, as to this entire above described mess and tragedy, that he, at least, had very good intentions.

And, no doubt whatsoever, progressive Pope Francis and his many sycophantic cohorts will also publicly allege and proudly proclaim that they too have, in fact, the very best of intentions, as do all Liberals and Leftists, of course!   It is no real wonder of any kind, therefore, that a monumental disaster of absolutely huge proportions can here, most easily, be confidently predicted and without fear of any contradiction.


2.   The two-truths theory, ancient provoker of and convenient rationalizer for numerous heresies, has, indeed, quite a history connected to it. For instance, the Fifth Lateran Council, in 1513, condemned as heretical the theory of the two truths. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, thoroughly vetoed Neoplatonism and, more to the point, asserted that there can be no conflict in truth between reason and faith.

However, there is also something intimately related to this matter that concerned the Angelic Doctor’s studies when he encountered Averroism and its troublesome thinking, which also went well, basically, with the cited Neoplatonism that was, by him, so philosophically and theologically precluded.

The Church, therefore, completely rejected Averroism; this concerns a school of medieval philosophy that was based on the translated usage of the works of the 12th-century Andalusian Islamic philosopher Ibn Rushd called, in the West, Averroes; he was then so regarded as an important Muslim commentator on Aristotle, meaning, specifically, with the 13th-century development of Scholasticism.

3.  The dialectic covers, as was noted, the asserted thesis, antithesis, and (assumed or stated) synthesis approach toward the nominalist resolution of what is to be attained or posited as to a position thought of as a noetical instructive progression of advanced cognition, both theoretical and empirical in context and content.

An example can here be given. The preconciliar Church is the thesis, the postconciliar Church is then the antithesis, and going from the mere “Letter of Vatican II” to the ever greater “Spirit of Vatican II” creates the desired synthesis, in the minds of the modernists or postmodernist, within and without the Church.  Prominent heretics, such as Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, Leonardo Boff, Karl Rahner, etc., have actively sought, moreover, to push forward the unfortunate Spirit of Vatican II (VC II) as is, in fact, their fellow traveler Francis.

Therefore, the documents of VC II were so “skillfully” composed such that both orthodox and heterodox interpretations have, in fact, been made of them, the latter position, of course, with the obvious intent of spreading the often exalted, by Liberals and Leftists, Spirit of VC II.

Perhaps, someday, in the very far distant future, the much needed heuristic concept of metatheoretical theoretics can be yet creatively combined intelligently with the proper and classical understanding of Scholasticism; this would be to so better substantively refute and confound the many accumulated errors and heresies wrongly spawned by these terrible philosophical and theological thrusts of modernity and, furthermore, postmodernity attacking the Church.

Until then, the Catholic community must, sadly, bear it and suffer it for the greater Glory of God.

[ Of course, it should go without saying that all Catholics and even non-Catholics are supposed to pray for the soul of the Pope; Catholics themselves are morally and spiritually obliged to do so.  This is in the hope that he may advance in all priestly virtues and all holiness toward his salvation, and no matter how (very?) unlikely it may or may not be.   Prayers for the souls of deceased popes such as, e. g., the greatly notorious and degenerate Borgia pope, Alexander VI, and for the vainglorious Pope Julius II may also be said.

Admittedly, the author of this article, having no social or ecclesiastical standing as to any status, is just disproportionate to the task of daring to criticize the Pope; it is as if a very tiny flea were to, thus, admonish a gigantic elephant (before being stepped on). ]


Select Bibliography

Catechism of Trent – Compiled by St. Charles Borromeo.

Msg. Patrick F. O’ Hare, The Facts about Luther.

Pope Leo X, Exurge Domine

St. Thomas More, Apology

______________ , Response to Luther, in The Essential Works of Thomas More.

Thomas P. Neill, Makers of the Modern Mind

Robert Sungenis, Not By Scripture Alone.

Peter F. Wiener, Martin Luther: Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor.


References [These following are but a very “few” citations; there were simply too many to list.]

Martin Luther: ‘A True Heretic’

Exposing Martin Luther’s Love Affair With Islam

Learn The Truth: Martin Luther Did Not Love The Bible, He Hated The Bible

The truth about Martin Luther

How St Francis differed from Martin Luther or Catholic Reform vs. Protestant Reform—From-anti-Judaism-to-anti-Semitism/Foundations-of-the-Holocaust-Martin-Luther-Theologian-of-Hate-365321

500 Years of Protestantism: The 38 Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote

Pope Francis as Progenitor of the Second Protestant Revolution

Pope Francis as Progenitor of the Second Protestant Revolution:

Roman Catholic Eschatological and Soteriological Disquisition and the Confederate States of America

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni


Christianity is essentially an historic and prophetic faith.” – Desmond Birch


Why is the Holy Pontiff so dedicated to seeking the radicalization, the Protestantization, of Catholicism? The Holy Father’s obviously tremendous devotion to Liberation Theology, besides his existentialist and phenomenological orientations in thought, logically so compels him firmly forward toward theological revolution extremely far beyond mere liturgical changes.

He is a true and determined revolutionist, not a supposed mild reformer. Much of Catholic tradition and the Faith of the Church is being reviled as reactionary garbage unworthy of modern people.

However, just saying this is not enough, for tens of millions upon millions of the faithful are enamored of this man in a very disturbing cultic manner that does, therefore, a certainly distinct disservice to his greatly preeminent sacerdotal office.

A “shocking” means of creative illustration and much pointed discussion must then be critically applied for better waking people up out of a dangerous slumber, as with the old allegory of a frog being slowly boiled to death without sensing it. It is no wonder, one suspects, that the popular press and mass media adores him so much.   These matters are made quite urgent because of the future quincentennial of the Lutheran Revolt in 2017.

Pope Francis and His Transformationist Thaumaturgy

This article is dedicated lovingly to the memory of G. K. Chesterton in that he, with his so odd way of knowing truth, inclusive of Catholic truth, would easily see the ironic “connection” involved in the subtitle of this expository piece. Ironically, over 150 years later no less, this nation is still being hotly engaged in fighting against (at least the entire memory of) the, in a sense, Southern Confederacy, inclusive of many long-forgotten hoary battlefields.

Can American Catholicism, however, be really entangled in all this?   If one were, e. g., to use the Bing browser to search for “Southern Confederacy and Roman Catholic Church,” no less than 4,550,000 results would pop up for referencing.  It may be a revelation to most people on the interconnectedness and interrelationships never easily suspected.  For instance, no less a major personage than Gen. James Longstreet, so favorably called by Gen. Robert E. Lee his “Old Warhorse,” was a Catholic convert.

Fr. Abram Joseph Ryan was an American poet and a rather active advocate of the Confederate States of America. He has been notably called the “Poet-Priest of the South” and, somewhat less often, the “Poet Laureate of the Confederacy.” Among many others, the famous Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard and Admiral Raphael Semmes were cradle Catholics; in fact, twenty generals of the Southern cause were Catholics, which was highly unusual for a truly Papist-hating America with both elites and the populace generally sharing such an opinion.

Joel Chandler Harris, author of the Uncle Remus stories, was a convert. Though it is anti-Catholic fiction, some people now link Lincoln’s assassination to a bunch of Jesuits; since some Catholics, such as Mrs. Mary Jenkins Surratt and her son, John Surratt Jr., were, in fact, among those either hung or convicted in absentia by the Union.  Interestingly, Dr. Samuel Mudd, it can so be curiously noted, was also a Catholic. More currently, what bizarre and definitely disconcerting stuff has been, rather unfortunately, going on in this sad country, in this now lost America?

Graves of long-dead Confederate heroes are macabrely ordered removed (false resurrections?), Old Dixie flags on tombstones also, old public monuments are to all go as well; there is to be an absolute, ongoing eradication, obliteration, from the national memory of anything Southern, including the names of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and others, that stinks of the South and of the War of the Rebellion, as it was once first, in fact, officially known.

Much of American tradition and the “faith” of Dixie is being reviled as reactionary garbage unworthy of modern people (rather notably similar to the Pope’s attack upon orthodox Catholicism, for the many interesting solid parallels should, crescively, become obvious).

Unending and unappeasable hatred is, therefore, now to be evilly revived ever endlessly and made more livid perpetually, as is ideologically and politically thought so very necessary, of course. Much obnoxious demonism, consequently, is joyously and freely let loose in the land, since anti-Catholicism, a long and still persistent feature of American history, and anti-Confederate thinking go very well together; this is even regardless, incidentally, of the KKK’s viciously anti-Catholic position.

But, what’s the actual connection, if any, with the subjects of eschatology and soteriology, besides the rather macabre and phony Confederate “resurrections” so noted? Both of the theologically significant subjects of eschatology and soteriology, of course, tend to be quite normally considered rather too esoteric or too abstract for just most common talk.  This is surely, in truth, a widely false, yet, certainly pedestrian opinion as to the importance involved or, at the least, what should be involved.

Common church catechisms, e. g., rarely get into these normally rather intense topics or, slightly, if at all.   But, cognition all these lines as to some requisite cognizance is needed more than ever for the 21st century with its mass apostasy, neopaganism, reprimitivization, and rebarbarization running rampant.

The revived domestic war against the Confederacy will be here heuristically used, however, as a surely fascinating means of cleverly elucidating the critical theological and religious points that really need to be made; this is to, thus, help make eschatology and soteriology much more readily available and immediate, for more improved thought and reflection, for contemporary minds drowning in a too regnant secularization.

To remind a secular society and culture, eschatology, in both Catholic hermeneutics and exegesis, is the particular major branch of Christian systematic theology rightly concerned with death, judgment, and the absolute final destination of the soul and of mankind as a whole: Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell, the four last things, for all people. Hades is the overall place of purgation, Gehenna is the eternal Infernal Regions itself. Purgatory, then, being only intermediate regarding the final matters, after the individual and general judgments are to be done.  Eternity, thus, is to become the absolute certainty of all this, whether either Paradise eternally or, of course, just going to Hell (read: Gehenna) forever.

Eschatology, also, covers the study of the teachings in the Bible concerning the last times and of the era or period of time regarding the return of Christ, meaning the Second Coming, also denominated as the Parousia, and the events that are said to then necessarily follow, meaning the new Heaven and the new Earth.

Related reading would certainly include such truly major theological works, on the noted subject, as Desmond A. Birch’s Trial, Tribulation & Triumph; he covers such matters as the tropological exegesis of the Bible, meaning theological interpretations of, relating to, or concerning biblical elucidations as to figurative speech or emphasis upon moral metaphor usage versus the heretical nonsense of Protestant fundamentalism and such preachers thereof.  And, the absurdities of many Catholic “higher criticism” pundits.

Soteriology is the study or doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ and a major subdivision of theology concerning the nature and means of salvation. It is one thing, however, to emphasize that eschatology is prior to soteriology in basic logical terms; it is yet another, nonetheless, to proclaim its precedence in terms of actual importance, which would not, by definition, be theologically or doctrinally true.

The currently, upcoming moral and theological disaster, next year, when the so heretical Pope Francis, who is the Primate of Italy, insanely co-celebrates the Protestant birth of Lutheranism makes important (orthodox) knowledge of Catholic soteriology so very pertinent and necessary; this is for then affirming strongly Catholic life and belief, theology and culture, against the truly wicked Holy Father’s next ardent and evil embrace of so much blatant heresy and, thus, its necessary promotion of sinfulness; for any such heinous celebration of such heresy is surely, by definition, evil.

Lutheranism and Protestantism in general ought to be totally rejected, not ever praised as being equally valid as to an approach toward genuine Christianity, meaning desired and affirmed theological and religious orthodoxy. The precious blood of Catholic martyrs, as with St. Thomas More, calls out this truth to be noticed, for the current Holy Pontiff will become a champion of schism truly needing to be opposed.  This Servant of the Servants of Christ, by wanting to consider the notion of women as being deacons, is slyly pushing the intended agenda for, in future, having female priestesses.  None should doubt his quite cunning perfidy and artfulness.

Consequently, it is so manifestly obvious that the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome, and his supportive theologians will just snidely use this horrible occasion to launch an astounding attack against and upon Catholic soteriology that will, in its turn, surely affect and, one logically suspects, have definitely harsh reverberations upon and athwart the Church’s proper eschatology.

The loyal defenders of Catholicism against Protestantism will be supplied, by this article, some useful ammunition, in the future theological battle that will most certainly occur, easily because of the Pope’s rather usual and blatant perfidy, his knowing casual duplicity of both words and actions taken. A false intellectualism will, thus, aid heresy, along with a misdirected, ill-begotten piety and an allied feigned piousness to be artfully used for better concealing the demonic reality of heterodoxy.

Catholics need to be warned about the subtlety of the vile changes that will be made against traditional soteriology, both directly and indirectly, in congruence with the revolutionary Second Vatican Council, meaning the demonic “Spirit of VC II.” This warning is given because the corruption of the main body of the Church hierarchy will, thus, facilitate the corruption of sound dogmas and doctrines.

This is to be done by their permitting practices that will, in their turn, necessarily reflect back upon and distort the traditional and morally sound teachings of the Church. One must come to quite intelligently perceive that Pope Francis, therefore, seeks to deliberately corrupt the Magisterium.  But, what should ever be thought and taught against this rather intentional subversion qua institutional sabotage?

Let not these important perspicacious principles of the Church Militant be ever forgotten: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi.  For as ever conversely, Malum Lex Credendi, Malum Lex Vivendi = Malum Lex Provendi.   There should be no rational or moral doubt of this so foundational truth, since it has been obviously and widely observed as being quite plainly operative in, at least, the last fifty years in such a negative sense.

Millions of souls may, in fact, thus end up going to Hell because of what the Divine Pontiff is to do by openly and enthusiastically praising the viciously anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic bigot, Martin Luther, as a (supposed) champion and paladin of Christianity. He became an idolater of Holy Scripture who always peremptorily, dictatorially, made Protestant worship greater than God.  Rather, what is needed now is for a great “Lion of the Church” to stand up and publicly and courageously denounce Pope Francis so vigorously and, therefore, expose him as the vile heretic he most certainly is.  For promoting the Church Militant ad Jesum per Mariam, the ever important and unyielding defense of the Holy Faith is now vitally needed, not a great concern for possibly offending papal cultists or personalities.

A heterodox dagger will, in effect, be plunged into the very heart of Holy Mother Church, without many people really noticing, because of a great lack of needed catechesis, generation after generation, among the faithful. In the militant spirit of the great St. Athanasius, what needs here to be explicitly stated and stressed, therefore, for truly a profound theological consideration?  Why is there the real need in true humility and thoughtful prayer to seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost, not simply one’s intellect alone?

Sacred (read: Apostolic) Tradition, a true part of Catholic Revelation, is not to be denigrated as being supposedly subject to relativism, as with that Modernism rightly condemned by Pope St. Pius X; sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition are equally part of Revelation added to and interpreted by the Church’s Magisterium; all three do confirm each other, none denies any of the others; one can note that just as the Catholic eschaton, contemptuous of efforts to mythologize faith, is radically different from the false Protestant conception, the linear historicity of Christianity is opposed to any paganism, with its cyclical viewpoint of just endless cosmological myth. All of Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium then direct attention toward salvation, not nirvana or any modern equivalents.

Any vile attempt, by the wayward Servant of the Servants of Christ or his supporters, to attack Tradition as subordinate to Scripture or the set force of the Magisterium is, by definition, heretical and should be then unequivocally rejected as such; furthermore, if in case such argumentation be used, any “higher criticism” conforms wrongly to perfidious Modernism (and, e. g., the Hegelian Karl Rahner’s heretical thinking), not true Catholicism nor, for that pointed matter, genuine orthodoxy; this is, thus, as to the aforementioned warning rendered for needed defense of the sensus fidei; and, those, for instance, who heretically question the consciousness of Christ do not usually hesitate to disparage Marian devotion.

And, within this present article, one sees manifestly that this is why clearly solid cognizance of Catholic soteriology and eschatology are, indeed, so rather urgently important; this is now for an appreciation of genuine Catholicism, but some fine points require giving, below, a specific consideration in set context, much more requisite than any various thoughts of Catholic links to (fading) national memories of the still nonexistent Confederacy.

The proper consideration of eschatology is, therefore, before an appropriate soteriology, and this needs to be requisitely understood and epistemologically comprehended as such. All rigorous eschatological asseverations position correct soteriological statements into their accurate place within a theocentric extrapolation as to a true Christology, the study of Jesus Christ and His teachings.

This is for properly attaining a verifiably true Christocentric attitude toward Catholicism as to it being the only right Faith, by definition, suitable for all Christians who do or would profess genuine belief in Christ, not Protestantism. Such a concern here covers vast ranges of speculation and discussion, conjecture and dialogue, as to the End Times, of course.

Putting the Last Things First

To push aside unneeded debris, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the Protestant heresy of the so-called Rapture, a psycho-cosmic, End Times jamboree that magically drags up souls or people to a presumed paradise of some kind, usually suggested or said to be Heaven. The End Times are truly nowhere near at all because, among other things as definite signs, there has been no mass conversion of the Jewish people, as is, thus, so correctly noted in Birch’s aforementioned and theologically orthodox volume entitled: Trial, Tribulation & Triumph.  Equally, as to various matters pertaining to just private revelations, moreover, they have not yet been made formally a part of Church doxology or dogmatics.

Serious Christians, especially all Roman Catholics, will need to avoid the posited tremendous varieties of weirdness being widely preached with ardent certainty, as to many supposedly definite eschatological and soteriological approaches, concerning theological or religious speculation, over a truly wide field. The effort here, in this article, is to clearly enunciate and extrapolate the specified parameters of what only should be legitimately considered, not wildly hazarded about, as to many propositions of vagrant pronouncements by diverse insinuations or precipitous allusions, generation after generation.

One ought to know, in general, that the Roman Catholic Church says comparatively little about many speculative future events that are to occur just prior to Christ’s Second Coming. Many of the Church’s teachings are, moreover, denunciations or refutations, whether either implicit or explicit in nature, and not really positive assertions of the encompassing of all particular beliefs.  If there is doubt, it is best to be dogmatic in attitude, not lazily speculative.

Furthermore, true theological orthodoxy does not actually go well with any religiously-inspired sorts of clairvoyance or subjective speculation, which point is decisively opposed to any Christian Evangelicalism, to any allegedly “Reformed” religion and its, thus, necessarily heterodox vices. Catholic mysticism, in the manner, e. g., of St. Theresa of Ávila, does not mix with heterodoxy and, moreover, never should, which illustrates why the so-called Catholic Charismatic Movement needs to be regarded only as a total sham mimicking, sad aping, of diverse Protestant fanaticisms and delusions; one could relatedly consult Fr. Ronald Knox’s still useful book titled: Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of Religion.

Church teachings, as examples, cover such notable matters as the obvious dispensational contradiction between the Church and Israel, in that the former logically holds to the proper doctrine of theological supersessionism; he religious leadership of ancient Israel had broken the Covenant with Yahweh and He confirmed it by ripping the veil of the Temple at Jerusalem. Christians live by the dispensation of the New Testament.  In any event, the upholding of true Christianity means denouncing the various illogical and sundry, heretical and strange, Protestant “secret” Raptures, and the (supposedly) coming terrene chiliastic or millennialist kingdom, usually or so basically denominated as being Christ’s assumed reign of (just exactly) one thousand years.

Though why exactly 1,000 years, and not ever a few years more or less, goes to the nature of biblical interpretations (or, rather, misinterpretations) quite at home with different Protestant sects, each so claiming absolute scriptural authority, of course. In addition, how they seemingly know, so thoroughly, the exact mind of the Lord God Almighty has not really been ever satisfactorily elucidated as such.

Faith alone, based Sola Scriptura, is then apparently all that one, in this regard, needs, or apparently so.  Thus, the ardent assertion and profound belief in the coming Rapture lends it always both inherent credence and fundamental truth simultaneously and without any serious question.

Meanwhile, the secularization of the modern age surely presents its very own fanaticism in contrast; for instance, the raw demonic desire of the world’s republican regimes to fanatically separate Church and State has, thus, simultaneously meant separating all of God from government; but, this does not excuse Christian extremism, “Rapturism,” or thoughts on any other supposed legitimate topics.

The Church of Rome, however, adheres wisely to some quite definite and limited teachings that are yet manifestly clear and theologically concise. No doubt, for instance, is placed upon the obviously claimed fact of a future Second Coming; there will, moreover, definitely be a particular time of needed trial that the Church must necessarily bear, an Antichrist at that time will arise, the conversion will occur of Israel to Christ, a surely conclusive judgment of all people on earth will then happen, and the absolute entirety of the self-actualization, the realization, of the Kingdom of Christ that has, in fact, already begun in the Church.

Within those particular cited limitations, Catholic speculation may traverse quite easily, by consulting the Bible according to the Church’s teachings, and pursue a good quest for theological knowledge to obtain an improved understand of the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures.  Therefore, the many various particularities and assorted peculiarities of what might be called “Rapturism” need never apply for any Roman Catholics, fortunately.  While Catholicism is an exoteric, not esoteric, faith, though with many mysteries involved, it has never been a Gnostic “mystery religion” shielding all but the chosen few as to theological knowledge and religious truth.

This is not, however, to deny that the charism of prophecy, a gratuitous gift of grace, inclusive of any Church-sanctioned private revelations, is still real for Catholics, only ever that heterodoxy is, of course, always to be held as being in error; and, moreover, one can find confirmation of this fact in the Acts of the Apostles and the pronouncements of the First Vatican Council, as to such upheld charism of faith.

A prudent degree of credulity is recommended toward private revelations. Prophecy, in truth, did not simply end with the early Church, but this particular truth should never be erroneously confused with any kinds of charismatic movements’ distortions and confusions.

While, in proper mystical theology, post-Apostolic prophecies are still possible, all public Revelation ended with the death of St. John the Evangelist, the Apostle so beloved by Jesus; and, one ought to know that this is, in fact, orthodox teaching. However, there is to be no absolute incredulity placed ever against any ecclesiastically-authorized private revelations, visions, or apparitions, as is properly affirmed by the teachings of mystical theology.

Keeping all the above correctly in mind, meaning especially as to the final things that Christians really ought to logically consider for their desired salvation, it is a truly firm and quite definite part of Christian teachings that there can be no salvation without forgiveness. One’s enemies are to be forgiven if there is the hope that God will, in turn, forgive one’s own transgressions, both the sins of commission and omission inclusive.  But, the Confederacy, as was mentioned earlier, is apparently never to be forgiven, while this nation, one supposes, seeks, e. g., forgiveness for, at least, a temporal kind of an often ersatz assumed “salvation” of a strange kind, by being so PC in one’s attitudes.

However, intensely enormous hatred of the Confederate States, even after 150 years later, seems as forever perpetual as is, in fact, Hell itself. If Christians wish to achieve salvation, this illustrates why the last things, as to eschatology, ought to be among the properly first matters thought of for salvation; and, consequently, the soteriological ways and means of achieving a truly wanted redemption or deliverance should be knowingly incorporated into any theological viewing of eschatological facts to be confronted.

Looking backwards or seeking means of sustaining or reviving hatred, as with the noted illustration of the evil obsession with the Confederacy, does more than just suggest how people can come to love sin and related vices. But, in reiteration, where there is no forgiveness, there is no salvation, for, ultimately, the only assurance, valid certainty, for the hope of any redemption is Jesus the Christ, the true Messiah, and confirmed by the dogma of the Hypostatic Union.

One can, right usefully, recall to mind Chesterton’s interesting observation that a “gentleman” can keep “ten thousand or more commandments, but never just ten.” So, the evasion of sin and damnation is difficult to avoid whenever sin and, e. g., hatred dominates the human heart.  Only if someone’s heart is filled with charity, meaning exemplary of the finest and highest meaning and demonstration of true Christianity, the full spirit of the Gospels acted out in a human life, can there be, then, any real hope for salvation, not otherwise.

All hatred would have to cease, including any animosity insanely directed toward the Confederate States of America, for such hatred, it will be made clear, reflects necessarily upon the Catholic Church as well. Such a solid and rather heavy connection between Catholicism and the Confederacy is not so farfetched, as would usually be so believed; some little known history may help to better elucidate the important following point to be made.

The St. Andrew’s Cross was adopted by the Catholic Kings of Scotland as the Scottish flag and banner, and it was later adopted by the Confederate States of America (CSA) for its battle flag.

Blessed Pope Pius IX had most certainly de facto, though not strictly de jure, recognized fully the CSA by both receiving and exchanging official letters with the CSA President, Jefferson Davis (1808 – 1889).  He, thus, formally addressed him as the “ILLUSTRIOUS AND HONORABLE PRESIDENT” and not otherwise.  The Vatican was the only nation, in the world, to have extended such recognition to the Confederacy.

Though the only Protestant student there, he had as a young lad attended the Dominican Priory’s Saint Thomas School in Washington County, Kentucky. In the 1840s and 1850s, Davis, who had as a child expressed a sincere interest in converting to Catholicism, denounced the viciously anti-Catholic Know Nothing Movement, largely directed against Irish immigrants; and, the Church so certainly remembered that great kindness; by truly opposing such rancid populism (as is all such populism in truth), it was done at some political cost to Davis.

Moreover, a portrait of His Holiness, clearly inscribed with a religious motto written personally by Pope Pius IX, was, in fact, sent to Davis during his quite unfair imprisonment by the Federal government, at Fort Monroe, Virginia.1   The Vatican had certain pro-Confederate sympathies for many justifiable and legitimate reasons.  The USA supported the efforts of the viciously Freemason, anticlerical Juarista forces in Mexico who wanted, therefore, a secularist republic thoroughly hostile to the Church.

Lincoln, a man known for not being an enthusiastic church-going Christian, had been, in fact, using major diplomatic pressure, moreover, against France to so totally remove the French occupational forces of the Emperor Maximillian from Mexico to help serve the anti-Catholic forces in that Hispanic nation.

The Union’s sentiments were, therefore, considered to be quite distinctly anti-Catholic and, more so, pro-Freemason. Very little of this intrigue, of course, ever gets explicitly and honestly recorded, on average, in most American history books, except for the usual mention of the Monroe Doctrine.

The claim that the Pope had additionally sent Davis a symbolic crown of thorns is, however, not really true; an 1899 descriptive document covering donations to a museum, sent by Mrs. Varina Davis (1806 – 1926), included the aforementioned crown that was actually woven by her, not His Holiness, as is often erroneously written. But, it is still interesting to note that Catholic prelates had also been among those officiating at that Jefferson Davis funeral.

The presented indisputable linkage between the CSA and Catholicism in this country really exists, as has been above demonstrated. But, there are still critical issues necessarily attendant to contemporary and harsh realities, as to the deliberate reopening of old wounds that get salt harshly rubbed in, for adding to the wanted pain directed against enemies, no matter how long dead.

It might yet be sincerely asked what does all the above have to do with present-day America. Obviously, any nation, after 150 years of “fighting” the War Between the States needs to urgently get in touch with the appropriate understanding of Christian soteriology, the doctrine of the means of salvation through Jesus Christ, for handling properly the ultimates involved with the noted subject of eschatology, of the final terminus of the soul and of mankind as a whole.

However, a much divided, largely secularist nation, having an enraged and very highly vindictive Chief Executive ordering the total removal of all Confederate flags, etc. from any existing government cemeteries is, in the second instance, hardly in any position whatsoever, meaning as to him, for the doing of the supposed seeking out of any Christian grace, assuming that he even is a believer in the first place. Such a matter is as extremely doubtful as it was, e. g., for Abraham Lincoln.

Thus, serious soteriological and profound eschatological studies are both of supreme importance, when contrasting critically the apparent lack thereof; this is as opposed to the evident need for such clearly significant lessons, in a truly wayward country, plunged into an overt crisis, which fully includes its so noticeably active de-Christianization as advocated secularization by government, of course. Any greater justification for this article’s important need, as weaved together in its aforementioned manner, would be just rather much too superfluous in its assertion, much less any such attempted construction so oddly endeavored.

As to soteriology, there can be a plain effort to simply explain it all, as if addressing the boys about to hit the beaches at Tarawa. If salvation is wanted, then, “Thou art to love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, with thy whole mind, and with thy whole soul, and love thy neighbor as they self.”   This covers the entirety of the Law and the Prophets, as Jesus Himself said.

Regarding the specifics of soteriology pertaining to the whole nature and proper means of salvation, this is to be always logically found in the Only, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with all of its Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, Seven Holy Sacraments, priesthood, dogmas, doctrines, etc. The holiness of persons, their spiritual metanoia, is, therefore, made achievable, if actually desired.

The consecration of the host, at every Holy Mass, is a direct intimation of the Resurrection and, more than that, theologically guarantees that the Second Coming is to be anticipated, besides being a good and positive soteriological confirmation concerning the truly Catholic plan for salvation. For a decent and proper sacramental life is, in the end, the salvific realization that should so culminate with Extreme Unction for dying in a state of grace, as to earthly finality, in sacred preparation for the later end of the world itself, as doxology, through apologetics, lends itself to better understanding sacramentology.

The Sacred Mass is a recreation, in miniature, of all of salvation history by uniting both the Old and New Testaments in their pointing toward the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, the full celebration, in essence, of the salvific accomplishment of the Messiah: Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension.  Since the fullness of ontological truth was made known by the Son of man, fallen creatures are no longer completely denied a chance of going to Paradise because of what Adam and Eve did.

The true, undoubted linkage from soteriology to eschatology is necessarily supposed to be, thus, a completely seamless web of faith, uniting the Communion of Saints, and ultimately leading souls into Heaven as the final goal of a genuine faith-filled life. Holiness is the desired needed means, salvation is the terminal objective sought, and Christ is, thus, the real reason for hope.

Extreme Unction is both a soteriological means and, moreover, a sort of limited prefigurement of the world’s necessary end, its allied teleological consummation. In that particular sense, certainly, the world “ends” for that deceased person and without a doubt, but the Word of the Lord God is, of course, from everlasting to everlasting.

Catholics, contrary to any rationalizations of religion, are to live with both the Mystery of Good and the Mystery of Evil, which are the ongoing spiritual tensions of faith; whatever mysteries are attached to revelations are no less, of course, a part of the spiritual nature of Catholicism, besides having an appeal to systematic theology whenever needed for getting better interpretations of any past or present visions and prophecies.

As to eschatology proper, it can be said to have faith and truly believe what the Church teaches and certainly ignore all the array of supposed soothsayers, oracles, or clairvoyants who may oppose the teachings, dogmas, and doctrines of (orthodox) Roman Catholicism, and the sought after salvation for all the faithful practicing Catholics, unto the end of this world, which can, thus, be then actually achieved.

The clearly definitive soteriological means for achieving salvation will, therefore, exist as long as the Church does, meaning the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ., which, in turn, freely so provides the only proper understanding and comprehension of the eschatological realization, for the Day of the Lord and the final consummation of this world. For Catholics, this is then necessarily a de fide teaching that is not to admit of any skepticism, which is hard to avoid for many who worship the earthly gods of materialism, subjectivism, and pragmatism, within a very degenerate culture and its allied sick society.

Maintaining belief is harder than ever when government itself, so consonant with the general Christian apostasy, eagerly seeks de-Christianization, in adamant favor of neopagan values and mores, the Culture of Death. Catholicism, nevertheless, when rightly reinforced by a real concern for orthodoxy, urges its believers in the very opposite direction contrary to the quite demonic Cultural Marxism of the prevailing intelligentsia, the secularist cognoscenti.

Furthermore, one ought to adamantly remember that Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium all sustain the Faith and do not ever contradict each other whenever theological orthodoxy is religiously sought. Nonetheless, eschatological speculation for many people, as with just discussing the weather, had once centered around the supposed significance of the year 2000 (as had been true of the year 1000); when nothing, once again, had happened, as was true for many, many centuries past of such supposed various anticipations, many now turn their rapt attention to Our Lady of Fatima and the coming centenary of October 13, 1917 as actually being the future chiliastic and conclusive big day.  Not likely it will be.

It is deeply believed, by those who say they know about such things, that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Theotokos, had stipulated positively that the world’s people were to be given just 100 more years, as a maximum set time, to morally and spiritually reform – or else.  Or so, the oracular pronouncement, as commented on, seems to supposedly indicate.  While this matter is not to be merely discounted off hand, however, the safer view of the matter is that placing absolutely strict time limits, in human timeframes, can be quite deceptive.

After all, Sr. Lucia herself was told by Our Lady of the Rosary, e. g., that she would remain on earth just “a little longer,” though waiting many decades, later, prior to her death. Interpretation can possibly result in a kind of misinterpretation by positing things or matters in human (read: mortal) terms of reference and not perceiving a rendered understanding on a suitably needed divine-cosmic scale of explanation.  For as God Himself had said in the Old Testament, My ways are not man’s ways.

As always, if the so alleged End Times do, in fact, happen as supposedly predicted on October 13, 2017, then, so be it; if not, so be it also; let God’s will be done, of course, in either case. The presented private revelation at Fatima is just that, private revelation, not Church dogma.  It is significant to appropriately note that it has not yet, in fact, been declared de fide.  It is not, thus, essential to Catholic belief.  The eyes of many of the faithful do turn with hope (or fear) as to what is to occur, meaning if the prediction as to End Times may come true (or not).

Other people, however, do place their chiliastic hope in the supposed coming of the now quite urgently wished-for sweet meteor of death (SMOD), not God, concerning their own sort of a quite peculiar form of millennialism, as it were.   But, who is to say if God, meaning if it be verily in line with His Divine Will, would not, therefore, just so conveniently use the natural instrumentality of SMOD?

Of course, if the human race is still here after October 14, 2017, almost all of these very same people, whether believers in God or SMOD will, probably, just pathetically shrug their collective shoulders and seek out the next millennialist prediction of doom and gloom. It is not so much destructive of faith, rather, it unfortunately beleaguers or plagues naiveté by bespeaking of a zealous gullibility (or, perhaps, a philosophical desperation).

Conversely, efforts, e. g., to ever rationalize Christian mysteries, by supposedly demythologizing what is beyond man’s capacity to understand, poses the irrational absurdity of mere imperfect, sinful beings trying to comprehend the omnicompetent, omniscient mind of Almighty God. Orthodoxy on this matter is fully consistent with Apostolic Kerygma and an Incarnational Christology, not the rationalization of any dogmas, for such nominalism in religion absurdly tries to supposedly get at the “real” onion, until really nothing is left, after the nihilistic peeling of it.  Immanentism, whether as historicity or otherwise, is to be fully denounced; it necessarily reeks of subjectivity, besides gross impiety.

It is no accident that the Athanasian Creed, Quicunque Vult is a statement of belief engrossed in the Trinitarian Dogma and Christology (an excerpt):

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.  And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.  Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.  For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. …”

Catholicism is either a supremely incarnational religion, in so being of the absolutely prime centrality and core of its forever explicitly theocentric faith, or else it is just nothing.

Thus, there are no really new heresies, only various regurgitations thereof, that do naturally breed yet further heresies; no heresy, moreover, has ever stood in splendid isolation for very long; it attracts, like a magnet, other false ideas or opinions that then get generated and propagated.

To avoid this repetitive nonsense, which has gone on from age to age, it is then highly important and necessary, therefore, to have a proper religious understanding, profound appreciation, reasonable consideration, and theological comprehension of both proper soteriology and eschatology. If that is fully attained, it would then be easily possible to avoid any errant enthusiasms as to various prophecies based upon private revelation, not actual Church teachings officially promulgated de fide to the faithful.

Admittedly, it is a historical fact that many, if not necessarily most, of the Christians of the Apostolic Generation thought that they too would, in fact, actually live to see the Second Coming. Lives were lived, moreover, with that (what seemed to be) chiliastic expectation actively kept in mind, as if it were just a normal extension of 1st century AD Christian life.

Called usually the Apocalypse of St. John by Protestants, the Book of Revelation done by the Evangelist easily reinforced such thinking by, of course, providing a great deal of symbolic apocalyptic drama, in that John’s death, according to Catholicism, had fully ended the entire Era of Apostolic (read: theologically legitimate) Revelation and its historicity. No public, meaning truly Church approved revelation existed thereafter, except, e. g., in the necessarily, to be expected, heretical minds of many Protestants, of course, and their endlessly multiplying sects and cults scattered all around the entire world.

As but one selected instance among many, much ink has been spilled on just the numerous attempts to rigorously or otherwise decipher the meaning(s) of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Generation by generation, the end of the world has been expected, which has oddly created, in effect, a Weberian routinization of millennialist aspirations, as in seen in the Seventh Day Adventists cult.

Each age has been trying to also, thus, attribute, e. g., the definitive personification of the Antichrist to various actual historical persons; among a literal horde of notable contestants, one could so readily name: Nero, Attila the Hun, Frederick Barbarossa, Cesare Borgia, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, etc. It is a strange case of many being “called” such, but obviously, none satisfactorily or otherwise ever became or were, in set pointed fact, the Antichrist.  End times happened, though not the actual, final, true and only predicted End Time itself.2

Millennialism, as a result, had become a true Christian tradition, flowing on and on century by century, with each episodic problematic prediction made yet more certainly and passionately than each previous revelation to better stir up, of course, the minds and hearts of the many deluded believers.3    However, an approach of thinking, which is held to be more common in the Catholic Church and, moreover, finds theological backing with the great St. Augustine, among many others, is that, e. g., the 1,000 year reign simply denotes the still ongoing age of the life of the Church, however long over time that may be.

Such a time, therefore, fully encompasses all that existed from the first establishment of the Church, meaning on Pentecost, and certainly lasts until the actual end of the world, as we know it, and the final return, the Parousia, of Christ, the expected, predicted, Day of the Lord. Any attempted mythologizing of Christianity is held in contempt, besides the fact that no Catholics are ever to be chiliastic believers in a literal divine kingdom on earth to be, e. g., supposedly lasting 1,000 years.

To the major essential point involved, Jesus Himself had said, in the New Testament, that only God the Father knows the exact time when the world is to end, not any idle speculations or predications made to the contrary, of course.  (His human nature refused to vouchsafe this divine knowledge that He certainly possessed.)

The stark impiety or, perhaps, irreverence, at least implicitly, with any sort of bold Delphic “predictionism” coming out of various and sundry, variegated and plentitudinous, private revelations (those not Church approved) usually then gets unnoticed; this is by those zealots eagerly pushing their alleged certainties as if, somehow or other, quite solemnly guaranteed by asseverated divine afflatus of the highest order.

With the above cited and more relatively recent case of Our Lady of Fatima, however, the discredit, if any, goes only to the many impassioned or enthusiastic exegetists who may have (not deliberately, one supposes) misunderstood or misinterpreted what was said. Part or major parts of a message can be garbled or “lost in translation” to merely mortal beings.  Thus, the Holy Mother of God is completely innocent of any and all possible accusations of fraud.  In any event, what generally goes by the name of millenarianism (or chiliasm) has been properly condemned, in fact, by the Catholic Church as being heretical; it is not, therefore, ever consistent with genuine Catholicism.

However, it needs to be properly noted that Protestants have often deliberately mischaracterized the Church’s moderate position as being amillennialism, a supposed view dedicated to accepted ignorance or, perhaps, an agnostic view.  This is, in essence, absolutely false; for there is no such “proper view” of heresy, except to rightly condemn it.  Catholicism is, in a sense, a “bioptic” theonomic faith requiring belief in both what is seen and unseen for practicing Catholics, besides acknowledging the existence of permanent mysteries; yet, with its correct balancing of faith and reason, it is extremely far from any kind of chiliastic fanaticism whatsoever.

However, much of the insane 16th century Anabaptist millennialism has been regaining ground among Christians, in about the last 100 years or so, because of substantial ignorance of the teachings of the Patristic Fathers, especially St. Jerome and St. Augustine, the Scholastics, the Doctors of the Church, and others who did knew better.  Also, a spiritually unhealthy and escapist laxity of mind develops whenever people simply assume that truly diligent Christian effort is not so needed if, well, the End Times are, of course, supposedly near, which is just a false assumption, not much better than the sin of presumption.

Private prophecies should be greeted with skepticism, especially if unapproved by Church authorities (though, true, these days even certain Church authorities can be rightly suspect).   Even if a worldwide “chastisement” may come, however, Church teachings tell the faithful that this is not ever equivalent to the Second Coming or End Times; one prophesized event should not, therefore, be wrongly confused or confounded with the other truly predicted event; a discernment of spirits is need as to such prophecies.

As ought to be so firmly known, Catholic orthodoxy, by definition, avoids all theological and religious extremes by ever properly and faithfully adhering, in reiteration, to Tradition, Scripture, and the true Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.

And, among the primary touchstones of orthodoxy are such appropriately honored Church assemblies as the Council of Nicaea, Council of Chalcedon, and Council of Trent, not ever the latest, greatest hermeneutical phenomenology or exegetical existentialist pronouncements coming either out of fashion-conscious academia or the seminaries.  Proclamations of the inherent righteousness of metaphysical order is what matters, not any cleverly semantic expositions ardently done by theologasters.

As expected, desperate times can usually lead to desperate thoughts, but desperation does not define truth nor, for that matter, basic eschatological logic as is known to Sancta Mater Ecclesia.  If there is to be any requisite disbelief, one ought to easily doubt greatly that, e. g., the coming time of the pernicious Son of Perdition, Antichrist’s advent, is tremendously near; too much naïve credulity, as seen through many centuries, tends to very naturally breed heresies, as with the cited and evil Anabaptist fanaticism.

What is seriously troubling is that, based upon empirical evidences, this chiliastic attitude seems to be growing exponentially, from the 20th and, one suspects, well into the 21st century, among even many orthodox Catholics who really ought to know better.4   This has been greatly aided and abetted by the secularization of society and culture that has made the work of Satan much easier by psychologically and sociologically conditioning people to more readily believe in myth, magic, and superstition.

It can be interestingly noted that such positive attributes as human perfectibility and progress had once been routinely associated, in the minds and writings of members of many Protestant sects, with all of Christianity’s so positive development, especially because of the so-called Reformed Religion, and, by extension, with its helping with End Times’ fulfillment as such.5

Much of this thought was grounded in hope, which is fairly logical for Christians who seek to cooperate with the loving grace of God, not with God substitutes such as belief in a deified Progress or, perhaps, a terrenely divinized perfectibility. Of course, all these kinds of mentioned matters are really forms or modes of an often disguised idolatry made usually more mentally acceptable or, perhaps, palatable by an unfortunate belief in myth, magic, and superstition. In any event, clear linkages between the Catholic Church in America and the Confederacy should no longer, therefore, seem to be that very surprising.6

One of the main difficulties of what properly needs to be said, however, is that until the effective bulk of Roman Catholics realize that there is such a thing as an authentic Catholic culture that is necessarily in adamant opposition to the existing Western-secularist culture, any real hopes of intelligently covering such subjects, theologically speaking, as soteriology and eschatology becomes then problematic at best, absurd at worst.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis, preaching “ecological salvation,” and his followers, prelates and others, do enjoy attacking the Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, by assaulting the foundational teachings of Holy Mother Church; and, one sees that none of this really bodes well, as an instance, for ensuring the appropriate ecclesiastical duty of helping to send souls toward glorious salvation, instead of to dark perdition, forever.

At a minimum, the Holy Pontiff’s modernist mocking of the Magisterium is readily seen to be plainly blasphemous and, most likely, implicitly sacrilegious as well; it does not advance the requisite and solemn, needed and fervent, soteriological interests, therefore, of the Church, of the Faith. All of this will eventually reflect against the Holy Mother of God as with, e. g., the typical Protestant belittling, disparaging, of the Holy Virgin.

