The greatest site in all the land!

Therapeutic State’s Inherent Evil versus Roman Catholic Faith

Therapeutic State’s Inherent Evil versus Roman Catholic Faith

By Joseph Andrew Settanni

“There is only one tragedy in the end, not to have been a saint.”  – Léon Bloy

With its virulent roots deep within the 20th century, the phenomenon known as the Therapeutic State has, unfortunately and logically, arisen in tandem with the Regulatory State, Administrative State, and Bureaucratic State into the 21st century.  In brief, it is a world without God, i. e., the secularist Utopia believed to exist in the contemporary world, though rarely and honestly called by that name, if ever.1

Elements of it include: Gestalt Theory, Freudian psychiatry, Jungian psychology, and other such means toward seeking to bring about a therapeutic attitude toward all of human life and allied relationships and interrelations thereof. It has, generation by thoughtless generation, become truly much more than just the medicalization of American and Western life.  Now, there is a therapy available for just about any or all human ailments, possibly real or, perhaps, if only merely imagined to be thought real or not.

The “Therapeutic State” is a phrase coined by Dr. Thomas Szasz in 1963.  It was the so quite naturally institutional-oriented collaboration between psychiatry and government that has resulted in to what Szasz had called the Therapeutic State.  This helped, in turn, lead to the normalization of statism and statist attitudes so generally prevalent in contemporary society and culture, for the ideology of statism favors greatly the often haughtily presumed normalcy of the (usually covert) insanity of the therapeutic attitude and cognate justifications thereof.

Reading may include: The Rise of the Therapeutic State by Andrew J. Polsky and The Therapeutic State: Justifying Government at Century’s End by James L. Nolan Jr., Counseling and the Therapeutic State by James L. Chriss; and, of course, The Therapeutic State by Thomas Szasz. Cognate reading would be: Jeffrey Schaler, ed., Szasz Under Fire: A Psychiatric Abolitionist Faces His Critics.

Philip Rieff, by 1987, called the situation and process “the triumph of the therapeutic” to so indicate its surely quite dominant pervasiveness for many societal and cultural perspectives as such.  For Roman Catholics, the theme to be pressed forward concerns the secularization of the State and how the lack of faith, the rise of a broadly based atheist humanism, has then corrupted human life and degraded human existence, though this is too often not recognized, if at all, by any dedicated secularists.

Examination of Glorified Secularism: Myth, Magic, and Superstition Galore

Since this topic is too enormous to be fully taken on here, this discussion will focus mainly upon how modern, urban, industrialized society deals with PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder.  Because millions no longer see their inherent dignity coming from being made in the image of God, the then secularized society and culture deals with effects or symptoms, not real causes of mental and emotional difficulties.  Connections between, e. g., the Welfare State and the Therapeutic State are definitely there but beyond the immediately selected scope of this particular discussion.2

Today, any public employee or most private employees would lose their jobs if they dared to denounce or, perhaps, possibly challenge the publicly acknowledged “sacredness” of the Therapeutic State and its dictatorial mandates.  Veterans, police officers, fire fighters, emergency care workers, and many other categories of personnel can be diagnosed with PTSD, which now covers even those veterans who may, in fact, not ever have been in combat, which fiercely denotes its incredibly pandemic nature.   Veterans and others are, for instance, given therapy dogs as life companions, if felt needed, to deal with such tragedy.

While, say, some 5% to a possible maximum of 10% of people may be that very terribly emotionally or psychologically afflicted; however, the remaining 90% to about 95% do then raise serious questions, to say the least.  When, e. g., back in 17th, 18th, and 19th century frontier America, meaning when wild savages could literally strike out of the forests at any moment, was life then much less filled with excessive real anxiety, trauma, danger, fretfulness, distress, strain, etc.?   Were there actually less severe and tragic traumas back then?  Probably not.

During the early Middle Ages or, say, when being a Christian under the Roman Empire meant more than a mere chance at bloody martyrdom, were these the “good old days” for the common folk having no actual care in the world? Besides such things as the Black Death, in some estimates, having wiped out at least about one third of Europe’s entire population, leaving dead bodies piling up quite discordantly no doubt, and eras of mass starvation in the world, were people then less prone to profound suffering at extreme levels?   Probably not.

But, unlike the people fixated by modernity and its secularist attitude, ancient, medieval, and those people not yet influenced by an abundance of modernity up to about the 20th century had, for the most part, a religious sense of life and reality.  Death and disaster, certainly more common even in so-called civilized societies of the past, were not without meaning.  For Christians, faith, hope, and charity were not wiped off the face of the earth in preference for purely therapeutic notions or, dare one say it (?), modernist superstitions.

In the premodern world and especially within Christendom, all of tragedy was placed, in a more natural manner, into an ever much wider perspective in terms of salvation. Christianity, moreover, offers such means of intimate and profound solace even at the worst of times, and Roman Catholicism has, of course, endured for over 2,000 years of human history and suffering, for the Gates of Hell have not prevailed against it and, moreover, St. Peter is still the Rock of Jesus the Christ.