And yet, as God can bring good out of evil, the chastisement of having a bad Pope is still within the realm of Divine Providence, for even persecution or tribulation is meant to stimulate faith as a loving Divine Mercy, for shocking people back to spiritual reality, for the yet providential redemption of souls; the real opposite of love is indifference, not hate.

The Lord loves human beings more than enough to lovingly chastise them for better directing their minds toward needed salvation, by manifesting how much He genuinely hates sin.  Many a time, as Desmond Birch notes, the Hebrew people felt the hard rod of God upon their backs, and one can, also, usefully recall that Attila the Hun was actually called “the Scourge of God.”

Ironically, while the vast majority of Christians do scoff at private revelations, insanity’s advancement, in the contemporary world, has been normally spread by the too often presumed wondrous advantages of a progressive secularization and thoroughgoing rationalization of human life, not through any profound religious faith. Consequently, besides wanting to hold supposedly “value-neutral” opinions, fixations upon pragmatism, positivism, and materialism have so fostered belief in myth, magic and superstition.

G. K. Chesterton had well remarked on how people may cease to believe in God but that yet leads the vast majority to be still willing to believe in anything; few really become (pure) atheists, with, e. g., astrology and spiritualism, today, being stronger than ever. Once subjectivity becomes the assumed new objectivity, furthermore, insanity itself can then no longer be recognized for what it is, as with clearly insane beliefs in transsexualism/transgenderism.

And, without any doubt, society, thus, jumps from the proverbial frying pan directly into the fire by, fashionably, not wanting to be judgmental. This is important to understand because when the Church Militant is needfully resurgent, unlike during the unfortunate heretical tenure of Pope Francis, it would valiantly do battle, as against the Arians to fully defend the Divinity of Christ, athwart the Monophysites to affirm adamantly the Humanity of Christ, as was all guided by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Although there’s supposed to be about a billion Catholics in the entire world, only a small remnant have, in truth, both actually and amazingly kept intact the good and solid integrity of the Faith, meaning as to proper orthodox belief, contrary to a quite pervasively secularized society and culture. Nonetheless, as to public and private revelations, merited punishments as considered can, of course, come before, with the arrival of, or even after the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, as a predestined matter unto, of course, the true consummation of the world.

All this, of course, is still held to be completely regardless of supposed fashionable opinions, whether for or against the theological notion of redemption, for the truly Catholic approach toward valid soteriology conforms with the bedrock teachings regarding eschatological revelations; it could not be otherwise, of course.


For the right nature and just means of salvation are denied to those who seek ideologically provoked or provided ersatz wisdom as to correcting societal, cultural or, perhaps, entire civilizational “wrongs” by manifesting endless hatred, perpetual vindictiveness, and arrogant contempt that rejects Christian love, charity, and compassion as means to an end. Thus, for instance, no morally sane person should be still fighting the War Between the States, or go hunting down various people as being contemptible “neo-Confederates,” meaning those thought or said to be racists.

For love, not hate, is the solemn fulfillment of all Gospel truth, in that rejecting the Cross, concerning suffering and compassion, is to simultaneously reject Christ, besides discounting, e. g., the Blessed Virgin Mary, the true Mediatrix of Grace, as well.

That above noted and needed end or final teleological purpose of Christian aspirations then ought, in truly proper terms of Christianity, lead to the desired holiness and sanctification of souls, not ever PC thinking, the pagan ideal of multiculturalism, or Cultural Marxism. The correct soteriological orientation to be appropriately taken, as to any fundamental beliefs, is in spiritual preparation for the welcoming of the eschatological comprehension of spiritual reality.

Birch, in his already noted Trial, Tribulation and Triumph, presents mountainous refutations of the modern exegetical critics who wrongly seek to deny numerous kinds of traditional teachings by reformulating asserted historical theology to suit their own prejudices of a supposed “higher criticism.”  Birch’s very orthodox understanding is in just and right accord with the traditional teachings of the Church, not any modernist or postmodernist speculations, most usually, thus, set to the contrary.

While secularists ought to be very afraid as to soteriological and eschatological matters of importance, good Christians should not, even concerning such matters as the End Times. For Pope John Paul II was, indeed, famous for proclaiming the true Gospel message regarding inordinate fear: “Be not afraid!”  This was said, even though most people will not get to Heaven.7

This is so right necessary for religiously accepting the conclusion of what individual salvation is to direct appropriate attention toward, namely, the absolute wanted finality of all-in-all, the expected Parousia of the Christ. Such an event should be greeted with a desirable longing, not any truly absurd fear, though human nature being what it is, many do as ever fill their hearts with an unfortunate trepidation, anxiety, or foreboding of gloom and doom in attitude.

But, Christian joy and gladness should be the nature of the fulfillment of the properly desired finality of the highest meaning of Christianity, the absolute faith in Christ above all and any earthly concerns or worries of fallen (read: sinful) creatures in a fallen world, where heresy, impurity, profanation, sacrilege, and blasphemy are regularly celebrated.

Nothing less, both logically and theologically, will do. Nothing more, thereafter, should be anticipated, moreover, as to the expected deeply religious and highly pious fulfillment of both human and salvation history.  Christology, furthermore, affirms that this is the will of God in that everything is to be properly concluded in, by, and through Jesus Christ, forever and ever and without any exceptions whatsoever.

Moreover, an appreciation of the subject of ontological theology should come to rightly reinforce the positive contentions and pious observations, made explicitly, in this present article.8   To insouciantly disbelieve all this, is to not just doubt Roman Catholicism, it is to firmly doubt the very basic spiritual revelation and integral doctrinal realization of Christianity itself.   Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.


Athanasius contra mundum!


Select Bibliography

Desmond A. Birch, Trial, Tribulation & Triumph: Before, During and After Antichrist

Fr. Livio Fanzaga, Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist

Fr. H. M. Feret, The Apocalypse Explained

Fr. Herman Kramer, The Book of Destiny

Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, The Antichrist

Blessed John Henry Newman, A Confederacy of Evil

Rev. Benjamín Martín Sánchez , Public and Private Prophecies About The Last Times.



  1. He was never convicted of anything, much less treason – President Andrew Johnson issued a blanket amnesty to cover the Confederate leaders, for he had greatly feared that the US Supreme Court would find Davis completely innocent, if he had ever been tried for treason. To the present day, in American history, moreover, the political doctrine of secession has not been declared unconstitutional, since this would then result in a rather anomalous ruling that the rather manifestly secessionist US Declaration of Independence was/is then also, by definition, clearly unconstitutional and illegal.

The integral logic is absolutely inexorable to the nth degree. Furthermore, the Southern Confederacy was never fighting to control the national/Federal government; it only legally and politically sought to have, therefore, its own justifiable independence, i. e., overt secession, from the Union, nothing else.

The Yankees wrongly fought to suppress the War for Southern Independence by calling it the War of the Rebellion, long before it got falsely called the American Civil War, a clear misnomer. A civil war means that two sides (or more) are fighting for the control of the very same central or national government for having the power in the same nation.  The South, however, wanted only to be its own very independent nation, not to ever control or conquer the North, meaning in set terms of constitutional nationhood as a whole. Q. E. D.

Though he was regarded as a 19th century Liberal, Lord Acton, a Roman Catholic, supported the cause of the CSA.  On the far Left, Karl Marx, Giuseppe Garibaldi, and other communists enthusiastically favored the Union cause; Abraham Lincoln, in very strong affirmation of this point, had offered a generalship to Garibaldi for him to come here and kill Southerners.  Marx had, in fact, praised Lincoln unendingly and, furthermore, joyously called for the final extermination of every last (resisting) Southerner.

As power loves power (Machiavellian Rule # 1), Lincoln, being a thoroughly inconsistent Liberal tyrant, welcomed the Russian Fleet into the Port of New York, as, at that time, the very reactionary empire was itself quite busy brutally suppressing the Polish independence movement!   For his own wanting to so ruthlessly exterminate the Confederacy, Lincoln is, thus, nearly always portrayed in the history books as a great progressive figure, not the vicious archreactionary he, in point of fact, really truly was.

One can insightfully read: Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War by Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson Jr. and Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know about Dishonest Abe by Thomas J Dilorenzo and his revealing book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.   Also, useful study can be made of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War by H. W. Crocker III and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

  1. Of course, one can rather insightfully say that, in a certain sense, “worlds” were ended, though not the whole world, as in how, e. g., Napoleon had delegitimized the notion of royalty by also, ironically, making himself royal: Emperor Napoleon the First, after all, had then audaciously self-crowned himself as to a French imperium. The world of powerful monarchical establishments, and especially after World War I, had never really recuperated and, finally, bit the dust; this is because the Napoleonic profanation openly laid bare just how far rabid secularization had clearly undermined and rotted the true core of a Western civilization that was once proudly called Christendom.

The once sacred institution of monarchy, from that Napoleonic time on through the 19th century and into the early 20th century, never ever really recovered from such abusive political and gross ideological sacrilege.  So, the Emperor was, in truth, definitely a destroyer of a world, though not all of the entire world of humanity itself.

  1. There is, in fact, a very tremendous and still growing entire body of literature on the subject. One can notably consult many (non-Catholic) sources: there is Norman Cohn’s still classic The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, and his Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith; Millennialism And Social Theory by Gary North, Millennialism: The Two Major Views by Charles L. Feinberg, and Loraine Boettner‘s The Millennium; also, Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Millennialism by James D. Tabor, Christian Millennium by Conner Kevin, and Millennialism, Scripture, and Tradition by Eugene V. Gallagher.

Catholic views would cover: Eschatological Fact and Fiction: Catholicism and Dispensationalism Compared by Carl E. Olson and his Will Catholics Be “Left Behind”?; Fr. H. M. Feret’s The Apocalypse Explained, Michael Barber’s Coming Soon: Unlocking the Book of Revelation and Applying Its Lessons Today and, of course, Desmond A. Birch’s Trial, Tribulation & Triumph: Before, During and After Antichrist.

  1. See, once again: Desmond Birch’s Trial, Tribulation & Triumph.
  2.  It may be passing curious that neither John Passmore’s The Perfectibility of Man (1970) nor Robert Nisbet’s History of the Idea of Progress covers either eschatology or soteriology explicitly, as a sure sign of the secularist orientation of modern people. Yet, both had then included critical substantive reviews of Christianity, as to and within their chosen subjects, in their cited respective books on perfectibility and progress, which, also, illustrated still definite Christian historical input, as to these chosen specific themes.

If truth be told, moreover, affluence, materialism, and, especially in the modern age, democracy all do combine to help destroy faith and morals too, as a realization of societal and cultural secularization, which breeds neopaganism and the then concomitant lusts for reprimitivization and rebarbarization.

This then comes about, therefore, in a world pervaded by myth, magic, and superstition, so glorified as enlightenment, and acts as, thus, the true relativistic foundation for the ever nihilistic Open Society of “liberated” individuals.  And, upon cognitive reflection, it could not be otherwise.

  1. If further related research might be wanted, see:;;;; on an interesting select bit of trivia, see also:
  2. Regardless of the heretic Origen’s 3rd century notion of a supposed ultimate reconciliation of all souls with God, the alleged final apocatastasis, even Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? is just a fancy versioning of this rather ancient heresy done for (susceptible) modern audiences. It is established dogma of the Church, however, that both Hell (Gehenna) and Purgatory are real places that do, in fact, contain souls, the former only concerns the eternally damned souls.  As Jesus had said: “Many are called but few are chosen.”  This ever argues most severely against any supposed universal salvation notion, as if God is really an all-forgiving Santa Claus figure just merrily residing somewhere in the sky.

Theology and Ontology: Roman Catholic Reflections on Ontological Theology

Theology and Ontology: Roman Catholic Reflections on Ontological Theology

By Joseph Andrew Settanni


“No being can be neutral to the Source [God] of all being. Being either witnesses to or denies the Source of being; being either accepts or rejects the Source of all being.” – Fr. Vincent Miceli

“If you want to know why theology is in such a mess today and secularism in such a position of strength, I would say that it has in large part to do with the fact that Catholic intellectuals have largely lost the intellectual muscle that Scholasticism used to provide.” – Edward Feser


The above topic may seem too abstract or, perhaps, rather abstruse to most people, admittedly.  But, the entire fate of Western civilization itself hangs in the balance, by its surely tremendous implications and extensive ramifications, for absolutely all of society and culture so inclusive, without any question at all.

This is mainly due to the modern and, now, postmodern domination of myth, magic, and superstition that has, unfortunately, engulfed most of what gets called “civilized” existence.1   The then implied nihilism inherently involved has, as a direct consequence, provoked a raging ideological insanity that, by design, is necessarily destructive of culture and civilization as to its known subversive intent.

Adscititiously, the supremely radical attack upon current civilization by the Culture of Death, by Cultural Marxism as it is also correctly called, is positively well beyond mere insane transgenderism and its, thus, plainly inane demands for polymorphous-genderless toilets. A truly much greater and demonic struggle is at work, though usually unnoticed as such by the casual pedestrian mind.

The deliberately strategic replacement, for the manifest ideological reasons, of sex by the polymorphous “gender” is made tactically; this is to both undermine and subvert all human reason qua right reason, common sense, and the (classical) Natural Law teachings of the philosophia perennis in its vast entirety.   Man’s human nature, concerning the humanity thereof, is being absolutely questioned and, moreover, in an insanely nihilistic manner that, increasingly, gets just ignored.

Witness Justice Anthony Kennedy’s recent insane statement that, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”  Thus, an endless multiplicity of just completely idiosyncratic ontologies can be enunciated at will.  A single intelligible universe of perspicacious dialogue has been insolently, so to speak, closed off emotionally to allow for a multiverse of odd subjectivity that is so absurdly allowed to dance wildly, in all the halls of intellect, in a seemingly cognitive perpetuity.  In plain language, therefore, the confirmed lunatics are to now run the asylum as a manufactured right.

In short, it is a direct contemptuous assault upon the goodness and truth of the Lord Almighty God and all of His creation, as to what totally is now being so quite vociferously, not accidently, condemned by the aggressive radicals, atheists, secularists, Satanists, and their various humanist-anthropocentric allies.  In addition, by attacking man’s very humanity, they do reveal themselves as the true enemies of both God and man, which ought to be completely obvious by now.

The great Edmund Burke had, long, long ago, very sagaciously seen through the ever worldly, vile, and despicable “logic” of the French revolutionaries, meaning as to their obvious ontological reductionism: “A king is but a man, a queen is but a woman, and a woman is but an animal.”   It is not, then, by any supposed accident that the radical-intellectual descendants of the Jacobins have rather ugly and detritus-centered minds; it is to their want and purpose to degrade humanity, as to their readily noted ideological necessity, by and through much crude dehumanization; the uniformitarian dogma of radicalism is on vilely argute display, for crushing human dignity and true freedom.

The issue is not really just lavatories, first the public commodes and then all private facilities, eventually.  Much more than that is certainly and supremely held at stake.  The great Catholic philosopher, Malcolm Muggeridge, had wisely asseverated that the “real argument” is always, when carefully examined, about something else that is, in fact, not openly discussed as such.  What is, therefore, the real argument as the central issue notably regarding the presented concinnity of debate and supportive argumentation?

Against the lunacy present, metaphysical order itself is violently under siege by insanity claiming now to be a superior form of a new sanity; moreover, the very sense of true being, of what it means to be an actual human being, is critically and absurdly denied by the rabid radical ideologists and their many zealous deconstructionist supporters. Ideas do have consequences.  Accordingly, by set definition, Christ and His Incarnation is then fully denied and vilely scorned by the necessarily attendant denigration of all metaphysical order itself.

One can, so insightfully, see how it becomes impossible, however, to credibly discuss ontological reality, ultimately ontology as the truth of being, without then logically and reasonably invoking a supportive theology for it, concerning a then positive requisite relationship to metaphysical order overall. Just a mere materiality pertaining to a terrene reality, especially finally, never really explains enough.

The logic is made simply manifest and, thus, compelling when seeking an emmetropia, a perfect vision, of truth versus endless appeals, by the radicals, vilely made to subjectivism, as if it were a new form of supposed objectivity.  However, there can be no genuine civilizational progress until what philosophers had called the idios kosmos (private world) attitude gets so substantially replaced by the koinos kosmos (shared world) by which humanity rises, by the Grace of God, above mere barbarism and selfishness; unfortunately, the ugly former predisposition is now coming roaring back, with full force, as if with a horrid vengeance.

Insanity, therefore, wishes to become acceptable as the new norm of sanity, meaning normality itself, for modern and, especially, all of postmodern society and culture itself.  This pushing of insanity, in the Western world, as being just the new norm has been increasing, for several generations now, and has thoroughly infiltrated both the popular culture and, no doubt, scientific culture also exceedingly well.2

Framework for Expository Delineations of Being: Ontological Theology

A few generations ago, Étienne Gilson (1884 – 1978), a famous Roman Catholic philosopher, said that there has been very little explicit philosophical writing done on the particular subject of ontology, the study of being. It is rather doubtful, since he wrote that observation as to a lack of such writing, that this situation has, in fact, really changed that significantly.  Many writings talking around or, perhaps, seemingly discussing about discoursing on things, or, perhaps, done in the subjunctive (as if) case do not really count as truly important, valid, and serious efforts at intelligent and purposeful disquisition.  This is not just simply unfortunate, however, it is very intellectually tragic as to its noetic ramifications and, thus, argutely sapiential magnitude.3

There have been real-world significances directly so involved. The penultimate effort of the radicals, the progressivists, is to knowingly destroy the very beingness of being, ultimately, the quite obvious, critical final attack is against, by definition, the Supreme Being.  Not just a proffered matter of toilets.  This all, by a cognate noetic series of interrelated fundamental inferences, must then have logical ontological implications and consequences, insinuations and repercussions, both philosophically and theologically understood; one rightly suspects that it could not rationally nor experientially, furthermore, be focused actually otherwise and, as a directive epistemic result, allied critical discussion must logically proceed.

Ontology, also known as the science or philosophy of being, is said to be the philosophical study of the truly fullest nature of all being, of all beingness; this is inclusive of becoming, existence, or reality in its totality, encompassing, by necessity, the rudimentary categories of being and their sundry associations or various affinities. What is meant as to a lack of philosophical interest, therefore, that has produced relatively so little substantial perspicacious writing on this greatly important subject?4

As the intellectual class, especially since the 18th century, has become increasingly secularized, it ought not be so very surprising that ontology has become eclipsed by other concerns more readily congenial to these highly laicized minds, if intellects they be.  Secularization has, thus, become the primary hallmark of what gets called Western civilization, especially with its demonic desire to achieve de-Christianization, the antireligious form or, rather, manifest equivalent of “ethnic cleansing.”  No doubt about it.

To think truly profoundly and most thoroughly about ontology is, however, to do the same about true metaphysics relating to theology, not just religion as to a study of it; the degenerate literati, the jaded cognoscenti, and especially most academicians normally prefer leaving to sundry theologians the silly, to them, subject of theology; the theologians are seen to be better at (uselessly) wasting their time that way by, supposedly, running in vacuous circles; this is seen with too often speculative epistemological or axiological studies that become circular tautologies, going nowhere fast, but do seem deceitfully erudite enough and tediously thoughtful, especially to lazy minds.

Important people, meaning here the highly-refined noetic exegetes, are supposed to so sophisticatedly discuss and write lengthy or learned tomes covering such notably “weighty” matters as phenomenology, existentialism, structuralism, hermeneutics, deconstructionism, Feminist Studies, Afrocentric Studies, Pornography, etc.; and, of course, other more abstract contemporary or surely “enlightening” matters suitably ever fit for the assumed, worthy, deep mental lucubrations and advanced considerations of many presumably superior intellects; this is, necessarily, appropriately inclusive of what gets called the haughty artsy-fartsy crowd, as has been so creatively also noted, e. g., by the clever atheist novelist Tom Wolfe, mainly through his very insightful fiction.

In other words, highly specious speculations, made upon endlessly pretentious hogwash and truly vain verbiage, indicative of ineffectively parlous brains needing a cleansing. Consequently, serious discussion will cover what kind of ontology should be properly handled upon which intellectual basis, affirmative of Natural Law teachings and right reason, which sufficiently remains quite foreign to the modernist and postmodernist cognoscenti at large; this is as to a wanted ontological comprehension appreciative of being and its clearly allied, adscititious integral beingness, while not insensibly discounting theological considerations, of course, when held appropriate to the discussion, as to requisite critical cognizance.

A theological ontology would, in truth, be violative of the nature of metaphysics by mixing philosophy up with theology into forming a merely speculative basis in ontology; the purpose of what is to be done here, however, is not the formation of thoughts more proper to theology, rather, an orientation more purposefully directed toward the exploration, investigation, and examination of ontology, as it then thoughtfully informs theological considerations certainly reflective of verifiable ontological realities and many appropriate considerations thereof.   Moreover, unlike the warped nominalist thinking of either the modernists or postmodernists, truth is never held to become antiquated; otherwise, it would not, by definition, be true.  As Edward Feser’s Scholastic Metaphysics would agree, there truly needs to be critically discussed the beingness of being as to a serious conversation qua dialogue, for never is there an effort to wrongly absquatulate, to ignorantly abscond, from the greatly important subject at hand.

By such an exercise, it will be said to be demonstrated that the acute perception of ontological theology is the only cognizant basis for correctly grasping ontology itself, within the limits of what the human mind is capable of practically comprehending as such. But, this proposed heuristic basis is significantly best made comprehensible by not reviewing theological ontology, within the presented analytical scope of metaphysical discussion and argumentation applied with concinnity, regarding advanced theorization.

Perhaps, as will be keenly considered here, the much better and more logical, rational approach would be in seeking after an exploring of ontological theology, since Roman Catholicism holds that faith and reason are not at all antagonistic but complementary ways of thinking and knowing. For a heuristic sensibility, thus, theology and ontology, in preferring this resolution of human cognition by extension, are perceived rightly as also being corresponding principles in the desired realm of mental reality, both theoretical and experiential, in the area of philosophizing.  Thus, much good thought, aiming finally toward an extramundane contemplation, needs to be given but not done in any silly, fugacious, or quick manner; deep consideration is warranted.

And, this will here be presented, as it has been appropriately known for many centuries past, meaning, at the least, back to Aristotle, called, in a commendatory manner by St. Thomas Aquinas, as simply “The Philosopher.” But, more immediately to the point at hand, it is good to have definitions, so that one can try to understand better what is being talked about or said.  Ontological theology, as to a definition, is the cognitive attempt to relevantly extrapolate and deduce the beingness and other qualities thereof concerning existence, haecceity and quiddity, hypokeimenon, of the essence of reality, in theological terms invariably, when certainly pertinent to an architectonic metaphysical order, which grave point needs to be requisitely kept clearly in mind.

More simply put, in a negative manner, no God, no ontology, no metaphysical order. There would be no need for theology either; it would be, moreover, utterly nonsensical to ever even entertain any religious speculation whatsoever.  What is a solid premise, as a major principle, for such an assertion that should lead to an ongoing zetetic attitude?

Because the entire universe is all merely contingent being, meaning that no necessity or will within any of material matter ever sought consciously to create itself, only the Supreme Being’s prior existence, as St. Thomas and the Scholastics had made known, and attendant reality, also, can reasonably and rationally account for contingent being’s existence. Otherwise, among other basic principles, nothing comes from nothing; moreover, in fact, nothing really ever could.  A contingent creation logically shatters the pompous and pretentious reasoning of materialism, naturalism, and anthropocentric-humanism all together and, moreover, without rational question to the contrary.

It needs to be, thus, stated here unequivocally for emphasis that the modernist patterning of being has been irretrievably defective, as to causative existential or phenomenological relationships within the scope of existence, of any conceivable reality worth considering, meaning especially as to any measured weight of validated intellectual gravity.  Furthermore, the absurd nominalist proposition, concerning unctuously and endlessly asserted kinds, of the postulated ideological heterogeneity of being is, upon a just and yet a reasonable reflection, simply false; this is supremely because the exo-logical experientialism of so many seemingly clairvoyant, e. g., deconstructionists (and others) exude quite fathomless preponderances of absolute certainty that, by definition, are so denied inherently by their very own skeptical (or cynical) analyses.  Q. E. D.

If ideological constructs (as seen ideo-genetically in White, male authors) are cited as falsifying data, reasoning, or information, then how are the radicals, paradoxically, claiming to be only pure agents of immaculate perceptions, while all others are, of course, said to be only corrupt or corrupted by their fixations – but, not the radicals with their own secularist-ideological presuppositions?   And, for that matter, why should theonomic proposals, centering on theocentric assertions of truth, including the truth of being, be any less true than variously suggested “deconstructed” theology, history, science, or whatever?   What is really going on, however, is well known to informed minds.  It is an “intellectualist” con game conducted deliberately by the ideologists, by the mere pretenders to knowledge, the new vile sophists both in and out of a mainly degenerate academia.

Much more than that, the protreptic translational argumentation for the beingness of being, for the true reality of existence, as developed by Aristotle, the Scholastics, and others, has created an ontological level of awareness present that the postmodern reprimitivization and rebarbarization wishes, thus, to destroy humanity for then better celebrating the demonic materialism of its apostate neopaganism.

Contingent reality as a fact, nonetheless, makes a mockery of any materialistic certitude of judgment. All the dedicated secularists, humanists, atheists, and even the cowardly atheists known as agnostics, called here cognitively blind observers, try, however, to avoid all profound discussions of the very contingency of primal reality, of totalist beingness itself, especially on a fully universal scale of philosophical dialogue. They have, in fact, to do so to then remain as they are, deliberately ignorant and, thus, quite satisfied to forever remain so at all costs, which is, in truth, fundamentally necessary for their peculiar kind or form of fairly hardened faith, or as Feser puts it, The Last Superstition, the title of his cogent book on atheism.

All true materialists must, of course, remain fundamentalists in their belief by ascribing the foundations of their credence to the pervasive secularist dogma upholding humanist Naturalism as supremely central to their unquestioned faith, their then apparent devotion. Such oddly genuine fundamentalism is, thus, usually terrifying to observe or encounter; they would, seemingly, put even the Renaissance Fraticelli to shame as to their own very adamant fanaticism.  (They had openly revolted against the entire true authority of the Church and were, subsequently, declared to be heretics, in 1296, by Pope Boniface VIII.)

People ought to ask such confirmed and well-known atheists as Penn Jillette and Raymond Teller how they are able to maintain and sustain such a truly great faith in humanist Naturalism (or whatever), which, in effect, puts many Christians, who may think of themselves as religious people, to shame in comparison.  But, atheism’s aberrant view presents only a defective and shallow ontological perspective not worthy of true rational thought, for the ultimate denial of metaphysical order, in effect, results in the total renunciation of practical sanity; venerated solipsism beyond reason and an extremist egotism then parodying mental functionality replaces human sanity.  Good and pertinent reading includes Fr. Vincent Miceli’s The Gods of Atheism.

Materialists do wish to absurdly peel the entire philosophical onion to supposedly get at the true onion, and, to their (feigned?) surprise, do find nothing should they attempt such a vain search. Not meant in any pantheistic sense, but only God is the real totality of being qua the Supreme Being, or else nothing.  There is no via media approach whether axiological, epistemological, or ontological.  If these assumed quidnuncs are so queried about, say, the Big Bang and then asked, logically, about what came before any of it, they draw a blank as empty as is their dead, vacuous minds.  Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking, by Daniel Q. McInerny, should be consulted by them.  In any event, continency gets not then confronted; nothing, absolutely nothing, must or has to exist, however, within the entire universe, for (mere) matter, by definition, lacks will.

Well, ontological theology, not having any obviously predisposed anti-metaphysical prejudices, can freely and readily encounter thoughts and considerations about a fully contingent universe and much else besides, onto much extended and involved discussions involving, if necessary, even infinity itself.  The nonbelievers or firm skeptics do, ironically, have a definitely great faith, certainly much extremely greater assurance than the common, average religious believer may have concerning the grand abstraction of metaphysical or supernatural order as to a topic.

Although their tellurian materialist beliefs, which are, by definition, totally nonmaterial in nature are yet held unconditionally as being supposed true, there is no thought held by them to be intellectually valid, in set absolute contradiction, about any asserted supernatural order, as to belief. In their deliberately warped minds, immateriality only always works one way, in their so bigoted favor, and without critical question.  Such plainly moronic reasoning, applied ever against ontological theology, then demands to be rigidly respected and so accepted as cognitively valid; this is while all overt contradictions in logic are to be just axiomatically dismissed as irrelevant pertaining to fundamental judgments of actual truth, of substantial veracity.  Very convenient, indeed, especially with often anfractuous, circuitous, efforts at intramundane modernist reasoning so-called.

Cutting through such pubescent nonsense and applied mental trickery, one then sees that a contingent universe must have a parallel and coordinate ontological reality matching perfectly the experiential, existential, and realistic demands of human beings faced with the totality of a universal reality as to the beingness of being; this is versus the fact that nothing, as to material reality, could ever, even after billions upon billions of years, will itself into being, much less the total actualization of any beingness itself.

This noted beingness of being, this demonstrative haecceity, must be rationally confronted by any rational person; it is not a supposed metaphysical projection of reified matter or divinized materiality.  In short, something or, rather, someone had to so logically precede the observed and measurable physical existence, as to a definite will allowing for the actual empirical existence, the creation, of all the existence that, in fact, exists concerning reality, the absolute and unqualified entirety of the universe.

Thus, ontology is ever the proper study of the nature of being, meaning its essence, its relation to existence; moreover, it is the appropriate learning of the most basic essence of what something is beyond which it cannot be known.  And, this has both many important implications and ramifications beyond mere “academic” speculation as to the appropriate acute understanding of what properly consists of the universality of the universe itself, the fuller appreciation of cosmic dimensionality, as to all celestial reality; this, thus, relates to existence.

Celestial ontology can be creatively raised here as an edifying issue, for illustrative purposes, as to some past cosmological thinking.  When, e. g., Albert Einstein, in 1905, had so proposed his Theory of Special Relativity, it is highly instructive and interesting to note that scientific opinion, at that time, thought that there was only one galaxy that then constituted the full reality of the larger and entire universe.   More accurate knowledge had to be gained that the galaxy inhabited, by the Earth, was only one of seemingly countless others obviously available; currently, estimates are at over 100 billion of them in existence.

Edwin Powell Hubble demonstrated, in 1924, that most “nebulae” are definitely objects extraneous to the Earth’s galaxy, by using the 100-inch telescope at Mt. Wilson. The, in effect, truly massive expansion of reality has had no effect whatsoever upon the continuing and constant applicability of classical or traditional metaphysics nor, e. g., are any of the true fundamentals of Scholasticism invalidated as a consequence.

The science of cosmology, as aided greatly by astronomy, has extended cosmological reality toward a seemingly infinite magnitude regarding celestial ontology, to here say nothing of an advanced celestial mechanics, which was, in truth, entirely unknown to Einstein, at the very beginning of the 20th century, which is ever not, of course, an insignificant point to make.  Neither metaphysics in general nor ontological theology in particular were affected by this absolutely tremendous hyper-expansion of galactic realities, meaning in notable terms of cognition.  Considerations of the metaphysical order of reality remain the same in that the study of being remains the same and regardless, therefore, of the posited ever greater empirical magnitude of all of existence, of the entire postulated universe itself.  Metaphysics is, thus, ever ready to both intelligibly accommodate and properly deal with reality, whether called scientific or otherwise.

None of those other galaxies had the power to will themselves into existence. They were there all along and just waiting to be discovered, as to their empirical and existential reality, within the universe itself.  Evolutionists “think” it’s all there by just pure chance alone, at least, besides any/all assumed randomness involved.  Agnostics claim not to be sure, at best.  In notable contrast, theological pronouncements seek, through religion, to proclaim that creation, by definition, implies the logical and reasonable existence, the Unmoved Mover beingness, of the Creator, at last; or, much more actually, rather, “In the beginning, …,”  as noted in the Old Testament, or as called by the Jewish people Torah.

Otherwise, there must be wrongly posited the ridiculous notion of a spontaneous generation of matter, as to its own so willful self-creation or motivation, as to the most primal existence imaginable. Aristotle, though only an ancient pagan of the relatively limited Greek world, basically got the correct notion by the sole use of human reason, not by revelation of any kind surely.  There, by definition, had to be a primary mover, the Unmoved Mover, who had then to unquestionably be God, the Supreme Being.  Though only aided by his understanding of Natural Theology, this still became, for Aristotle, totally indisputable as to the inherent logic of the situation examined by the science of his era, as St. Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas would have both agreed.

No less a posited a substantial agent could, then, logically, reasonably, or substantially account fully for all of the then observed existence, magnitude, scope, range, and depth of the absolutely vast immensity of existent ontological reality qua being itself.  The assertion concerns first principles.

Nothing less would do as to a valid essential explanation, covering what could be reasoned out through the human intelligence alone, without any religious or theological promptings being added as to the empirical cognition involved. Belief in supernaturalism per se was not a consideration as to the logic concerned, as to the comprehension of being and its rather cognate beingness.  Aristotle, therefore, had properly reasoned his way toward the important knowledge of metaphysical order that, as to realizing the concomitant attributes necessary for a Prime Mover, equally concluded that agent had, by reasoned logical inference, to be certainly God, the greatest realization of all of ontology to the nth degree.

However, these days, sociocultural conditions have gone significantly far beyond blasphemy, sacrilege, and outright sodomy all combined; for it is axiologically worse, as God is boldly nihilistically said openly to be and denounced as only absolute evil; and, what was and is so truly evil, thus, gets both officially and institutionally, by governments no less, praised as completely being absolute good. The extremely dark, satanic Nietzschean transvaluation, total transformation, of values is seen in the deathly embrace of the black abyss explicitly desired, as it was, by Nietzsche.

He had clearly recognized what the very cowardly liberals of his era, with their atheist orientations, were much too faint-hearted to so realistically accept and logically embrace, meaning along with their (often covert) secularization as, e. g., with Kant and so many others. Nietzsche, therefore, fully embraced the demonic lust for death, both warmly and willingly, unlike the (evil) advocates and snide champions of Liberalism who refused to honestly recognize the manifest logic of their preaching, meaning as to what its pro-death conclusion must invariably be.  A truly honest representative of the nihilist spirit of Manchesterian Liberalism was the (pre-converted) Ebenezer Scrooge, whose Malthusian enthusiasm had openly wished death upon the poor, in the squalid name of an exuberant Capitalism, of classical Liberalism.  Thus, triumphant modernity, when revealed to crystal clarity of philosophical and theological exposure, openly favors the Gospel of Death.

In true contrast, the ontological theology of the Athanasian Creed, Apostles Creed, and Nicene Creed affirm the Sign of the Cross, the Glory Be, and, of course, the Trinitarian Dogma; the Gospel of Life is, therefore, seen splendidly in the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the Mediatrix of all Graces; moreover, the so glorious Transubstantiation of the Host exists, for one, also, sees the true kratophany of Christ’s birth, an irruption into history itself, a break within the time-space continuum unprecedented, by sure definition. Catholicism, thus, remains the best ontological antidote to nihilism and its many lethal consequences as favored by the nihilistic-demonic radicals and their thanatophilic supporters of progressive decadence and degradation.  The theocentric, Christocentric, orientation is widely different to a very monumental degree.

The God-Man’s very existence in Nature had then redesigned and reinvented (mere) earth history, by so transforming ontological order, in making it a definite part of actual salvation history, a realization, for instance, that the Protestantism of Eric Voegelin could not handle, for he totally refused to believe that Jesus physically appeared to Saul (St. Paul) on the road to Damascus.   The Creator, by definition, of all ontological order was, in Voegelin’s poor mind, somehow the dependent subject of creation, not the absolute Master of it; he had accepted, as a nominalist on this issue, an inverted ontology as being true and, thus, made more congenial to a supposed anthropocentric realism.

But, this then yields a much truncated ontological supposition, postulating a substantially diminished sense of being, that wrongly seeks to limit the metaphysical order to lesser realms of certainty, as to the possibilities of supernatural potency and capability; in short, Voegelin thought he simply knew better, contrary to the New Testament.  But, nonetheless, is this really and trenchantly tenable?

The true ontological mastery involved covers explicitly, e. g., the Trinitarian Dogma concerning the Holy Trinity, though a clear mystery incapable of ever being encompassed as to its awesome totality by the mere human mind, presents yet the ever absolute instantiation of being to the most superlative degree possible and without any question; more than that, it is the both forcefully adamant refutation and ardently thoroughgoing condemnation of any immanentist ideological preferences made imaginable, for there is the surely unexampled exaltation of the Being of God as, in truth, incorporating three separate persons no less. Respect for beingness and, moreover, personhood exists triumphantly and explicitly.

This, positively inclusive of such needed dogmas as the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Christ and Immaculate Conception, makes Roman Catholicism substantially and substantively unlike any other religion; and, this puts its theology at the very unparalleled height of both clear ontological presentation and affirmation, which, consequently, so posits an ontological theology that commands philosophical and theological attention and respect.

It could fairly be noted, regardless of this article’s “default writing” on being because of a basic lack as indicated by Gilson, that this truly remarkable situation has lasted for over 2,000 years and still counting. And yet, this mere noted time factor is, in a larger context, the very least of what supremely so recommends the commanding thought and reflections pertaining to the subject of being, as a here noted subset of considerations of Supreme Being, of metaphysics of a necessarily rather high order, at a bare minimum.

Only the truly dead, insane intellect of an atheist is not naturally awed by the compounded axiological, epistemological, and ontological argumentation so involved, toward an invited magnanimous dialogue upon the interesting subject of being. Of course, small minds, if minds they be, still dismiss all of this as solely miraculous-sounding mumbo-jumbo having no meaning whatsoever, due to an absurdly inverted intellection done by only mortal, meaning by definition, imperfect beings.  Creatures, which from outer space look like tiny microbes crawling on the surface of this planet, exercise the quite odd effrontery of making officious-sounding, preposterous pronouncements about the asininely assumed nonexistence of all of metaphysical order itself.  Nothingness beyond observed experiential materiality itself, which, in effect, becomes then divinized matter, gets amazingly exalted.  How so?

It is then, as with other instances correctly cited, a clear form of insanity in believing, meaning actually lending solid credence to, the thought that materiality is ever the be all and end all of just everything imaginable. More to the most salient critical point, those who do incredibly doubt this obvious fact of metaphysical order are themselves, of course, insane.  They do lack the right common sense ability for properly conducting profound intellection of a high order and, therefore, no rational mind should accord any due respect, demanded deference, for the insanity of the evident belief in nothing.

One sees that nothingness, and its own presumed presentment, commands the questionable respect of surely quite irrational and illogical minds. The atheist-denounced miraculous reality of all supernatural order is more normative, moreover, than is usually suspected these days; and, the beingness of being gets confirmed more intensely, by metaphysical order, than by any secular-humanist appeals to vacuous nothingness.

Any miracle, however, is nothing at all special to the Supreme Being, merely a plain and quite ordinary fact of just His own simple existence. Human beings, however, call supernatural order’s ways, of course, miraculous, not God.   While it is incomparably true that God, by definition, cannot contradict His Being, nonetheless, the Author of Creation is, therefore, not in any ontological subjection to His own creation, as the Scholastics properly knew, through the philosophical development of ontology’s epistemology.

The alternative, covertly offered by atheism’s vain quest, is the supposed divinization of mere material matter as the ersatz god substitute, though such artsy legerdemain is not, of course, ever meant to be noticed, as nothingness gets worshipped. The opposite viewpoint is the assertive beingness of being athwart the nothingness of nothing.  How can this needed comprehension be then better explicated?

The Epistemology of Ontology as Supporting Ontological Theology

Among the ancient Greeks, Parmenides is cited as having been among the first to suggest an ontological characterization of the central nature of reality.  Plato, in his The Sophist, considers the topic of being.  In the ontology of St. John the Evangelist, the Greek Logos was, in his Gospel, translated as the Word and, for believing Christians, the Word made flesh, the Christ.  In effect, it ought to be properly realized that all of Roman Catholicism, when interpreted by theological orthodoxy, is so truly representative of ontological theology, which would not have been disputed by Aquinas.

More adamantly here to the point, Roman Catholicism, being quite explicitly an incarnational religion of a high order, had to suitably develop a profound awareness of ontology and ontological teachings, in cognitive and demonstrative support of theological certitudes, dogmas and doctrines, of the Faith. It could not be otherwise.

In the modern era as to philosophizing, meaning at least since the 17th century, René Descartes (1596–1650), a dedicated nominalist, derailed both epistemology and ontology; however, the term “ontology” itself was first utilized, in the philosophical lexicon of Rudolph Goclenius in 1613, as a most convenient synonym for metaphysics; also, it was used by Johannes Clauberg, and what would later come to be its particular felicitous presentation, as being the primary or highest division of metaphysics, was done, in the 18th century, by Christian von Wolff in his Philosophia Prima sive Ontologia published in 1730; he is, thus, largely credited with actually popularizing usage of that particular term.

Before the Modern Age or even the Middle Ages, what was held to be the science of being had kept the designations rendered as to formal cognizance by its acknowledged, ancient progenitor Aristotle; these do run the gambit, e. g., from calling it the first philosophy, wisdom, and, since metaphysics had not yet acquired any overly specified subdivisions, also theology. Ontology as theology, concerning older usage, could be said to just analogously participate in Divine Reason, not just human reason alone, as is so very appropriate, of course, for an incarnational religion and attendant explications as such.

Metaphysics proper, as a separate term, was rendered a much broader allowance of meaning by Wolff regarding intentional differentiation. He separated the denomination of “real philosophy” into general metaphysics, which he, in addition, had decided to partition as certain subdivisions to name: ontology and special ontology, the later term is meant to cover cosmology, psychology, and theodicy.   All of this presupposes, of course, that there is, in fact, an objective reality in existence; otherwise, all bets are off.

Traditionally, the majority of Catholic philosophers have, more or less, maintained the fairly neat kind of compartmentalizations developed by Wolff. Ontology’s subject matter, as a direct consequence of this discussion, is typically organized or formulated in a sequential order of proper consideration.  Being is said to be an objective concept, moreover, in its broadest array of intelligibility that covers both actual and potential being, and this is the initially examined aspect of it when, e. g., given in formal courses.

Also, by logical extension, the appropriate problems concerned with essence, meaning the nature of being and existence. In addition, as to interrelationships and connectedness, both “act” and “potency” are necessarily deliberated attributes, while the chief principles, inclusive of contradiction, identity, etc. are demonstrated to naturally arise from the allied concept of entity within all of the larger realm of ontological speculation as such.

Next, there comes those considerations of what are said to be qualities that logically coexist with the reality of being and beingness; these do include truth, unity, and goodness, as implicit attributes of all metaphysical order, because they are, rather axiomatically, related to the concepts of order and beauty that are expostulated.  The closer toward the concept of perfection, the true, the good, the beautiful, and the reality of order, the greater then the philosophical realization of the highest vision of ontology.

In this philosophical arrangement, truth, beauty, and goodness are ultimately seen as one; what is supremely true must be, by definition, genuinely beautiful and, if so, it must, by definition, possess all attributes of true goodness too. In short, there is the expression of the phrase: the true, the good, and the beautiful, for Christianity naturally, e. g., necessarily and directly applies this to the Godhead, the Creator, with absolute and eternal meanings; this is where, of course, human reason can point to Divine Reason as governing the universe and beyond; thus, it is not surprising if further thoughts may point toward ontological theology as a logical consequence of ontology, of the cognizance of existence or being.

There are, as formally presented, the essential core divisions of being into the finite and the infinite, the contingent and the necessary, and other such primary divisions appropriately illustrative of the main means of so classifying these perceived categories. One can interestingly note the subdivisions, e. g., of the finite that are placed into the proper classes of substance and its accidents such as quantity, quality, and other such accidents pertaining thereto.  These direct appropriate metaphysical attention correctly to the objective or reality of substance, the cognate significance of personality, the relation of accident to substance being set appropriately among the usually most prominent, noticeable, topics to be, as such, then considered in noetic translation.

The finishing ration or noted comprehension of ontology is generally oriented to the concept of cause and its chief divisions; these would be then known as efficient cause and final cause, material cause and formal cause, which logically covers the objectivity and analytical character of the principle of causality that normally receives a predominant consideration in discussions of this nature. However, the various cosmological limitations and errors of either ancient or medieval science ought not to be, sophistically, laid at the feet of Scholasticism; the principles of the tradition, its integral core interests as a discipline, do not require that such baggage be absurdly kept or, perhaps, regurgitated, of course.

But, it is also important to fairly realize, due to much modernist era created confusion, to get a proper understanding of what ontology definitely is or is not. Contrary to such famous nominalist thinkers of the modern age, e. g., as Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) ontology is not ever a supposedly subjective science given to various idiosyncratic or personal interpretations, though that has, in fact, been ever attempted.  However, all or any attempts have no intellectual impact whatsoever in terms of destroying the truth of ontology as to its understanding, though epistemological nominalism, one suspects, keeps trying as hard as it can, unfortunately.

Against the later thinking of Sir William Hamilton (1788—1856), who in his Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic, had merely regarded it as an inferential psychology, it is definitely not of that nature whenever properly made the rigorous subject of comprehension and study.  Those assertions by Kant, Hamilton, Edmund Husserl, in his Logical Investigations, and others are really only deformations, solely distortions, of the correct understanding here needed; they have directed attention away, unfortunately, from the requisite study of ontology now perceived as being mainly trivial in nature; the forces of subjectivism and its application has, continuously, corroded the knowledge of it further.

As a result, there needs to be, through appropriate critical theorization, an important reconstruction of philosophy in the postmodern era.  Of course, among other writers, in 1914, Fr. Peter Coffey (1876 – 1943) published his neo-Scholastic work: Ontology, or the Theory of Being: An Introduction to General Metaphysics that went against the subjectivist trend.   Although he was, e. g., thought to be one of the most influential philosophers of the past century, W. V. O. Quine’s (1908 – 2000) correct rejection of the false analytic–synthetic distinction does not at all, for instance, make up for his unfortunate defense of ontological relativism, as is explicitly seen in his Ontological Relativity and Other Essays.

Ontology as to itself, therefore, should not be interpreted as any supposed knowledge of the absolute such as in theology, for in its distinct form, it is always naturally separate from theology; consequently, the supposed projection if it as being ultimate reality, whether, e. g., conceived as matter or spirit, is also then completely wrong; though those called Monists do consider it to lie beneath and yield the existence of individual real beings and their human expressions as such, this view must too be rejected as just being totally false. Such aberrant views are clearly misrepresentations, falsifications, or improper alterations of the correct knowledge of proper ontology, as is demonstrated in this present article.

Ontology, when seen in a clear light of human reason, is a fundamental clarification and interpretation of the ultimate components of the entire domain of experience. All these components, perceived as individuals with their characteristics, then do possess features or parts held in common.  Thus, whether considering such a diversity as atoms, molecules, fauna, flora, humans, and the Supreme Being, all concur in this ontological comprehensiveness in that all possess being, have characteristic essences, are individual unities, substances, contain truth and goodness, and, with the one notable exception of God, have accidents pertaining to their own natures; in addition, as to characteristics, all then are or may be  causes, for existence, in a sense, can be appreciated as being either simple or complex.

All these above collective attributes, regarding different cited instances of being, logically do mandate the ability to provide definition and explanation; there is to be definition not just of their mere names, rather, an analysis of the real object, as to the particularities of being, which the human intellect then abstracts and reflectively processes or considers. And, thus, there are rather definite infrastructural implications as to the particular cognition involved.

Consequently, ontology needs to be rightly perceived as the essential science to be acknowledged; this is because it, of its inherent speculative necessity, researches the truly fundamental ingredients of and the principles logically presumed by what are called the specialized sciences.  One can be informed by such works as Frederick Wilhelmsen’s Being and Knowing, meaning as to the truth of what needs to be said.  And, as, perhaps, could be guessed by now, all the other chunks of speculation as to philosophy, ethics, logic, cosmology, theodicy, sociology, and psychology, are dependent upon the underpinning necessarily constructed by ontology.  Wilhelmsen knew that it is even more so true for Catholicism’s incarnational faith regarding any rational and truly apposite approach toward a constructive philosophy.

In proper addition, all of the physical sciences, meaning, of course, biology, biochemistry, astronomy, geology, physics, astrophysics, chemistry, ecology, biology, as well as the consideration of mathematics assume, in fact, the same existing foundations as to necessity; without any ontological reality, moreover, there is no reality to be studied, physical or human. However, ontology is still reliant upon the directive of what needs to be known as analysis, though not translational within the order of synthesis, on those cited sections of knowledge; the metaphysics of being begins with their data and uses their information in properly illuminating their many various and descriptive presuppositions and principles.

Ontology is often alleged to be concerned with only abstractions having no substance in reality. And yet, one still intelligibly recognizes that science, in essence, is concerned with considerations of the abstract, the universal, not always seemingly or, for that matter, immediately with the concrete and individual.  Thought is rendered to the particular fact that the physical sciences, as to their nature as such, abstract the various phenomena from their discrete or distinct subjects; I fact, one perceives that the mathematical sciences do, thus, abstract the matter of quantity, as pertaining to number and dimensions thereof, from its own peculiar setting as to what could, theoretically, be unto infinity.

Ontology, as a consequence, ultimately abstracts what remain; this then concerns, usually, the essence, existence, substance, causality, etc. of the subject or subjects in question. One cannot rationally purport to explore the rather absurd notion that, of these final attained abstractions, there can then be obtained no actually distinct knowledge.  Moreover, the often pretentious attempt to then pursue the avowed negation of their comprehension demonstrates that the human intellect has some knowledge, ironically, of that which it, yet supposedly, seeks to refute.

The rather disciplined and rational effort of ontology, as to the now significant point asseverated, only then commences to develop translationally that kind of elementary or basic knowledge to see it become still more distinctive and comprehensive, in comparison. There is, or should be, a methodically settled ontology embedded, therefore, in every formal proper course of Catholic philosophy; and it is suspected strongly that to its theoretical and developed ontology that philosophy is, consequently, appropriately indebted.

This is rigorously concerning its certainty and steadiness, while the marked deficiency of an adequate or better ontology in other perceived systems elucidates, in sharp contrast, their often basic nebulousness and variability attributable to nominalism, to subjectivism, often in a so clever disguise. Most generally, moreover, tons of applied verbiage or diverse semantic gymnastics tries to make up for a real lack of solid thought and genuine erudition.

In heuristic reiteration, the name of Aristotle comes to mind as the one who first created a precise and established ontology for philosophy. In his Metaphysics, Book IV, one notes that he critically analyses the basic elements, called “first philosophy,” to which the human intellect condenses the truly wide world of extant reality.  The medieval philosophers, who took up the classical tradition, develop wisely his writings as to formulating the foundation of their insightful commentaries in and through which they not only enlarge and explain the cogitation presented, but often take out errors and augment the knowledge gained in the higher light of Christian Revelation.

One could, quite voluminously, discuss St. Thomas Aquinas and his various compositions that cover do rigorously theology and philosophy and, for instance, such late Scholastics as Francisco Suárez (1548-1617), the Doctor eximius, though some of his work, one must admit here, had been unfortunately too much damaged, at times, by the terribly subjectivist, notably modernist, inroads of nominalism.  The derailment of Scholasticism by such prominent expositors had the long-term effect of doing damage to much of neo-Scholasticism (also, often denominated as neo-Scholastic Thomism or neo-Thomism).

And yet, his important (though unfinished work) Disputationes Metaphysicae has been regarded as being one of the most systematic works on ontology that had been ever compiled in any language.  It very easily, of course, surpasses Aquinas’ De Ente et Essentia (On Being and Essence).   However, the metatheoretical theoretics of ontology would properly require that the serious intellectual problems created by the Late Scholastics, prominently including Suarez and Francisco de Vitoria, be recognized as such; these have been delineated, e, g., by E. B. F. Midgley, in his impressive The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations; they, also, helped to cause the deformation of Scholasticism seen, later, in what became called neo-Scholasticism, though all this is rarely, these days, understood properly nor is it normally taken account of in most pertinent discussions.

As a major historical example, Jacques Maritain, influenced by nominalism, imbibed freely of the surely significant errors of the late Scholastics that had, in turn, ruined much of his own thinking and writing; Étienne Gilson and Joseph Pieper, in forever definite contrast, were able to still avoid them by staying much closer to the tradition.  A true revival of the tradition, as desired by Edward Feser, would require abandonment of merely formulaic cogitation by actively thinking through ontology’s metatheoretical theoretics to achieve a dynamic representation of the core Thomistic principles, so central to a correct exposition of them, against nominalism and its many terrible consequences.  One can notably determine a practical basis for this valid concern in reading such good works as John Frederick Peifer’s The Mystery of Knowledge, which is a rather sturdy, concise, and reasoned defense of Scholasticism.

Therefore, regarding the various noted realities of ontological thought, both the corpus of Aristotelean writings and the useful medieval Scholastic commentaries are, of course, held to be its so fundamental foundation and, principally speaking, its main presentational material; but, one knowledgeably suspects, the latter appropriately intensifies, and greatly supplements both good efforts at understanding. As to a pertinent historical matter for consideration, the German philosopher Jacob Lorhard invented the useful Latin term ontologia (“science of being”) that first appeared in his 1606 text entitled Ogdoas Scholastica.  So, what had happened, in a broader context, to the previously impressive edifice of Scholasticism?

Modernity as to its conceptual thrust, meaning the ascending victory of nominalism over the human mind, directed attention increasingly, ever more and more, toward the physical sciences or natural science; this was mostly inspired and enhanced in importance, as to its motivating spirit, by Francis Bacon. How so?  This surely modern movement of thought directed the central basis of philosophy away from the contemplative pursuit of abstract truth for improving human knowledge and conduct.

Such empirical thinkers as John Locke, David Hume, and their intellectual supporters had refused to believe, through their corrupted epistemology, in the objective existence of reality, meaning of the object of ontology, by their severe denigration of being and, moreover, the very beingness of being. Subjectivity and experimentalism, experience and not theoretics, had replaced classical objectivity, though, ironically, done in the name of seeking a new objectivity called science or enlightenment.

It was haughtily asserted, solipsistically, that man can really know nothing, they posited, of the actual essence of any things in existence; relatedly, therefore, cited substance is but a mere mental figment of imagination; by extension, all accidents of things in existence are then merely subjective aspects of an incomprehensible noumenon; moreover, the factor of cause, with this reinforcing and self-justifying reductionism gone wild, is just to be crudely depicted a term for only a arrangement, a simple sequence, of assorted phenomena observed.

These rather arrogant repudiations of metaphysics had then been greatly accentuated, over time, by such dedicated modernists, among many famous others, as August Comte, Karl Marx, Thomas Huxley, and Herbert Spencer, the last named easily proving just how suitably well (rugged) individualism goes with a blatant subjectivism in (such crude) cognition, no doubt.

In a parallel manner, the plainly subjective and attendant psychological tendencies of René Descartes and his cohorts further darkened still more the once manifest perception of metaphysical truth, as with, e. g., self-evident truths (as was openly written of in the US Declaration of Independence). Descartes’ malignant thoughts upon the supposed falsity of causality, creating a kind of ersatz religion out of bold solipsistic skepticism, ever after had vilely plagued modern philosophy and, invariably, also aided in then corrupting such postmodernist cognitive considerations as well.

All chief concepts and principles were then subjectively thought to be either forms, somehow or other, innate in the mind or, perhaps, outcomes of its development; however, none are said to ever express an actuality regarding any possible objective reality. In illustration, Kant, in so analyzing the arrangement in his mind of the cerebral faculties, such as particular concerns for perception, judgment, or reasoning, had, supposedly, discovered in them their native forms that then show the mere reflection of subjective aspects of phenomena.

However, these then merely seem, to the uninstructed mind, to be the assumed “objective” realities such as being, substance, cause, etc.; nonetheless, they really are just, in truth, some solely subjective assessments as, thus, induced by sensory stimuli, which, in cognitive translation, can variously deceive the perceiving mind.  In short, generation by generation, relativism in secularist thought gets practically deified as axiomatically being true by, in fact, its very assertion as plain (nominalist) truth so-called.

Such instrumentalist tautological empiricism, prior to the postmodern existence of deconstructionism, had not been seen before in all of human history, a form of hubris too uncontained. Kant, a follower of Rousseau and also a crypto-atheist, as was noted by Leo Strauss and others, thought of God as a mere childish anthropomorphic projection, a kind of pubescent wish fulfillment, no longer actually needed by truly mature or enlightened men.

Though most still believe him to have been a Christian thinker, Kant had used, as Strauss had properly demonstrated in his Persecution and the Art of Writing, the artful technique of practicing secret writing to better disguise his bold atheism and, thus, intentionally subversive philosophizing or, much rather, his merely sophistic philodoxy.  He knew that any similar adepts, the presumably so advanced cognoscenti, could read between the sophisticated lines to get at the true meaning stated as, thus, slyly intended.

As a direct result, all of metaphysical order itself was declared just an illusion, a form of superstition, coming from the crudely brutish, primitive beginnings of man, who once had a seeming need of the supposed gods or, perhaps, of a singular “plausible” divinity for just mythologically explaining things.  Kant, in short, achieved a quite thoroughgoing rationalization of Protestantism that so leads, of necessity, toward a broadly pervasive secularism in thought, society, and culture; this was, thus, until almost all of the currently prevalent Western civilization had, in truth, become almost secularist saturated beyond need, which vilely came from the Kantian-pronounced anthropomorphic projection that, supposedly, had “created” God.

Now, secularized humanity has the superb tool of (a reified) science by which all (assumed) truth as truth can be, thus, openly known through rationalism, and by later thinkers, through needed acceptance of positivism, pragmatism, and materialism: Secularization triumphant. In addition, Kant’s subversiveness is no longer, moreover, a Christian scandal because it simply now resides “peacefully,” along with the agonizing death throes of the present civilization, of course.

As a subsequent consequence of such intellection, the prior subject matter of formal ontology is then abridged greatly to the types by which the human intellect, until challenged by ardent criticism, merely projects freely into the external world.  Therefore, one sees that between the two usually opposing past or contemporary extremes of Empiricism and Idealism, the classical-traditional philosophy, philosophia perennis holds, tightly and rightly, the demonstrated principles of both common sense and the still quite refined analysis of the Scholastics.

These are, of course, ever intellectually supplemented by the classical Natural Law teachings with proper respect to right reason and an unabashed appeal to the Divine Reason, which be not inconsistent with an incarnational religion, for Christ’s Divine Incarnation was, thus, the absolute glorification of being qua the Supreme Being; also, the then lesser glorification of (mere) physical matter was, then, perceived in citing both the Immaculate Conception and the (full bodily) Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  The Resurrection and Assumption into Heaven of Jesus Christ marks, moreover, the very preeminent and surely monumental exaltation of being unto its ultimate sanctification forever, meaning eternity itself, as Fr. Miceli would have agreed.

The great principles, including the divinization of being, set behind the Incarnation were totally affirmed as to an always factual reality, as to what in actual existence had occurred, which ought to be accepted by all Christians or, at the least, Catholics. In forceful reiteration, for the significant sake of expressing an extremely important observation of a certainly tremendous magnitude, the surely fantastic implications for (simple) ontology are, of course, rather astounding; this concerns, of course, the realization that mere physical matter, as to human bodies, has truly ascended, in fact, unto the everlasting glory.  For mere human beings, this would be the finality of achieving salvation, of the final goal of holy mortal beings.

At a mere minimum, concerning ontological theology, it is known that both Christ and Holy Mary are, therefore, quite physically present in Paradise. The here noted beingness of being has, therefore, been substantially and substantively reified beyond question.  But, mere humans, fallen creatures of a fallen world, need a terminology for handling and discussing such things done, normally, in much lesser figures of discourse.   Discussions and extrapolations appropriately denoting or affirming the terms of being, essence, truth, substance, accident, cause, and all the rest, are the words both properly articulating and communicating ideas, but representative for the clear realities yet involved. These presented realities, affirmed by ontological theology and much else, are also still quite objective aspects of the individuals that do cognitively assault, impinge necessarily upon, the senses and the mind.5

More to the main point here, they are properly determined, therefore, to be concretely external of the (mere) human intellect, not, of course, abstractly as they are known within it.  The truly proper meaning of ontology is, thus, not any supposed abstractionization of being that worships, in turn, multiple abstractions; on the contrary, concrete reality exposes the necessity of there being, in effect, witnesses to the beingness of being through philosophical demonstration.  In set stark opposition, the Western post-Enlightenment (read: atheist) separation of theology and ontology has then, in turn, necessarily corrupted all of human thought thereafter, whenever this fixative nominalist agenda or process gets itself demonically approved.

Nonetheless, the composing elements of otology are seen to be the final fundamental forms that the mind intuitively distinguishes, abstracts, and contemplatively scrutinizes in its effort to grasp essentially any object.  Thus, through pursuing this very profound philosophical analysis, it must engage whatever data it can attain from such sources as society, culture, sociological reality, and empirical psychology, within the functional scope of civilization.  But, as man is proven to be over millenniums a religious creature, human cognizance must keep advancing, thus, toward the true ground of all being.

Considerations of man’s humanitas needs then to fully transcend the regnant neopaganism, reprimitivization, and rebarbarization being forced into postmodern society and culture by both ideological fiat and statist political commands (for, e. g., many polymorphous toilets).  Otherwise, the ontological reductionism of radicalization will come to onerously delete the very humanity of human beings, in pursuit of the Leftist uniformitarian dogma, where all people are merely equipollent and interchangeable social units, as to just another species merely so occupying space on this planet.

Ontological theology comes here to revivify, to solidly reactivate, the beingness of being by seeking to know why and how man is made in the image of God, not just a chance creature put into an existence by the disparate whims of a subtly divinized evolutionism, which gets, finally, deified when all is said and done. The nominalist reification of being, sought by the demonic Culture of Death/Cultural Marxism, is then perceived to be the hopeless dead end of nihilism, the fruitless Nietzschean death wish of Western civilization, as demonically seconded by Sigmund Freud and his explicitly voyeuristic psychiatry.

What gets creatively realized, however, is that the elevated meta-being of a being with an immortal soul matters greatly, pertaining to the argumentation for a substantial beingness of human creatures, who are not just interchangeable or, perhaps, solely epiphenomenological organic units possessing some relatively temporary existence or certain (clinically) observed animation. A human being is more than just the sum of his parts.

Man’s precious humanity is part of the fabulous rise up from ancient barbarism and isolating primitivism toward ever finer efforts to ethically, morally, and spiritual rise up toward a much greater philosophical awareness of the true, the good, and the beautiful; thus, the necessity of ontological considerations that do reach toward ontological theology in efforts at a right comprehensiveness of ethical, moral, and spiritual judgment of man’s relation to all of nature, meaning the reality of existence, and, ultimately, to God.  It is a part of the celebration of the humanity of man, his humanization, in being risen far above the mere beasts of the field, as to possessing an image of what is truly human, lastly, being created in the image of God; this is all for best using the highest purposes of advanced civilization as a hallmark of mankind, though not here presuming to ever advance the (rightly condemned) ideological abstraction of Progress.

Dehumanization, through meanly measuring people in cold terms of bowel movements or urinary flow, reveals the disgusting nihilistic depths of what the radical imagination is genuinely all about more than listening to a thousand lectures about Karl Marx, Communism, or Feminism, cited separately or all put together.   So much for the imputed determinist “meaning” of genderless toilets.  Unfortunately, the Left prefers man’s enslavement to his basest instincts by accepting determinism.

With people ever reduced, again and again, to the vicious determinism of lowest common denominators, the proper religious alternative of a theology offering human freedom, known as the doctrine of free will, should rationally appear as a liberating sort of paradise on earth in comparison.  An alternative, in 2016, is contemporary Venezuela, where people actually starve to death in yet another offered Communist Workers Utopia.

This is where human beings are not just some seemingly more fairy intelligent peripatetic animals qua bipedal animals but are, rather, truly sapiential beings, homo sapiens, deserving of their respect, honor, and dignity as being the children of God.  By the then careful study of meta-ontology, this is surely as the foundational and fundamental integral beingness of all being, of ontological reality in the ultimate sense thereof, that so belongs to the Supreme Being who, by definition, defines all of existence, the absolute meaning of being itself.   The Highest Deity is, by definition, the fullness of absolute comprehensiveness of all beingness of reality itself, thus, the Supreme Being, who has been called the First Principle, without which there is, literally to the nth degree, nothing.

Such an interesting thought is necessarily allied, furthermore, to all proper speculations and appropriate deliberations pertaining to the precise substance and definition of ontological theology related to man’s humanity and his substance of being. One perceives keenly here, therefore, that the reprehensible and too vain existential-experiential revolt against being, against ontology, can only be incommensurate and irresponsible; this is supremely regarding the rigorous cognitive comprehension of beingness necessary for sensate sapiential beings, occupying dimension, space and time, especially pertaining to immortal souls possessing consciousness for, retaining noetic articulation of, free will ever so highly above mere automatons or pure robots; and, this is why, among other pertinent and important indicative reasons, relativism, positivism, pragmatism, hedonism, and materialism do naturally go so well with determinism, not the contrary doctrine of free will.

As a philosophical product of nominalism, determinism, then, logically seeks the fullest annihilation of beingness as necessarily, inevitably, offensive to its often covert nihilistic viewpoint as was, for instance, exhibited so ardently by Martin Luther in particular and, thus, clearly unavoidably by Protestantism in general.  The spirited and purposeful defense of being and beingness, the reality inherent to ontological order, is always undoubtedly requisite for the needed defense of man’s humanity and free will, as the precious gifts of the Divine Being, the Supreme Being, called God.

The human being’s possession of beingness, furthermore, adds weight and gravity to being and its valid articulation, as such, concerning cognizance of a conscience yielding consciousness, which is, in turn, the human recognition of being; this has definite clear consequences, meaning, of course, certain manifest ramifications regarding true beingness, in much more than just ether mere physical existence or organic animation alone.

One sees, for instance, that if there was ever a possible condition of “beinglessness” (nirvana) attainable for any sensate creatures, it would only be theoretically possible by a separation from the Divine Being, the Divine Reason, the Author of all Creation Himself.  Whatever else that possesses being, however, does not need to then exist, which means that any nirvana is, by definition, impossible.  All of reality is dependent, which is, by the way, the inherent nature of contingency, in the one necessary existence of the Supreme Being, of the Unmoved Mover, for, literally, the more than just trans-universal Being of all being.

This is, moreover, as to the comprehensible universal-cosmological existence cognate, to the nth degree attainable, only by and through so occupying all of eternity, which, by definition, subsumes all that there was, is, or will be, in and beyond existence.  This, of positive necessity, then logically relates, of course, to the very definition of a supremely indesinent, omnicompetent, and omnipotent God, the Lord Almighty.

Ultimately, this why the argument, e. g., from materiality is a canard and not any real stumbling block toward truth; material existence alone, as things in themselves, are incapable of comprehending and explaining the profundity of existence qua existence, for matter, as is known, cannot will itself, among other very severe limitations of mere physical being.  Materiality and physicality are related phenomena.  But, the assertion of immateriality does not axiomatically equate with its meaninglessness; such matters as love, hate, hope, fear, truth, lies, greed, generosity, envy, friendship, lust, etc. obviously do then lack materiality but possess a reality nonetheless.   In line with atheism-secularism, a contemporary world obsessed so greatly much with myth, magic, and superstition, due to a pervasive nominalism, demands “magicality” from metaphysical order, as if it were only another kind of just superstitious, mythic idea.

And yet, substance alone cannot explain itself. Mere contingent being and its beingness in and of itself cannot self-generate itself, meaning as to absolute origination.  The then related enigmas, conundrums, and dilemmas of the rejection of metaphysical order, however, lead not toward either mental or moral clarity but, rather, to nihilism and, finally, insanity at a dead end; this can be, therefore, so rather readily observed today, in many manifest areas of existent societal and cultural realities, of civilizational decay.


When truly knowledgeable thought, aided by right reason, common sense, and traditional Natural Law wisdoms gained by centuries of cognizance, is all applied intelligently in such a fixed manner, atheism, then, becomes just a rather crude joke unfit for all serious vital intellects significantly cognizant of reality to the profoundest degrees that mere human beings can imagine.  And, thus, all of an applied ontological theology verifies such an assertion because, among other reasons, real truth never becomes antiquated.

But, this observation is yet tremendously far from sufficient, as to a wanted comprehensiveness of such requisite knowledge, which ought to actually exist among surely educated people concerning the basic philosophical functionality of ontology and, thus, the importance of didactic theology and its ever right theorization. The contemporary total rejection of ontological theology means, thus, the final embrace of nihilism that must lead, of necessity, to insanity, for there is no other truly viable choice available, at that rather late point in time; it is, thus, seen that the contemporary “civilization” is notably crumbling.

Moreover, one suspects, as that highly indicative quote from Fr. Miceli, at the beginning introduction had most abundantly made clear, there is then, in truth, no via media, no real middle ground to ever choose; either God or nothing; for then quite surely, without the Supreme Being, by definition, there is nothing. With ontological order, there is the beingness of being; without it, the supposed beinglessness of being is not just easily untenable, it is just definitionally emblematic of the so much observed insanity made, now, so prevalent and pervasive.   Further matters, therefore, need to be here extrapolated and inferred, meaning as to their both integral logic and verified certitude related to ontological theology and metaphysical order.

All essential qualities of a human person’s beingness, eventually, gets attention driven to the necessary metaphysical order of reality, of existence, of being, which is so fully consistent with the rendered firm positing of ontological theology for, of course, better explaining the, thus, philosophical framework for successful expository delineations of true being. And, moreover, further intellectual exploration beyond the limitations of (an often fossilized) Scholasticism would indicatively be the metatheoretical theoretics of ontology; this is rightly seen as appropriately regarding the proper translative theorization of being for, e. g., refuting anthropocentricism and its predominant secularist hold upon the quintessential contemporary mind.6

Otherwise, the being of beingness may just end up oddly discussed, increasingly, as a vacuous abstraction, seeming to suggest autonomous being as a supposed reality of persons as material objects only; this is when without regard for that which, logically, animates the actuality of all being, namely, the Lord God or, perhaps, more prosaically, the metaphysical order of reality.

Ontological reality, when accurate and cogent theorization is applied, then gets correctly understood as a proper subset of metaphysical order in general that defends the being of beingness; this is as a directly requisite part of that noted order, as well demonstrated in Wilhelmsen’s Being and Knowing.  And, then, there is the possibility of a much better understanding of postmodernism as to truthful dialogical cognition, for astutely improved philosophical reflection, that may be, right aptly, sent upon a proper sapiential course of rigorous intellection; the best that fallen creatures, sinners, can do in a fallen world.7

On the highest level imaginable, moreover, ontological order and metaphysical order do, at the ultimate end, finally merge in quite formidable terms of what, at the least, Christians understand, so that all the faithfully departed, whose souls are fully cleansed, become, therefore, totally united through, by, and in Christ forever, the final Being of all beingness made whole.  And, by definition, one clearly sees that as being the ultimate cosmic achievement of eternal salvation. Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.


Athanasius contra mundum!


Select Bibliography

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Fr. Peter Coffey, S. J., Ontology, or the Theory of Being: An Introduction to General Metaphysics

Étienne Gilson, God and Philosophy

Edward Feser, Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction

___________. The Last Superstition

Daniel Q. McInerny, Metaphysics

Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, S.J., The Gods of Atheism

Cardinal Désiré-Félicien-François-Joseph Mercier, A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy: Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Ontology

Thomas P. Neill, Makers of the Modern Mind

Josef Pieper, Scholasticism

Michael C. Rea, World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism

James V. Schall, S. J., Roman Catholic Political Philosophy

Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Christianity and Political Philosophy

_________________. Being and Knowing

_________________. Man’s Knowledge of Reality



  2. Both the anthropogenic climate modeling (firstly, in the 1970s, global cooling then, decades later, global warming and, currently, meaning since about the last ten years, denominated “climate change” for then better hedging one’s ideological bets, presumably) and environmentalism (as distinct from the proper Naturalist movement of the late 19th and early 20th century) that includes saving fauna and flora from extinction are extremely manifest instances of insanity generally promoted by popular culture and ideological fiat. Genuine scientists are not fear mongers, for the true science involved does not support the ideological preferences.

The latter effort to fight extinction is just, by definition, totally insane. How so?  The environmentalists, evolutionists, and, moreover, scientists themselves have readily asserted that at least or about 90%, in effect, of almost all species that had, in fact, ever existed on earth have become extinct.  What does this logically mean and substantially imply?

Extinction is, therefore, both simply natural for and clearly normal to all plant and animal species as to a, thus, natural process seen in verifiably explicit terms of Natural History. Is there an obvious implication?  Absurd, irrational, and illogical human efforts to halt or reverse (through Frankenstein experiments or de-extinction projects) the extinction processes are then, by definition, insane; they are, thus, overtly unnatural and necessarily abnormal as is, of course, insanity itself. Q. E. D.

Neither climate change nor environmentalism exists by what used to be taken to be the official, normal science and scientific study and research. They exist, primarily, because of the intellectual, societal, and cultural predominance of a pervasive belief in myth, magic, and superstition, which all together then easily facilitates, handily enables, insanity.  Unfortunately, the distinct majority of people have crescively become so quite psychologically and mentally conditioned severely today, as to not be able to clearly recognize insanity when they perceive it or encounter it.

As a major instance of contemporary insanity, nutty Pope Francis, of course, seems to want to make neo-Catholic “sacraments” out of (sacred?) carpooling and (holy?) recycling to then fight the totally nonexistent global warming.  One can, pertinently, read Christopher C. Horner’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) and Tom Bethell’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.

  2. Some people may object to this almost blanket assertion.  The Nazi philosopher (as late as 1950, he publicly wrote in defense of Nazism) Martin Heidegger (1889 – 1976), might, perhaps, get ignorantly cited, due to his famous book entitled: Being and Time. But, with his decidedly nominalist approach, his radical intention was, actually, to seek to fully undermine and attack being, not to assert its rather much needed and important philosophical defense, as noted in this present article covering ontology.

He rather certainly had, into the 20th century, and still does heavily influence an impressive, wide ranging  multitude of existentialists, deconstructionists, phenomenologists, etc. now into the 21st century.  Edmund Husserl’s (1859 – 1938), e. g., thoughts on formal ontology, equally, plays no part at all in this article’s different considerations, since he was devoted to mainly phenomenological and such other speculations.

  1. This should be a matter not lightly considered, but it is too much for the article proper. The normal expectation of flesh is for it to rot totally after death, meaning that resurrection is only of a metaphysical nature. A relatively few bodies of Catholic religious are, as is sometimes known, existing in preserved states or conditions.  Again, that is the true exception as to simply mutable, corruptible, physical bodies, not the general rule.  Then, it is a great matter beyond rudimentary or plain ontology and, thus, relates to clearly meta-ontological significance that, e. g., supernatural bodies in Heaven do, in fact, exist as such.

Physical reality, due to divine intervention, becomes transfigured reality or being; the very beingness of such altered being gets transported to a much higher plateau, so to speak, of then perpetual existence beyond all normal dimension, time, or space limitations. This means that the human body, made in the image of God, is the only physical reality in the entire universe actually capable of eternal glorification, meaning to be in a real salvific state of being and, more than that, Heaven is truly a real physical place, as a needed consequence of such special physicality and extraordinary materiality.

The inherent nature of physicality requires, furthermore, that it be then properly accommodated by an existence, within the realm of a now supernatural existence quite suitable, of course, for a being having acquired a supernatural (or mystical) status, meaning as to that totally transfigured physicality.

Being an openly incarnational religion, only Roman Catholicism, through its consistent theology and philosophy, (its theological and philosophical writers as Doctors of the Church), has the both needed argumentative and dialogical means, the accepted unity of faith and reason, manifestly available to help explain the many only seeming paradoxes, supposed enigmas, or complex conundrums involved.  This only concerns all that actually remains below the level of actual divine mysteries, of course.

It has been well argued, however, that the true Age of Reason was when St. Thomas Aquinas had lived, worked, and wrote, not the much later so-called Era of Enlightenment.  To better illustrate the meaning of this, one could cite, again: /2016/04/08/myth-magic-islamic-state-and-roman-catholicisms-greatness/

  2. What is meant can be seen in the following:

A Powerful Case for Roman Catholic Orthodoxy

A Powerful Case for Roman Catholic Orthodoxy: The Postmodernist Disaster Examined

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni


The name under which Pride walks the world at this moment is the Perfectibility of Man, or the doctrine of Progress; audits specialty is the making of blueprints for Utopia and establishing the Kingdom of Man on earth.” – Dorothy L. Sayers, Creed or Chaos? (1949)

This is a brief review of what is seen as the postmodernist apotheosis of perfectibility, revivalism, Social Gospel, Progress, and demonism, regarding Roman Catholic reflections on why there was no Protestant Great Awakening in the year 2010.

Suitable historical facts will be cited, with the defense of religious orthodoxy and argumentation presented, strongly laid against what can be quite reasonably called gross theological malformation, along with rendered provocative questions.

Seeming conundrums are at hand: How does one talk about something as to its apparent absence that even the vast majority of people do not know is now plainly missing?  Is there a way of discussing what should supposedly exist when, empirically speaking, there is no actual way to be realistically seen that it does exist, as to an assertion?  Why is that existent Christianity seems, in this age, to be rather quite peculiarly and existentially opposed to itself in America?

Consequently, in this postmodern era, it is most sincerely hoped that this “investigative” disquisition be not seen as just existing abstractly in a thought vacuum. While reality can very well be unpleasant, let this present discussion persist, during this impressive Age of Heroic Materialism, as noted in that book by Baron Kenneth Clark entitled Civilization.

American society, politics, and culture were not always so obsessively secular-minded, anthropocentric,  as is quite fundamentally true today.  There was once a mainly God-fearing nation ever mindful of Divine Providence and, moreover, of the need to fight against sin and avoid damnation.

But, extremely more than is just commonly ever realized, modern and, now, what gets crescively called postmodern Western “religiousness” has so truly leapt, vaulted, toward efforts at the often assumed perfectibility of Man through, increasingly, mandatory and often brutal social-ideological engineering efforts.

The Warfare-Welfare State is, for instance, an unfortunately Christian inspiration more than it is ever popularly realized as such; and yet, more to the point, the Western world’s rejection of (orthodox) Roman Catholicism has had many dire and baleful significances, as to decadence and degeneration, for the modern, supremely radical-bourgeois world much more than is ever commonly known.

From time to time, this past popular preoccupation with religion, as being so fairly central to the lives of people, had consequences for public life; for the public square, as with most things in life, was not to be left naked of manifestly noted Christian aspirations and devotion, ambitions and religious zeal. What is one way, among many, of knowing this asserted fact of marked sociocultural disintegration covering, at least, several past centuries?  What has, generation by generation, spiritually occurred in this nation?

In the wondrously broad sweep of American religious history, what has gotten referred to, traditionally, as the Christian (Protestant) Great Awakenings have occurred, almost like clockwork, in notable terms of approximately sixty year cycles, more or less, that had once existed in this country. It was, without any question, a true and documented part of the demonstrative religious culture and fabric of the nation, as with the “City on a Hill.”

The year 2010, therefore, ought to have been the beginning of such a Great Awakening; this is by which there would have been empirically detected a rising ground swell of what should have definitely been, by 2016 or sooner, a clearly vast Protestant revivalism so enthusiastically sweeping America, of a surely unquestionable extent and scope. This is not an insignificant matter.  However, since it did not happen, one may legitimately wonder why.

Such events, having a great impact, are rather obvious in nature and so observable as to the actualities and circumstances involved, meaning, thus, the various matters concerned. When they do not occur, some American people, if intelligent and interested in national realities as to magnitudes thereof, should take some lively notice.

How to Define What is Lacking

With the enormous fading and tremendous weakening of postmodernist Christianity seen in America, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic versions thereof, it is not at all surprising that a Great Awakening (GA) is unavailable at this time and, moreover, into the foreseeable future. What is here to be seen as analytically meant?  Admittedly, it is speculation built upon negative evidence and inferences, as in the O. J. Simpson Murder Trial concerning that dog that didn’t bark.  One justly encounters, thus, a world of largely negative inferences.

Here there needs to be the wide recovery of historical memory for better understanding the present and comprehending better the future reality of this heavily secularized nation. Good and very rather pertinent expository and detailed reading would include John Passmore’s The Perfectibility of Man and Robert Nisbet’s History of the Idea of Progress, which fairly thoroughly covers the spectrum of ancient, medieval, and, of course, the modern roots and development of this idea of Progress, for better or worse.

By developing a critical synthetic intelligence, meaning the ability to knowledgeably synthesize various elements that may seem totally disparate or unrelated, one can come to sagaciously perceive the true interconnectedness and valid interrelatedness of today’s aggressively blatant and overt demonism, past effects of Protestant revivalism, and the allied Social Gospel Movement; this is on how the latter two had come to enable the noted advancement of modern secularization to create, therefore, the new Satanic culture, more widely seen in America today, as to its highly public profile and cognate demonic implications. What is existentially occurring, therefore, did not supposedly arise out of nowhere and without legitimate cause.

The actual notion of a true GA excludes much simply isolated stuff such as, e. g., the Promise Keepers and other relatively isolated moral or ethical ventures so linked either clearly or even somewhat to Christianity or at least Christian-oriented sentiments; or, is it a “Christianistic” sentimentality of some sort or other?   It might be rather hard, sometimes, to tell the actual difference, if any there really be.

While Satanism or what can be demonism has, of course, been around for untold centuries, the “new” presentation of it wants to be seen as being quite hip, relevant, New Age, and popularly attractive stuff, not exactly your old Witch Doctor’s stale abracadabra.   But, coming to know important things about what a GA is, what the awakenings so-called were, assists here greatly in keenly revealing just how rapidly the failure of the sociocultural and sociopolitical authority of Christianity, in this country, has come about in, say, the last fifty years or more.

Within, literally, just one lifetime’s span, the country has been fundamentally transformed into a place significantly very much different from, for instance, the 1950s. And, the endless multiplicity of still many ongoing changes have been incredibly traumatic and definitely dramatic beyond limits of exaggeration.

Someone, e. g., who might have entered a coma, in the year 1950, and had supposedly awakened today would be shocked and think it was, perhaps, a foreign land merely possessing an English-type language or, perhaps, that America had been conquered and, thus, substantially transformed by the conquerors.   Though it starts in the early 1960s, the movie, Blast from the Past, gives an interesting account of the tremendous numbers of changes and the horrors that get revealed; it is a much disguised, brutal social commentary film pretending to be merely a rather silly romantic comedy.  The main characters illustrate perfectly the equivalent of coming out of a coma and witnessing an extremely changed America.

And, that is why, among other reasons, any domestic spiritual revivalism of a truly significant kind is absent right now and, most likely, into the still unknown future, if the fundamental course of things is not essentially changed to make a sincerely real difference; and, moreover, no raw amount of artfully suggested sociological phenomenology or, perhaps, popularly applied psychiatry can explain away the fairly parlous and obnoxious religious conditions out of existence; in short, sin and sinfulness is rampant.

What a genuine GA significantly represents, therefore, ends up always reaching out strongly from just religion into having solid grips truly tangible upon national politics, culture, society and virtually all aspects or areas of American life and living. That had been, in fact, the existential national reality.

It is not, therefore, any kind of just isolated or isolatable, divisible, reality among the population at large nor does it influence only the masses, for many intellectual leaders beyond the pulpits do take up, right willingly, the Christian revivalist cause. And, it will be seen that without this American brand of religious revivalism, no Social Gospel Movement would have been actually possible in this country.

Of course, admittedly, from the particular Catholic point of view, this is not such a good thing in and of itself, for this revivalism usually implies the then concomitant streak of anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred. Nonetheless, as it can be yet quite fairly asseverated, the GA itself authentically represents a passionate desire to substantially and substantively revive, among Protestants, what is thought of as being a great desire for stimulating, reviving, wholesome and committed Christian faith among the American people.

Also, it was a clear and practical way of reaching creatively, of course, out into the unchurched portion of the population; however, passions were set free among people beyond the limits of religion because Protestantism, in its origins, had theologically split reason from faith; it rejected, consequently, entirely the Roman Catholic religious vital tension of the integral unity of reason and faith, not their supposed antagonism or opposition, as justified by philosophical nominalism.

Lest this be thought, however, some very uninformed or merely vagrant observations done about, for instance, what a GA is, one can make an inquiry seriously about such actual American, meaning mainly Protestant, religious history, in this highly specific regard. Such an examination and investigation can, of course, be made totally independently by any interested reader of this article.

Moreover, as will be demonstrated, it is intelligently best not to ever see revivalism and Social Gospel thinking in isolation of one versus the other; much rather, the two ought to be perceived as necessarily both complementing and reinforcing each other; both, therefore, had handily played their significant parts in the advancing of secularism, in America, in its society, culture, economics, and politics inclusive. Ironic though it may seem, but the truth is often stranger than any mere fiction, especially as to religious awakenings, among professed Christians, that get called great.

The Great Awakenings: Christianity with Muscle behind It

What became known as the original Great Awakening, called by historians the First Great Awakening, was a certainly trans-Atlantic affair of documented vast proportions; it was, furthermore, an evangelical and revitalization movement that had incredibly, meaning then unexpectedly, swept across Protestant Europe and British America; and, one may here add, as to the point of this present article, especially the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s, leaving both a still enduring and definite impact on American Protestantism. What was the sociocultural and other significance as to the historical and theological impact upon the predominant beliefs?

The 18th century was supposed to be, however, the surely brilliant Age of Enlightenment, when all the supposed horrid superstitions such as religion were to be joyously replaced by knowledge, science, rationality, and the overall supremacy of deified Reason; this was to replace, dispel, the hoary darkness of metaphysical nonsense, idiotic priestcraft, and all the other related rather dumb “spiritist” delusions.  Rationalism was to replace rationality, as the former was assumed to be just the latter in a much better version, such as with positivism.

Insipid Deism, called the mere Ghost of a God or a diminished Deity – minus the need for any attendant ontology whatsoever, had easily and most conveniently gone well with the Enlightenment: Supreme Being stripped to bare bones, if any that there were to be had, of course.  However ironic it may seem, by usually imperceptible degrees, this sustained attack upon metaphysical order allowed for increasing degrees of secularization because individualism went well with religious private judgment; in addition, there never was a heresy that did not seek, sooner or later, to become its own orthodoxy.

The steady diminution of Christianity became inevitable, moreover, once the traditional and historical source of theological orthodoxy, as to a truly universal faith, became rejected increasingly; the greater the spiritual and intellectual distance from Roman Catholicism, the greater became the allurements and attractions of secularization, though often, in the beginning stages, unseen or unsuspected as such.

Nonetheless, the seeds of religious dissolution were routinely planted, generation by generation. The revivalism of these so-called awakenings had helped to successfully conceal and, moreover, to further the larger process of spiritual decay and with it, secular thinking.  However, back to the main narrative.

What an immensely dramatic, counterindicative shock to both Europe and America! The three principal exponents (or denounced as vile culprits by their truly much angered opponents) were: Gilbert Tennent, Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitefield who then really stirred things up spiritually, though not just in spiritual terms.  For those detesting such extremely agitational spiritualism and passionate revivalism, however, the Anglicans, Lutherans, and the Society of Friends (Quakers) had gained adherents, perhaps, appropriately.

Contrary to Enlightenment aspirations, the earliest appearances of the American phase of this certainly wide phenomenon, meaning the early stages of the First Great Awakening, appeared principally among Presbyterians, in the colonies of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. These spirit-filled fellows had founded, it ought to be historically noted, what became Princeton University, no small deal, indeed.

Mere religious reasoning without a hard-driving feeling for religion, a passionate regard for Christianity, was so urgently displaced, discounted, by more and more fairly obsessive inclinations toward wrongly placing (increasingly mindless) human passions above or even set against reason in religion. The free movings of the spirit were not to be critically questioned, when felt to be completely genuine, but, curiously, the march of secularist thinking  was not halted either, meaning , perhaps, as much as would have been supposedly expected.

Significant religious enthusiasm was, nonetheless, rapidly disseminated from the Presbyterians of the Middle Colonies to the Congregationalists, meaning Puritans, and also to the Baptists of New England, which made the readily contagious religious fire of emotional spiritualism go advancing at a notably tremendous speed thereafter.  Interestingly, Nisbet, in his History of the Idea of Progress, explains how Puritanism and its development had come to spread secularization through ironic rationalization of its religion as a related manifestation of human Progress.  The Puritan spirit was at work.1

The Dutch Reformed Church and German Reformed denominations were, also, significantly influenced by the First GA. The “Old Lights” who questioned or utterly rejected such revivalist antics that brought out enthusiasm, so very unboundedly, into religion, into preferred belief, were, however, vigorously opposed by the “New Lights,” as each group was so denominated.  The important impact of all this activity ought never be underestimated.

After once meeting, e. g., the Rev. George Whitefield in 1740, no less a major American personage of the Enlightenment than Benjamin Franklin became good friends with him. Franklin had thought of him as a genuine intellectual and, moreover, eagerly decided to print some of Whitefield’s religious tracts and even entire sermons, in his influential newspaper; this, then, surely blew the raging flames of the First Awakening even more.  When on the Patriot side, Benedict Arnold, among many other colonial revolutionaries, felt inspired by the Methodist teachings of Whitefield.

The above is only meant to merely suggest the enormity and magnitude of what the very First GA was all about, as to amazingly how far and wide it was spread, in the 1730s to 1740s; this was with a decisively lasting impact as to the many intensive implications and important ramifications involved. Methodism was one significant result, among many, that would, in fact, eventually develop with yet more force, while non-Protestant believers (e. g., Catholics) went unmoved by this massive religious agitation that had, in addition, clear political consequences.  Religion and politics would be tightly intermingled.

For instance, a number of major historians have rather creditably called the American Revolution a kind of conspiracy of the Congregationalists or, perhaps, seen as the Congregationalist War made against the Anglican forces of Great Britain, which renders a fairly different light (see an earlier paragraph) on the entire American Revolutionary War.  This is, thus, not insignificant to consider intelligently and ponder profoundly.

But, the ardent adherents and passionate practitioners of this nominalist revivalism, ironically, could not see the obvious trend of the increasing attenuation, theological dilution, of American Christianity, which saw its mainly exact parallel in Western Europe too, of course.

To avoid redundancy or repetition, the other revivals will simply be just as briefly covered or noted.  In pre-Civil War America, the Second GA, circa 1790 – 1850, caused many thousands of pious conversions to various kinds of evangelical religions of diverse sorts.  Itinerant preachers, most notably men such as the Presbyterian Minister Charles Grandison Finney, had traveled from town to town, far and wide, exhorting the many assembled crowds about the great need for destroying sin in the grand name of moral perfectionism.

An egalitarian thrust as a crusading kind of religious democracy of believers, which widened the scope of the second effort, made these messengers of the spirit, this time, reach out even to Negro slaves and lower-class people too. However, gradually, spiritual welfare apprehensions would eventually combine with material welfare concerns; spiritual reform, as to an ongoing Reformation, was held to be not really enough.

Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism (although he himself was an atheist), thus, magically reformed or transformed what were supposed to be mere jails into “penitentiaries” for, in effect, pragmatically and democratically better putting the Gospel to some practical work.

Camp meetings, many near water sources useful for giving drenching baptisms, existed as rather large religious and often fairly disorganized kinds of gatherings; these had given the gathered believers many opportunities to freely practice their religion, take greater cognizance of private spiritual revelations, and yielded increased opportunities for potential conversions of the truly vast sea of non-believers, especially regarding the unchurched of that era.

Also, inspired missionaries, itinerant circuit preachers, sought to reach out into the gigantic hinterland of the sprawling frontier regions of the rapidly expanding nation, for harvesting souls.

However, besides it being an obvious religious movement, other reform movements, seeking to logically tap into and utilize the passions aroused, such as temperance, abolitionism, and women’s rights, also, proliferated freely in that more simple world of antebellum America.  At bottom, Christianity, being in the very air being breathed by so many, was then readily cited as the vital inspiration for almost all the reform movements seeking diverse ways and means of terrene perfectionism among the people, of course, needing different forms of redemption.

But, social welfare efforts and attempted perfectibility, under various guises, was still axiomatically assumed as being fairly essential spiritually speaking.

The temperance movement, as is known, had encouraged (a Godly) people to abstain from consuming any kinds of alcoholic drinks for the sake of Godly living and helping, thereby, in better preserving family order and values.   The abolition movement, with countless Christians certainly in the forefront of it, struggled to abolish American Negro slavery, which took a centralizing, nation-state regime and an intimately related bloody war to finally accomplish.

The women’s rights movement, usually, developed from the doings of those female abolitionists who, over time, comprehended in their minds that they, also, could fight for their own political rights, not adverse to any Christian interests, of course. Incidentally, one can see that Christian utopianism was involved too.

Requisite comprehension of yet greater considerations do, thus, come from such noted volumes, of course, as Passmore’s The Perfectibility of Man.  The noted utopian communities of, e. g., Hebus Valley, Pennsylvania having George Rapp, Nashoba in Tennessee with Frances Wright, New Harmony, Indiana founded by Robert Owen, and the New Philadelphia Colony, in Pennsylvania, with Bernhard Müller had existed, among, literally, many, many others much too numerous to mention here.  Intellectuals lusted for advancing reform in all areas of human conduct and activity.

Added to all these various aforementioned causes, a myriad of reforms affected almost every aspect of daily American life, with such examples including the restricting of the use of tobacco as well as dietary (e. g., advocacy of vegetarianism) and dress reforms. Elements of this sort of widespread revivalism, as to Christianity, had carried into, for instance, both the Confederate States Army and Union Army during the War Between the States.

Some historians have argued, moreover, that this had the terrible result of making the warfare even bitterer, as each side was firmly convinced, without a doubt, that God surely had supported their cause.

Witness the song: The Battle Hymn of the Republic.  The Confederates had, of course, such illustrative songs as: God Save the South.  This is no exaggeration.  The movie, Gods and Generals, about the war could be, in truth, rather evocatively retitled “The Ascension of Stonewall Jackson,” so volubly infused with Christian spirit was he.

The Christian impulse, therefore, easily justified and was never that really far from the manifestly basic centers of all such efforts at a so much wanted human perfectionism, at striving for utopian aspirations, though done, ultimately, in the name of Jesus for at least most of them. The set, Bible-centered and saturated milieu of the early American republic was hard to avoid; after all, the infamous Abolitionist John Brown quoted from Holy Scripture as if he had written it himself.

Fanatics took the simple Christian admonition to spiritual holiness of “be ye perfect” to mean, instead, perfectibility itself of Man on earth, which surely continued into the 20th century and after, in the spirit of Progress.  In addition, when all that exists is basically Sola Scriptura, a rabid faith in faith itself often develops unseen; it is still a true form of idolatry that absconds with God, as the supposed or assumed sufficiency of mere faith alone takes prominence, in the minds of believers, who no longer can then recognize their own fanaticism or idolatry, meaning in thinking it (read: their fanaticism) to be true faith.

The Third GA, spanning roughly about 1890 to 1920, was yet another period of fairly intense Christian activism in American history. This revivalism had definitely animated pietistic or evangelical Protestant denominations and, more than just that feature, produced a robust sense of renewed social activism, which was known as the Social Gospel and its, of course, notably explicit social-welfare orientation.

One can add, e. g., that the Populist Movement and the later Progressive Movement should, logically, come to mind with basic directions being both egalitarian and collectivist on orientation. Sinfulness was supposed to be successfully handled, more and more, through well applied and practical social welfare reformism, not deeply profound penitence and sorrow for sin, both commissions and omissions thereof.

Moreover, this once mounting religiously-inspired force assembled additional thinking composed from the then prevalent postmillennial theology that the Second Coming of Christ would come, after mankind had successfully reformed the entire earth. Even, e. g., The Salvation Army was, in fact, so theologically influenced by these chiliastic impulses and attitudes, as a kind of militant Christianity in action.  Christian aspirations and interests devolved crescively upon what the State could do, as the churches, more and more, gave up their sociocultural prerogatives (charity and community work) to governmental entities.

Further than that, the nascent Warfare State, aided by World War I and the New Deal, combined with the Welfare State, favored by the Christian Socialists and their ardent allies, to yield the present and regnant Warfare-Welfare State in America. Advocates for both war, Woodrow Wilson had claimed that Americans as a Christian people were fighting against the evil Hun, and welfare, such as the Settlement House Movement leaders, could, thus, validly claim their Christian antecedents, precursors, as it were.

Though there was some opposition, however, a Protestant America had been, for the most part, easily mobilized religiously for war. No less a contemporary religious personage than, e. g., the fiery Rev. Billy Sunday, during the Great War for Democracy, had publicly called down the Christian God against the evil Germans, for it was, also, notably called The War to End All War.  How much more millennialist, chiliastic (or utopian), could one get?  Why not seek to perfect man so that armed conflict became, in the future, completely nonexistent?

Again, one sees here how utopian perfectionism manifestly entered into the main cognizance of these enthusiastic believers. The Social Gospel Movement, therefore, increased its accumulated strength from the cognate Awakening, as notably did the global missionary movement.  Moreover, America’s version of a Christian Socialism was originated, popularized, and developed.  New religious kinds of assemblages appeared, moreover, as churches that became formal religions; these certainly had so included the Pentecostalism, Holiness, and Nazarene movements, among others.

The Fourth GA was said to be a Christian religious awakening that, admittedly, some scholars, as with, e. g., economic historian Robert Fogel, had asserted that it occurred, in this country, in the late 1960s and early 1970s; however, there is still some debate, regarding this matter, because other writers insisted that the time following World War II should be correctly accorded the proper title of the Fourth GA. But, the ideological pursuit of perfectibility can never really end.  Where, however, had all this come from connectedly and to where, basically speaking, did it all seem to lead into this postmodernist era?

Secularization Triumphant … though with Mighty Peculiar Exceptions

In brief, what started, centuries ago, as “Reformationism” turned eventually, through cited revivalism, into the popularized Evangelicalism that laid the emotional foundations, eventually, for the success of the Social Gospel Movement (Christianized Socialism in effect) of the late 19th and early 20th century; this had, in its sorry turn, gradually oriented most of American Christianity, further and further, toward seeing itself in more secular terms that, as a result, weakened its internal resistance and coherence, as to major trends, to willingly abide with more and more resultant secularization.

This has had, as can be properly noted, many real and dire consequences, including how governments increasingly took over what had been under the exclusive providence of churches as to social services. Accepting the secular interpretation of religion in a compartmentalized manner, moreover, had results that were increasingly baleful and, in addition, fraught with definite malevolent intentions.

Instead of a great outcry echoing and reechoing throughout the land against the 1962 US Supreme Court decision to throw out prayer in public schools, which should have been enough either to put pressure on the Court or Congress to save prayer, there was a capitulation, an admission of defeat, as to subsequent decades that just went rolling on and on to the present. As materialism, positivism, pragmatism, and hedonism has marched forth, this was the formal nihilistic beginning of the official de-Christianization of America, though mainly unrecognized as such back in the early 1960s.

In 1973, when the Court legalized abortion-on-demand, again, where was that proclaimed Christianity by which generations of honored and forceful divines had boldly defined American values and spiritual strength? Again, capitulation.  It is still horrendously legal, now, over forty years later.

Fairly recently, the Court, also, legalized sodomite “marriage” as a new norm, and American Christianity, an eroded shell of a joke by now, had just meekly yielded for that too, meaning in strong comparison to what ought to have been done in response. What has happened, through artificial contraception and abortion, to that once boldly asserted (White Protestant) Christian America?   Is it that one cannot serve both God and mammon?

T. S. Elliot’s poetic thoughts are so analytically true; this is how the world ends, not with a bang, only a whimper. There is the ever growing harsh reality of how the Federal Government and, indeed, most state governments are actively presiding over the total eradication of Christianity from all of public life; next, must logically come its full elimination from private life as well, for better correctly maintaining the uniformitarian dogma of the Left.  Related reading, thus, would pertinently include Erick Erickson’s You Will Be Made to Care: The War on Faith, Family, and Your Freedom to Believe.

For as William F. Buckley, Jr. was fond of quoting Leon Trotsky: Who says A must say B. The plain logic involved gets forcefully compelling and compulsive simultaneously, since no rational mind should be improperly kept in any significantly serious doubt of this quite indubitable fact, as Erickson documents.  A recent search, on a popular browser, when sent on the particular subject hunt for “war on Christianity in America” had produced no less than 17,200,000 hits.  One could, quite reasonably, cite on this topic: Brad O’Leary’s America’s War on Christianity, S. E. Cupp’s Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity, and David Limbaugh’s Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity.

The highly political and ideological evacuation, systematic removal, of religion from the public square, with the very notable exceptions made for: Islam, New Age (and its variants), and Wicca/Satanism, can and will only lead to its rather thoroughgoing extermination; if there is no solid resistance, meaning this is as even a mere “private matter” or “preference” as to true religion or just simplistic odd religiosity, often just called being “spiritual.”

The attack, as above noted with the very interesting exceptions, is really not upon all religions, active de-Christianization, the attempted eradication of Christianity, by the Federal government and most state governments is what is, in general, actually now happening. Previously, it was more subtle or usually covert in nature versus large-scale efforts at overt governmental persecution that is simply much more contemporaneous, meaning in its increasingly perceived pervasiveness and explicitness of its approach.

Of course, this so specifically applies, therefore, to all of genuine Christianity and without any real doubt whatsoever. The public authorities are, increasingly, determining both what Christians are to believe and where they may or may not exercise their ever further restricted, tightly circumscribed, belief.  One can see what is happening, most vividly, within the US Armed Forces.  Persecution exists now and will then be definitely increased and expanded, if no truly genuine and adamant opposition arises, thus, to both significantly and substantially halt it.  And, furthermore, let there be no existent doubt about this very important matter.

These days, just unsurprisingly, when vile Satanic Masses seem to so routinely take place, is there a truly nationwide protest, so clearly and voluminously staggering, as to quite resoundingly ring far through and beyond the very public halls of the Congress, with the great effusive noise of a very righteously outraged Christian people? Once again, need one really say it, abject capitulation was noted, meaning, as ever, in lacking due proportion to what vitally ought to then so dramatically exist, as to truly virile protestations and other cognately puissant nationwide actions, of course.  The relative total silence is, thus, deafening.

And yet, it must be honestly noted, almost all Americans do remain (conveniently or otherwise) blind as to how the tradition of revivalism and the Social Gospel had, by one working off the other, historically paved the here noted way toward the crescive secularization that, over time, had come to debilitate, to attenuate, domestic Christianity. Thus, let it be said, there is inherently and integrally something quite fundamentally wrong with Protestantism and, for that matter, with all of liberalized Catholicism too.

And so, one comes to easily see the creation of the postmodernist apotheosis of all of perfectibility, revivalism, Social Gospel, and, as a direct consequence, much exultant demonism present in America and in Western Europe this is while everywhere noting the public rise of neopaganism and witchcraft (with, e. g., Ireland having a major resurgence of it).

This has all been done, especially in America, within the bosom of the Warfare-Welfare State (WWS), of course. One observes, furthermore, such degeneration and decadence, along with the reprimitivization and rebarbarization of contemporary society and culture too, as both myth and magic reign so triumphant, since the dawn of modernity some mere centuries ago.2

Does anyone really dare deny that no genuine 5th GA is to be seen?  It should be known that Christianity in America, by and large, is a substantially spent force; it has dissipated badly in that the mainstream churches, now including the Roman Catholic Church, have yielded to the social and cultural degeneracy.  The traditional Latin Mass community being a rather small exception to what has generally happened to domestic Catholicism as to its fundamental lack of requisite religious vibrancy and puissance.

One sees the rather generally tepid, halfhearted, response that the Christian community at large has had regarding the rise and spread of Satanism in its various guises; the past and substantially enormous socioreligious, sociocultural, and sociopolitical force of Christianity, seen easily in the 1st, 2nd and even into the 3rd GA, exceedingly then proves here the rather demonstrative point.

The equivocal and dilatory Christian opposition, on the whole, to the growing contemporary demonism is simply, therefore, lacking I substance in set direct comparison to what ought to really and powerfully exist. What is the broad background to all this?  Liberalization of theology and religion, in the Western world, has been an invitation to the Infernal Regions, not the New Eden as is too often supposed.

Of course, through much intelligent hindsight, by now, it ought to be so obvious a fact of the present reality that more than just simply tolerates evil demonism, Satanism, as being an up and coming religion spreading in this country. Need one actually say more on this rather sad and revolting topic?

The major apostasy of the Western world is critically at issue, the shocking reality of a post-Christian America can be seen plainly, the devastating consequences of all this by society at large gets ignored, and the road to spiritual recovery, ironically, is blocked interminably by popular American piety and feelings for tolerance. But, tolerance is not and has never been a Christian, certainly not any Roman Catholic, virtue.  Jesus, for instance, was not at all tolerant of the vilely corrupt money changers in the Temple; Sacred Scripture, the New Testament, explains clearly how He at least twice physically whipped them out of the Temple.

Both the Old and New Testaments contain numerous instances where there was great intolerance of evil. Sodom and Gomorrah got blasted because of divine punishment and anger. Q. E. D.

The vast majority of Americans think that God is, more or less, an avuncular, jolly, tolerant, Santa Claus-like figure who is ever all forgiving, all loving, and, moreover, all forbearing too. The hard notion of a rigidly requisite full expiation for the tremendous sinfulness of the population seems terribly foreign, unthinkable, and, yes, downright un-American.  Some think that many prayers, ardent sacrifices, and multiple fastings may be enough, perhaps.  But, such deep expiation may not necessarily be bloodless.

The obvious need for the administration of true divine punishment usually seems, therefore, set so well beyond any basic (human) reason, especially any call to an ultimate compensation, totalized reparation, or, to put it here rather bluntly, the ultimately final metaphysical recompense of actual martyrdom.3


It will take a great deal of courage and honesty, for the vast majority of Protestants in America, to come to acknowledge the hard truths enunciated and extrapolated, in this article, as to past awakenings and their results, being short and long term in nature.  It will, then, take even more or still greater steadfast courage, however, to totally reject, in this postmodernist age, the WWS as the settled regime paradigm for now and into the future, along with absolute rejection of the now mandatory de-Christianization underway, which should not be rationally deniable.

In addition, one can properly appreciate now why there is no real obvious possibility for any actual new awakening to occur, and here’s the point, that genuinely matches, in force or intensity, concerning what had been the historically rather detailed pattern carefully described for the readers. Inclusively, the noted egalitarian Social Gospel/Christian Socialism has truly done its successful damage as well.

Revivalism qua Protestantism necessarily connected to heresy does not really prosper, as the constant theological and religious fracturing of Christianity into multiplying denominations and sects has reduced substantially its requisite strength; the both substantive and substantial dissolution of its very spiritual, ethical, and moral force has, therefore, most certainly occurred, though, of course, the ideological quest for seeking (secularist) perfectibility seems never to reach an end.4

As Passmore, Nisbet, and others have importantly shown, fanaticism, whether religious or otherwise, tends to produce results so diametrically opposite to those usually proclaimed.  And, Protestantism qua heresy is, moreover, ever a supremely exemplary case-in-point, as to both an invitation to major sociocultural and sociopolitical disaster, in the entire Western world, not just America in isolation.

Orthodoxy, in definite contrast, is forever unitive, directive, confident, and integrally strengthening; when the Roman Catholic Church, moreover, properly maintains its needed orthodoxy, it is then quite relatedly vibrant, directed, poised, puissant, and clearly robust; today, with the Second Vatican Council’s teachings and the degenerate and evil aftermath of its enfeebling, enervating, consequences, it is so notably weak, morally fractionalized, and overtly dissolute.  Q. E. D.

While there is a certain truth in saying that religion is too important to simply leave to the theologians, it is so urgently truer, therefore, that considerably requisite moral, social, cultural, and even political leadership is much too vital to leave to all those dedicated secularists, Satanists, and atheists who have and seek yet more power.  One ought, therefore, to willingly seek Christ and His Kingdom first and all other things will follow unto the believers, for the spirit of martyrdom must be the inherent spirit of the Church, otherwise Christians are just liars who are wasting their time.

Athanasius contra mundum!



1.  This may need some useful and insightful elaboration and related exposition for gaining proper cognitive impact. The rationalization of Christianity inevitably produces its resultant secularization of attitude. In turn, secularization, therefore, eventually becomes the logical and end result of the ever rashly attempted rationalization process as a whole.  And, thus, this was the logical fate of the Puritans, meaning especially their descendants.

Puritanism, in its vast pride and vanity, then thought that the new Anglican Church had not really gone far enough to absolutely strip away, to delete, all the evil and corrupt, the unneeded and superfluous, encumbrances, excrescences, and hindrances that had represented an evil, unwanted, and degenerate Papism, meaning all of Roman Catholicism and its so traditional Latin Mass, as well as classical learning.  But, these only self-elected and highly opinionated purifiers (in their puffed-up minds) of Christianity in need of an assumed reformation thought they had genuinely possessed, of course, good intentions.

They, with their fanaticism and enthusiasm unbounded, committed the philosophical fallacy of urgently wanting to thoroughly tear away all the extraneous or surplus layers of, say, the onion to supposedly then get at only the true onion itself.  It was, inherently, a quite absurd, vain, and mindless project, as G. K. Chesterton would have easily agreed.  Why?

All the Roman Catholic dogmas, doctrines, and traditions were (and still are) logically dependent upon the three main pillars of the Holy Faith, meaning Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium; they rather holistically and thus, by coherent definition, represented the bountiful entirety, the necessarily Apostolic fullness, of the True Faith as blessed eternally by Jesus Christ Himself.  No less an authority is involved.

They were definitely not any so-called encumbrances, excrescences, or hindrances, with the attempted peeling of an onion.  All are, moreover, both systematically interrelated and interconnected means so well supplied to charitably and lovingly lead human beings toward what ought to be seen as truly needed salvation.  Over 2,000 years of Church history, moreover, can readily testify to this impressive reality, if thought needed.

Puritans, one suspects, could not see the forest because of the trees nor the trees because of the forest.  Getting at, deluded generation by generation, the assumed “true onion,” thus, had lead more and more to the necessary secularization of American society, politics, and culture through Protestantism.  This ought to be understood.

Once again, therefore, it is so vividly seen how the proverbial road to Hell begins with good intentions.  Overall, secularization is a true and cognate product of Protestantism and its historical, social, cultural, etc. development over time.  Without the “Reformed” belief’s prior existence, moreover, there could then neither be classical Liberalism nor, later on, modern Liberalism/Socialism.  Most of the authentic roots of Liberalism are, thus, to be found quite firmly embedded in Puritanism and, of course, Calvinism.

One can now see that there was the definite Protestant reification of the idea of Progress as, in effect, functionally synonymous with God; Progress itself, eventually, by the 19th century and into the 20th, had become a god-term of immense power.  There were certainly allied consequences, as is interestingly covered by Nisbet’s History of the Idea of Progress.  The cold rationalization of the Protestant (private judgment-nominalist) ethos eventually forces, one suspects, the keen cognitive realization that, e. g., Utilitarianism (mentioned in the article), with its progressive-democratic ethics, is basically secularized Puritanism in disguise.

There should be, thus, no real surprise that the hellish utilitarian dogma still intellectually and ethically rules most Western cognizance and, moreover, certainly most American thinking today, as the late great Richard M. Weaver, author of that truly seminal work, Ideas Have Consequences, agreed.  Or, as Buckley would have said, “Who says A must say B.”  Ideas, have no doubt, do have consequences.



4.  Truly, perfectionism will never lack for its so ever enthusiastic acolytes!  It is seen in what ought to be realized as the bizarre neo-neo-Marxism of the Cloward–Piven strategy.  This was a political-ideological stratagem, outlined in 1966, by American sociologists and radical political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven.

The harebrained notion called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system, for then precipitating an ultimate crisis, that would replace the entire rotten welfare system with a beautiful national system of a guaranteed annual income and, therefore, an end to poverty once and for all (aka Utopia).  But, one, in fairness, ought to correctly unite this rather grand ridiculousness also with Antonio Gramsci (the march through the institutions of Capitalism) and Saul Alinsky’s very similar subversive thinking.

The great fallacy involved and unperceived, in such neo-neo Marxism and, one may add, neo-Leninism, is the failure to actually see that Capitalism was, is, and will always be a truly revolutionary force.  It is empirically absurd, among other primary matters, to, thus, attempt to ever wage a revolution against revolution itself.  The idiotic Leftist view, as well noted by the traditionalist right, is in ever ridiculously thinking that Capitalism is just some determinedly fixed, ever static, X factor that can be undermined, conquered, corrupted, transformed (against its “will”), destroyed, etc.

No, not possible. Capitalism is the Revolution!  The, thus, Cloward-Piven-Gramsci-Alinsky paradigm is all together, therefore, just amalgamated and congealed childish, ideological nonsense, simply a fairy tale.

Capitalism is, by its very own inherent innovative nature, a dynamic protean reality capable of plastically mutating and becoming variable whenever, wherever needed for any exigency; it is not a motionless “it” that can be supposedly circumscribed or narrowed into a set quantity or object suitable for filing away somewhere.  Generations later, the “system” is still victorious.

These people probably never read or, perhaps, did not fully understood and comprehend properly such works as (which I’ve read long ago) Joseph Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.

They must have forgotten, in addition, what even Karl Marx himself wrote, as to the extremely revolutionary nature of true Capitalism and its truly impressive industrialism and vastly pervasive technologism, in his The Communist Manifesto:

“It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades….

Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify.  All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind….

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground – what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?”

The Bloodless Martyrdom of Traditionalist Roman Catholics

The Bloodless Martyrdom of Traditionalist Roman Catholics:

Glories and Joyous Prospects for the 21st Century

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church.” – Tertullian

“… I die the king’s good servant and God’s first.” – St. Thomas More

In this horrendously decadent and Godless modern age (or is it postmodern, by now), boldly speaking of glories and use of the word “joyous” regarding martyrdom seem to be totally incongruous, except for Moslems these days, it would so appear. This should not be.

The more one certainly has a good and thorough knowledge of Christian history, furthermore, the more that one can agree fully that this should not at all be the true case. Of course, let it then be here made perfectly clear, no one is to ever masochistically volunteer for martyrdom as if it were a set mandated duty, a categorical imperative, to get killed at any cost of time, effort, or energy.  That’s insanity, not proper (religious) martyrdom for the Lord Jesus Christ.  But, there are different kinds of sacrificing.

Those, meaning the tiny minority, the Remnant, who are still loyal and dedicated to the traditional Latin Mass are basically experiencing a bloodless martyrdom; this is whereby the main Church hierarchy and their majority supporters do disdain, hate, despise, ghettoize, marginalize, and simply hold in contempt any who will not conform to the dictates of the pernicious Second Vatican Council and, moreover, its so necessarily evil aftermath. Marginalization, isolation and relegation, is, of course, a still real form of persecution, as there is, thus, a quite typical human tendency to persecute minorities.

But, nonetheless, the stalwart traditionalists, those who have avoided complacency, ought to rejoice at this offered opportunity to experience a form of martyrdom, for all those who really love this world will not love them. Equally, the rise of Islam in the world, as always, means the coming of death, though, of course, not just for Christians.  And so, martyrdoms must as well come.

Reviewing the Field of Moral Combat qua Martyrdom

Prior to the great legalization of the once hatred religion, the Roman Catholic Faith, under the Western Roman Emperor Constantine I in 313 AD, with Eastern Roman Emperor Licinius, both ratifying the Edict of Milan, the former normal expectation of most Christians, of Catholics, was the known reality that holy, fervent martyrdom was, generally speaking, fairly likely and even coming, perhaps, at the most inopportune times at that.

All the early Popes of the Church, the first thirty-three of them in fact, for instance, were martyred; it was then reasonably accepted, therefore, as being a just normal part of living and acting as the Holy Father, the Supreme Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, among many other titles. All Christians, moreover, were to hold themselves as being, in effect, potential human fodder for the ever sportive Romans who thought nothing of cruelty and its extremely harsh infliction unto death.

Off and on, over the first few centuries, the Romans thoroughly enjoyed butchering, flaying, massacring, scourging, torturing, brutalizing, and burning Christians or, on the other hand, seeing them so viciously torn into shreds by wild beasts and, hopefully from their persecutors’ point of view, then eaten as well; Christians were not to be complacent; it is no true exaggeration to say that these descendants of the Latin Tribes had definitely thought it was simply a great fun thing to do at the public arenas; this was then for so usefully providing such quite bloodthirsty and very exciting entertainment, for the cheering, lustful, jaded populous.

This literal “blood sport” was celebrated from the reign of Emperor Claudius (41–54) quite lightly to very heavily under Nero (54–68) who executed Sts. Peter and Paul, to Domitian (81–96), Trajan (98–117), the “enlightened” persecutor Marcus Aurelius (161–180) who thought he ought to kill them all for their own good, etc. to, eventually, Emperor Diocletian (284–305) who genuinely had tried as hard as he could to vigorously exterminate them all but was, alas for him, fundamentally unsuccessful, as were, of course, all of his pagan and, so often, quite dedicated predecessors. But, from their official and pagan point of view, it was a “valiant” and noble effort, nonetheless, for they, too, were not complacent.

Yes, there were certain eras, in that ancient world, during which one could, legitimately, certainly, and naturally equate “Christian” with the logically corresponding synonym “martyr.” It just sort of “came with the job” so to speak.   Of course, Christians are still dying by the tens of thousands now, with more martyrdoms in the 20th and 21st centuries than all the past eras combined, meaning basically by the sheer weight of the numbers dying, as to larger populations available to butcher.

This is now, therefore, a truly great age of Christian martyrdom, especially in the Middle East, China, and Africa, besides many other places.  The study of martyrology is, therefore, not just a premodern or antiquarian issue.

Moslems today are, in effect, calling Christians back to their true roots as it were, in a strangely nostalgic manner, to bring back, in the minds of the followers of the so-called Prophet Muhammad, the “good old days.” The evil and demented followers of that truly devilish book, known as the Koran, are so many, in effect, “traditionalists” who nostalgically want to painfully remind Christians about what they really are all about, witnesses to Jesus Christ even, if needed, unto death.

The hedonistic, secularistic, materialistic society and culture of the contemporary Western world is, of course, simply entirely appalled by the painful and suffering-filled notion of martyrdom.   They supinely dream of a world, a true utopia, where everyone just calmly exists as merely secularized, affable, happy atheists having nothing much to really have worth dying for or, moreover, actually believing in either.  There are entire “world views” in conflict within the anthropocentric universe or, rather, multiverses as with allegedly multiple kinds, types, or varieties of (supposed) genders.

The thought of dying, if needed, for God or, as they would put it “a god,” is laughable, sick nonsense fit only for Bible belching fools, or other such funny fanatics, not having brains to think with or senses to experience a pleasant, humanistic, hedonistic life with on earth. Not much thought given to sin, except, perhaps, “social sins” and no thought at all pertaining to the damnation of one’s soul for any mortal sins.

With their carefully contrived situation ethics and value-neutral attitudes that do reek of hypocrisy, they face a world made amenable, in their warped minds, to a moral and ethical subjectivity called, of course, existentialist, value-preference objectivity.

Material reality, empirical sensuality, is the only reality worth living for on this planet; everything else is held to be illusory, meaningless, or false. The holy, glorious, and joyous idea of living and dying for the Creator-God or, more specifically, the living Messiah of Salvation is just repugnant nonsense not worth ever considering seriously.  People are logically and rationally, as with rationalism in thinking, expected to be only pragmatic, positivist, and empirically-based persons existing for the realistic and materialistic world on this planet.  Nothing else exists.  Supernatural order, for them, is a joke.

The so rather harsh fact that this both ethically and morally shallow attitude, denying all of proper metaphysical order, must eventually lead toward blatant nihilism is, moreover, thought to be just inconsequential, to be a basically negligible matter. The empirical fact of the birth dearth of Western society and culture, being an obvious form of quite manifest nihilism leading to a slow-motion form of civilizational suicide, gets always ignored conveniently.  This is since, once again, nothing else exists, which necessarily holds in contempt the religious need for ever seeking the greater glory of God.

Equally, the noticeable and logical growth of suicide itself, coming from the transcendent alienation that nihilism always axiomatically brings, is pushed, as if by demonic magic, out of sight, out of mind.  At all costs, the grand liberal myth of rational men pursuing rational goals must be affirmed unequivocally and without any really serious question for the presumed magic to better take its wanted “salvific” affect over contemporary human lives.  Nominalism, and its so often attendant immanentism, reigns supreme here, as ought to be properly understood, especially, e. g., whenever euthanasia gets praised.

This nonsense, to say the least, was not the reality confronted by the early Christians.  Martyrdom, for many, was preferred to apostasy, though not all had to ability to sacrifice their lives, if needed by the demands of various and sundry adverse circumstance or occasions.  The basic bottom line was the willingness, if compelled or caught, to give a then final witness to Christ the Lord by submitting to torture, suffering, and, yes, eventual death; this was as a direct consequence of being a Catholic, a Christian witness to the Lord God Almighty, versus this mere material world and its many delights.

Spirituality and the great things of the spirit were to be supremely regarded as being of much greater import and significance, if and when put to the test, than just living out a full life here on earth. The fate of being a martyr, though not to be embraced masochistically, was thought to be joyous and glorious, not unthinkable or avoidable at all costs whenever, wherever needed or required for physical safety and precious life.  The Faith was thought to be always much more precious than any mere terrene life.

All, yes, all is to be made a sacrifice for Jesus Christ who is the ultimate reality for all who do, in truth, call themselves Christians; contrary to secularism and all its deranged evil values, the physical world and all of its possessions and luxuries are to be held as just nothing, when spiritually compared to the ever requisite honoring of the metaphysical order itself.  The Moslems, however, are mere representations of what needs to be seen as being in existence upon the field of moral combat; Satan and his minions are eagerly present for fighting against God, besides the flesh and the world as to regular temptations.

Such metaphysical fighting is actually occurring (above and in this fallen world) while physical conflict rages, of course; yet, heavily secularized modern men, minds filled with nominalism, see not the ever broader entirety of reality, just their too often myopic view of it, for the god of materialism or that of hedonism pragmatically demands obedience.

What all of the above discussion ought to reveal clearly is that as Christians get comfortable with this world, they get secularized more and more and think that peaceful lives lived in comfort and security ought to be theirs by right, by being Christians.  This was not, obviously, the original and martyr-filled reality of a much suffering and decidedly most painful Christianity, of Roman Catholicism in particular.  So, perhaps, the Muslims have been sent as a new “Scourge of God” to rudely test those who seek to call themselves, as fallen creatures, the followers of the Christ.

Being a Catholic, centuries ago, did not supposedly equate with merely being a passive spectator sport; it was, as has been noted historically, a true blood sport, as the 21st century can still bear witness, of course. Realistically speaking, Christian people are returning to a state of normalcy with the rise of discrimination and bigotry, persecution and death.  Having the first thirty-three Popes all get martyred, basically in succession, ought to have given a manifest indication of how Christianity and martyrdom are rather intimately linked, not strangers.

A then normal characteristic of being a good, practicing Catholic means that there must be a genuine willingness to suffer for Catholicism, not just to live for it, though St. Gregory of Nazianzus cautioned that none ought to deliberately seek to sacrifice their lives.

Christian people, sinners all, in the West had, therefore, become much too complacent with their lot in life in becoming, thus, much too comfortable with this fallen world, especially by the 20th century.  The rapid growth of anti-Christian attitudes in the modern world, including the rise of it growing in America into the 21st century, is meant by God to alert those who would see that they, more or less, are being called to martyrdom; this is, at least, to varying degrees and under different circumstances for, at the least, avoiding the sin of apostasy.

Let the voices of past Church history speak the truth that should be heard by loyal Catholics everywhere. Moreover, the Sacrament of Confirmation, as ought to be known, makes Catholics officially soldiers of Christ as part of the Church Militant.  It used to be and, increasingly today is, the case that those who overtly and seriously take up the Cross of Christ are hated, not loved certainly. Stat crux dum volvitur orbis.  And, much more than that, the Devil really knows his own because one easily sees how Islam is increasingly praised by the popular forces and leaders of this world who, in turn, do hate Christianity.

As sagacious G. K. Chesterton would have surely ironically noted, whenever Christianity is unpopular or despised, it may then be said to be wondrously blessed. Thus, let the blessings be now below recounted historically, for contemporary audiences, in sure light of the Catholic Church’s divinely instituted sanctitas.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Romans, in the 2nd century AD, knew of the many bloody and real torments and yet still longed for martyrdom, “so long as I get Jesus Christ.”  In that same century, St. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, remarked about the Roman persecutors that, “… we resist you and prefer to endure death, confident that God will give us all the blessings which He promised us through Christ.”  These justly venerated saints knew the truth that those who righteously died for Jesus ever gloriously and truly represented the reality of semen est sanguis Christianorum.

The hallowed blood of these virtuous heroes for Christ was among the honorable boasts of the Church. These days there is no such real passionate consciousness among typical Catholics; there has been, unfortunately, a great diminishment of their once typical honoring and remembrance thereof.  In the early Church, as Fr. John Laux’s Church History critically points out, they were then very highly thought of, esteemed, honored, and certainly celebrated figures of cherished memory.

He explicitly mentions the natalitium, their second baptism (for Christian believers), and the joyously noted memoriae (blessed memorializing) of the martyrs.  One was, thus, to feel sanctified by even being able to touch their relics, not just to speak of them in warm and sincere admiration, for having died at the hands of sinful men.

These justly honored, heroic souls saw far beyond the mere temporal order, the mere façade of this world, and toward the ever highest primacy of, in fact, the everlastingly important metaphysical order; martyrdom possessed many declared glories and a truly distinct greatness, as it ought also to be rightly understood today. This has always been, of course, a sure part of the martyrology of many, many saints.

As was well written in the Didascalia Apostolorum of the 3rd century AD, “For let him that is condemned for the name of the Lord God be esteemed by you as a holy martyr, an angel of God …” St Cyprian, in his Letters, noted that, “The Lord has willed that we should even rejoice over persecutions because, when persecutions occur, then the faith is crowned, God’s soldiers are put to the test and heaven is opened to martyrs.”  Blessed be natalitium and memoriae!   How was it or is it to be otherwise, when seeking the greater glory of God?

Normality, on earth, consisted of the possibility for martyrdoms for the, thus, appropriate lives of true Christians, when and where it be needful.  There may have so been, as a certain kind of holy throwback to being closer to Apostolic times, a much greater sense of knowingly participating in the quite enormous privilege of martyrdom; this is meaning, of course, as to the sacramentalized fullness of a more intensely experienced Christian life.

After all, the man praised by Jesus as the greatest Prophet, St. John the Baptist, was himself martyred.  After the Crucifixion, furthermore, the Sign of the Cross became the very symbol of what following the life of Christ was to be about, for all those who were and are to hold fast to the righteous Faith and its severe teachings, unto to death by holy martyrdom or otherwise; the appropriate conclusion to come to ought, therefore, to be rather obvious.  Perhaps, statistics might help to easily illustrate the point.

Ludwig Hertling, in his Die Zahl de Märtyrer bis 313, published in 1944, had estimated 100,000 Christians killed between 30 AD and 313 AD.   Still, the many skeptics, atheists, humanists, positivists, and secularists, however, say this is a very greatly exaggerated number.  Some of them insist that only about 1,000 people ever died directly because of their Christianity.  As to such necrometrics, what ought yet to be most plausible as to a figure of overall death covering, as known, some centuries of time?

Knowing how much, from historical records that can be researched objectively, the Romans enjoyed war, brutality, cruelty, and violence, the figure of 100,000, over several centuries covering the entire Roman Empire, is seriously reasonable to a great degree. How really credible is the supposed figure of about or only 1,000 victims? Let there be figures given below suggesting the range and extent of the killing routinely done in the ancient world as to warfare, being an example of the quite literally bloody reality of those times.

When Julius Caesar, e. g., had been captured by the Parthians, he vowed that he would return to crucify them; he so did; it has been recorded, thus, that he crucified 5,000 of them.  The Mithridatic Wars took between 160,000 (Appian stated) to 200,000 (Plutarch stated) Pontics killed in combat.  The Second Punic War, in estimation, had cost the losing Carthaginians 270,000 dead.

Many other such statistics could be here cited as to various large magnitudes involved, even while freely allowing for, perhaps, some possibly or potentially inflated numbers. Military related death counts of that ancient time, involving armed enemy soldiers, offer substantial evidence of the plausibly vast scale of slaughter that could be and, in fact, was actually achieved.

The estimate of a mere 100,000 Christian deaths is, therefore, not at all an exaggerated number, given also substantial and substantive advancements in modern archeology yielding corrective information; most likely, it is, moreover, a severe underestimate of the truly great extent of the slaughtering done.  A more reasonable guess could, logically, put it at somewhere in the general neighborhood of between, say, 500,000 to 1,000,000 people, that’s unarmed men, women and, of course, quite utterly defenseless children, not (fully) armed combatants certainly.

But, the horrid implications are rather yet extremely staggering to knowingly contemplate, if put into modern terms of reference as to a (“contemporary”) body count!  But, the fair extrapolation, based upon figures for war deaths as to the analogous overall numbers that were killed, is fundamentally just, meaning as to how many Christians were probably, in fact, dispatched by the Romans, including many infants, of course.

On a yet much larger point of instruction, the sad reality in all of persecution is that it usually comes full circle; the Jews did it against the Christians, the Romans did it against the Christians; when the Christians finally got the upper hand, they were able to do it, at times, against the Jews and, later, also against those found to be Christian heretics; the control method of persecution, thus, “teaches” a truly horrible lesson of imitation, which is why, one suspects, St. Bernard had rightfully advocated only persuasion instead.

Persecutors create martyrs, even unto death; martyrs, in turn, add further power to those persecuted by glorifying martyrdom in the minds of those persecuted. If not for the love of Christ, then one ought to consider that for “politic” reasons, it is always evidently wrong to seek the ethical, moral, and spiritual empowerment of those to be persecuted; thus, the deaths of all those Christian martyrs were, indeed, the planting of many seeds of the Faith.

However, the burning at the stake of either Catholics or Protestants (or doing it to anybody else for oddly assumed “religious” reasons) was, thus, morally insane.  It would reasonably seem, therefore, to be a blasphemy, by definition, done against the very Prince of Peace Himself.

Consequently, persecution had, moreover, greatly ended up creating the very fanaticism or spiritually fervid zeal, through such unintended irony, that the ancient Romans had, supposedly, sought to so utterly crush.  The sad imperial edicts for killing Christians off had, then, functionally ended up, in effect, feeding rather too assiduously the very beast they had sought to eagerly, tenaciously, slay.  It is superb irony for the ages.1

With the total ancient world population much smaller than today and, in addition, the empire’s total then being much smaller still, the ratio, if brought into modern times, would then be a total of about 100,000,000 Christian deaths.  As is so usual, the very smug and delusional hordes of skeptics, atheists, humanists, positivists, and secularists are, obviously, liars who do deliberately lie to hide the truth; they are simply pure propagandists, for their highly despicable cause, not any honest fellows at a minimum.

One must fairly say, contrary to these vile critics who prefer to speak from a dedicated ignorance, one ought to give justified glory and honor to the righteous Christian martyrs who had affirmed Christ, at a truly great moral, social, and cultural cost, to a necessarily shocking and horrendous magnitude thereof.

It can be rightly remembered that the pre-Christian imperial world, governed by Rome, had no modern altruistic or humanitarian notions; they were not at all squeamish regarding the massive shredding of any unwanted Christian or, for that matter, other available blood. Emperor Marcus Aurelius, though he had considered himself to be a very fair-minded Stoic, yet, he too had been a very enthusiastic persecutor, in point of fact.  He was not complacent.

Therefore, the quite appropriate necrometric extrapolation of Christian deaths, occurring over several centuries, as being at least 500,000 is not terribly excessive in any way whatsoever; and, furthermore, the upper limit figure rendered of about 1 million is not at all that inconceivable or unthinkable, when, of course, appropriately put into its own proper historical context, covering from the 1st to the early 4th century AD.  Admittedly, only God knows the exact number, regardless of any reasonable calculations or speculations thereof.

The Christian Mystery of Martyrdom

As St. Augustine, in his magnificent The City of God, had knowingly remarked of the enormous influence of these many blessed holy martyrs, “… call God to aid, that by the renewal of their memory we may be incited to imitation of such crowns and palms of martyrdom.”

And, he knew that, “The martyrs were bound, imprisoned, scourged, racked, burnt, rent, butchered – and they multiplied.”  Such courage was real and their deaths gave such ever vivid and empirical testimony to the everlasting truth of Jesus the Christ directly so seen in the venerated blood of the justly revered martyrs, the finest and purest soldiers of all of Christendom.

In the 6th century, in his Homilies on the Gospels, no less an authority within the Church than Pope St. Gregory the Great insightfully said, “The death of the martyrs blossoms in the faith of the living.”   The reality of Christian martyrdom, in any day and age, testifies to the fact that those who profess to being true followers of the Lamb of God, the Messiah, must keep the potential act of dying for Christ as a true basic part of Christian, of Catholic, life.  Denying this is a blasphemy, for they represent true beacons of light in an often dark world of sin and damnation.

God is no respecter of persons. All that people are and have belongs to the Lord.  When required, there is the need to yield all for the sake of the Kingdom to come.  Attachments, whether parents, children, or otherwise, to this fallen world by fallen human creatures are never to be absolute.  After all, Heaven is the final goal toward which all souls ought to aspire for eternity, for, thus, the only other final inevitable destination is the Infernal Regions.

St. Isidore, in the 7th century, in his Etymologies covers the subject of martyrdom.  Also, St. Bede the Venerable, in the following century, in his Hymnum Canentes Martyrum, there joyously speaks of:

The hymn for conquering martyrs raise:

The victor innocents we praise:

Whom in their woe earth cast away,

But heaven with joy received today.

Then, in and during the Middle Ages, Christians perished, by the many tens of thousands, at the vicious hands of the Moors, the Saracens, the Moslems now called Muslims.  Few these days know that the Crusades were actually started to fight against the aggressions, the bellicosities, of the believers in Muhammadinism who had ruthlessly captured and authoritarianly ruled the Holy Land, what had been once called the Near East and, now, the Middle East.

In the much more modern era of the 19th century, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his Present Position of Catholics in England, wrote:  “This may not be the age of saints, but all times are the age of martyrs.”  He had wisely added, in his interesting  Discourses to Mixed Congregations, that, “No one is a martyr for a conclusion, no one is a martyr for an opinion; it is faith that makes martyrs.”  Mere types of conclusions or, perhaps, just some or even many opinions are never worth dying for, as even a fool should know.

As was further noted, in his Historical Studies, “A martyrdom is a season of God’s especial power in the eye of faith, as great as if a miracle were visibly wrought.”  All of this, surely, adds more spiritual force to the highly informative knowledge that the possible sacrifice of Catholic lives may become necessary for, thus, helping to fulfill the will of God, for His mercy is equal absolutely to His justice eternally.

He is, after all, the Most Holy Lord of all creation and all that there is owes itself to God; nothing exists independently; ontological reality is, therefore, purely contingent beingness, for nothing comes from nothing. Sacrificing one’s life for Christ, thence, affirms positively Christological ontology to the highest degree, which should not be doubted, since all human beings, being sinners, must all answer, finally, to the Creator after their deaths.

This is not to naïvely say that trembling and fear, trepidation and dread, will never occur as to paying the then ultimate price for sustaining Catholic belief; the hope, however, is that strong religious faith can still bring forth the requisite fortitude and courage truly needed, thus, to rightly accept and then endure the great pain, suffering, and, at the end, the finality for mere mortals of death for Christ.

Most will fail the great test, as is to be, thus, normally expected of the many mortal vicissitudes and dark uncertainties of human weakness and hesitation, frailty and reluctance. Some, however, will persevere toward proper spiritual victory, as Catholic martyrology so easily demonstrates appropriately.

As with the Latin Mass Community, martyrs do tend to be, of course, a persecuted minority, never a majority of people. Earthly life, seeming to have a rather concrete nature, tends to naturally appear more precious than eternal glory, which appears entirely abstract and just idealistic.

But, nevertheless, there may be horrendous times and circumstances coming that are not always of one’s own doing that may, so to speak, force the issue upon people to decisively choose; this is between this world and the life of the world to come, meaning when there is true faith in Christ.  Giving up one’s mortal life may be, thus, required for properly gaining eternal salvation.

This may not be easy to do. The increasing number of fantastic allurements and charms, excitements and diversions, of the modern age do create a multiplicity of distractions that wrongly divert requisite attention away from the then final four utterly unavoidable realities: Death, Judgment, Heaven or Hell.

Contemporary people, moreover, do usually spend more considerable time, effort, and energy upon many sports, entertainments, hobbies, community events, and other diverse matters than they normally do upon essential preparation of their souls, meaning for the facing of an inevitable eternity.  A rather markedly disproportionate regard for celebrated secular, temporal, life and its endless myriad of allurements exists.

There is, as always, the world, the flesh, and the Devil that do provide alternative avenues of participation within the merely terrene order. There has been, therefore, the ever widespread, horrid proliferation of pornography, sodomy, and other such highly provocative vices that do supremely indicate, fiercely, the noted most extreme degradation and decline of society and culture; this is surely toward the lowest common denominators, minimally speaking, of such progressively deranged vileness and, of course, just utter nihilism.

But, even much more is yet intimately involved.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the reality of martyrdom is “the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death” (no. 2473).  This is the fixed contrast with secularism.

Notably, most people do tend, on average, to basically live as if they never really expect to die.  For the main populace at large, what might be called “investing” in the overt prospects of the afterlife to come seems rather set, distant, incoherent, and, generally speaking, vague or abstract, as an unknown kind of seemingly distant and questionable afterthought.  Martyrdom, consequently, comes to mind, one here reasonably suspects, only if somehow or other encountered as a kind of subject, perhaps, in some old historical or hoary religious books.

There is, just quite predictably, no genuine propinquity, immediacy, for basic human life as to what may be the finally fatal result of openly affirming a religious belief that could, in fact, possibly get one killed.

However, the notably increasing persecution of Christians in the Western world itself and elsewhere is coming, more and more, to necessarily force the basic issue urgently into much contemporary consciousness, regardless of jaded lifestyles that do not seem to critically recognize what is going on in many nations.  What may be appropriately suggested, nonetheless, as a possible valid Catholic antidote, as to what may be done in response?

Praying for the sanctification of one’s soul, by invoking the blood of the holy martyrs, is one means of getting the needed will and grace to resist the evil temptations of this world to simply yield, rather, than to fight for Jesus and His Kingdom.  But, a Catholic martyr must be extremely more than just a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his religion.

Someone’s “religion” may be an ideology, after all, even dedicated Nazis, Fascists, or Communists can, thus, be equally willing to die for their hellish beliefs.  The mere willingness to sacrifice one’s life does not make a true (Christian) martyr, only a crazed fanatic.

Rather, a truly Catholic martyr not only dies for Christ but, much more so, for the always unequivocal affirmation of ultimate Truth, not just for theological dogmas, sincere speculations, or religious feelings.  The specific proper asseveration involved is to also fundamentally cover the Church that inspires the faith that sustains the need to yield up the body for the glorification of the Catholic soul of the believer.

Why is this being said here?  Among other highly important reasons, unlike both of the false beliefs of Protestantism and Islam, faith is not divided against reason; both testify to the unity of the Truth that Jesus is the Christ, as confirmed necessarily by faith and reason in unison, which is no small matter as to the pursuing of a wanted holiness.

And, that is a very profound means toward both correct understanding and genuine comprehension.  Furthermore, axiology, epistemology, and ontology are, as instances, three separate means of knowing but still fully unified as to knowledge, as is the Holy Trinity with its Thee Persons.  Thus, so obviously contrary forever to the secular world, the death, e. g., of a Nazi anthropocentric fanatic ought never to be absurdly equated as being like a death of a Catholic martyr, as to the supposed neutral nature of (actual) martyrdom, as appropriately understood.

Unfortunately, these tremendously significant things do need to be explicitly said, in this rather degraded day and age of a triumphant nominalism with its equally dominant immanentism, because of the fundamental supremacy of pervasive and aggressive secularism.  It is the quite logical fruit, moreover, of nominalism and its conceits.

Catholicism, in contrast, is the adamant defense of reality against the “tyranny” of Utopia, the proposed New Eden that can never, even in a million years, ever exist on earth.  It must be intelligently, rationally, realized, therefore, that all Catholic martyrdoms do necessarily and axiomatically affirm all this, and still more as to a notably virtuous death, to the highest expression of an unconditional love for Christ.

But, martyrdom, as with much else of truly spiritual worth, has been discounted greatly by a successful modernity; this is well perceived with its extreme exaltation of strident individualism and subjectivism, the absconding of canon law at Western universities, the quite cold abstraction of the omnipresent State replacing the warmth of the organic, circumscribed commonwealth; there are modern demands for more collectivism of various kinds, the sterile compartmentalization of much tainted human life, horrendous world wars, vicious genocides, and even the flabbergasting, truly astounding, possibilities for nuclear warfare included.

Some things may be better illustrated by seeking to extrapolate about two examples of what may be called, perhaps, quintessential martyrs. St. Thomas Becket and St. Thomas More knew, step by step, that they would eventually be heading toward a finality of painful suffering by opposing the power of the English State, the monarchy, in particular, their respective kings, both named Henry.

They were not accidental or coincidental victims of persecution who just were, supposedly, victims of circumstance or, perhaps, simply unwitting victims of their situations; both were highly educated men, knowledgeable of the religion, politics, society, culture and much else of their times.

Neither was willing to finally yield, however, to the unreasonableness and raw impiety of having their loyalty to the Church, meaning their fidelity to God, be suppressed, even at the cost of yielding up their very lives.

What gets revealed in the lives of such saints is that, contrary to much Protestant propaganda, private conscience was not a (so-called) Reformation invention nor, for that matter, its then logical corollary of private judgment. Get real!  Starting with the earliest Christians, the Romans were up against people who could not compromise their conscience, offend their soul, by either worshipping Cesare or denying Christ.  A true martyr is not given to compromise.

In this context, as a quite necessarily private judgment, though not thought of as that in that era, these obvious dissenters were opposed, most certainly, to the majority, corporate nature-beliefs of the pagan community at large, not just to the imperial degrees mandating spiritual allegiance to the Emperor who claimed to be a god.

This needs to be properly kept in mind for better adding to the comprehension so required; having a private conscience, inseparable in the end from private judgment, as being absolutely inviolate, morally infrangible, is surely a fundamental Christian notion, not a supposed novel invention of Protestantism.

The right of private conscience and the right of private judgment were not, thus, some modern, abstract creations of the 16th, 17th, or 18th centuries; they have, indeed, quite ancient lineages and, furthermore, having a stated “conscientious objection” to war had, in fact, required the previous political, social, and cultural acceptance and fundamental acknowledgement of a private Christian conscience.

However, one is seriously obligated to try to have as scrupulous a conscience as that of a St. Thomas Aquinas, not just being a general harbinger of mere contrary opinions or some speculative claims of a, perhaps, very highly subjective or just purely idiosyncratic nature. Objectivity, in its best accurate sense, is properly established morally and conscientiously, justly and assiduously, when knowing to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.  Q. E. D.

Both Henry II and Henry VIII, being the antagonists of Becket and More respectively, had then wrongly claimed what are metaphysical prerogatives only, in truth, due to the Lord God Almighty, not to the imperious head of any regime whatsoever.  Being good Catholics, they righteously had opposed such asserted supremacy against the Church.  That is why, as was so asserted previously, they were quintessential martyrs.

It was, in fact, but ancient Caesarism in a new disguise, and yet nothing really more than that in its fundamental essence.  Private conscience and private judgment, therefore, were of the integral and inherent nature of basic Christianity in its very origins, not ever a newfangled “Reformation” idea as was and is too often still falsely claimed.

Modernity, in short, did not supposedly invent, discover, the human conscience, though it has been and is, obviously, effective at corrupting it so mightily, as seen in today’s rampant lusts for the necessarily demonic cause of transgenderism, besides a seemingly triumphant sodomy itself.

Perhaps, in contrast, willingly dying for Christ may not really be that bad of an option, when needed. The alternative is too often the embrace of the material realities of this world that does not matter whenever compared to final Christocentric salvation, which could include holy martyrdom, as to the desired end of all rational souls.  Salvation, the final reward of Heaven, is the prize ever above price, which resides in the holy shadow of the Christian mystery of martyrdom, of supremely righteous virtue, made particularly real by the actual shedding of blood.

In a different way, the bloodless persecution of the Latin Mass Community, its nonviolent martyrdom, must be something, under the circumstances, that is just taken in stride as being of the nature of such contemptuous minor subjugation and tedious petty oppression.  The prideful followers of a triumphalist Vatican II are not cognizant of the true cause of the “jesters” of traditionalism; as the more traditionalist oriented among the Franciscans still know, one must be a fool for God’s sake, as the humble only can get into Heaven.

For it is known that, conversely, there is more than enough room in Hell for the prideful who are too big, too full of themselves, to ever fit in where the saints and martyrs do then most easily congregate and joyously live forever.  Even the very heinous,  odious, and morally despicable squelching, e. g., of the Roman Catholic missionary spirit advocated by Pope Francis, the Holy Father himself, has not stopped the actual rate or number of martyrdoms in the contemporary world.


And so, the “amazing” prospects, for the secularist 21st century, allow both for the bloodless martyrdom of being a traditionalist Roman Catholic and, if called upon, the death-oriented choice of affirming Christ and His Church in the resistance to not only an aggressive and bloody Islam but rampant anti-Christian bigotry and hatred, in the Western world, coming from the ardent secularists and their so willing allies.

The Latin Mass supporters, being orthodox Roman Catholics, should, therefore, ironically rejoice in their observed marginalization qua martyrdom for the Lord God Almighty and His glory.

There are, thus, really but two ultimate ways of thinking. The lovers of this world do think that the perfection of life on earth or at least its enjoyment is the basic ultimate reality; the orthodox Catholic, the lover of Christ and His Kingdom, is supposed to know that the attempt to seek the perfection of his soul for its ultimate salvation is the only ultimate reality worth living or, in fact, dying for.

Secularization, in opposition, is just a (literal) dead end for both body and soul.  This is surely why the consciousness of holy martyrdom, as a true means of salvation, needs to be righteously revived, within the contemporary Church, for the greater glory of God.

In any event, are Christians prepared to just meekly accept, perhaps, the future deaths of, say, about at least 100 million men, women, and children?  Anyone who absurdly thinks this is simply an exaggeration has only a very limited knowledge of human history, of its many follies and horrors.  As did many of the Crusaders who slew them, there is the admonition to love one’s enemies, but fighting in self-defense is still properly and appropriately recognized by both the Canon Law and, of course, by classical Natural Law.

The good reading of this article, however, suggests the actual truth that must be now realistically confronted and accepted as to the many perceived facts of human reality and, moreover, the fundamental teachings of the Faith.  Our Lady Queen of Martyrs ora pro nobis!

Athanasius contra mundum!


1. Although the position argued here is of a prudential and not ever an abstract libertarian or so broadly altruistic nature, ancient and medieval thinkers did not contemplate a modern, democratic, pluralistic, multireligious polity where people could permanently have “divided” loyalties and still be thought of as good citizens nonetheless.

For most of history as to normality, there was taken to be no possible actual division between what was thought to be ultimate loyalties. Thus, e. g., Protestant England saw Catholicism as its inherent political enemy; as a so logical result, Catholics could be, and most often were, just axiomatically then termed traitors because of their religion being seen as opposing the obvious interests and prerogatives of the Reformationist realm of Albion, with its so-called Reformed faith.  (Of course, the Puritans, called as such by their desire to allegedly better purify religious faith, did not think it was reformed enough.)

In old Europe, a man’s religion was supposed to be absolutely, or nearly so, fully consonant with his own politics and vice versa. This assumed attitude or, rather, supposition was not to be questioned.  Granted that exceptions have always historically existed, however, the nearly predominant normative pattern was an assumed, premodern unicity of loyalty, not a heterogeneous composite of beliefs also assumed to be still indicative of political loyalty.

That extremely different past world, so to speak, is a basic defining characteristic of what makes the nature of modernity, as to a way of disparate thinking, fully allowing for an endlessly and widespread heterogeneity; it was not, therefore, fundamentally typical of the premodern world where once usual custom and tradition had, regularly, confirmed and reflected both such matters as a man’s religion and politics.

And yet, this arguing prudentially for a requisite lack of religious persecution ought not to be ignorantly confused or supinely confounded, however, with any tolerance for heresy, which ought to never exist. Persuasion, not persecution, is the better moral option to prefer within the context of Christian charity.

Of course, Western, prideful modernists do condemn what had been (falsely) called the European Wars of Religion. The great Edmund Burke, among others, saw through this cheap canard.  They were not fought for the love of God, much less abstract religious or theological principles.  They were fought for power or, more vulgarly but honestly put, for the money.

Martin Luther’s protests were, from beginning to end, really all about the money; today, the Catholic German bishops (once again, it’s the Germans!) are still actually arguing about the filthy lucre, while pretentiously expatiating that it is really a pious dispute over holiness and deeply sincere matters of important and responsible faith. No, be without any doubt in this matter, it’s the money.


Peter Ackroyd, The Life of Thomas More

Godfrey Anstruther, Saint John Southworth: Priest and Martyr

Donald Attwater, Martyrs

Frank Barlow, Thomas Becket

Dr. Malcolm Brennan, Martyrs of the English Reformation

Bede Camm, Courtier, Monk and Martyr

Catholic Church. Congregatio pro Causis Sanctorum, The Catholic Martyrs of England and Wales: A Chronological List of English and Welsh Martyrs who Gave Their Lives for Christ and His Church During the “Penal Times” (A.D. 1535-1680)

Michael Green, St. Thomas Becket

Miriam T. Griffin, Nero: The End of a Dynasty

Frank J. Korn, The Tiber Ran Red: The Age of the Roman Martyrs.

Vincent McNabb, St. John Fisher

Fr. A. J. O’Reilly, D.D., The Martyrs of the Coliseum

Robert Royal, The Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century: A Comprehensive World History

Bernard Ruffin, The Days of the Martyrs: A History of the Persecution of Christians from Apostolic Times to the Time of Constantine.  

Joyce E. Salisbury, Blood of Martyrs: Unintended Consequences of Ancient Violence.

Reinhard Selinger, The Mid-Third Century Persecutions of Decius and Valerian.

Richard Simpson, Edmund Campion, Revised, edited & enlarged by Fr. Peter Joseph, Foreword by George Cardinal Pell

Roman Catholicism during Late Imperial Era America

Roman Catholicism during Late Imperial Era America:

A Disquisition upon the Optimistic Re-evangelization of America and the West

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni


Realism is called for here, not the reified accoutrements of supposed vanity. The Western world and its once so dominant hegemony is in decline.  Even excessively tolerant Sweden found out that there are very definite inherent problems with vainly attempting multiculturalism, meaning successfully within its growingly insalubrious borders.

Many do find that presumed progressivist tolerance must, therefore, be necessarily quite intolerant, especially toward all (conservative) dissent.

Meanwhile, effeminate globalism seeks to replace a hated nationalism as the transculturalist ideal of the dedicated multiculturalists and globalist elites, while Christians are, routinely, expected to owe their allegiance to abominable regimes that both publicly protect and, moreover, energetically promote the starkly avid, aggressive commission of mortal sins, as fast as can be imagined (or, perhaps, that much sooner). Moral coherence has, therefore, become a joke.

On a significantly smaller matter, placed into focus here, the last dull and fading vestiges of what used to be American, representative, constitutional republicanism are to be quite vilely swept into the truly old dustbin of history, by the November 2016 national election, no matter who gets elected as the next, in effect, emperor of this country; however, it is the time, now to speak, of the Late Empire Age located in North America, for Christians must avoid making an idol of this nation. Idolatry, thus, takes many forms.

At its height, of course, America had surely been the greatest imperial power to ever exist on earth. However, rampant secularization and the compartmentalization of life have proven to be not true enlightenment but just an open invitation to Hell, as witness the genderization of Western society.  Today, much of this nation has been reduced, instead, to a society obsessed with Pokémon Go, not eternal salvation.  Nonetheless, a rather pertinent rhetorical question below, not some odd persiflage, may be asked or, perhaps, at least fairly entertained:

What is the true, vitally distinguishing difference between supposedly choosing an incredibly narcissistic, Calvinistic, criminal, aberrantly nihilistic, megalomaniac (Donald Trump) versus an avaricious, criminal, deceitfully nihilistic, duplicitous megalomaniac (Hillary Clinton)?

Corruption is as Corruption Does

The disintegrating, withering, American imperium, coming more into full view, is to willfully grind to dust whatever truly republican instincts might be somehow remaining within the general populace, if any there be.   One will be seeing the land of the former North American colossus, during the Late Empire, go rapidly spiraling down into the ugly cesspool of history, another substantially failed, though once quite remarkable, attempt at free government, republicanism as to polity, gone so very badly wrong.

On July 5, 2016, a day of monumental infamy, FBI Director James Comey, a thoroughly corrupted and compromised piece of detritus, had spinelessly exercised, what ought to be properly seen as his quite imperial discretion, by not indicting Mrs. Hillary Clinton; and, the revolutionary Founding Fathers of the now long dead Republic turned collectively in their esteemed graves, while the honored dead at Valley Forge had shuddered in abject horror, though this be here no cheap fabliaux.

Justice was totally denied, contemptuously thwarted, and hypocritically laughed at by the political elites. As constitutionalism and republicanism got crudely trampled and spat upon boldly and publicly, the vast majority of the American people had then, in effect, said so resonantly with the merely mythical Alfred E. Newman: “What, me worry?”  There will be no marches on Washington, DC; no protests in all major cites of the nation, no absolutely tremendous revulsion noticed from sea to shining sea, etc.

But, on the other hand, who can properly blame the common people when, e. g., Annual Right-to-Life demonstrations, held for several generations at the Capitol, meaning since the 1970s, all just come to naught. On the other hand, the people are actively and knowingly creating home arsenals and, also, buying many millions of guns, literally, as fast as they get made, which indicates, at a minimum, a quite tremendous lack of faith in government.

Demonstrations with their mere weapons of words and bodies have availed nothing, the population has and is seeking numerous physical weapons that are, in fact, deliberately known to be lethal. Appeal and argumentation from and for the force of justice’s sake is being replaced by the ultima ratio of knowingly deadly force, preparations for domestic civil warfare, civil war, or its basic equivalent.

No rational mind, furthermore, ought to doubt this reality. It can be, furthermore, researched freely as a fact that, starting in 2016, for instance, one sees the mounting monthly purchase of enough guns to equivalently supply all members of the US Armed Forces.  Yes, Obama has, indeed, been the greatest guns salesmen in all of recorded history; let there be no obfuscation about that fact.

Many estimates indicate that there are now at least two to three guns (meaning both legally and illegally purchased) for every man, woman, and child in America, which is not an insignificant indication of fear, hate, and anger at the boiling point – while the predominant majority of the political class just remains indifferent; they are like the casually ignorant people who cannot come to recognize that they are, in effect, living near a smoking volcano. The effete politicians, with their effeminate aesthetics, rearrange meanwhile the proverbial desk chairs on the HMS Titanic.

Very few, nonetheless, can yet take the overt hint that there is truly major trouble, a real warning sign, when each monthly level of gun sales exceeds each previous month’s then broken record. What can be evidently more obvious?  Can they not now see the proverbial handwriting on the wall?  Are that many people, tens of millions, eagerly buying that many guns so prolifically, endlessly, not expecting to ever use them?  And, need it be said most rudimentally, that last question is, thus, the most critical of all.

While the supine politicians go about typically wheeling and dealing, as if everything is simply normal, the seething populous seems to be preparing for a revolution. Disparate realities now exist, while the ruling elite fiddles as the new Rome burns.  (And, those powerful people, perhaps a minority, who really hate what is going on and have the ability to prevent the disaster will, however, never read this article.)

The very instrumentalities of what had once been justice are now perverted, debauched, beyond any recognition to both unethically and immorally produce unmitigated and absolute injustice set beyond the mind’s comprehension. Comey, once (quite absurdly) thought so incorruptible, snidely sold all of his (presumed) integrity and character to the degenerate and decadent service of the quite dissolute and depraved imperium.  And, no matter who gets elected this November, there will then be, eventually, an authoritarian regime with heavily circumscribed civil liberties, at a minimum. Sic transit gloria mundi.

More than one gifted savant has historically noted the relatively sort durations of republics; what is to exist is the oxymoronic democratic-imperialism (read: liberal tyranny) of America, starting now in the second decade of the 21st century.

Any fool who still absurdly thinks he lives in a truly free country should just try going about the streets, talking out loud about the need to vigorously stop the ongoing Islamization of this country, and see just how far he gets before being rudely awakened.  People have, in fact, already been arrested for doing so much less.  The quite hoary guarantees of the Constitution have just become a bad joke, set among the many real vicissitudes of domestic politics sunk to depravity.

And, besides the major blame that ought to be put upon the obvious failure to affirm Christianity in all its spiritual boldness, the lesser failure is due to the steady diminishment of Western masculinity, the noted, enervating, feminization of society and culture that has, indisputably, happened.  As C. S. Lewis had long ago succinctly put it, in his superb little volume, The Abolition of Man, there are too many men without chests, for not all males are real men.

Nothing on earth lasts forever, though many uninformed people can yet be expected to be surprised as the old country of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, Douglas MacArthur and George Patton, becomes, more or less, substantially emblematic of a Third World nation, a truly polyglot, multicultural, rotting cesspit; it will not be a pretty picture to behold, rather, as a living nightmare, so easily evocative of the ancient Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.”

And yet, the glorious Grace of God is still needed more than ever, as orthodox Catholicism is, also, seen as importantly requisite for human beings more than ever, for helping to better endure this so quite mournful transition, this horrid transformation. At a bare minimum, an authoritarian polity or regime ruling by PC status mandates must, thus, result for oppressing the masses, tyranny as the new normal.

Nevertheless, people, both past and present, are fallen creatures living in a fallen world; it is, often appropriately, called the human condition, the empirical and spiritual consequences of Original Sin. Political failure, ultimately speaking, results from substantially prior moral and spiritual failure, a tremendous loss of needed fidelity to God.  Many of the Founding Fathers, moreover, foresaw what would necessarily happen to a nation given to massive Christian infidelity and indifference.

The lamented decline and fall of the American Republic that has, in fact, so obviously occurred reflects upon, as to its much larger impact, the slipshod (can’t think of a better adjective) ending of the imperial sway of the United States of America, in Europe and the world, saeculum, at large.  While the people are being conditioned to be increasingly obedient and passive, the worldwide imperial hegemony is rotting away, along with most domestic freedoms, as ought to be easily noticed.

With a sophisticated contempt for the tradition of classical (not modernist) Natural Law and the overall philosophia perennis, this so visibly predictable degeneration and depravity ought to have been, of course, simply expected, generation by generation, as people had so haughtily turned away from God.  The Lord Almighty, however, will not be mocked with impunity forever.

There are consequences for either outright atheism, practical infidelity for most, or for whatever imitations and variations thereof that despise moral coherence and concomitant valuation of truth as being essential.  One can really understand this better by reading The Gods of Atheism by Fr. Vincent P. Micelli, S.J.

But, as with the once ongoing imperial decline of the ancient Roman Empire, there is now, in a certain parallel sense, the very difficult but doable task of religiously taking up the magnificent challenge of the Catholic re-evangelization of the Western world, which, of course, includes the sadly multiculturalized America. But, look not to one’s supposed societal leaders for help.

The deliberate betrayal, the treason, of the degenerate American elites and those of the West, meaning almost all of them, ought to be so rather obvious by now.  This can be comprehended by reading such works of Charles J. Sykes’ A Nation of Victims: The Decay of the American Character.

This “nation,” if questionably assumed to be such, is filled with increasingly unassimilated and polyglot colonists, not people ever eager to become citizens, so rudely inhabiting, especially on both coasts, an internationalized, ideologized, and urbanized territory that is, jokingly now, still called the USA.

This so horrendous situation easily parallels, therefore, the various kinds of barbarian inclusions, infringements, invasions, and certain incursions that had gradually weakened and finally subverted that past Roman hegemony.  For surely, human beings, subject to pain and suffering, are still sinful fallen creatures living in a fallen world, not meant for any perfection on earth.

Truly, the Past is Prologue

The basically fictional “republicanism” of post-World War II America, circa 1946 to 2008 (arbitrary but proper dating), has been functionally replaced by the starting of the imperial ebb tide, beginning at about 2009 and set far into the future. As with the dreadful fall of the Roman Empire, an enormous sociopolitical and sociocultural vacuum increasingly developed that was, in fact, filled by the Roman Catholic Church; it had, through several very difficult centuries of both light and frightful persecutions, created an infrastructure resilient enough to substantially endure the repeated and harsh barbarian invasions, which, of course, have their most suitably noted parallels existing today.

Roman imperialism, as with all imperialisms, lacked that integral organizational coherence necessary to make religious persecution, absolutely systematic everywhere and at all times, throughout the fullest extent of an empire covering centuries; all such political power structures eventually crumble because of the ever resultant buildup of increasingly powerful internal contradictions possessed that are, over time, unable to later and later successfully handle newer or, perhaps, significantly resourceful challenges to its asserted or assumed survival.

And, besides all that, Christianity had and has proved quite durable, as lasting as is the blood of the past, present, and future martyrs. As opposed to living in an immoral, degenerate Kardashian-style world, this is why the endurance of hardship is an essential element in the Christian life.  No doubt about it.  For easy confirmation, one can read such volumes as How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

With the centralization of potestas (power) ever greater at the core (of the corruption), the extremities of the governmental structure, the regime, erected do necessarily wither, decay, and die eventually; such will predictably happen to the sickly Late American Empire, increasingly taking in unassimilated barbarians (aka often illegal aliens) who are offered the equivalent of Roman “bread and circuses;” and, this is no matter how apparently strong the grand imperium may now seem to appear, when there then plainly comes the true scarceness, open paucity, of genuine will and the so related lack of determination to survive.

For instance, the American boys (and their quality) who hit the beaches at Tarawa are almost all dead; they now cannot militarily help this nation anymore, as the rugged cohorts of mighty Caesar were just not there (in any real way, shape, or form imaginable) for the then pathetic (and last) Emperor Romulus Augustulus. What needs to be maturely said, therefore, to the generations after the Baby Boomers?  Get real!

Only a great lack of historical knowledge or, perhaps, much deliberate ideological blindness beyond belief would be able to just supinely or ignorantly ignore the many manifest parallels that do and will, it is here so logically insisted, exist as time passes further into the increasingly dangerous 21st century.  Imperialism often breeds a large credence in materialism, hedonism, and an enervating skepticism as to religious belief that yields, eventually, to a pervasive cynicism.  This is, thus, not at all insignificant to notice and comprehend, which is an understatement in itself, of course.

The Western world, and America in particular, is witnessing its massive rebarbarization and the rampant rise of a sex-obsessed neopaganism, with its so logically resultant libertarian reprimitivization; there is, of course, multiculturalism, pluralism, diversity, tolerance, and, therefore, the appropriately nihilistic promotion of the cited rebarbarization and cognate reprimitivization that is so obviously all ongoing, with the quite rampant pleas for materialistic naturalism, for secular humanism.

In addition, both myth and magic, though usually and totally unrecognized by almost everybody, have so crescively ravaged political, social, economic, theological, and cultural realities, as this author has critically expounded and detailed elsewhere.1

What is needed, however, is the seriously intelligent and courageous application of religious faith, in this case Roman Catholicism only in it orthodox mode, and much applied intelligence informed by a good knowledge and solid comprehension of history; this is to then appropriately assist in properly alleviating any inordinate or excessive fears; these are as to the present or future realities to be confronted in a manly manner, not with a childish indifference or a manic depression. After all, the Catholic Church in France, for instance, had miraculously survived the libertarian French Revolutions of 1789, 1830, and 1848.

While not absurdly claiming it to be easy or, perhaps, palatable to the mind or spirit of decent human beings filled with humane values, nonetheless, people have endured barbarian invasions and the spread of Christianity was still found to be not just possible, it had, in fact, been done quite successfully to a major degree, though not perfectly. After all, it literally took centuries, as Rome was not built in a day.

Conditions in imperial America and, by the way, Europe too are, increasingly, extremely similar to the late (Roman) Empire experience; this ought not to be shocking, however, to anybody with a proper and informed knowledge of history.

It is a situation that was faced by the Church, lex spiritualis, from about the late 4th century AD to at least the 11th century, as, over time, the late Middle Ages then had a chance to settle in upon a mainly, though not absolutely, Christianized Europe.  There are real cycles to history, though often denied, though as more or less predictably recurrent as is sin itself, of course.

In the cities of America and Europe today, one can, again, in a parallel sense, easily encounter polyglot barbarians mingling with the “Roman” people, as with the aforementioned late 4th century AD to at least the 11th century. Not perfectly ever time, but history definitely repeats itself; this is because of the nature and reality, clear persistence and inherent causality, of what all the atheists, pragmatists, pseudo-realists, positivists, empiricists, agnostics, materialists, nihilists, etc. completely deny as being absolutely nonsensical, ridiculous, and childish superstition to the nth degree imaginable: Original Sin.

What is best, for the needed re-evangelization, is to psychologically adopt what may be appropriately called a “Late Empire” attitude toward what has, is, and will be occurring; this professed reality is to spread with ever greater frequency well into this present century, characterized significantly by the perceived existence and necessarily related effect, cognate result, of a (late) Imperial America. Put much more simply, abnormality is the new normal.  This situation stinks, but the wages of sin is still death, which will, of course, remain a (progressively denied) form of normalcy.

Subjectivism and relativism, once thought to be “isolated” to college philosophy courses, are to run riot through political, societal, cultural, theological, and other areas of human involvement and action. But, none of this should really be news to any acute observers, to supporters of the traditionalist right.

In opposition, those same people who would quickly deny most emphatically that modernity or postmodernity is obsessed with myth and magic (aka fantasizing)  are also the ones who demand assent to such ever truly fictive “realities” as there (supposedly) being multiple, multiplying, or plainly polymorphous genders.

Sinfulness, whether connected to or interconnected with sexual perversions or otherwise, is to govern what is regarded, by the authorities and their supine adherents, as normal human behavior; this is set in whatever manifestations may be deemed creditable, under various conditions and circumstances; all values are, thus, held as mere value-neutral propositions only having “objective” validity in subjective terms of reference; modifications and adjustments are thought to be related and infinite in conception, as when a German politician recently made a serious address to purportedly cover 60 different genders!

Such a mental pattern used to be more easily recognized as insanity, or forms thereof, consistent with cognitive derangement, dissociative thinking, to varying degrees; today, moreover, only what used to be, especially in terms of common sense and basic rationality, called normal is, however, authoritatively declared to be abnormal (as with ladies only using ladies-only lavatories); it could not be held otherwise given, thus, the warped reasoning and illogic made acceptable these days; and yet, many are seeking salvation in technology, while others are (just?) denounced for seeking  the Messiah.

Essentially, political insanity, an end result of philosophical nominalism so purely driven to its logical nihilistic conclusions, is openly regarded now as being normal, meaning in this highly superstitious era governed so much by myth and magic galore. The ever intramundane, secular excess of immanentism necessarily breeds utopianism.

In short, to be better understood here as to its much more innate implications and suitable ramifications, it is a time, as said, of Late Empire and, going still later, into the early Middle Ages, once again; and, this why heresy (the endless repetition of sin) is ultimately boring, while orthodoxy (the way out of recurrent sin) is morally invigorating.

What can be or, rather, ought to be the proper and appropriate response, meaning given the above detailed destruction and degeneration that has and will, surely, further occur concerning America and, in general, Western civilization, (if it may still be now called such)? The Church, by the Grace of God, knows how to respond; it has had, the good Lord knows, a great deal of past experience in these various matters over, literally, centuries of time, should it be willing to act manfully in this crisis.

Against the evil of secularization, there are four euphonious words to consider, filled with both hope and glory, composed of blood and spirit, which do lead to holy sanctification and sacralization for a Christocentric world: Missionaries, Monks, Martyrdoms, and Monasteries. First, there needs to be the sending out of many enthusiastic missionaries, filled with righteous ardor and earnest humility, well beyond anything presently seen on earth, besides practicing the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity.

They, as spiritual crusaders, are not to exhibit a triumphant vanity or smugness, if they wish their holy endeavor to be truly blessed by God.   Where there is justifiable faith, fides rationalis, all hope is not actually lost, especially when the rosary is earnestly prayed, in spite of the great suffering and intense persecution that ought, plausibly, to be logically expected.

They will go knowing that many martyrdoms are to logically result; did the Apostles do no less? And, the sacred blood of the martyrs ever helps to sustain the faithful.  But, the primary function of raising up such an edifice and devotional effort has to be the nurturing and support for Catholic families in which resides the future; otherwise, there may, indeed, be a lot of motion and movement but no real success; there will be the true need for Athanasian courage and resolve, spiritual determination and persistence.

Safety and Christianity have not always seemed so pleasantly synonymous, as things go along often quite pleasantly within most still civilized societies. And, moreover, is not thoroughly blood-stained Islam, increasingly, challenging the soldiers of Christ to defend the Faith? As these very words are written, literally hundreds of Christians are, in fact, already being murdered for the sake of the Lord, which is the ugly and evil reality of a terribly resurgent Islam.

The ardent missionaries of Christ must, if needed, accept martyrdom, if that is the price demanded by God for the important sake of spreading the true Faith. It will, by the Grace of God, take strong families with an adamant faith dedicated to upholding Catholicism and, moreover, its vindication and exaltation.

If they are willing to murder callously for their devil-god Allah, should the disciples of our Lord not be even more willing to love God and their neighbors by dying, when needed, for Jesus the Christ?  But, as ever, missionaries and martyrdoms are not enough.  Monasteries, by whatever euphemism, have to be wisely spread out across entire continents, as both requisite and vital outposts of exuberant Christian life and for publicly affirming a Christocentric civilization, in, for instance, the reverential spirit of St. Augustine; and, through humbly seeking the important protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Mother of the Messiah, the Christ.

People will need to be taught, educated, and informed by monks (by whatever euphemism) as to why and what is to be properly done for the attempt at having a new Christendom, dedicated to orthodox Catholicism, throughout the entire world, not just America and Western Europe. Spiritual imperialism of the finest kind filled with true Christian charity, for the loving salvation of souls, is ever to be preferred to oppressive political imperialism.  The monasteries, geared toward fostering community and family life, can provide good havens from the outside world, if it be consonant with the will of God.

In these many devoted institutions, there will be appropriately taught: Church Latin for laying the proper foundation of a universal language of the new Christendom, classical Natural Law, as the sure, guiding, philosophical-universal basis of fundamental understanding; classical-Thomistic Scholasticism, though minus all of the nominalist-inspired aberrations and excrescences that were introduced by many of the Late Scholastics; and, many rather extensive Biblical studies. All efforts, as with the philosophia perennis, being so oriented, therefore, toward encouraging degrees of sustainable erudite interest, devotional moral attitudes, and internalized Christian holiness for individuals, families, communities, and nations.

Education, moral and mental, is an important part of the achieving of a higher level of civilization in that, e. g., increasing numbers of today’s college students are rather militantly demanding now to be or just remain ignorant of vast quantities of needed knowledge. Again, parallels with the fall of the Roman Empire, and its centuries-long aftermath and waning imperialism especially, do become more and more obvious to learned intellects, for many, in the rising generations, wish to be no better than barbarians.

As had been true of the Middle Ages, these new monasteries will have to, once again, help in rebuilding, reconstructing, a civilization by creating what are to suitably become great colleges and universities; these will be dedicated to saving, enriching, and transmitting the best of Christian Western culture to the future generations. Thus, prior planning and foresight are, certainly, to be intimately involved in all these spiritually united and understandably interrelated efforts and activities firmly aimed at the success wanted to help appropriately establish the order, the higher civilization, of the new Christendom, for the families of Christ; they ought to be dedicated to the praying of rosaries and novenas.

This will, of course, be logically inclusive of the enlarging background efforts of spreading the traditional Latin Mass, furthering the Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ, encouraging the proper growth of new, orthodox religious congregations, and the general furtherance of piety, aided by the influence of promoting the Four Cardinal Virtues, as the wholesome basis of a truly humane and well-ordered life.

There is to be, of course, the affirmation of the indefectibility, universality, apostolicity, and visibility of the Church that acknowledges and honors the papacy and its necessity when always rightly understood as being the Catholic servant of orthodoxy and truth; as opposed to mere spiritual anarchism, this will be along with promoting faith, hope, and charity, as the always requisite theological virtues, of course.

Not mere existence at any price but, rather, a full life worth living for Christ, His righteousness, and His kingdom is to be morally pursued. Humanity is, thus, to become more humane through Christianization, which is the direct opposite, for instance, of Islam whereby its too horrid pursuit of Muslim orthodoxy necessarily leads to ugly fanaticism, increased hatred, and a real bloodlust.

For there is a distinctive (orthodox) Catholic way of life, a Catholic ethos, sensus catholicus, that is, for instance, unlike and opposed to a Protestant (read: heretical) way of life; Catholicism is, therefore, so surely meant to then definitely influence society, culture, politics, economics, and all parts of life that do compose a society and, finally, full-scale civilization, not just certain externalities or, perhaps, random disparate obliquities.  This is not the case.

While there is the right condemnation of either Erastianism or Caeseropapism, however, the Catholic political order is to reflect the religious order as to the meaning of Catholicism, of theological orthodoxy in the spirit of St. Athanasius. All are to be one in Christ, not a bunch of variously assorted heretics, within the contemplated mundus Christianus supported by the Catholic political principles of solidarity, subsidiarity, and social justice, the last named as very conservatively, not ever radically, understood, of course.

Otherwise, the indicative meaning and spiritual force of the Catholic Faith will eventually get dissolved into whatever societal or cultural structures that may exist within particular polities. This why, e. g., so much of it has gotten itself so “Protestantized” in America, also known as the Americanist heresy. Thus, the logical and rational focus must be upon orthodoxy and its adamant advocacy and affirmation.

The ever multiplying and, thus, ever multiplicitous particularities of Protestantism can only be heretical, for what was taught by the The Venerable Bede (673 – 735) in England was the same as was taught by St. Isidore of Seville (560 – 636), St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430) in Africa, and St. John Chrysostom (349 – 407) of Constantinople, meaning the known universality of Catholic truth coming from Jesus Christ, the Apostles, Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, not Lutheranism, Calvinism, Mormonism, Anglicanism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Quakerism, “Whatever-ism,”etc.  Get real!

Catholicity is, therefore, certainly for real. It was no supposed accident or simply very coincidental that the demonstrable universality of Catholicism is, was and will be entirely authentic, as well as historically and empirically verified innumerable times.  Among many others, in widely disparate parts of the world over many centuries and still today, saints such as Bede, Isidore, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Aquinas, Thomas More, and many others affirmed the same, unitive, ultimate theological truth.

All firmly knew the basic universal truths called Catholicism, which remains undoubted, by definition, as to its obvious catholicity and orthodoxy when integrally defended as such. Once again, get real!

Anyone, being so incurably naïve, who thinks that this rather strikingly obvious unity of thought, this so solid universality of teaching, was just purely fortuitous, accidental, or coincidental could be sold the Brooklyn Bridge. Moreover, orthodoxy is the recognition that no one or two of the three main pillars of the Faith, meaning Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, could ever contradict one or two against another, as is affirmed by all the Patriarchs, the Doctors of the Church, the Scholastics or Schoolmen, and, of course, numerous popes and prelates, besides educated laity.  Of course, all heretics, being spiritual libertarians, do disagree.

A true comprehensiveness, a fullness and richness, of what broadly exists as more than just another religion is, therefore, supposed to inform and enlighten all of human life, to be a civilizing, educative, agent for human reality, for the Catholic koinos kosmos, the shared world order itself.  What is wrong is the idios kosmos (private world) of denominationalism.  Universality, as to furthering man’s humanitas, is what is intrinsically wanted; catholicity is that which is, by definition, universal.  Nothing less should be extrinsically accepted as to, one suspects, foundational civilizational truth, the ordering of humanity.

One can, quite logically, see that there is only the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the true lex spiritualis; none other, as can be reasonably understood, exists, as knowledgeable people should know, as, moreover, all who honestly call themselves Christians ought to know, as to the ordering of truth.

Christianity is, thus, not any supposed friend of (“educated”) ignorance; the heritage and traditions, the inheritance and customs, of liberating civility, respectful decency, and educative humanity of the West are always certainly important to transmit into the future. Generations of future citizens ought to know the truth.

A humane society and culture is, moreover, surely worth fighting for and defending against barbarians, whether internal or external, who naturally provoke the evils of chaos and anarchy; for true civilization, by definition, is the humanizing creation of order out of chaos, what used to be called the civilizing process of Hellenization, a gift from the ancient Greeks.

All of these significant activities and religious institutions are to be a genuine part of the ever-spreading ecclesiastical infrastructure and cognate networks covering the world. This new Christendom, the Christian commonwealth, is to exist parallel to the current Roman Catholic Church until all the major evil elements, the known many sinister poisons, of the Second Vatican Council are fundamentally washed out of its structure over the passage of time.  Within Catholicism, nothing is impossible if the justifiable faith, fides rationalis, is strong and can be dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Then, in future, there can be an integration with the formal Church structure well purged of its present secularist, modernist contamination and disease, fully along with any horrid postmodernist accretions. Why is this highly important?  Why is salvific secularism an enemy of basic human reason and sanity?  One can look, on a daily basis, to the now unceasing depravity and degradation done in the truly evil name of progressive Enlightenment, the notably combined dumbing down of education and the defining down of deviancy, of fundamental human decency, as well.

There must be this truly magnificent rebuilding of society, culture and, of course, civilization; above all, there is to be an infusion of all things in, by, and through Jesus Christ, the only true Savior of the world, in the monumental fight against all forms of idolatry (money, sex, power, avarice, etc.) and for the truly needed and rational return to sanity: Christianization, in the sense of invoking the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the Sign of the Cross, suitable for the good moral coherence of the mundus Christianus.

Christians, Catholics, are to lovingly live and die (even as martyrs if so necessary) by that ever true Sign of liberating salvation, of eternal redemption, for those who have been faithful and, thus, die without an unconfessed mortal sin.  Metaphysical, spiritual, struggle is disguised by many political, social, and other issues in that people, being sinful, need to know they are utterly dependent upon God for their highest liberation.  This is properly contrasted, however, with the way the contemporary world goes with its strident anthropocentric attitudes, hedonism, and materialism celebrating a triumphalist secular society.

Because there is no concern for eternal salvation as the real goal of life, secularization can, therefore, only really end, with its positivism, pragmatism, and relativism, in the embrace of nihilism. Some may ask, won’t it take many, many ages or eons of time to pass before any such solid realization can gain its true Christian fruition in fact, not just empty theory?   It is known that human nature, natura vulnerata, the human condition, is inclined toward sin.  Some optimism is, however, still genuinely warranted to a reasonable degree; with spiritual faith, not all is ever lost.

Because of advanced developments in the progressive improvements seen through much innovative transportation, communication, and technologization in general, a vital, new Christendom need not necessarily take many centuries to achieve, only a few generations at most.  These cited factors and others, such as the linkage of science and technology for a truly scientific technology, have provoked crescively what has been rightly and properly called the noted acceleration of history; this is, also, seen in this so noted Late Empire Age.  What is insightfully meant?

Accomplishments and actions that, on average, used to take many or at least several centuries to occur now routinely happen in mere decades, years, or, sometimes, months. The acceleration of history is a genuine reality, therefore, that must be considered.  And, when appropriate, taken full advantage of ever toward the great goals involved in the noble effort to create a vitally Christian civilization, society, and culture, if it be consonant with the will of God; this should be within a broad Augustinian mode of achievement, not any dumb and wrong efforts, e. g., to then supposedly revive a Spanish Inquisition.

There should be no real room for the many evils of fanaticism nor should religious orthodoxy be made into a supposedly acceptable synonym for it, though no heresies are to be tolerated within the borders of the proposed new Christendom, the Orbis Christianus.  The Prince of Peace never wrote in favor of torture chambers for those who disbelieved; and, charity toward others is greater than faith or hope.

No one is to be ever forced, which would surely defeat its purpose, into an acceptance of membership within Christendom, the Kingdom of Christ. People, those whose prepared hearts are full of good will and possessed of humane values, will voluntarily seek of themselves to better survive the ever further disintegration and crumbling apart of what used to be Western civilization or, for instance, the country once known as the United States of America.

They can find a decent place for retaining their sanity and moral composure in what is to seem, outside the Christian homeland, as an entire secularized world gone mad and filled as it is with perversions, inhumanity, and incivility determined to crush the human spirit. Civilization can be rebuilt and these times are, in fact, mightily propitious to be doing so, though with and through the spirit of Christ, as to the usually gradual pacification of many evils.  Reflections, on such matters, can directly relate to main features of metaphysical struggle and the declining American imperium.

Imperialism can have its advantages. The birth of Christ, e. g., did not occur under the time of the prior Roman Republic.  The Age of Augustus Caesar (Gaius Octavius) was privileged to see the coming of the Savior, besides the spread of the pax Romana, of course.  It was an auspicious time to found a religion.  The communication and transportation facilities available, to say the least, were previously unknown, on such a grand scale, in the ancient world.

On the wreckage of empire, the Church had gradually built, for in medieval times, one can usefully recall that Europe was not yet an established sociopolitical identity prior to the rise of nationalism. The region that was to slowly evolve, through the Middle Ages, into the later understanding of itself as being Europe, was known as the lands pertaining to Christendom, to where Christians were known to live and worship Jesus as the Christ, which was their honest pride and joy.

This was in properly reflecting the cultural idea that its various and diverse inhabitants were not only mostly Christian, but, moreover, that those of the generally more committed Christians had so felt a certain conscious sense of a good, shared communal identity with the other Christians within the rather broad dominion, general realm, of holy Christendom.  And, with it, moreover, the needed good sense of a distinctio christiana.

One may say that it can be thought of as being so highly providential that, as with a founding upon the ruins of one empire, the new Christendom is, therefore, to be so suitably founded upon the sad ashes and decayed realities of the American Empire.  In any event, all glory is God’s, and all of history is fully equidistant to His glorious will.

Thus, a real sociocultural crisis, a spiritual fight, of vast civilizational importance exists not just in America, it really so exists in the entire Western/Modern world.  For it is carelessly forgotten by the jaded modernists, the secularists, that as “Old Thunder” Hilaire Belloc had put it succinctly, in his The Crisis of Civilization, “Religion is the main determining element in the formation of a culture or civilization.”

And, such highly important words had been elaborated upon by the Catholic historian Christopher Dawson in many texts. 2   Lord Acton, however, usefully clarified Catholicism, meaning the Roman Catholic Church, in overall relation to any or all of culture and civilization, in his The States of the Church, by writing: “The Catholic Church, while she is militant on earth, is compelled to wage an incessant conflict, both for the preservation of the purity of her doctrines and for her own liberty in proclaiming them.”

One needs, therefore, to most clearly recognize that there are mounting anti-civilizational, anti-societal, and anti-cultural anarchic forces, movements, attitudes, and peoples whose nihilistic collective efforts are surely aimed at destroying matters; and, moreover, this is all done without ever really caring at all about putting anything (recognizably decent and assuredly humane) in its place.  Anarchy and chaos, thus, wish to be regnant and, thus, in full command.  But, it is known, as it was in the past, as to how to then lovingly recreate the Christian conditions of true civilization.

For as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman said of it, in his Historical Sketches, civilization “is the development of art out of nature, and of self-government out of passion, and of certainty out of opinion, and of faith out of reason.”  In his The Idea of a University, these thoughts were extended to cover what ought to be known as “this commonwealth preeminently and emphatically human society, and its intellect the human mind, and its decisions the sense of mankind, and its disciplined and cultured state civilization in the abstract, and the territory on which it lies the orbis terrarum, or the world.”

But, further than that noted knowledge, there is still a much needed corollary, as was so specified by Pop Leo XIII’s Inscrutabili: “That civilization which conflicts with the doctrines of Holy Mother Church is but a worthless imitation and a hollow name.”   Therefore, all the aforementioned aspirations and ideas may need to be put into the broader context of what ought to be known to the defenders of what used to be Western Civilization, through a brief history lesson; this is meaning as a way of properly removing any doubts as to the critically tremendous reality and intensive seriousness of what so requisitely needs to be both rationally and vigorously faced as to reality.

In Europe, it is known that there are still many historical vestiges of the Roman imperium; but, among the most famous, for instance, in England are the (warning) remains of Emperor Hadrian’s Wall. This was a stone wall extending from the northern east coast to west coast of England and constructed to protect the Roman-occupied country held south of the wall from any prospective terrible raids by the vile northern barbarians, normally, the savage Picts, existing from about the late Iron Age, in Scotland, and usually thought fairly to be of ethnolinguistically Celtic stock.

However, be it keenly noted that its variable success, such as it was, was primarily aimed, directed, at only the potential unarmed invaders, meaning in set terms of a formal sort of requisite boundary or territorial barrier separating, of course, the higher societas civilis Romanus from the known, vulgar, ferocious barbarians on the other side, though all beings are yet, nonetheless, parts of the larger civitas maxima.

The mere reality of Hadrian’s Wall would, thus, never have vigorously halted for long a quite determined attacking army, unless that barrier was always most thoroughly, fully, manned along its entire length, which would have been, no doubt, prohibitively costly.  Therefore, logically, any attempt to then actually garrison tactically the wall, in such a supposed fashion, would be to stupidly weaken the strategic ability of the Roman army to oppose a barbarian horde that would, no doubt, invariably outnumber them, as time passed; and, this needs to be kept in mind for having a proper understanding of such protective walls.  The Romans depended upon mobility, organization, and their good roads.

Scattering, at certain points, its soldiers along an 80-mile front could, thus, rather definitely not, and was not realistically meant to, deter a genuinely mass attack in great force; rather, obviously, it was simply intended to deal, in a fairly practical matter, with a problem that Western Civilization, interestingly enough, is now again facing.  This is true while so few, in Western leadership positions, eagerly wish to face up to it.  Perhaps, in part, it shows a truly major lack of good historical knowledge, as well as a substantial lack of requisitely wise reflection.

That wall was only so constructed to basically halt or, at the least, substantially moderate to a great degree, the steady flow of migrants from the overtly barbarian filled areas from then entering too swiftly into the Roman Empire. A good question here needs to be critically entertained.  Why, may it be critically asked, was this done in the particular manner in which it was, in fact, done?

This was accomplished in this sad way because, even though these rude brutes entered into the Empire peacefully, they did not then beneficently arrive to really benefit the nature of the Empire, but, rather, to primarily parasitically exploit it, as to its vastly abundant resources, the existing material riches and the higher culture.

They did not, in truth, consciously seek to become supposed valuable citizens of Rome but, on the contrary, to still maintain their own brute cultures for infecting the host (Roman) community, which, thus, so decisively meant that they acted as a true imperial liability, not an asset certainly.  Such a reflection is very important to bear in mind.

And, this then was, and is now for the modern world again, the exactly same reality involved through history engaged in mostly repeating itself.  Only quite historically ignorant people would be yet blindly shocked or, perhaps, astonished to see this reality.  But, only naïve or, perhaps, uninformed people do think quite otherwise by, thus, being champions of an open (vulnerable) society with its secularization, the odd “faith” of the faithless.

From this observation of a harsh reality, one coldly perceives more easily how a declining Western culture exists as being increasingly vulnerable to such largely brutish vermin (those so particularly intent on seeking the extermination of Europeans or Americans), to these crescively illegal alien parasites, which, of course, ought to be no very real surprise.  The ancient Romans had to contend with such types.

Perhaps, the “surprise” is, however, that any fair-minded observer would supinely think otherwise, as if witnessing an optical illusion of some sort so oddly composed of heterogeneous people; and yes, this is a rather nasty situation, to say the least, with many ugly implications and horrid ramifications, if not somehow dealt with effectively and efficiently.  How so?  Christianization, added strongly to the significant effects of the proposed spreading of Christian civilization, is highly requisite to the needed civilizing task being  overtly perceived, if it be consonant with the will of God.

Otherwise, the baleful influence of the growing imposition of alien inferior cultures set firmly against a failing, decaying, emasculated, and secularist culture is fairly similar to a parasitic attack being severely suffered by any failing organism or, in this case, sensate beings within organized communities. Though the jaded citizens of a deteriorating and disintegrating secularist community are gradually losing their weakening affinity or attachments to their own sense of community, they may still, as to the basic psychology and sociology involved, feel at least some vague sense of obligation towards it.

After all, it is their own community, composed of their own kind, which is their existing community such as it is; irrespective, moreover, of their notable growing indifference to their decaying secular society’s tradition, they yet somehow or other sense or feel that they have an interest or concern for its supposed welfare.  In opposition, various heterogeneous and aggressive migrants from alien cultures, being social parasites, have no such allied concerns for the invaded host society; they are just more arriving colonists merely existing among strangers with a truly different and to them hostile or inhospitable culture needing, for them, to be crushed or surpassed out of all existence, a deliberate displacement, when it then becomes possible.

These, to put matters more plainly, invaders have not really arrived to humbly seek the bringing of any assumed improvements for their host’s society, but parasitically acting upon their own desires, the substance is taken always at the expense of their increasingly hapless and receptive secularized host. Therefore, all such rude, invading, colonizing, minority communities are, thus, set for being naturally, necessarily, and functionally parasites upon their ever seemingly so willing and very open, secularist, vulnerable, degenerate, host community.  It cannot be thought otherwise, rationally speaking.

These colonists, in short, are coming here to substantially take, not to give.  Thus, for instance, Mexicans working in America actually do provide the second largest amount of foreign aid to Mexico; only Leftist-ideologist apologists or mainly ignorant fools are, however, unable to clearly see this open economic reality now involved.

Because no sustained, protective, and defensive efforts are being either substantially or substantively made at urgently genuine and needed assimilation and acculturation, they are just greedily coming here to suck the nation dry, in the traditional manner of exploitative colonists or, better yet, rapacious invaders. As could be rationally guessed, there is no migrant desire or concern for ever contributing to the American patria.

But, for a while, the parasitic nature of these uncouth invaders had been originally disguised, meaning while the would-be colonists were yet mainly here present only in relatively small numbers, they had then treated their host with a wary circumspection and formalized respect.  Surely, this is a part of the cunning nature of illegal aliens just setting about to find their way for investing themselves better in different Western countries.

The mostly concealed but real contempt felt for their host’s despised culture will be a great pretense carried on along with their long-term intention to more successfully exploit their host’s wealth, while shunning any (prohibitive) demands the host may attempt to devolve upon them.

Not being that stupid, these colonists will naturally pledge, on the mere surface of events, to generally obey those laws of the native community that carry either the real menace of penalty or those that do offer reasonable profit; however, this will be only coyly done because of relative degrees of added convenience and simply not for deference to the social, cultural, political, or other notions sustaining those native laws or requirements.

Nonetheless, all other edicts of the host society will be tacitly regarded with a conniving contempt, except in those increasingly rare instances where, on average, they may seem, on the surface, to fairly just be compatible enough with their own culture’s ways and mores.

Over time, it is inevitable, however, that the irreconcilable and incommensurate nature of these very dedicated trespassers, if never made subject to the aforementioned Christianization, will be ultimately revealed within their, in effect, colonial compounds or neighborhoods. A real problem exists because the jaded bulk of the political elites do not wish to exercise the requisite imperial rulership, as with the discipline of Hadrian’s Wall, in simply wanting only to absurdly act as if a limited republic exists within the borders of America; this necessarily results in a terribly conflicted polity, a disjointed regime.  Thus, the territorial or geophysical boundaries of the imperium, unsurprisingly, are just not secured.

As the exploiters will increase, no doubt, in absolute numbers into the many millions, so will their self-assurance and their own barbarian culture must then naturally begin to publicly and aggressively assert itself. Sharia law is one prominent example as it increasingly takes hold in America and Europe.  The colonist’s broad contempt and true scorn for the decadent secularist culture of their degenerate host community will become exceedingly manifest and necessarily produce antipathy between the naturally more and more opposed cultures.

And yet, although this aspect of things may rankle and flash into the open occasionally, the self-deluded, cynical native community would only seek to confirm the putrefying nature of its own secularist culture by being, thus, integrally powerless to take active measures against the crescively successful invaders. And, this situation is, in fact, being seen today, more and more.  How is this here to be correctly noted?

The Diagnosis of Self-Inflicted Failure as Self-Inflicted Contempt

Like a political version of unified field theory, the Psychotherapeutic State is the Administrative State, Bureaucratic State, Regulatory State, is, in short, the modern State, Thomas Hobbes’ “Mortal God,” with its ever uniformitarian lusts.  But, most of the general psychological and sociological trouble engaging society and culture began during the Renaissance, called Rinnovazione in Italy.

In opposition to the mood of the Middle Ages and its cognate notions of needed holiness, chivalry, courtliness, and attempted courteous behavior toward women, femininity (as to its virtues) was steadily downplayed significantly, reduced in importance, and masculinity, thus, became quite more and more exaggerated and set far beyond proper degrees and measures of consideration and reflection.

There is a good insightful reason, for instance, why Michelangelo’s portraits of women tend to portray them with what would be often considered masculine features; he had, thus, perfectly reflected this too virile Renaissance attitude of an exultant, exuberant, assertive, and so forceful masculinity.   The vast basic majority of artists, writers, politicians, and others were trying, they felt, to appropriately imitate the assumed manly characteristics of the ancient Attic Greeks and the republican and early Empire Romans.

This tended, to no surprise, more naturally to highly favor and foster the more secularist, rather than the Christian religious side, of that era’s longings and aspirations of a reawakening, a rebirth, from the often supposed medieval (read: Roman Catholic) slumber.  The former was a time when the adoration and veneration, not worship, of the Blessed Virgin Mother helped to raise the often degraded status of women, as it is still true in Muslim countries, significantly above what it was during the ancient eras, subject to the deliberate Renaissance adulation of the Greeks and Romans.

Then, just a few centuries later, Protestantism, the Protestant Revolution, came along, adding to this excessive concentration upon celebrated maleness, to cast its vile aspersions upon the Catholic cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary to still further circumscribe any stress upon the feminine in societal and cultural matters. They had and still do wrongly condemn what they see as the supposed worship of Mary, as a part of their continuing and innumerable slanders against Catholicism.

Finally, the Victorian Era, a clearly Protestant-oriented offshoot as to sociocultural attitudes, which then tended largely to regard women as mainly stereotypically helpless, hapless, brainless dependents, took this modern era worship of exaggerated masculinity to many new heights of vapid absurdity and just plain ludicrousness. Eventually, calling someone a “Victorian” became a widespread term of often well-deserved reproach, aversion, scorn, and plain contempt.

So, in reiteration for amplification, the weirdly combined modernist efforts among those leaders of the Renaissance who were secularly inclined, the fanatical, revolutionary, Protestant so-called Reformers; and, the stuffy advocates and practitioners of blatant Victorianism had, deliberately, warped the image of women to a terrible and unfair degree, as based upon their ideological preferences and fantasies.

Proper gentlemen, schooled by such odd incongruous nonsense, were never supposed to dare utter the vulgar word “legs” in public as to women, only limbs existed (or were thought to) on the human females of the species. And, all this nonsense was (supposed) to be taken very seriously and without question, because many men expected women, meaning oh-so-refined ladies of quality, to automatically faint if the word limbs was not used in their rather delicate presence.

The historical pendulum of such thinking had been, thus, extremely pushed much too far in one hyper-masculine direction, such that Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) could even speak of his support for the Übermensch (Overman or, to say, the Superman or Superhuman) who rightfully ought to take and hold power above all merely common men.  How much more mythical and magical in one’s thinking, within the heavily nominalist realm of modernity, can one get?

Maleness worship could not go much farther than that, one supposes — until the fanatical Nazis wanted to usher into being their das Herrenvolk (the Master Race) of supremely dominating Aryan, Nordic men, the Germanic or Teutonic, blue-eyed, blond-haired beasts of wild, mythical Wagnerian temperaments, no doubt.  A Spartan-style homosexuality was, of course, encouraged among the SS to help solidify male bonding.  For easy confirmation, one can instructively read: The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party by Scott Lively and Thomas Szasz.  Yet, this noted overreaction could not, in fact, last forever.

The mid-19th and into the 20th century saw that pendulum swing back increasingly far to see, in the late 20th to early 21st century, a Western worshipping of femininity to the point of the now clearly substantial feminization of politics, theology, society, and culture. But, two wrongs, however intentioned, do not make a right, even if called, e. g., libertarianism.

One might add, nonetheless, that both extremes need to be always rationally and morally condemned and resisted as wrong and that supporting the best ideals of chivalry would be a certainly much better and healthier normative attitude, as to sociocultural conduct and mores.  Feminism and Victorianism, therefore, have both failed.

Be that as it may, the contemporary age has freely rejected both orthodox Roman Catholicism and, of course, also chivalry, a sure product of Catholicism. Contrary to a much heavily secularized and, thus, necessarily decadent West, Islam’s fanatical members, as easily seen in ISIS and other such efforts, have freely chosen massive cruelty and brutality instead.  Women and girls, even as these words are written, are enslaved, degraded, beaten, tortured, murdered, and a part of their bodies, when so needed in the ever despicable and bloodthirsty name of Islam, savagely mutilated.  Meanwhile, their devil-god Allah is praised for all this horror.

And, the horrid silence, bizarre hush, coming from the both decadent and discredited Feminists has been extremely deafening, except for a relatively few and far between number of isolated dissenters.   What has and is, therefore, really occurring as Christianity, inclusive of the Social Kingship of Christ, has mostly now vacated the Western world?   What has been the punishment for such sin and nihilism?

In the late 20th and set far into the 21st century, almost all those countries considered part of Western Civilization have, in fact, become willfully enthralled to an almost entirely unarmed invasion by other races and cultures adverse to, basically antithetical to, Western society and culture.

The relative degrees of affluence and shelter, wealth and safety, still currently enjoyed by Germany, France, England, the USA, etc. have certainly made them highly wanted locations to live for the economically deprived and terrified people of other countries or regions, such as Central America, India, Pakistan, Mexico, China, etc.   All of this is, thus, not just a Moslem immigration problem, as is sometimes falsely so depicted.

Although this limitless demand for continued refuge has been the case for many past decades at the least, the previous major obstacles that beforehand had basically prohibited or proscribed the peoples of poorer countries from more easily migrating to the wealthier countries have been, on the whole, substantially eliminated. The earlier and largely fixed opposition, maintained by most of the citizens of the much wealthier and increasingly secularist countries, has been destabilized, plainly subverted, by the clearly marked corrosion noted in the growingly dissipated, hedonistic, character of their so jaded but largely puzzled or, perhaps, perplexed citizens.

Consequently, the ongoing grand invasion, the evident colonization, is really no longer being successfully resisted in any meaningful ways; this is as more and more dissolute, corrupt politicians and other such degenerate people in leadership positions say they feel simply powerless to really do anything, while a protesting minority of the native Western populations grow angry and frustrated at, in effect, losing their own countries without much of a real or, dare one say, manly struggle. No fight seems to remain.

Or, as T. S. Eliot had so well put it long ago, this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but only a whimper. The predominant majority of the Western leadership class, in general, is advising its peoples to, in effect, cut their own throats – surprise! surprise! –  to then better serve the Moslems. This is why, in decadent America, Obama’s “refugee” resettlement program has been suggestively called a “civilized” jihad artfully combined with, thus, resultant civilizational suicide set directly, intentionally, at the end of it.

Compared to the enormous magnitude of the crescive threat, moreover, the effeminate political elite, regardless of whatever party affiliation, has nastily shown not merely just a truly pathetic, lackadaisical response but, rather, a fundamentally quite infantile effort unworthy of supposedly mature adults. In the centuries now past, however, when the peoples of Western Civilization were better well-behaved, had some character and moral discipline, and honored to be Christians, they would have surely been significantly equipped more to rightly and morally resist what has happened.

But, under the sway and influence of selfishness, a (departed) sense of immemorial duty has been rejected, along with any pious reverence for religion and even their very humanity, thereby annulling what ought to have been righteous resistance to invasion. Christianity, therefore, had once given the truly tremendous cultural and societal self-assurance, moral composure, to unquestioningly project their kind around the entire globe, which is all now forgotten as was their devotion to Christ.

The only relative “anxieties” now generally demonstrated by most native citizens is, seemingly, for the observed welfare of their much aggrieved intruders and the PC persecution of those miscreant folks who may claim that the colonist-invaders are actually enemies, not potential good citizens ready to join the secularized, supposed Western Utopia so crumbling, further and further, around them. Obvious kinds of contradictions and absurdities, however, are here just too numerous to mention.

Again, in the past centuries, the peoples of Western Civilization were historically once filled with vigor, foresight, confidence, ambition, and had the integral ability for initiating action, so they had widely dominated the various regions in the world occupied by lesser or inferior (aka non-Christian) cultures.

These many subject areas often then became, of course, colonized; the people found in those places realized, over time and due to the brute force of circumstances, that they had, more or less, to adopt the language and culture of the higher Western Civilization; a civilization that, of course, once was the product of Christianity, what had been, in Europe, called the Orbis Christianus, Christendom, the truly Christian adventure, challenge, and opportunity for spreading faith, hope, and charity.

As a direct cultural consequence, the superior cognitive understanding and superior range of vision of advanced Western Civilization was encouraged throughout the world, along with its relative peace and substantial wealth, both of which had once proved quite formidable and justifiable. This was because the prior larger effort was the related spread of Christianity on a global basis, while today there is only the justification of spreading commerce and marketing, as a preachy kind of secularist modernity, as, in effect, the new gospel.

However, with time’s inexorable passage, as Western Civilization’s peoples became increasingly self-centered and self-indulgent (aka morally corrupt), they gave up their previous ability and confident determination, so the mastery once confidently exercised by the Western communities logically had declined. This historically noted decline was, of course, suitably in parallel to a decreasing faith in God, in Christian beliefs, and support for the status politicus (common good) as rightly understood through moral coherence.  Equally, it is known that rising affluence always stimulates not just wealth but its ever so cognate decadence as well.

This situation permitted then the foreign peoples to recover their independence and re-assert their own (non-Christian, anti-Christian) culture, which, in the majority of instances, sooner or later had inevitably obtained the poverty and tyranny that almost always had existed before the fairly powerful Western domination ensued.

As Western Civilization, which had been (or, at the least, claimed to be) Christian to whatever degree, had relinquished, e. g., its rule over its colonies, the former prevalence of there being mainly general wealth and social peace then gave way, on the whole, to negative advancements of poverty and anarchy, overall misery and chaos. It could not be otherwise.  Activity alone, without real faith, becomes powerless eventually.

The most excellent or outstanding example of the incredible social collapse, e. g., of South Africa has largely been, in various manners, repeated all over that sad continent, many fold. For many of the diverse peoples of these former colonies, what had generally been a fairly decent standard of living normally enjoyed in relative social peace has been substituted by a perilous paucity of necessities and a surplus of trepidations.

It is freely granted that certain exceptions to the above rule cited will always usually exist, of course; but, nonetheless, the basic norm is still fairly agreeable with the abundant facts, which can be openly researched by objective observers as such. Most postcolonial nations, on average, present precarious existences for vast numbers of people.  The growingly decadent West, accordingly, is their only last realistic refuge, such as it is.

Consequently, for the impoverished, suffering majority of the desperate masses involved, the only rational and possible escape from this grinding, endless chaos and economic misery is to seek to go where wealth and social peace still fundamentally do exist, normally meaning the home countries of their former rulers. This is not, however, just a Western European matter to be considered.

Having had the Philippines and other land areas as protectorates and territories, many of the latter still existing as such, the United States must then, in all fairness to truth, be logically accounted for as itself being a former, emasculated colonial power.  Thus, the American imperium that obviously exists.

The (anti-Western) cultural wave of generative influence has then substantially reversed, especially from the late 19th into the 21st century; however, instead of the civilizational blessings of basic social peace and extensive wealth, it is now abundant poverty, diseases of paucity, and just plain anarchy that is being now so successfully spread.  A solemn truth, therefore, needs here to be rather quite severely and consciously recognized as being supremely factual in nature: Invasion is colonization.  Only Leftist or deliberate ideological blindness held so willfully and, moreover, spitefully perceives otherwise.

The long-range outcome of this mass migration is fundamentally predictable; the invaders would wish to take possession of their new homeland by the predation factor of the sheer weight of ever amassed numbers.  One will see how the original demeanors, customs and opinions or beliefs of the occupied country are gradually changed by those other views necessarily also imported by the colonist-invaders.  Perception of this can be readily noticed in America where, admitted to or not, the actual (aka de facto) border with Mexico is really moving, almost imperceptibly, further north every year in the Southwest.

In America, the progressively reduced Anglo-White Ethnic culture of the once dominant majority of native people is being sort of evacuated by their mostly Latino invaders; the general social peace and material wealth generated by the previous (aka White) culture are being, thus, necessarily traded, increasingly, by the normally rampant poverty and attendant crime transported here by the colonist-invaders; an occupation that is made rather more observable by the steady substitution of the norm of English language usage with Spanish. America is now, de facto, a bilingual nation.

Miami, Florida, to all basic intents and purposes, is actually now a Spanish-speaking urban complex, even though it is yet technically within the presumed borders of America, meaning, of course, a still supposedly English-speaking country.

Social elements among the American people, usually called the conservatives and their supporters, have just unsuccessfully so far tried to put some end to this invasion, but their often attacked and ridiculed efforts are basically tepid and incompetent or, at the least, generally unimpressive. The most informal way into America is usually done, of course, by simply rambling in from old Mexico, where a haphazardly “patrolled” fence has been supposedly erected (in some areas), as just an assumed sort of (ineffective) barrier (much like Hadrian’s Wall).

Those Mexicans, not the vast majority who try to do so, who are yet occasionally noticed crossing the (useless) “barrier” are then merely sent back to Mexico to, of course, try again. Those who do come in undetected are still made subject to some possible discovery, but, on the whole, this is mostly a rather doubtful fate rarely having serious consequences.

And, in any event, the so mild “penalty,” if it may be euphemistically called that at all, is just a return to that southern border country, so they can pleasingly go and try again for the hoped-for access.  It is a comedy, not a serious attempt at protecting American sovereignty.  Thus, no real borders, no real nation then exists.

Many do eventually find out that they, after the formally enforced return, can, in fact, often find that the return can be so willfully circumvented by a skillful, rather artful, manipulation of the law. When finally successful, they simply fade into the population joining other Hispanics, whether illegals or not.

However, truly unchecked immigration, without any real substantial efforts at actual assimilation and wanted acculturation, is just eventual annihilation of the (once) native population of a country.  Only a degenerate person or, same difference, a Liberal or Leftist would supinely deny such an obvious truth.

Mexico, whether the American people believe it or not, is effectively colonizing America and, in that process, gradually imposing its own Spanish language and Hispanic culture throughout the Southwest.

While it is somewhat said that most Americans still may have the basic cognizance involved of being able to understand and recognize that the Hispanic invasion ought really to be ended, they are significantly powerless, nonetheless, to take the truly realistic and forceful measures mandatory enough for self-defense, for survival, against these invaders to, thus, so effectuate boldly this rather desired end.  But, informed patriots are scorned as xenophobic monsters with evil intentions, of course.

If a state of war with Mexico were to be properly recognized as it actually ought to be, then, at a bare minimum, something must logically be done, thus, to appropriately and naturally stop this obvious Latino invasion by executing, at the border, those adults who are the invaders. No nation can exist for long unless it guards seriously its sovereign borders, especially against aggressors, interlopers, in self-defense of its very existence as a country, its proclaimed national sovereignty.

But, knowing reality quite intimately, this is pure fantasy, as would be, e. g., an American invasion of Mexico to enforce American language and values upon the abusive Mexican leadership and their terribly corrupt, Free Masonic, oligarchic regime, which deliberately keeps many millions in poverty and ignorance.

It is known that the American people would only axiomatically reject such a brutal resort to advocated violence, even when legitimately, rightly, taken as a recourse in national self-defense just for American survival.

On the contrary, the liberal-leftist ideological delusion is so embraced by which enough of a majority supinely imagine that their fruitless attempt at a false or useless defense is not foolishness; they, instead, do disregard the inexorable but predictable appropriation of their degraded country and, moreover, normally tend or seek to then persecute anyone who tries to dismiss their precious altruistic and humanitarian delusions.  Such is fully consistent with human vanity, pride, and hubris galore, not humility.

America has absurdly ceded, over time, its own capability to survive, to protect itself effectively, and must, ultimately, be infested by these America-hating colonists from other cultures, other nations. The proverbial handwriting has, therefore, long been on the wall of a primarily defeatist-oriented reality; those born in this country, especially the White people, are to become (eventually all hated) strangers residing in a strange land and, sooner or later, denied any birthrights by these invading foreigners finally intent upon overall plunder and rapine, against all sense of the true status politicus.

In such rather extreme circumstances, domestic political order can, therefore, hardly be maintained effectively and efficiently in perpetuity where the people inherently lack humility before God, where crude materialism is, in fact, their true god.

America’s cited failure to properly defend itself is, however, an illustrative example being repeated by every Western country, more or less.  Manifesting the same basic lack of a truly militant determination required to repel their colonist-invaders, these other host countries now find themselves no longer a single Western community but, increasingly, a group of different and more heterogeneous communities of capricious mere assemblages of races and cultures trying to adjust to a spoils system of crude reality.

Even seemingly isolated Australia, protected ever physically by vast areas of ocean, is allowing itself to become subject to migrant occupation, with parts of Australian cities that do now fairly resemble their aggressors’ former homes. Manifesting quite insane behavior, the Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had just recently this year, e.g., enjoyed an official state dinner with a leading imam who wants to kill, among others, all sodomites and adulterers.

Can a once European-settled Australia long survive with such clearly adverse attitudes?   Can PM Turnbull be credited justly with politically sane behavior?

The grave catastrophe, no other words will do, deliberately brought on by the Western countries, by not willing to defend themselves, discloses a rather powerful fact; this is that the Christian-inspired ideals and supreme values, once created by Western Civilization through the good influence of the Church, have already dissipated, collapsed, into now merely some speculative irrelevance. Because one sees people lacking a concern for attaining eternal salvation, this is a clear manifestation of unserious, non-adult thinking, cognitive infantility, which just so blithely ignores the four Last Things: Life, Death, Heaven, or Hell.

The three dreadful ciphers of looming communal, sociocultural, death, the apparent disappearance of civilizational genius, and the feminized forfeiture of the martial spirit, are there to be readily seen and appraised by all. This is, moreover, along with the most willful, indulgent, self-inflicted failure and self-inflicted contempt found among way too many Westerners, among far too many Americans.

A splendid exception to the overall gloom and doom was manifested, shockingly, on June 23, 2016 when the British Lion had roared; the tremendously substantial and historic pro-Brexit vote, an unequivocal statement, stunningly sent extensive shock waves far and wide, and throughout all of Europe and, in effect, the world at large; the people of Great Britain, an assertive old John Bull, surprisingly decided to be great, not remain just a bunch of simply complacent, obedient, and mindless European Union sheep.

The banal, oppressive ruling-class elite, the self-righteous power holders, the narcissistic power-mad technocrats, were soundly rebuked, along with EU citizenship, a dream of the megalomaniac globalists, the utopians, who veer only toward nihilism at the rotten end of all their petulant schemes of so ersatz grandeur. Artificial political “realities” are built out of mere cardboard, not organic substances surely.

What was, therefore, the catastrophic shock to the collective elitist ego? The once largely dismissed age of nationalism, populism, self-determination, and democracy did not, therefore, simply roll over and drop dead, as was mainly expected; “history” must now then be revised, at a bare minimum, for the people of Great Britain who chose national life directly against their once globalist-prescribed death, which offended greatly their angry controllers, the international-cosmopolitan bureaucrats, in Brussels.

Despised nationalism, as a supposedly extinct volcano, a contemptible “relic” of the European past, then came right roaring back to life with an unexpected force and tremendous intensity that, one sees, simply devastated the willingly cosmopolitanized cognoscenti. They, the British people, had so rudely angered their internationalist presumed masters who will resort, eventually, to the exercise of imperial discretion to preempt any senseless acts of power, by any uninformed people, in a senseless resistance to utopian globalism.

What was the assumed grave “horror” of it all? The vile, grubby, unkempt, semi-literate masses had democratically revolted; they did not just keep their place, yield due deference, and blindly obey their (reputed?) superiors by all voting lockstep against the peaceful and valiant secession, against the Brexit.

And, now, for those who may be ignorant, a word will be rendered here about the important differences between abstractionist cosmopolitan internationalism and organic aristocratic internationalism; the former mode of thinking is condemned unequivocally, but the latter is, however, praised extensively by the traditionalist right. Let it be said, however, that stupidity is not the same as simple ignorance.  A truly stupid person is just incapable of ever knowing; a merely ignorant man just lacks the information or knowledge needed for knowing.

For further clarification as definition: Cosmopolitanism, being of the rationalist persuasion, fully despises the existence of any traditionalist, European, national cultures; however, all aristocratic internationalism gladly celebrates them as creative organic parts of human culture with a manifest adherence to needed, traditional moral coherence.

Since they have minds obsessed with either modern or postmodern myth and/or magic, the noticed phenomenon of elite tribalism, because of modern technologies that ease greatly transportation and communication, increasingly exists; but, these dissociative-unconscious tribalists have an integrally substantial lack of critical self-awareness as to their, thus, both flawed characters and quite shallow personalities. How so?

What needs to be recognized clearly as the imperialization of contemporary civilization has the definite consequence of promoting elite tribalism among the globalist ruling class; this is mainly because they are indifferent to their own quite vile and easily observed hypocrisy; they are capitalist neo-Edwardians pretending hard to be sophisticated neosocialists by enjoying, e. g., Afghan restaurants in their so grand megalopolises, while never dreaming of ever having to actually live in or near an ugly immigrant Moslem community, of course. They demand the “best” of both worlds – but without suffering any unpleasant consequences.

Such rather harsh and dubious realities are just for the lesser beings (the masses), inferior species as it were, who will never be suitable members of the elite jet set, also, known as “the beautiful people.” The raw common people, the great unwashed, are to just unwillingly endure suffering the materialistic and oppressive results of Godless globalism, while the self-satisfied elites, thus, gain and enjoy the many benefits, of course.

With the shocking Brexit, however, the proverbial peasants with pitchforks had so dauntingly dared to dismay the rather haughty, leather-booted, puffed-up poltroons, meaning that the ever nasty, one-world government sycophants had then lost an important vote and, also, emboldened resistance to oppression as well.

If “they” can cast ballots to toss away the vile shackles of the foreign domination of Brussels, many may ask, what superbly might be done domestically to fight against tyranny?  For liberty, it is the lightening of the nations.

It, thus, was a truly seismic global event with many attendant international political implications and cognate ramifications, observed to the quite overt horror of the sophisticated intelligentsia, the superior cognoscenti, who always think that they axiomatically know better than the mere (suffering) common people at large; in truth, the principally incoherent struggle was set between the intellectually bankrupt elite and the supposedly great unwashed, with, therefore, each opposed side (unnoticed) talking past the other. Since their rulers wish to forget it, the Brexit will be just brushed aside as inconsequential and made to fade from memory.

Many particular Englishmen, to the evident horror of the globalist elitists, wish to just remain stubbornly particular Englishmen; they greatly dislike heartless globalization, cosmopolitanization, and abstractionization existing in a polymorphous world fit only for lab rats, not sensate human beings. But, their rulers, the internationalist, oppressive elitists still react in quite brainless wonderment and an added astonishment, of course, at any such (supposedly) unforeseen rebellion as done by, to them, some mere lab rats.

EU bureaucratism and tyranny, centralization and uniformitarianism, once thought nearly invincible, got spat right in the face, yet a major nation had, in fact, seceded peacefully. Unfortunately, if this strong action is not vigorously, openly repeated, again and again, in more than just a few more major European nations, then the overall observations and considerations of this article will still, fundamentally, hold fast.

Nonetheless, one ought to say that, somewhat in magnitude, it was slightly equivalent to the quite dramatic “shot heard round the world,” in April 1775, at Concord, MA heralding the ever glorious American Revolution. But, Britain is not necessarily emblematic of the entirety of both Western and Eastern Europe as a whole.  Time will tell if the forces of freedom and independence can further prevail against the evil centralizing statists, the egomaniacal power-mad zealots, and their vicious supporters.

The predominantly preoccupied, selfish denizens of the West that now languidly comprise the jaded jest of “Western Civilization” may yet own the advanced technologies of this era, but they do internally lack the cognitive ability and, much more than just that, the required manly resolution to employ it for their very survival against the quite vigorous barbarian hordes, as was, incidentally, also true of the final fall of the Roman Empire. Without the will and courage to act, the mere material means are just nothing.

The truly larger lesson of history is rather manifest for those not too ideologically bigoted to plainly read the instructions clearly: Colonize or be colonized, which does not, however, always mean brutal, physical invasions. But, there do really exist degenerate people such as the current Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis himself, who has publicly denounced and renounced any Catholic missionary spirit through disdaining any concern for ever seeking conversions.

As is so illustratively true with nature, all societal, cultural, political, etc. vacuums, therefore, eventually get filled; the evident major collapse of Western leadership and superiority, matched now to a too timid Christianity, then logically invites invasion, as it always has and, as observed in this present article, will do so. Q. E. D.  

While Catholics are obligated, at the least, to pray for the Pope’s hoped-for salvation and can, also, offer up various penitential sacrifices on his sinful behalf, however, they are not required, even as loyal Papist Catholics, to ever follow him unto the Infernal Regions by condoning mortal sins.

Catholics have no real need of a repeat of the Western Schism, the Papal Schism (1378 to 1417), that damaged the integrity of the Church and from which it had never, in fact, fully recovered. It was a heart-felt sickness, gangrene at the very core of Sancta Mater Ecclesia, by which numerous poisons were vilely permitted to attack both the sacred authority and holy power of the Church founded by Christ Himself.

Nor should any Church council ever dare to seek to remove Pope Francis, for he is to be answerable to Almighty God, the Ultimate Judge, for all his numerously wicked and deliberate misdeeds. The Conciliar Theory, historically, belongs, of course, to the theological Liberals and Leftists, not to orthodox Roman Catholicism.

He is, with no doubt, the true Bishop of Rome, the actual Servant of the Servants of Christ, the Supreme Holy Pontiff, etc., not the Pied Piper of Hamlin Town.  There are, always, rational and moral limits to any papal obedience and deference, as St. Thomas Aquinas and other good Doctors of the Church have both properly and theologically insisted.  Moreover, the once hypocritical, “trinitarian” institutional era of “pray, pay and obey” is, fortunately, gone, though not really forgotten.  But, much more is now going on than just simple religious decay, moral insanity itself so urgently and openly beckons insistently.

Among the many important and fundamental lessons of history, taught again and again, is the still quite simple truth that different cultures are, in fact, fundamentally irreconcilable, basically incommensurate. Therefore, as a direct logical consequence of this empirical reality, one must come to notably dominate the others, which, however, means that the very impotent, jaded, feeble cultures of a very secularized Western Civilization are to be swamped by the predictable, invading barbarians.

As to the particulars involved, in these kinds of vast struggles, just how or in what manner a particular (barbarian) culture comes to dominate, or attempts to dominate, other cultures, naturally reflects the peculiar character of that dominating culture and its own social, often diverse, forces or tensions.  What are, however, the likely possible prospects?

Eventually, present realities will be mainly replaced by armed barbarians coming to the West who will impose a new Dark Age, if no massive efforts at aggressively promoting Christianization are taken as has been already recommended in this article.  Otherwise, the languidly pallid, modern, debauched, hollow, triumphant atheism of the humanist-dominated Western culture is to inevitably fail, of course, when fully opposed by, harshly faced with, the vibrant, dedicated, violent, feverish, fervent, bloodthirsty Islam so fiercely challenging it.  The morally and spiritually vacuous West presents a vacuum ready to be filled.

Many commentators have espied keenly that, for instance, the World Trade Center attack, known as 9/11, is a specific validation of Arnold Toynbee’s challenge thesis that the evident decline of Western Civilization indicates that it will be attacked by barbarian war-bands until, over time with many repeated assaults, it is finally destroyed. The corrupt and dissolute ever yield to the committed and determined.

Speculation has it that some, called euphemistically terrorists, may come to use compact dirty A-bomb explosions, within many major cities, consequently spreading extreme havoc, excessive disorder, and vilely contagious chaos; but, because the new, degenerate Western ethos inherently forbids any truly effective self-defense, even for just needed survival, the possible option of committing genocide against the enemy is just axiomatically dismissed as beyond “sophisticated” thought. Extinction is preferred.

Better a certain death or, at least, expected enslavement, at the hands of ruthless and savage enemies than rational survival at any such cost. The so cowardly denizens of the West, lacking greatly any old-fashioned masculinity, would not dare to ever consider any ultimate price to be properly paid for living in political freedom and humane safety.  Perish the thought, just as the West itself will, then, so perish.

Without the much needed Christianization efforts proposed to avert civilizational disaster, one perceives that it can only be a matter of time before the increasing and enervating demographic sterility, social venality, vacillating timidity, Feminist emasculation, and moral senility of the Western countries will, thus, see them gradually capitulate to the quite determined and armed, ruthless and vigorous, barbarian invaders, especially the Muslims.

The clear outcome of any one-sided contest of will, conflict of opposed cultures, can solely be the final extinction of an emasculated Western Civilization; this will, also, be done along with its tremendously amassed wealth and once mighty power. There can then just be the easily predictable return to a Dark Age for some terrible centuries to come, for the unimpeded practice and love of sin has its known dire consequences, as within secularist orientations that seek the reification of merely terrene endeavors.

This is the inescapable product of the basic nonexistence of a courageously rational and moral citizen-community that is, in addition, to see the requisite eventual collapse of true science and religion into being just sheer ignorance and practiced superstition; there will be, no doubt, both reprimitivization and rebarbarization of the neopaganized West, lives made ever more nasty, harsh, bitter, brutish, and short, as the wages of sin is death.

Only progressivists or materialists, with their great concern for more libertarian fornication as an inalienable right, do think otherwise to their moral peril.

For what is happening in the Western world parallels in intention that past act of European collective suicide known as the First World War; thus, civilization ought to be much more than industrialization, urbanization, and technologization, or, more plainly, just the prolific construction of concrete and steel buildings. If a proposed Christian civilization is not, however, something seen in the very evident quality of a truly civilized people, there is, then, only a quite cheap pretense involved that is lacking real moral substance, which is, in truth, indicative of failure.

Thus, neither the poor examples of Nazi Germany nor Stalinist Russia, Maoist China nor Fascist Italy, were genuine representatives of civilization, only some presumptive, erstwhile collectivities of power once rapaciously existing on earth. For the only true revolutionary liberation is liberation in Christ.

Thoughts toward a New Christendom: Foundations

While not neglecting all that has been discussed previously, both as to what is likely to occur and how to avoid it through a particular kind of Christianization, it yet appropriately behooves anyone, nonetheless, in recommending boldly a proper alternative to the present secularist-humanist cesspool, to still specify as clearly as possible what is actually being meant.

Catholicism, when filled with an Athanasian resolve, gains strength when tried because it decisively acknowledges the ontological primacy of the metaphysical order over and against any mere secular order; the genuine struggle is not merely against perceived, earthly tyranny and strife, rather, the always greater fight is to be made against real demonic forces, led by the Prince of Darkness, ever eagerly intent upon separating man from the ultimate power and authority of God, dividing human beings from salvation itself.

There will be noted here, therefore, the important epistemological and axiological difference between potestas (power) and auctoritas (authority) and the need for ethically and morally adhering to what can be called a “social consensus orthodoxy” paralleling religious orthodoxy, within many various societal and cultural structuralizations among people sociologically understood.  It is part of epistemic reasoning.

An interesting and informative book, such as Catholic Political Thought 1789 – 1848, edited by Béla Menczer, is to be used as the basis for a consideration, explication, and extrapolation of why power and authority are not synonymous.  It can be supplemented, as to its knowledge, by reading others works, as with the Essay on Catholicism, Liberalism, and Socialism: Considered in Their Fundamental Principles by Juan Donoso Cortés.

Although there are truly a number of early 19th century, conservative, European writers who could be profitably cited, however, supreme concentration will be upon an author who ought to be among the most significant thinkers of the entire modern era, not just of past centuries alone.  He saw with a degree of profundity nearly unmatched by any other modern political philosopher of the last several epochs, for there can be no legitimate political order without power and authority themselves being rightly ordered for a good polity, for a good society, aimed toward moral coherence and justice.

Joseph de Maistre (1753 – 1821), a Savoyard philosopher, however, gets easily dismissed as a mere reactionary blindly defending all unjust and immoral hierarchies, for the supposed joyous sake of oppressing all people under an authoritarian yoke, for better crushing the human spirit; and that is, of course, only one of the more milder, unfortunate denunciations of him usually given. For him, it has proven almost nearly impossible to get past all the Liberal and Leftist stereotypes thrown upon this author who saw more perceptively beyond the putrid, modernist illusions of revolutionism, socialism, and liberalism.

Maistre’s most sensitive, sagaciously perceptive, understanding of the vital differences between true authority and legitimate power is highly illustrative as to what needs to be said here.  Those whose minds are inflicted upon or, perhaps, infected by modernity, the worship of what is thought modern (or revolutionary), perceive everything or nearly anything in set terms of basic philosophical nominalism.

They read things in odd terms of an ascribed immanentism with its consequent tendency toward degrees of utopianism, the demonic desire to perfect people or, if permitted, the entire human race itself. This very warped attitude, this perverse understanding, reads history backwards and, yes, thinks backwards in that meanings get put upside down and inside out, when discussing what is assumed to be reality.  Why is this pertinently said?

The modernist normally presumes, for instance, that power produces authority, not the opposite.  How so?  If someone is said to possess, by reason, the correct theory, then that is to give that person the correct power; such power of itself generates, in the name of Progress, rational authority to then act upon the existence of said power in the logical exercise of authority to, e. g., pass laws, administer justice, use the warranted authority to arrest criminals, etc.  This is legal positivism put on display.

Rationalism achieves it very apotheosis. Abstractionism placed upon abstractionism gets deified, with no righteous piety observed or proper reverence for past history, as to traditions and customs.  The lived rich experience of the many actual generations of men, of the ages, is just discounted as merely dismissible errata, and religion gets itself rigidly compartmentalized into a mere segment of life, instead of properly defining all of its very being and reason.

No surprise that many yield to the Machiavellian point of view that might makes right, and those with power are either above the law (Hillary Clinton) or, as with Obama, can make law at will.  Yet, even as Aristotle would have agreed, this is all part of political insanity, not rational, ethical, and moral behavior, regardless of the power-obsessed “reasoning” always held to be true, as with Thrasymachus in Plato’s The Republic.

On the contrary, right, when consistent with classical Natural Law teachings, right reason, and social consensus orthodoxy, then makes might authentic and trustworthy, not simply an exercise in raw power for its own sake, as is always so true with all centralizing regimes. It is known that Western culture, moreover, eventually falls without the true rule of law.  How is this, however, to be obviously noted?

Rationalism justifies the crude modernity in thought that seeks the rationalization of power as assertive of the (revolutionary) authority to declare that whatever efforts the State, ordo juris, the lex naturae, wishes to advance are to be blessed by the necessary power to enforce its authority qua law; this is overtly seen, e. g., in the many various, oppressive and unjust dictates of the US Supreme Court and other courts, as well as in the seemingly innumerable dictatorial ukases cavalierly issued by Obama, as with his mere pen and telephone, thus, suffices as being “law.”  Constitutionalism be damned; civil liberties, therefore, become meaningless, and moral coherence itself, therefore, becomes scorned and ignored as “reactionary” and just unwanted.

But, when examined quite properly as to its vile basis in thought, this manifestly Machiavellian dictum is just some reductionist logic simply by which (how truly reactionary!) might makes right.  Nazis, Fascists, and Communists, all various totalitarians of the Left, would all so agree easily with such modernist, plainly nominalist, reasoning, of course; the same is, therefore, also true for Liberals and Leftists, all positivists of merely various species.

For as he knew the justice owed to metaphysical order, Maistre, a devout Roman Catholic, thought and wrote otherwise. This wise man was certainly well aware of the many disgusting horrors of the French Revolution, which had demonically included, as many still do not know, necrophilia.  He knew that only legitimate, warranted authority, organically based within the society and culture, can have the true natural right to properly claim the then inherent power to, also, be then legitimate and to sanction needed action.  Thus, the conservative reasoning and logic presented is not upside down or inside out as to what may be done and why it may be done, according to justice that proper juris prudence should serve, not just any arbitrary power.

Contrary to the vain modernists, or even to nominalist-oriented postmodernists, power and authority are definitely not synonymous nor any mere supposed epistemological substitutes for each other. And, moreover, only proper and appropriate auctoritas has, in truth, the legitimated right to, thus, ever generate or lay claim to any power, not ever in reverse; in reiteration, might does not make right since power without warranted authority is, thus, always illegitimate and, moreover, should be held as such.

This can help to both splendidly and instructively introduce what Maistre, knowledgeably, had actually meant when he said that the world, human society, needed both the Pope (the principle of authority on earth to the highest degree) and the executioner (the principle of power in its highest worldly form, as to capital punishment) for then rightly maintaining order (read: authority) and justice (read: power) for human beings in a natural, not absurdly abstractionized, manner. And, this appropriately upholds both law and order for society.

All the faulty cognitive reversals of this very needed understanding of proper authority and power, of this just or right ordering of humanity, necessarily lead to the horrid bloodshed of all the modernist-socialist revolutions of the modern age.  Therefore, only horrid and evil degrees of oppression, corruption, suppression, injustice, and tyranny can, logically, result whenever power and authority get liberally confused and confounded terribly, in the badly corrupted minds of modernists or postmodernists.

Characteristically, therefore, Maistre was not the assumed mindless defender of all ruthless despotisms, as is so often routinely charged. He truly knew that there must be a proper balancing of authority and liberty, of order and freedom, if a free society was to appropriately survive.  Being a good Catholic, this thoughtful Savoyard philosopher knew about the Gelasian Two Swords, one is the religious power, the other is the political or civil power, which have different functions as separate entities, though the religious power is to remain superior to the (lesser) claims of the mere civil power on earth.

This fundamentally meant that no human institution, including government, the lex naturae, the ordo rerum humanarum, could claim any actual sort of rights really superior to the noted prerogatives of the Supreme Being, Jesus Christ, the Almighty God, as is properly represented by the Church.  This thinking refers to the Letter of 5th century AD Pope Gelasius to Emperor Anastasius on the superiority of the spiritual over the temporal power, for the metaphysical order (read: God) ought never to be dictated to by any secular powers, including, of course, the State.

Thus, the truly monumental conflicts between England’s King Henry II and St. Thomas Becket and King Henry VIII and St. Thomas More. Monarchy (government) wanted to be greater than God, which can only lead to the Godless idolatry of the State as basically exists now in the Western world.

But, for Catholicism, unlike Erastianism, there is to be neither a State-Church, meaning Anglicanism or Caeseropapism nor a monomaniacal theocracy, as with the always true hellish goal of Islam.  Again, there is the requisite balancing of authority and liberty, auctoritas et libertas, with the latter never being completely absorbed or just crushed by the former principle.  The State, the unitas ordinis, as Maistre knew, was never meant to be almighty, such is the sole prerogative, by definition, of the Lord God Almighty, of course.

Thus, when all the above thinking is put into its correct context and astute comprehension needed, one sees that Maistre can be perceived truly as having been one of the great defenders of liberty not just in the 19th century but always.  Nonetheless, there is no doubt, rationally speaking, that he will be still misinterpreted and misunderstood regardless of this or, in fact, any other writing done in his defense; however, at least an attempt was made at the needed elucidation and exploration of such thinking for the further education of those reading this article.

Rationalism is always held to be not actually enough concerning how to perceive this crisis of Western civilization and to communicate profoundly, through moral coherence, as to what needs to be properly done.

The important point being here that Maistre and others of the early 19th century conservatives, as is illustrated in Béla Menczer’s aforementioned work, offer greater and lasting insights into the cultural, political, psychological, and sociological problems of the 20th and into the 21st century much better than the sophisticated utopian savants, meaning the Godless technocrats, of the present much endarkened and pro-sodomite age.  It knows not the needed balancing of authority and power, the ends and means, along with the proper harmonizing of liberty and order, toward the appropriately desired end of justice, within the polity so understood in a humane manner.

This is critically why the development and support of social consensus orthodoxy, held always firmly within the distinctio christiana, is so sagaciously recommended, by which there is keenly established a basic acknowledgement of fundamental right versus absolute wrong, for both rightly favoring a healthy libertas ecclesiae and free government as well. For even as the pagan philosopher, Plato, knew in opposition to Protagoras, God, not man, is the true measure of all things.

To pick one important illustration where social consensus orthodoxy is so vitally and unquestionably needed for maintaining a truly humane and civilized society, there must, with good reason, be ethical, moral, and legal condemnation of any and all so-called scientific (read: Satanic) experiments fostering, encouraging, and/or promoting the hybridization of animals and humans.

It is, of course, so evilly consonant with Satanism as to its clearly demonic orientation, as is, also, the plague of militant homosexuality whereby a truly tiny minority has dramatically gained fantastic power over Western civilization itself, so rapidly beyond any merely normal explanations of success. Thus, all such evil, promoted by the forces of Hell, must be openly and severely opposed by all decent people everywhere, not just by Christians.

If these 21st century categorical imperatives, involved with completely stopping all such abominations that do cry unto high Heaven and low Hell, are not soon adopted unequivocally throughout the civilized world, then there can be no real limit to evil on earth.  Sinning, undoubtedly, will then easily multiply by much more than just a thousand fold day by day, along with the denial of the reality of metaphysical order itself.

Man’s precious humanity, homo sacra res homini, must, therefore, be then gravely put into permanent question, besides the endlessly horrendous and nihilistic consequences of such massively insane and degenerate folly.  Furthermore, those who may ever attempt such disgusting and morally vile experiments must be always tracked down and punished severely as axiomatically being international criminals, foul villains, subject ever to immediate arrest.  When then tried and convicted, imprisonment for life without parole should be thought fully merited as, thus, suggesting how society knows that the sentence fits the quite terrible crime.

No one should ever give them, these vile pariahs, aid, assistance, or shelter. There must be a definite bottom line consensus as to what genuine society and civilization and its broad reality as such cannot ever rationally or morally, reasonably or ethically, tolerate to any degree whatsoever.

Otherwise, any fair notion of rationality or morality, much less sanity, becomes totally meaningless, as applied to societal and cultural minimums regarding tolerable behavior, if any such degrees or sorts of hybridization is allowed. Partial experimentation must also be totally disallowed, not permitted at all, because all such activities are ever on the slippery slope, the domino effect, where one thing can be so easily rationalized into supporting or, at least, suggesting something else that may or could be done.

There is already a very lively market for fetal-human baby parts. Who is so incredibly naïve beyond belief as to absurdly say that hybrid parts or whole hybrid-animals would not have their own markets? Without the existence of social consensus orthodoxy within a foundational Christian society, nothing much can be reasonably or rationally guaranteed about man’s humanity nor the perception of there being a surely humane society and culture existent thereto either.  If no bottom lines are set firmly, the term “demonic” ought to then, without question, become a truly valid synonym for 21st century science.

No alternative exists except to both acknowledge the proper spheres and meanings of authority and power and, in addition, having and supporting that social consensus orthodoxy so necessary for any superiorly advanced civilization worthy of that favorable appellation, for there is here a manly regard for truth. Many such major issues do, as may be rightly perceived, confront contemporary efforts at the presumptive need to maintain a proper regard for a civilization, for any people, not really wishing to be crudely controlled by its technology as being definitive of its ethics, or lack thereof.

But, greater than any mere ethics would be a sociocultural reality acknowledging the Trinitarian Dogma, the Apostles Creed, and the Social Kingship of Christ, not the very obnoxious and heathen beliefs of today’s degenerate neopagans or those of the bloodthirsty Moslem infidels. Always far better, e. g., than any dumb contemporary papal cult would be the holy cult of the ever Blessed Virgin Mary having genuine status within this novel, vital, and heroic Christendom, for it should be a great hope, a true aspiration, of all those who honestly call themselves Christians, if it be consonant with the will of God. 3


Thus, seeking to optimistically construct a new, solid Christendom, a Christian commonwealth, in the West, in America, is the only rational, appropriate, moral, and righteous thing that ought to be done for the sakes of justice, religion, morality, and decent survival; this is before it, then, becomes much too little, too late to effectively act. As is known by advocacy of the philosophia perennis, there must be a generous infusion of humilitas, pietas, fidelitas et humanitas to help better achieve a here desired and attempted worldwide Pax Christi.

Nothing less would be successful, nothing more could be realistically expected, given how extremely low into the depths modern civilization has already notably fallen to the degradation of the once venerable idea of homo sacra res homini.  In the manner of St. Athanasius, affirmation of the metaphysical order, as Dawson so knew, is ever vitally essential to truly restoring any proper and viable sense of a humane order for civilization itself, nothing less will do for proper moral coherence and righteousness.

Is this recommended spiritual regeneration and renewal effort practically possible? There is, in fact, the major historical precedent of the Middle Ages as an actual example of what had and, thus, could yet be done.  Equally, who among contemporary, pagan disinterested or objective observers could have then predicted that, e. g., an obscure group of poor Galilean fishermen would have been among those initially composing, over 2,000 years later, the Roman Catholic Church?   With God, all things that are possible that can, by definition, be done by His will.

A heroic, new Christendom, certainly, a great corpus politicum mysticum, is thought to be fairly possible and a genuinely plausible response to a quite massively obvious social and cultural decay and decline, as was true of the Roman Empire’s fall; but, many may still reasonably ask, is it viably achievable?  Only God knows what will, in fact, be actually or, perhaps, viably achievable; for with the true Faith, much has suitably been done and can, moreover, be both further spectacularly accomplished and achieved, again, on earth.  In any event, a truly Christian life must be a sacramentally lived life.

More detailed or concrete advice can be usefully gained by reading such readily pertinent volumes as Diane Moczar’s Converts and Kingdoms: How the Church Converted the Pagan West and How We Can Do It Again and John Senior’s The Restoration of Christian Culture.   When the exceedingly proper, meaning metaphysical, goal for human beings is their sought after eternal salvation, then a true society, culture, and, yes, civilization, the entire participatory koinos kosmos itself, can be then rightly advanced, even against what appear to be tremendous odds.

In the name of the Lord God, for His ever greater honor and glory, it is certainly worth the significantly serious attempt to do so, at a minimum.

 Athanasius contra mundum!



Proof positive of the dramatically heavy influence of both mythical and magical thinking can be seen, e. g., in how most of contemporary political science is governed by fantasies. As but one small example among many, there were serious political scientists and others who had actually thought that FBI Director James Comey would be the noble White Knight to come to the rescue of the fair, beleaguered damsel, Lady Justice, symbolized by a blind-folded woman ever holding the proverbial scales of justice. Get real!

In fact, the “fix” was in as soon as the Clinton email scandal erupted. Lady Justice had been raped long ago by Bill Clinton, his entire corrupt Administration, way back in the 1990s, at the least. People yet fantasized about noble Comey, even up until when he publicly announced that Hillary was not, in his estimation, indictable, which shows how terribly awful the great level of dreadful fantasizing really is. This is, therefore, a rather sad mental condition afflicting both modernists and postmodernists, as is noted in the above-cited article.

Moreover, the more that someone’s mind is too preoccupied with an ideology (e. g., Liberalism, Socialism, Feminism, Conservatism, etc.), the more surely that myth and magic do so extremely predominate such necessarily warped cognition. And, fantasy, therefore, necessarily replaces reality in both practical politics and the writings of political science. Q. E. D.

Consequently, fiction, due to such fantasizing, is found equally present in those political science textbooks that plainly state how Supreme Court Justices and lesser judges are not substantially governed by their (usually Leftist) ideologies, especially when making their judicial (read: highly political) decisions.

Or, the Supreme Court, in particular, whenever creating unconstitutional, by definition, meaning all illegal judicial legislation, which had ceased, generations ago, in being a clear political oxymoron. And, if people would seriously start to think, they ought to reach the same basic conclusions, if guided by moral coherence, right reason, and a decent sense of justice.



 A Select Bibliography

Christopher Dawson, Religion and Culture   (and his many other books)

Diane Moczar, Converts and Kingdoms: How the Church Converted the Pagan West and How We Can Do It Again

John Senior, The Restoration of Christian Culture

 Resources: International Una Voce Federation (to promote the traditional Latin Mass worldwide) (to promote the traditional Latin Mass in the United States) Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei (to promote the traditional Latin Mass in the United States & Canada)   – Tradition, Family, Property

Myth, Magic, Islamic State, and Roman Catholicism’s Greatness

Myth, Magic, Islamic State, and Roman Catholicism’s Greatness:

Catholic Demythologization of Temporal Order for Its Sacralization and Sanctification

By  Joseph Andrew Settanni

On the Restoration of All Things in Christ – E Supremi, St. Pope Pius X

Why is so much of contemporary life burdened with an excess of seemingly pandemic mythical and magical nonsense, talismanic thinking, that must irrationally effuse through Western society and its culture? How did the typical norm of an awkward emotional and mental infantility, adult childishness, become, moreover, so intolerably regnant these days?

The passing modern age, now devolving itself into the low era of postmodernity, must live with the baleful consequences of how modernity had so greatly embraced, or rather re-embraced, both myth and magic, especially as it crescively rejected classical Natural Law teachings.

Modernity qua itself means the mindset, e.g., of Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, John Locke, David Hume, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Martin Heidegger, and Jürgen Habermas.  The normative or classical mindset, in rather clear comparison, would refer, e. g., to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Joseph de Maistre, Leo Strauss, Michael Oakeshott, M. E. Bradford, and Frederick D. Wilhelmsen.

This, the noting of myth and magic, is a too often neglected matter that is both amazing and enlightening to reasonably recount and extrapolate, which, at first, seems so incredible and discordant with what is popularly thought or generally surmised.  Basic rationality too often, one supposes, appears to be one distinctive hallmark of the often celebrated modern or, better put, progressive mind.

But, in sociology, there are the interesting terms of latent and manifest, which can be usefully used here; the former is descriptive of what is not seen on the surface of society or social order, the latter is what seems to be too obvious or quite noticeable kept on the surface of reality.

These beliefs known as myth and magic, assumed to have been eradicated by sophistication, became instead integral features of a triumphant modernity haughtily proud of its secularism, positivism, materialism, pragmatism, and relativism.  All of which, dramatically and tragically, helped to lead to World War I, World War II, atomic weapons, many genocides, and other such rather dubious “delights” of modern man, besides the predictive dead end of hubristic nihilism.

Christianity and Truth

Many centuries ago, Catholicism qua Christianity had then demythologized the temporal order,1 meaning that the older eras of nature spirits, heathen gods and goddesses, the evil eye, superstitions, magic charms, enchanted forests, devil worship, and all such cognate rot had been tremendously displaced, if not entirely eliminated, by the spread of the Catholic Faith.

Catholicism had, in effect, liberated the older world from the darkness of the apparitions and superstitions that unfortunately had retarded social, cultural, and civilizational vitality, which made the Church, e. g., the inspirer and originator of what then became the liberal arts and sciences to be found at the great medieval universities.  The academic disciplines of the Trivium and Quadrivium had, thus, assisted in the civilizing and educating of Europeans for centuries.

It was a monumentally tremendous success of beneficent Christianization, the New Testament, that had advanced civilization and culture simultaneously, meaning wherever and whenever the Faith had, thus, sincerely and confidently triumphed within a host society and its culture.

Ironically, this also helped to pave the way toward a later secularization of human society and culture by freeing men from certain pre-Christian aspects of human life, meaning from the limitations created upon the spirit of man as to why he had much feared a world filled with miscellaneous demons and apparitions that, among other difficulties, denied the existence of free will.

The Catholic doctrine of free will 2, building creatively upon the useful insights of the learned Greek and Roman ancients, assisted mightily in genuinely liberating humanity from a world of weary darkness and often fatalistic uncertainty or mystical pagan irrationality; this noted positive advance was much added to by knowledge of the Old Testament, of course, without question.

Added to all this was the Church’s adamant defense of the classical Natural Law tradition and the important Catholic political principles of solidarity, meaning membership and brotherhood in a common Christendom, and subsidiarity, the basic decentralization of political power and authority by seeking to address grievances at the lowest levels first before, if and when needed, eventually going to the highest.

The Church, also, favors a loving understanding of and support for social justice unlike all the modernist, corrupted versions of the term that necessarily do make a total mockery of it.  What is wanted, in further reiteration and useful clarification, is the holy and comprehensive ideal of a totally Catholic koinos kosmos (a blessed public world or lovingly shared universe) opposed to the ever distinctly and antagonistic anti-Catholic idios kosmos (a secularized, relativist world or endless cold multiverses.)

The above cited accomplishments and achievements of the Church, filling the vacuum made by the Fall of the Roman Empire, were not done without often overcoming many great numbers of enormous difficulties, besides the potent hazards of so many nasty barbarian invasions that had created tremendous havoc and mayhem galore. Various types of atheists with their hubris, and especially dedicated secularists, do rarely acknowledge this significantly important fact.

Aided by the best thinking and considerations of the pagan philosophers, the Christian faith offered a commonsensical, reasonable, logical, understandable, and rational worldview and a presentable world, subject to an overarching metaphysical order, defended by truth and justice in the ever glorious name of Jesus Christ.  When confronting wild barbarian hordes freely intent upon massive destruction, pillage, rape, and wild slaughter, there was, at many times, not much more than the Cross of Christ that could oppose them.

Modernity would have none of this, in its truly reactionary attitude of sinking back into myth and magic, so indicative of its intellectual rebarbarization, efforts of the “new barbarians,” of the Western world; it ever imperiously demanded, instead, the prevalent mythical and magical glorification of reified Man as an earthly god of power.  But, Catholic teachings, in adamant opposition, would have none of this absurd and backward-looking nonsense, for true religion is the direct opposite of (dark) superstition, it is a liberating, redemptive, and positive force for the human spirit, meaning support for the children of God.

As so many authors, both Catholics and non-Catholics, have demonstrated repeatedly, this, among many other absolutely great achievements and accomplishments, had made the very existence of modern, empirical science possible.  One could cite among such numerous volumes as: Thomas Woods, Jr.’s How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization and Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, a 2000-Year History by H.W. Crocker III.  Q. E. D.

Both primitive and pre-Christian men, it needs to be here historically recalled, were so beset by many unpredictable or seemingly unknown forces, believed to be earthly and/or astral in origins, that could so whimsically or otherwise determine one’s fate or destiny for good or ill.  They were, in fact, completely freely offered the only true liberation, the salvific liberation by, in, and through Jesus Christ.  A then competing Mithras religion had demanded the sacrifice of at least a single bull, which was, of course, rather cost prohibitive for impoverished slaves and poverty-stricken peasants, among others.  A way out of the black, pessimistic, fatalistic gloom was given gratis.

The Church, over time, had sagaciously banished these metaphysically oppressive forces of darkness and vile superstitions by invalidating and refuting the many myths and the numerous claims of magic supposedly possessed by such often presumably dire forces and phantasms. (This was, ironically, regretted by noted modernist thinkers such as Wagner and Nietzsche who thought that Christianity had always wrongly robbed peoples of their native vitality and raw inspiration.  Nietzsche, for instance, positively despised and denigrated Christian humility as slavish nonsense unworthy of vital modern men, especially for his domineering Übermensch.)

It was a superbly worthy achievement of a still much more worthier institution, namely, the One, Holy and Apostolic Roman Catholic Church, its teachings, and its often martyred missionaries, who, with enormous difficulty, had brought about a true and invigorating enlightenment, while attempting to more and more Christianize and, thus, civilize an aberrant and sinful humanity.

Modernity, with a fierceness only matched by that of savages, necessarily brought back myth and magic during the rise of the secular side of the Renaissance, the Protestant revolt, the European Enlightenment, and various terrible and violent eras of revolutionism, completely inclusive of all of Fascism, Nazism, and Communism, of course.  The Nietzschean will to power can be seen, along with Machiavellian pragmatism.

Historically, this necessarily runs the full mystical gambit from, e. g., the Machiavellian myth of a cynical virtu, the fiction of a Lutheran or Calvinist God, Hobbes’ mythical Leviathan qua the State, Locke’s tabula rasa, Adam Smith’s invisible hand, Rousseau’s volonté generale, Kant’s mythic notion of “God” as an anthropomorphic projection, Bentham’s utilitarian calculus, and Hegel’s (magical) dialectic.  Each has its inherently mesmerizing qualities, as with all others, of course, mentioned in the very next paragraph.

One can relatedly reference such indicative matters as: Darwin’s totally tautological “survival of the fittest,” Marx’s predicted withering away of the State through proletarian magic, Nietzsche’s death of God, Freudianism, the Social Gospel, Jungianism, Nazi race theory, (progressive) eugenics, Weberian Rationalisierung (rationalization) and Entzauberung (disenchantment), the minimum wage 3, scientism, behaviorism, Randian (atheist) Objectivism, the radical Spirit of Vatican II,  anarcho-capitalism, Liberation Theology, multiculturalism, environmentalism, the postconciliar Church, climate change (hysteria), victimhood (aka the “religion” of unctuous self-pity), and, of course, deconstructionism.

And, there is, no doubt, much else that is similarly either magical or mythical and, sometimes (or just more often than usually realized), both at once. Definitely, none of this ever makes a dedicated modernist or postmodernist blush from shame or, perhaps, the legitimate twinge of any guilt.  Such a mindset, dedicated to relativism unbound, is then integrally antithetical to the innate maturity and a true sense of responsibility existing requisite ever to the highly reflective classical/normative mind.

Liberals and Leftists are rather too sanguine, with their ever multiplicitous fictions, which do wrongly degrade epistemology, through ideological verbiage, in fairly odd service to a reified ontology (read: Utopia).  Witness how, e. g., a once mere grammatical term, gender, has quite weirdly replaced “sex” as to a natural designation; it is a clear type of Orwellian Newspeak trying to make what used to be thought of as normality abnormal and vice versa.  And so, it cannot be otherwise with the anti-normative mindset as has been illustrated.

Admittedly, there is here expressed a quite hardened, though healthy, skepticism, a marked incredulity, of modernity and postmodernity as to their dubious intellectual fruits. In contrast, a Christocentric society and culture, the affirmation of holiness, is much to be preferred, and there are those who have defended such a notion in various terms.

A name now fading quite rapidly from human memory, Fr. Charles N. R. McCoy, had become very alerted to how tremendously much myth and magic had been reintroduced, into social, cultural, and political life, by modernity; this was by his being a pupil of Ernst Cassirer (1874 – 1945), author of The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (1932) and, also, the posthumously published: The Myth of the State (1946).

Oddly or not, Ernst Cassirer was a true devotee of the spirit of the Enlightenment, a liberal of his era, who, nonetheless, could recognize both myth and magic when he saw them manifestly existing and, moreover, easily thriving in the various political, philosophical, social, and cultural contexts of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.  Such an understanding, of course, does not fit the usual and expected bright narrative given by the many ardent or very enthusiastic supporters of modernity, especially of its atheistic revolutionism or the hubristic collectivist spirit.

Fr. McCoy, wisely, had successfully built upon and extended the most philosophically intriguing and mentally illuminating notions of Cassirer, in a useful prolific manner, quite suitable for his rather high intelligence. One can read McCoy’s The Structure of Political Though and On the Intelligibility of Political Philosophy: Essays of Charles N.R. McCoy edited by Charles Nicholas Reiten McCoy and Fr. James V. Schall, S. J.   But, where does Catholicism or the Church come into this particular discussion?

Prior to Vatican Council II in the early to mid-1960s, the Roman Catholic Church had once been vigorously engaged in solidly battling, as hard as it reasonably could, against the highly invasive myth and magic engendered by the rampant philosophical nominalism of modernity and its quite naturally attendant neopaganism that, in fact, logically results and exists.

Today, one sees how thoroughly the current Holy Father, Pope Francis, has both willingly and lovingly embraced the destructive Spirit of Vatican II and its ever lively promotion of the evil and supremely mythical and magical notions of postmodernity; the April 8, 2016 Amoris Laetitia document, completely approved by him, adopts fundamental moral relativism as the fallible guide for Catholics concerning family and sexual matters.  Such bold postmodern thought is the assuredly natural and brashly nihilistic child of an increasingly enervated, indolent, and anemic modernity conceived, as it were, in its rather decrepit old age.

What the Holy Pontiff has embraced, however, is clearly an anthropocentric death wish – with “acts of conscience” allowing for an extremely increased latitude for abortions and promoting significantly augmented artificial birth-control unto the fuller self-extermination of peoples — set so against the Church’s previous historical, religious, loving, and theological effort to fully demythologize the secular or terrene order of this world, in the holy effort to righteously and spiritually transform all things in, by, and through Jesus Christ.

This is, therefore, for the ever much needed sacralization and sanctification of human and natural reality for the greater glory of God. Instead, there is now the ongoing and demonic pursuit of the supposed greater glory of Man, his ontological reification, championed, of course, by the evil Spirit of the Second Vatican Council, which can be then empirically observed, more and more, by its truly horrendous and vilely devastating aftermath; this surely now includes Amoris Laetitia.  But, what can be reasonably known as to the interconnectedness and relatedness, the implications and ramifications, of these matters?

Postmodernity celebrates, as but a few examples, such myths as multiculturalism, PC thinking, diversity, and deconstructionism aligned ideologically with the magical notions of a Utopian world-community, a not-too-disguised form of brave millennialism, freed of all war, famine, pestilence, and all conflicts.  This is seen to be overtly exemplified and, moreover, praised to the nth degree in John Lennon’s nihilistic and so very representative, languid song: Imagine.

All the fundamental elements of such rabid mythical and magical thinking and regard can be found in that lyrical composition singing hosannas to a Utopian vision having no need for any ultimate and requisite metaphysical order (aka God).   Secularization is, thus, greatly praised to the skies.

Nor does any really known human imperfection, theologically referred to as sin, ever come into the truly idyllic picture painted with such unctuous, rapturous, and contemptible words faithful to secular humanism’s divined ecstasy and open contempt for the normative/classical mind.  This may be paralleled, as to insights, by C. S. Lewis’ thoughtful though short book entitled: The Abolition of Man, which more than just suggests the evil involved.

In short, the amazing myth of neo-Pelagianism, meaning, as to a definition, the postmodern or, perhaps, simply ideological secularization of the extremely hoary Pelagian Heresy that Original Sin has never actually existed; thus, an ever true and limitless human perfectionism placed on earth, again, an idyllic millennialism, is supposed to be so fully attainable, without question or pause, if only truly absolute and ever peaceful secularization could, through some unspecified nirvana, be finally reached. This goes against all right reason, plain commonsense, and classical Natural Law teachings, of course.

Petty earthly gods carelessly cavorting in a terrene paradise, a New Eden, of their own making, which is, thus, supposed to be taken intellectually seriously, of course, as a then surely set, thoughtful, valid proposition. In other words, speculative hogwash qua moral argumentation that tends to conceal a thinly disguised death wish easily supportive of euthanasia, among other things.

And, e. g., no matter how many people get massacred by ISIS or similar Moslem agencies, this clearly intramundane belief in myth and magic, often correctly perceived as immanentism, persists strongly and directly divergent to all of the massively compiled rational and empirical evidence, history, (obviously) dead bodies, and documentation observed being set to the contrary.

The past great devotion to modernist myth and magic, at the beginnings of modernity with Machiavelli and then Luther, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Bentham, Darwin, Marx, Freud, Lenin, Heidegger, and many others, has logically lead to the arrogant and avaricious worshipping of postmodernist myth and magic as compelling forces to contend with now and in the future.

The celebrated names of Michel Foucault, E. P. Thompson, Ronald Dworkin, R. D. Laing, Jurgen Habermas, Gyorgy Lukacs, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, Slavoj Zizek, Ralph Milliband and Eric Hobsbawm are notably infamous in this regard.  Utopianism, consequently, is then made to existentially seem, thus, compatibly normal and so “natural” as an ever contemporaneous way of thinking.   One could informatively read Utopia, the Perennial Heresy by Thomas Molnar.

It is an insanely terrible feat that could only be brought about by the incredible power that myth and magic can and often do hold over the human mind when enslaved by sin, when afflicted by a significantly rampant and pervasive nominalism that so freely corrupts both cognition and human will simultaneously.

Most likely, Fr. McCoy would have been, by now, thoroughly appalled at the most serious and lamentable devolutions of the political, cultural, and social orders of the Western world, which is just an understatement actually.  Civilization itself, assuming such a thing can be defined as existing, is at the near point of becoming epistemologically and ontologically indiscernible as to a concrete reality worthy of rational and axiological consideration.

Cynical observers, of course, would critically denounce such possibly incautious words as being rather much too optimistic and, perhaps, made only broadly in jest.

Of course, for instance, neither anything like heuristic Platonic myth nor harmless fairyland magic is being conjured up in this article. G. K. Chesterton, in his The Everlasting Man, reminds people that, “It seems strangely forgotten nowadays that a myth is a work of imagination and therefore a work of art.”

However, the clearly bold neopaganization of the Western world has disarmed it when faced, additionally, by the outrageous ravages of a resurgent and aggressive Islam that is obviously so very willing to act both barbarously and contemptuously toward an overtly effete, incestuously degenerate, and increasingly decadent West.

Many commentators have noticed what is called the reprimitivization of humanity that has occurred as people came to so witlessly embrace the many magical and mythical elements of assumed intellectual sophistication, sanctified oddly by modernity’s many civilizational failures, into the postmodernity of an “appropriately” neopaganized world.  Thus, one gets the valuelessness of a nonjudgmental people with their relativist disvalued ethics and morals having no axiologically sustainable values to adamantly defend or even debate; it is an endlessly corruptive nonsense.

As the evil Culture of Death spreads, nonetheless, mindless people, meaning the degenerate cognoscenti and illuminati, still are shocked by ever rising levels of provoked crudity, brutality, barbarism, savagery, and outright nihilism that has become crescively acceptable, as being quite prevalent societal and cultural norms for a nihilistic postmodernity.4

One so easily sees this in how the formerly confident and self-deluded, mistaken, people of Brussels, Belgium had become seemingly paralytically perplexed beyond measure, due to the March 2016 Jihadi bombings; they had deliberately pampered and privileged, indulged and advantaged, them and, in turn, their avowed Moslem enemies yet turned upon them – what a shock!

They do vacuously wonder why, with their bizarre utopian attitudes, on how Western abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia should reflect ever negatively upon them and their beloved sybaritic lifestyles, exercised within an ethical and moral vacuum.  No sense of true shame or guilt exists for them, except to the rather queer degree that they may be ashamed or feel guilty that they have not, in fact, yet engaged thoroughly enough in their so wanted and blatant nihilism.

It is not perceived that, because of the results of Original Sin 5 of which they claim they have no real consciousness of, the modernist effort to unceremoniously kick the metaphysical order out of the front door makes them try to push in an unadulterated metaphysics, of some strange kind, surreptitiously and somewhat guiltily through the back door.  This is arrogance combined freely with an unadulterated idiocy supreme, which all, in turn, arrogantly spits upon the firmly opposed normative mentality, the perennial realm of right reason and commonsense.

The significantly incredible but true re-empowerment of both reified myth and magic, by the intellectual and other vile forces of a debased modernity, has substantially assisted in the firm consolidation and transformation of such myth and magic placed into the cause and progress of postmodernity. How so?

Millions of people are now emotionally, psychologically and cognitively enthralled powerfully so by mythical and magical notions of an ersatz “reality” that Christian people, both ancient and medieval, would have simply scoffed at with only well-deserved contempt and a profound ridicule.  Multiculturalism and deconstructionism, as examples, would be simply laughed at as truly dumb jokes, never seriously accepted with any of today’s absurdly pious or devout secular reverence whatsoever.

Because of the aforementioned enthrallment, one sees, on what appears to be a daily basis by now, the weirdly but still notably magical notions of a Utopian, world-community Zeitgeist through which its subject populations, created as if by enchanted notions, are to so obtain a (terrene) ersatz blessedness and (ad hoc) beatification, which is reserved, as such in truth, by Christians, logically, only for Heaven.  Of course, the supposed many gods of modernity and postmodernity demonically do indicate otherwise, meaning as the Weimarization continues.

Those enlightened Christians, however, not influenced by either myth or magic, and certainly all orthodox, traditionalist, Roman Catholics, do always realistically know, by being in constant touch with human and existential reality, that no truly genuine paradise can ever exist on earth. Useful heuristic reading would certainly include John Arthur Passmore’s The Perfectibility of Man.

The demonic utopianists (by whatever euphemism), however, in here citing that ever felicitous Voegelinian terminology, do greatly wish to immanentize the eschaton, to declare their New Eden on earth, regardless of the obviously plain truth (and, by the way, innumerable dead bodies) set ever to the contrary.  Such error refutes itself.  Q. E. D.

Moreover, the greatest superstition of them all, it has been well said, is to idiotically believe that one’s own era is entirely free of superstition, in this cited case, whether modernist or postmodernist in origin.  A neat little volume to consult would surely be Superstition by Fr. Herbert Thurston, S.J., which delightfully gets to the heart of the matter, by showing how adherence to Catholicism can readily vanquish all those useless and false beliefs that hinder true experiential human progress, advanced culture, and higher civilization.

Sadly, Pope Francis 6, the Vicar of Christ on earth, has willingly chosen to surely become, in effect, the retrogressive, celebratory high priest of the nominalist reprimitivization of Western society, culture, and civilization; this is as it so nihilistically wallows in the stagnant regressive morass created by the mythical and magical notions of a degraded and debased humanity. In short, secularization, contrary to its often claimed expectations, has not achieved its supposed nirvana on this planet.

Of course, this evil belief in Godlessness always anticipates its ever assumed success in some wished-for never-never land, once again, the blissful New Eden “guaranteed” by ever artful existentialism and applied phenomenology, along with situation ethics and value neutrality.

And now, a very quite morally and spiritually disarmed, pitifully Man-worshipping, anthropocentric, intramundane fixation, denying all absolutes except for secularist relativism qua an absolute principle, must, thus, nakedly face a terrifyingly absolutist, tyrannous, bloodthirsty, Moslem jihadist movement eagerly bent upon world domination at any cost.

One can guess which side is the more likely to win. Of course, there is, however, still a real choice, instead of the deliberately empty and so droll valuelessness of postmodernity, the post-Enlightenment realm, filled with ominous existential and phenomenological angst, hubris, and trepidation lest a (dreaded) value judgment be made.  It is on the same vain plateau as with positivism and its inherent fallacy of the immaculate perception.

The Western world can yet return to Roman Catholicism, to a then revived Christendom worth defending and loving, as the important moral and spiritual means to so much better combat an increasingly ferocious and thoroughly implacable enemy, having a religion that sanctions no real limits upon excessive brutality, cruelty, or, in fact, just sheer ruthlessness, concerning any of its opponents.  However, to put the urgent matter mildly, this would seem to require a gigantic miracle from as yet unknown quarters, perhaps, the Blessed Virgin Mary may assist.

Until then, nothing hopeful appears to be reasonably perceivable upon the normal horizon of most human speculation and consideration.  The so debased enthrallment of the postmodern mind, by its craven fascination with and ignominious subordination to vicariously imagined substitutes for reasoned thought and logical cognizance, bespeaks a contemptuous attitude full worthy of T. S. Eliot’s hollow men or, alternately, C. S. Lewis’ men without chests.

Modernity, Postmodernity, and What Next?

And, one of them, currently and conspicuously, does occupy the exalted and blessed Throne of St. Peter no less. That is why religion and theology are much more central to the survivability of human beings than is ever admitted to by the committed and deluded secularists who so often do applaud Pope Francis as being a kindred spirit.  He is among the last believers in a now dying modernity, which sought to ironically reinvigorate, not really eliminate, such things as alchemy, wizardry, and the search for the always elusive Philosopher’s Stone.

Modernity, though not simply meaning the modern age as such, was not that very far from the concerns of sorcery and conjuring, of talismanic cognition.   One could, thus, interestingly consult Eros and Magic in the Renaissance by Ioan P. Couliano; White Magic, Black Magic in the European Renaissance by Paola Zambelli, and The Queen’s Conjurer: The Science and Magic of Dr. John Dee, Advisor to Queen Elizabeth I by Benjamin Woolley.  Renaissance Hermeticism was taken seriously, as can be seen in Frances Yates’ Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition.

Myth and magic, therefore, were not far from the thin surface of those past centuries and influenced greatly the lives of many who thought of themselves as surely advanced thinkers, especially when they “freed” themselves from the Catholic Church, or Christianity in general. Such an elucidation, these days, is genuinely needed and requisite to the important task of breaking old stereotypes as to which side exists as the true defender of mankind and the dignity of man as created by God, not as a mere unit of a omnipotent State.

Misinformed writers, generally speaking, include among the principal features of the European Enlightenment great advances in the supposed freeing of human thought from superstition and traditional (aka Christian) religion and the assumed enlightened retreat of the hoary concept of the supernatural before the ever glorious advance of empirical and, thus, seemingly  liberating science.  Oh, really?  Historical evidence severely questions such biased tale evidencing much more progressivist propaganda than actual knowledge.  Was there such absolute rationality?

But, such historical interest in magic and mysticism had more than significantly continued into the Enlightenment, as is noted by: Solomon’s Secret Arts: the Occult in the Age of Enlightenment by Paul Kleber Monod; The Rosicrucian Enlightenment by Frances A. Yates; Beyond the Witch Trials: Witchcraft and Magic in Enlightenment Europe by Owen Davies & Willem de Blécourt; and The Dark Side of the Enlightenment: Wizards, Alchemists, and Spiritual Seekers in the Age of Reason by John V. Fleming.  Irrationality, in short, was celebrated as being a higher or esoteric form of deified Reason; mysticism easily combined with the worship of deified Reason.

Both Renaissance and Enlightenment had, therefore, definitely added quite a bit of darkness to the human mind, regardless of the enormous and continuing propaganda fixed to the contrary, and believed in by so many dedicated, in this case meaning deluded, atheists and humanists, of course.  Rationalism resulted from the vain dedication to both the deification and reification of modern Reason superstitiously gaining god-like status, as is true of most of hubristic science today, which needs to be stated here explicitly, for proper exposition purposes.

How is it known, nevertheless, that myth and magic are dreary and fetid whenever compared to the grace and glory of God?  Myth, though not equated, e. g., with noble Platonic myth, is the superstition of still primitive men, meaning those who seek explanations of metaphysical order that can be reduced to fables and stories mainly suitable for the childhood of a people.  Reductionism, therefore, becomes the byword of thought for better seeking the simplification that perpetual children yearn for as a stunted way of understanding their circumscribed world.

Magic seeks to accomplish what the will and love of God can do without any effort whatsoever and with an instantaneous universality that makes any purported “magic” look so interminably feeble and simply pathetic, frail and pitiful; this is whenever placed in bright comparison with, literally, such unlimited greatness and profundity always and ever coexistent, by definition, with the Lord God Almighty.

And yet, modernity, and its legitimate and nominalist child known as postmodernity, prefers dark beliefs in magical and mythical concepts and constructs that keep up a mere pubescent and irrational pretense, while the ravaged reality of the souls of men do, thus, become rather aged with their multiplying vice and age-old sin.

Interestingly, it can be cited that Fascism and Nazism, even slightly more than Communism, thought of themselves as being true youth movements.  Thus, as a contemporary example, it is not at all surprising how many, many young people flock around and with Bernie Sanders as being the latest, though rapidly aging, Socialist Piped Piper promising, once again, Utopia.

For many centuries, moreover, both “enlightened” and Protestant nominalist attacks upon Catholicism and the Catholic Church were alleged to be necessary preconditions for favoring, advancing, and vindicating the need for upholding the youthful spirit of Progress as evidence of humanity’s supposed rise up from both superstition and ignorance, from the hoary or simply antediluvian belief in Christianity in general.

Such informative books as Unpopular Essays in the Philosophy of History by Moorhouse F. X. Millar, S.J., have splendidly covered the realities involved, athwart the ever extravagant claims of modernity that have been often made repeatedly and, in truth, idiotically as well.  The many astute refutations made, in this aforementioned work, offer a substantial and substantive antidote to the poisonous beliefs that haughtily claim that progress and science are to entirely replace the truths of faith and doctrines, meaning, actually, the rejection of the Roman Catholic Faith.

Nominalism, over time, ruined the ability of the human mind to quite properly and needfully distinguish between proper rationality and mere Rationalism; they are definitely not the same thing, but modernists had, increasingly, refused to rightly recognize such a tremendously salient fact of reality as to the critical imperative distinctions ever requisite to acquiring a genuine cognitive maturity and, as one hopes, allied perspicacity. Good reading, for encouraging this, includes Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism by Robert P. George.

One can, for instance, read such interesting and instructive works as Michael Oakeshott’s Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays to get a better understanding of the important issues involved; also, reading, e. g., Makers of the Modern Mind by Thomas P. Neill helps to better round out a needed education in these important matters.

It may need to be critically added, however, that all ideologies, easily inclusive of Communism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, Feminism, etc., of a political nature do ever create or generate their own political mythology, regardless of any supine protests to the contrary.

But, lest it be thought that political mythology lacks documentation, a listing can be rendered, for proper thematic coverage, in the following citations: Political Myth in Aristophanes: Another Form of Comic Satire? by Nikoletta Kanavou, Henry Tudor’s Political Myth, Political Myth: A Theoretical Introduction by Christopher Flood, Der Mythus des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts by the Nazi Alfred Rosenberg, and, of course, Cassirer’s The Myth of the State.

Also, one could relatedly consult: A Philosophy of Political Myth by Chiara Bottici; The Politics of Myth: A Study of C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell by Robert Ellwood; Gladstone: The Making of a Political Myth by D. A. Hamer; Roland Boer’s Political Myth: On the Use and Abuse of Biblical Themes, and a suitable article: “Political Mythologies of the Twentieth Century in the Perspective of Hermann Heller, Ernst Cassirer, and Karl Löwith,” by Jeffrey Andrew Barash, as found in the Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem.

In addition, the still provocative writings of Georges Sorel 7, manifesting his hubris, ought not to be that neglected as to the proper study of modern political myth.  What should become indicatively apparent is how, century by century with the further absorption of nominalism in cognition, Rationalism exists as the corruptive parody of rationality, never a true or valid substitute for it.

By so many strong degrees, irrationality, irrationalism, illogicality, and clearly irrational thought in general do increasingly come, more and more, into the epistemological service of Godless Rationalism; this was during the existential course of the intellectual, cultural, and aesthetic progression of modernity, along with, of course, the Nietzschean will to power. It may yet fairly be asked, nevertheless, how so?

Modernity, with its ingrained pragmatism, positivism, materialism, secularism, and, ultimately, nihilism had pushed its aggressive ideology of Rationalism so far as to progressively encourage irrationalism and the distrust of mere human reason, which then reintroduced “higher” or more sophisticated superstitions into the world, such as, e. g., deconstructionism.

This was, again, the rather bastardized metaphysics that got somehow smuggled in through the somewhat ignominious back door, as the, thus, old or traditionalist metaphysics was then so rudely and crudely pushed out the front entrance.  Along with, e. g. the irrational, Lutheran-Protestant theological denial of free will, that larger overall process was felicitously called, by that so much celebrated modern god-term, Progress.   Interesting reading would revealingly include Robert A. Nisbet’s History of the Idea of Progress.

There had been, therefore, quite baleful and usually very malevolent consequences, suffered by real human beings, in this most unpleasant process celebrating modernity and its superstitions, myths, and its assorted and sundry efforts at modernist sorcery.  One can benefit by reading such surely illuminating volumes as Jacob Leib Talmon’s The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, Political Messianism – The Romantic Phase, Romanticism and Revolt, and his The Myth of the Nation and Vision of Revolution – The Origins of Ideological Polarization in the 20th Century.

Only a dead mind or a quite dedicated nominalist, a modernist supreme, could read such books and not come to the obvious conclusion that something is so radically wrong with the clearly evil premises of modernity and its defense.  Furthermore, the many noted failures of modernity have not been ever truly corrected but, rather, have been definitely much more aggravated and excessively exacerbated by the main currents of most, not all, postmodernist thought.

Only an irrational misanthrope would cite World War I, World War II, nuclear weapons, and the 20th and 21st genocides as all simply unqualified successes of true progress and joyous enlightenment, of mankind’s categorical and praiseworthy advance.

The overt point being made here ought, therefore, to be absolutely crystal clear to any fairly cognizant and sensate mind, by citing a work by a past and renowned, enthusiastic champion of rationalism, materialism, secularism, pragmatism, and positivism: H. G. Wells, who wrote his pessimistic but highly self-indicative little volume sadly entitled, Mind at the End of Its Tether, with the “best” thoughts he could lamely come up with then, in 1945, at the age of 78.

Modernists do have much to answer for, but they never really do; they just, as is their want, casually step over the dead bodies and other assorted debris of carnage and calmly continue forward toward their next efforts at trying to irrationally construct the New Eden on earth, aka Utopia, almost always, once again, in the both mythical and magical name of some kind or other of idealized collectivism, of course.  James Burnham, in his Suicide of the West, foresaw and predicted accurately the destruction and devastation that is simply today accepted as being a normal part of reality.

Learning really nothing that substantive and, moreover, ideologically, (read: superstitiously), forgetting whatever is inconvenient to their unreasonable purpose, to their vain pursuit of a terrene paradise on this large orb occupying space in the exosphere. In contrast, the so wildly fictional Baron von Munchausen sounds like a hardened realist making rational calculations of success.  Chesterton, in the early 20th century, had presciently noticed how abnormality wished to replace normality as to the new moral, social, and cultural norms for progressive societies in the Western world.

In the myth-filled realm of modernity, one sees, as to an economic example, the quite fantastic irrationality of the applied thaumaturgy set behind all minimum wage laws truly adverse to all economic laws, history, empirical evidence, scholarship, and just plain reality itself qua basic commonsense, meaning in strong defiance of reason.

The, e. g., wild, blood-drenched 18th century French revolutionaries, willingly sending at least 500,000 victims to their needless slaughter, thought that they too were setting about creating a wondrous, brave new world of limitless liberty, fraternity, and, of course, equality.  A world to be drained of hopes for holiness and the sanctification of peoples in the insane rush toward the nihilism created by the aggressive and sinful demand for a completely secularized Progress at all costs.  What has been one of the logical and, thus, terrible consequences seen in today’s era?

A Clash of Two Rival Fundamentalisms: Secular-Humanist Ideology v. Islamic Ideology

Meanwhile, postmodern, PC, multiculturalist Europe, filled lavishly with such contemporary superstitions, is acting out its Death Wish by absurdly adopting a sociopolitical version of the “Battered Wife Syndrome” in dealing with the intolerant and contemptuous, so envious and spiteful, Muslim invaders.  A most peculiar love-hate relationship has been established; neither side can really resist each other in this death grasp, as if a drowning man cannot resist trying to strangle the person attempting to save him.

Enamored of their ideologically-based myth and magic to a perceived suicidal degree of strange proficiency to behold, progressive Europeans are quite busy actually subsidizing, sponsoring, their own extermination aided greatly by an irrationalism, by PC multiculturalism, knowing no limits.  Feminists, revealing the final decadence of their nihilistic ideology, refuse to denounce these Islamists who do brutalize and mutilate girls and women in the name of their Allah and the Koran.

Thus, they can’t easily see the forest because of the trees.  Their known decadence and degeneracy, moral disintegration and decline, furthermore, axiomatically prevents them from ever surely perceiving evident matters reasonably and objectively.  Their overtly PC pro-Islamic ideology, moreover, simply prevents them from seeing the actual nature of the Moslem enemies among them as a force intent on bringing enslavement and supremacy.  Realistically speaking, since terrorism is sanctioned by Islam, it could not be otherwise as to the intentions of such radicals.

Though it is anti-PC to speak this obvious truth, Sharia, being the fundamental antithesis of Western law, as was so wisely noted, by no less an authority than Justice Robert Jackson, in his Law in the Middle East, will certainly ensure that slavery can never be truly eradicated from the Islamic world until Islam is, in turn, itself fully eradicated.   Anyone who doubts this so logical assertion is, however, too naïve for words, for he is essentially ignorant of Islam as to its nature that integrally provokes aggression against any opposition.

An adopted irrational, talismanic mindset prevents them, the progressivists, from acknowledging the harsh reality that ought to be confronted; instead, the irrationality of their mythological and magical cognizance inherently blinds them to the overt truth of their fundamentally dangerous situation having, literally, many life-threatening dire consequences for the too often hubristic European peoples.

Post-Enlightenment, postmodern Europe has today left itself no other way out of this secular-humanist prison, turning now into an active death camp, which it has so very willingly created.  As for America, its own greatly debauched political, intellectual, and cultural elites wish the people of this country to get Europeanized increasingly, in the very same way, and so accommodate, through a much similar suicidal appeasement, our very own imported Moslem invaders.  It is a Death Wish, fueled by excessive affluence and its many known corruptive powers, and exercised on the part of the jaded and degraded elites in the entire Western world.8

Parenthetically, the too remarkable insanity of all this goes unnoticed by the bulk of the mass media, as it is, also, most integrally enthralled by contemporary magical and mythical notions, regarding various utopian ways of oddly perceiving the world and its doings.  Appropriate reading, concerning this deadly demonic debacle, would include Alice in Wonderland, besides Jean Raspail’s highly prophetic novel of a Europe heavily drowning in worshipped irrationality: The Camp of the Saints.

The certainly amazing form of circular reasoning observed in existence, meaning the greatest superstition of them all, reinforces daily each and every ideological decision to just supinely capitulate to the Islamic subjugation and conquest; this is done, with all the extant irrationality that can be sufficiently mustered, in the vain hope that Utopia will, sooner or later, arrive and all peoples will then join hands and, thus, mindlessly sing a rousing chorus of kumbaya forever and ever.

One sees manifestly here that the genuine final end of the line for sincere Rationalism must, therefore, only be an unmitigated nihilism, an overtly Nietzschean invitation to look into the boundless dark abyss indicative of (meaningless) death.

After each and every terrorist bombing, moreover, this bizarre belief, embalmed in witless adherence to the perverse kinds of myth and magic generated necessarily by ideological superstitions and mystical notions, becomes even more ingrained and powerful, which is, admittedly, frightening to behold. How may this be noticed amidst the blatant insanity too often observed in the contemporary world?

One needs to critically see that the nihilistic decay of modernity definitely helped to give rise to ISIS. The vast majority of the Islamic State’s followers have a schizophrenic and radical regard for the Western world; they are not, in fact, the purportedly impoverished peasants and small-town slum children who have joined this revolt to supposedly escape poverty, as often as is falsely alleged, both so nauseatingly and absurdly.

Though these ISIS adherents have benefited from the material and technological plenty of the West and its many affiliated, assorted realities in the world, they still so rejected this tendered cornucopia because of its obvious spiritual poverty and blindly turned, instead, toward a reified yet highly retrogressive version of Islam paralleling, in many wars, the 6th century.  It is, in its most peculiar way, a rather bizarre kind of vile parody of a weird version of the Society for Creative Anachronism, a steampunk variety no less, and this needs to be correctly recognized.

Important reading would surely include Dr. Peter Hammond’s Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.  Also, Robert Spencer’s many volumes, including: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS, and his The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran.

One should also read: The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims, a collection of 63 essays edited by Robert Spencer, covering the horrific history of non-Muslim populations during and after the bloody conquest of their lands by hate-filled Muslims.

They seek, thus, to so dramatically conjure into being a version of a lost (and now seemingly magical) world devoted to absolute and unquestioned Moslem supremacy and primacy, as is to be savagely done through ISIS and its bloody evil victory, while at the same time ironically utilizing, in full contradiction, the West’s technological and computer-driven culture to fight against the denounced Occident with its, of course, terribly filthy, (imperfect), and detestable infidels. They too do seek a Western-style perfectionism on earth, by whatever euphemism.

The latter consideration, actually, being quite a genuinely great tribute supremely indicating their overt Westernization, of course, which they, so blithely, seek not to acknowledge; this is because it would then fundamentally, in fact, refute and undermine their hypocritical denial of a (Western-style) angst and, thus, cognate existentialist frustrations. How may this be easily known?

They are, for the most part, highly educated, urbanized, middle-class plus, pampered young adults who have variously tasted of the delights of the West and yet their very radicalization, ironically, forces them to yet abhor the abundant lifestyles that they have obviously so greatly benefited from in their own lives; they are, therefore, living, breathing human contradictions of a mesmerizing modernist civilization, wallowing ever in its magical Godless notions, now rapidly heading toward its much deserved moral bankruptcy and, thus, so predictable dead end.

Their noted nihilism, Islamic radicalism, and surely evident, fanatical Death Cult attitudes show them the vile way through modernity into the postmodernity of a utopian order, by definition, which can never really exist, meaning their mythical ersatz caliphate, their own chosen never-never land in which to excitedly worship death. There is no room here for having a classical mindset in any way whatsoever, as with the progressivist Westerners worshipping the Open Society that they, in turn, hate as radicalized, envy-filled Moslems.

Modernist or postmodernist Europeans are, therefore, morally and intellectually disarmed because, though unrecognized by them as if by a mental block, they do share similar notions; and, familiarity breeds contempt, in that both sides profoundly disrespect the older classical mentality, the normative mindset, by feeling an extreme or militant aversion to it.

Thus, the too often proffered set idea that either modernists or postmodernists are really too sophisticated or advanced thinkers of the Brave New World is no more than a very bad joke; this is because their fetid brains are so consumed with way too many irrational elements of magical and mythical suppositions, liberal-mystical notions, and miscellaneous odd factoids; it is a militant, secular-progressivist superstition, held dogmatically, that any anti-modernist or anti-postmodernist thought could actually, really, ever be universally valid as being compelling objective truth.

Only a fellow fool, an ideological boob, takes any of those people seriously as being profound cognoscenti of quite a rare breed.  Their denial of there being a metaphysical order, by their superstitious preferences for myth and magic, to a commonsense reality creates a form of pragmatic circular reasoning; this is by which they are then forever regressively trapped in an equally pragmatic maze of their own positivist, materialist, and secularist making, with no seeming way out of it.

Secular-humanism, though it is often denied vehemently, possesses the quality of a modernist religion; the high priests have among them many scientists, technocrats, and academicians; there do exist, in fact, Humanist Manifesto creeds, listing their dogmas of belief 9, that have been published; creedal violations of which end up meriting intellectualist scorn and contempt from the cognoscenti, illuminati, and their fellow adherents.  Such failures of belief or, perhaps, the skeptical lack thereof are held as if equivalent to the omission or commission of sins.

Most of these people are, definitely, within the sad category of what the confirmed atheist Eric Hoffer had called the True Believers.  They are, at least, as fanatical as true religious zealots dogmatically thinking that they really do have perfect doctrines demanding “rational” assent, though they may claim otherwise and, further, insist upon their reasonableness.

Think tanks, colleges, and universities act as their places of worship; these academic and many associated institutions are where the mystical worship of anti-free speech “speech codes” prohibitions of certain non-progressive ideas are, thus, enforced much more strictly than were indexes of prohibited books.

College and university campuses are then genuine PC hotbeds of Marxism, neo-Marxism, and rigid speech and thought control that do frighteningly parallel George Orwell’s 1984 and his Animal Farm.  Equally, Environmentalism is, for instance, just another useful propaganda front for helping to spread Communism by whatever rewording of terms.  In the way that Leftists are openly intolerant and bigoted against anti-progressive ideas, ISIS members are as overtly intolerant and bigoted against anti-Muslim ideas; in short, it takes one to know one.

What has happened to Western civilization and culture?  The vast majority of Intellectuals, by whatever euphemism, and other such people, who willingly do construct fictive or synthetic worlds out of their own often fervid imaginations, had rebelled increasingly against the past’s traditional metaphysical order of reality, meaning, in essence, the belief in God.  Their usually hidden goal, century by century, was the progressive, fundamental(ist), intolerant, bigoted, and, for most, absolute secularization without question of the civilization and its culture.

Both followers of ISIS and their anti-normative opponents are, in their own ways, dedicated fundamentalists; the former chose religion as to their preferred ideology, the latter prefers progressivism or collectivism as to their ideology.  Unlike Liberalism, Conservatism, and, in fact, all the ideologies of modernity and postmodernity, the profound thinking of the nonideological traditionalist right, being that it is never enthralled by myth or magic, sees this reality so clearly enough.

Fanatical adherents of the Islamic State and their progressivist adversaries are, thus, all more like mirror images, ironically, than they would ever suspect or, certainly, comprehend. As two magnets of the same polarity naturally repel each other, the same goes for what is happening in Europe.  How may this philosophical assertion be, however, much better understood?

Hobbes, for instance, could barely hide his militant atheism; Locke and Kant, through much neatly refined verbiage, were manifestly more successful.10   Through the cognitive, emotional (aka irrational) and other such powerful forces of modernity, the once traditional metaphysical order, and its sanctifying predilections, was gradually and, sometimes, through revolutions, quickly, meaning radically, replaced by the political order of reality as being ultimate in nature.

Further and further abstractionization and cognate alienation of man had, thus, logically continued through the eras, regarding this fundamentalist belief set against the Lord God Almighty.

By the mid-19th century, Herman Melville, e. g., easily saw the conflict and depicted it as Moby Dick; both he and his friend Nathaniel Hawthorne, as known through their correspondence, knew that the story was an allegory, filled with religious symbolism, in which the Great White Whale stood for God; and, Captain Ahab sought by killing the beast to do an act of atheism by vilely attacking God Himself.  As ought to be appreciated, the rather quite startling substance of this novel, as to its so high metaphysical antagonism, makes, by definition, for great literature.

For as Ahab so revealingly says: “ ‘Tis the thing behind the mask I chiefly hate; the malignant thing that has plagued mankind since time began; the thing that maws and mutilates our race, not killing us outright but letting us live on, with half a heart and half a lung!”  The ardent plea and hatred of militant atheism has, therefore, rarely been seen more clearly, as the history of the modern age’s modernity can attest in its baleful legacy to the Western world.  But, what had happened to Western civilization?

In Europe, the offered universality and theocentrism, e. g., of the Roman Catholic Church, its openly doctrinal Christocentrism, was later replaced by an increasingly sectarian Protestantism, nationalism, modern imperialism, advancing secularism, and other modernist ideologies extant throughout the entire continent.  One can, both readily and insightfully, get a true and fairly comprehensive sense of this reality by reading Millar’s Unpopular Essays in the Philosophy of History.  It is evident how Protestantism helped further an increasing secularization of intellect, society, and culture.

Modernity with its noted, ever invasive anthropocentrism (aka atheism), the quite secularly functional and pragmatic point of view, reigned supremely triumphant at last, as obviously was seen in World Wars I & II, nuclear weapons, many genocides, and much else.

And yet, postmodernism in cognition, the neologism here of “ideologicocentricism,” thought that this was not really enough change or radicalization needed; ideological order now seeks to replace all the previous forms of mere political order, simple statism, or tyranny.  The 20th century immanentist failures of Nazism, Communism, and Fascism, meaning efforts to finally achieve the apotheosis of the State among men as was desired by Hegel, to help establish Utopia on earth, taught the “lesson” to the postmodernists that the political order must now be replaced by a truly ideological one.

Past failures, producing tens upon tens of millions of dead bodies, need not ever stop Progress, for the Great White Whale must still be killed at all costs.  Malcolm Muggeridge, for instance, had sagaciously perceived that 20th century civilization (or, what had passed for it), was fully different from all previous civilizations, because it so actually wished to assume that God does not exist.  How may this critical asseveration be more insightfully understood?

Admittedly, this above and accurate rendition of history is not to be found in any textbooks, which are, typically, written either by nominalist-inspired intellectuals or those who wish to do obeisance to the intellectualist, radical-bourgeois point of view.  Totalitarianism at the political level, seen in the cited mass movements of the 20th century, was still found to be not enough as to a both requisitely sufficient and proficient coercive power.  More intensification was needed to perfect totalitarianism beyond any mere authoritarian efforts at mind control and population control.

People, now, must be so forced through all emotional, social, cultural, aesthetic, semantic, legislative, judicial, executive, and any other means to absolutely conform to the crescively pervasive dictates of the ideological order, as currently being all inclusive and, in addition, made to seem just completely normal. It’s a scary kind of crude Pavlovian behaviorism gone mad, abnormality is, thence, worshipped as being so acceptably normative, so truly PC,  for the 21st century.

Thus, as an example, the ideological order will see to it that homosexuality and any other deviant behavior is not simply tolerated as in a mere political order; raw deviance is to be highly promoted, protected, and enforced, if necessary, against all those who may so oppose such “once” vile and aberrant behavior; sodomy of any kind or all kinds is to become ever officially institutionalized, established, as a set foundational and societal, cultural, and political mandate, a clear categorical imperative of progressive governmental policy and its related programs.  The once normal or normative life must, therefore, be all legally and otherwise denounced as being totally abnormal, against all now universalized “human rights.”

Its evil enforcement is, therefore, to become irredeemably absolute.  Sodomy practiced upon children and babies is to be made into a legally sanctified civil right, backed both substantially and substantively by the law and a PC society and culture, and dedicated to the liberal Open Society concept.  Bestiality is to be legalized as well, for nothing must impede the corrupting dictates of the Open Society and its worship.

Parents who may wish to save or prevent their children from being sodomized will soon have to be arrested and very severely fined; if found to be recalcitrant in this regard, imprisonment, logically, then awaits them.  The perfection of tyranny is now to be the highest goal pursued by the contemporary State due to its total ideologization, as is so quite routinely demanded by the Left.

The ever aggressive ideological order must, as noted, be supremely absolute to be effective and, moreover, made increasingly irresistible and not just on a yearly basis as to compulsions, which are to be multiplied and reinforced whenever and wherever required.  Is such a future conceivable given the both current and ongoing radicalization and defilement of contemporary reality?

To tens of millions of people, not being PC is the equivalent to committing a mortal sin, as to its quite incredible magnitude and significance; for Catholics, even a single unrepented mortal sin denies the soul both beatitude and Heaven for eternity.  The ever value-neutral Open Society, furthermore, demands obedience of its controlled subjects set well beyond what had been the mere severe dictates of a totalitarian political order or oppressive regime of power; the Good Society of normative values must be crushed; the Free Society of traditional-classical constitutional liberty must be fully suppressed.

There is to be, therefore, an inner reflexive consent desired by which every postmodern person then becomes an ideological robot attuned axiomatically to the needs of what is assumed to be an amoral order in postmodern society and its attendant decadent culture.  People, ideally, are to force themselves to be PC all of the time and urge others on as well, for Rousseau “knew” that, e. g., men must be forced to be free.

There is to be no way out offered, for the secular-humanist, perfectionist quest for Utopia, which is always denying the effects of Original Sin, must thence logically end in Hell; first on earth, then in the hereafter, which will, posthumously, shock many, many hundreds of millions of people.


However, the only genuine solution to the endlessly multiplying ethical and moral dilemmas, paradoxes, and enigmas of either modernity or postmodernity remains, as ever, the Roman Catholic faith, when received, believed, and practiced in the true fullness of its orthodoxy.  The truth shall make men free, not ideology.

Furthermore, Thomistic scholasticism, not just any variety of scholasticism, should be properly utilized to teach Roman Catholicism, religion and theology, to all inquiring minds seeking to be liberated from both modernist and postmodernist myth and magic.   It is an enlightening and liberating experience and a normal sustainable way of life freely offered and properly consistent with Natural Law and right reason, with theocentrism and moral order.

Nothing less will do, nothing more is needed.  Alternatively, it needs to be recognized that the continual and base confusing and confounding of proper and needed rationality with the surely absurd ideology of Rationalism offers only a dead end, with corpses resulting every time it is tried and so found wanting.  Additionally, neither myth nor magic, as has been discussed in this article, can adequately fill the human spirit and fully answer life’s ultimate questions, especially when faced with the finality of death.

For as the wise G. K. Chesterton correctly put the matter, Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.  All of this, as could be guessed, is then certainly much more than getting well beyond mere myth or magic, besides so wisely rejecting postmodern, nominalist reprimitivization, rebarbarization, in its ugly entirety.

And, in brief, that so monumental difference says it all.  Once again, what is found to be so urgently needed is the both intelligent and spiritual removal of the dark magic, through the demythologization of a much damaged temporal order, for its then requisite sacralization and sanctification in, by, and through Jesus Christ.

Athanasius contra mundum!


1. This was not really a small achievement on the part of the Catholic Church. By removing layer upon layer of mythological beliefs, century by century, from formerly primitive or near-primitive peoples during a civilizing process, there came into being the rational (not rationalist) mind of a Christian.  A subject or citizen was able to better face the world objectively, in a way that could be rationally understood, without irrational or superstitious regard for any supernatural nature spirits, assorted demons, or many spectral phantasms that could paralyze a human mind and spirit.

2.  There is a distinct Roman Catholic doctrine pertaining to the notion of free will.  It is involved with religious and theological implications and ramifications that have created this assertion of distinctiveness. This means that it is not ever really the same as Protestant or other ideas pertaining to free will or the lack thereof, as was taught by Luther. How serious is any attempt, asinine as such, to refute free will?

The denial of free will is simultaneously the irresponsible and God-defiant denial of man’s own precious humanity, which did not occur to Luther because of his nominalist reductionism, and of man’s being created in the image of God, the, thus, created beingness of one who, also, possesses an immortal soul.  Catholicism, therefore, has righteous contempt for Luther’s quite arrogant blasphemy because it is nothing else but.

3.  Some readers may question the inclusion of the minimum wage.  Yet, it is a superstitious fallacy and a species of mythical and magical thinking nonetheless.  California Gov. Jerry Brown, in April 2016, publicly acknowledged that it, in fact, makes no economic sense, but he said he still supports it for moral reasons. The contention is that it is for helping poor and working class people but, in fact, does just the opposite.

Entry-level jobs are destroyed, potential employment gets replaced too often by dead-end welfare checks, small businesses can never start up in such a clearly dis-economic environment, businesses then feel forced to leave such states further eliminating employment opportunities, the cost of business increases as owners subject to such unfair laws must logically increase their prices, etc.  The baleful chain reaction is limitless, the real and lasting harm done is endless.  But, progressive politicians and their supporters learn nothing!

No rational economists, knowing the truly vast bulk of studies, books, documentation, facts, realities, etc. concerning its well-proven negative results, would now support having a minimum wage. Brown’s decision, therefore, makes about as much “rational” sense as performing an annual rain dance, in Sacramento, at government expense.  Integral moral schizophrenia is, therefore, the ever true hallmark of the progressive mind.  How may this be so easily known?

One small illustrative example: Paypal’s simultaneous expansion of services into Communist Cuba, in April of 2016, while it had protested vigorously against North Carolina’s religious freedom law in, of course, the supposed name of “human rights” with a boycott no less.  Q. E. D.

A “baptized” version of the minimum wage is, unfortunately, the equivalent “just wage doctrine” of the Catholic Church, possessing the same difference, as to all such predictive ill effects.

4.  How else can one explain the bizarre phenomena of progressivist Europeans actually paying Moslems to degrade, humiliate, and subdue them, while attempting to simultaneously deny that such savage, rude, and brutal behavior is abhorrent to plain commonsense, when any people have retained at least the rudiments of self-respect and rational cognizance?

This is common “life” in the bold age of poststructuralism, sensitivity training (aka thought police), the self-esteem (read: self-worship) movement, radical individualism, egalitarianism, the politics of meaning, race-class-gender analysis, New Age religions, racial or ethnic tribalism, resentment theory, and irrational denunciations of logocentrism, meaning the rabid anti-intellectualism of the Left!

5.  The highly important Catholic doctrine of Original Sin is pregnant with overwhelming and heuristic axiological, epistemological, and, especially, ontological implications and ramifications galore.  It explains, e. g., why collectivism, Utopianism, humanitarianism, altruism, perfectionism, etc. must always fail.  Every attempt, filled with mankind’s so unctuous vanity, to create a supposed New Eden on earth must lead without any exception, sooner or later, to the then necessary death camps.  Nihilism = death.

For instance, Rousseau’s integral fallacy of supposedly “forcing men to be free” produces only bloody horrors and terrors due to the ever imperfect (read: sinful) human condition.

6.  It helps to understand that he is not some “humble” priest raised to the papacy; this man of darkness is a committed religious revolutionary dedicated to destroying Catholic orthodoxy by instituting a pseudo-Catholic version of the 18th century Enlightenment.  He is a retrogressive thinker who surely wishes to incorporate both modernist and postmodernist myth and magic into Holy Mother Church, based upon his vile understanding of progressivism and Liberation Theology, who then deliberately blurs, darkens, and distorts the Light of Christ.

Pope Francis, therefore, needs to be honestly recognized as a man of true evil, for he is horribly assisting millions of souls to be condemned to Hell for all eternity.  Thus, there is a debate of whether or not he is actually a Catholic; perhaps, he may be either an agnostic or simply a crypto-atheist.

7.  See his Reflections on Violence as to violence being a very needed political weapon. He was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His idea of the power of myth in people’s lives stimulated related thinking among both Marxists and Fascists. It is, together with his enthusiastic defense of violence, the chief intriguing contribution for which he is most often recollected.

8.  It might have seemed too terribly superfluous to again note, within the main body of this article, the many true parallels with the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, as to its causes that look like today’s routine headlines; after a while, the basic rendition of the reasons for decadence gets tedious because, in truth, it has all been said before by many writers.

The ancient poet Decimus Junius Juvenalis or Juvenal was a Roman poet of the Silver Age of Latin literature, the last and truly most powerful of all the Roman satirical poets, who had excoriated homosexuality and its both vilely destructive effects and affects on upon society, culture, and the debased level of civilization itself.

9.  The Humanist Manifesto I was, in fact, promulgated and written in 1933, the second Humanist Manifesto was written in 1973; the third one came out in 2003.  Thus, humanism or the humanist-secularist religion demands respect as a serious proposition; it is definitely not meant as a joke, for it presents itself publicly as being creedal.  And, there may be a rather superstitious fixation on the number 3, though it’s probably not Trinitarian in nature, one could, so reasonably, guess.

10.  Leo Strauss, through his intense study and advocacy of what he called secret writing, was able to put together a convincing form of philosophical argumentation detecting how such writers as Kant were, in fact, crypto-atheists who merely pretended to be Christians or Christian enough to get their publications into print.  Strauss offered and extrapolated upon such an idea in his book Persecution and the Art of Writing.

Kant surely knew that, in an age of censorship where much societal conformity could, also, be even more strenuously demanding than just a mere political propriety, he had to carefully write, so as not to openly provoke criticism of him as being an avowed atheist.  It would have, otherwise, made his life difficult, at the least.

He realized full well that his bold attempt to more successfully and subtly propagate certain ideas tending really toward promoting strong disbelief would, however, be much better received, more easily condoned, and read by a wider public if he, at least, seemed, on the broad surface of appearances, to be a believer.  Of course, the odd notion of such “esoteric writing” goes fully against the grain of all Liberalism in thought with its explicitness, which is, also, true for how the simplistic Anglo-Saxon Liberal mind rejects all notions of conspiracy theories as being from the hothouse brains of kooks and crackpots only.

Among many others, the historically, famously, and notably documented Bolshevik and Nazi conspiracies notwithstanding, of course.  Also, e. g., David Horowitz and others, decades later, admitted that they were once active conspirators, in that none of the late 1960s and early 1970s antiwar riots were ever actually spontaneous affairs.  And, again, conspiracies, e. g., in ancient Rome with its civil wars, were simply part of the very air being breathed.

Question: Could “enlightened” people be, therefore, mainly wrong also about esoteric writing, as they so evidently are about many conspiracies?



Hadley Arkes, Natural Rights and the Right to Choose.

____. Beyond the Constitution.

____. The Philosopher in the City.

____. First Things: An Inquiry into the First Principles of Morals and Justice.

____. The Return of George Sutherland: Restoring a Jurisprudence of Natural Rights.

____. Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law.

Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline.

M. E. Bradford, A Better Guide Than Reason: Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

____. Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution.

____. The Reactionary Imperative: Essays Literary and Political.

Budziszewki, Nearest Coast of Darkness: A Vindication of the Politics of Virtues.

____. The Resurrection of Nature: Political Theory and Human Character.

____. The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man.

____. True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment.

____. What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide.

____. Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law.

Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy (multivolume source).

Rauol E. Desvernine, Democratic Despotism.

Anthony Esolin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization.

Étienne Gilson, God and Philosophy.

____. From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution.

____. The Unity of Philosophical Experience.

____. The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy.

____. The History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages.

____. Three Quests of Philosophy.

____. The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.

____. Methodical Realism.

____. Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge.

Kevin R. C. Gutzman, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

John H. Hallowell, The Decline of Liberalism as an Ideology.

____. Main Currents in Modern Political Thought.

____. The Moral Foundation of Democracy.

Russell Hittinger, The First Grace: Rediscovering The Natural Law In A Post-Christian World

James Kalb, The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command.

Willmoore Kendall, The Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition.

____. The Conservative Affirmation.

____. Willmoore Kendall Contra Mundum.

Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot.

____. Liberty or Equality.

Forrest McDonald, A Constitutional History of the United States.

____. Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution

____. States’ Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876.

____. E Pluribus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic, 1776-1790.

Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.

____. Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

____. Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry.

____. The Tasks of Philosophy.

____. Ethics and Politics.

Fr. C. N. R. McCoy, On the Intelligibility of Political Philosophy.

____. The Structure of Political Thought.

E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations.

____. The Ideology of Max Weber.

Thomas Molnar, Return to Philosophy.

____. Archetypes of Thought.

____. The Pagan Temptation.

____. Politics and the State: the Catholic View.

____. God and The Knowledge of Reality.

Thomas P. Neill, The Rise and Decline of Liberalism.

____. Makers of the Modern Mind.

____. Religion and Culture.

Gerhart Niemeyer, The Communist Ideology, Between Nothingness and Paradise.

____. Aftersight and Foresight.

Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays.

____. On Human Conduct.

____. The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Scepticism.

____. Hobbes on Civil Association.

____. What Is History?

____. The Vocabulary of a Modern European State.

Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language Abuse of Power.

____. For the Love of Wisdom.

____. In Defense of Philosophy.

____. The Four Cardinal Virtues.

Paul A. Rahe’s Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect.

Heinrich A. Rommen, The State in Catholic Thought.

____. The Natural Law.

James V. Schall, S.J., Roman Catholic Political Philosophy.

____. Christianity and Politics.

____. The Politics of Heaven and Hell: Christian Themes from Classical, Medieval, and Modern Political Philosophy.

____. Reason, Revelation, and the Foundations of Political Philosophy.

____. At the Limits of Political Philosophy: From the “Brilliant Errors” to the Things of Uncommon Importance.

____. The Mind That Is Catholic: Philosophical and Political Essays.

Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History.

____. On Tyranny.

____. Persecution and the Art of Writing.

____. Liberalism, Ancient and Modern.

____. Thoughts on Machiavelli.

____. What Is Political Philosophy?

____. The City and Man.

____. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes.

J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy.

____. The Myth of the Nation and the Vision of Revolution: The Origins of Ideological Polarisation in the Twentieth Century.

____. Political Messianism – the Romantic Phase.

Stephen Tonsor, Equality, Decadence, and Modernity.

Robert C. Tucker, The Marxian Revolution.

Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Christianity and Political Philosophy.

____. Being and Knowing.

____. Man’s Knowledge of Reality.

Bertram D. Wolfe, Marxism.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

____. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.