There were no, back then, grand-scale existentialist, phenomenological, or positivist exercises to rob spiritual meaning from the lives of human beings, unlike the doings related to the advancement of modernity and, now, postmodernity in the world. Secularization has, thus, substituted PTSD as the terrene explanation for what earlier ages would have attributed to spiritual suffering by people unable to reconcile themselves intimately with the deep sorrow and grief, agonizing distress and anguish, due to the human condition.  But, they knew that salvation was in, by, and through Christ the Lord.

Fallen creatures living in a fallen world are necessarily subject to the dictates of their having been the existence of Original Sin and the ongoing consequences thereof of sin in this earthly place of suffering, torment, loss, frustration, deprivation, etc. Secularization normally blinds people to the harsh truth and, therefore, compounds human troubles by removing the ground of being from consideration, by seeking to abscond with the Supreme Being of all metaphysical order.  When God is removed from reality, the perception of what is real gets related to what is amenable to the therapeutic ideal, as is sanctioned by the secularist-humanist attitude toward life.

For the spiritual disorder of those suffering from PTSD cannot be addressed by secular therapies alone stressing the externalities of outer turmoil, meaning with no substantial regard for the inner reality of that person’s individual soul. Religion gets forcefully discounted and, thus, superstitiously ignored for the most part as a result of the humanist-materialist fixations upon therapeutic values, not the profound spiritual concerns of suffering human beings.3

Secularism made substantial advances by the dividing of Christendom by Protestantism, moreover, and its many baleful and continuing influences that did lead, eventually, to the ending of any real sense of Christendom after World War I. Martin Luther’s obnoxious denigration of human reason, e. g., led to the intensification of emotions and feelings as when guiding of many religious sentiments toward a spiritual individualism, for “the spirit” was felt to supposedly move people, not the disparaged reason of a man’s mind.  Emotionalism had largely replaced concern for dogmas, doctrines, and the formalities of institutional religion.

This absurd individualism of private judgment, wherein each man becomes his own pope, encouraged a desacralization of human life into separate compartments, favoring more and more secular societal and cultural attitudes.   PTSD has become, therefore, the bold acronym for the enjoyment of the dubious “blessings” of a highly secularized society and, thus, its truly decadent culture.  The insanely rabid kind of dreary compartmentalization, rationalization, routinization, and bureaucratization of societal and cultural efforts has, truly, encouraged the cult of victimization; millions, through the therapeutic dispensation, now want to seem special by being victims, including, of course, the victims of PTSD, ADHD, ADD, etc.

There are many severe consequences. They no longer have the good knowledge, capacity or, perhaps, willingness to see their dignity as children of God, made in the image of the Creator, as to their being, by definition, special beings, not random acts of mindless evolution.  Millions now see themselves as being the mere victims of evolution, though the Lord Almighty is actually the measure of all things.  As a result, various therapies exist to make people feel special, for they are doubly “blessed” in all becoming classed as among the victims that exist and who are, thus, formally recognized as such.

Any special relationship with the Lord God is, therefore, to be cut off through secularization, for the gospels of evolutionism, humanism, pragmatism, positivism, relativism, materialism, hedonism, and naturalism all teach people otherwise. They, these horrid modes of thought, are the highly abusive intellectualist underpinnings of the now rampant Therapeutic State, which is then cognitively armed with its integral rapacious demands made always upon human character and personality.

This is, therefore, to the nth degree of disgusting intolerance and possessiveness, ugly fanaticism and greediness for earthly power over the human heart, mind, and will.  The PTSD diagnosis, thus, deals with the mere effects of the suffering and never attempts to try to get to the real inner cause of the effects, which are, in fact, spiritually related.  But, it could not be logically otherwise.

Mental crutches are absurdly provided, usually for life, by various kinds of therapists who do thereby invidiously assist in preventing the needed wholeness that human beings seek, as they naturally may reach out for spiritual help for their immortal souls, not just their wounded psyches.  The therapeutic comprehension of human tragedy oddly and strangely “celebrates” and “commemorates” the nature of tragedy by trying to superficially cure symptoms, not the cause(s) of the intense suffering and agony.

Thus, the cause of secularization that creates the effects upon lost people thinking that they live in some sort of existentialist or phenomenological vacuum of a world lost to God, of an experiential mode lost to metaphysical order and its realm. What is needed here to be understood?   People in past ages, the vast majority, were able to much better cope with misfortunes and terrors because they were close to the Lord, not made increasingly distant from the Almighty due to the ever enervating, so grossly weakening, superstitions, myths, and magical formulations of an arrogant and very aggressive secularism, meaning pragmatism, evolutionism, naturalism, humanism, etc.

It is the secularly intentional deprivation of spiritual sustenance that has wrongly robbed millions of people of the requisite ability to properly seek healing from the divine source of all healing, all mercy, and all compassion, meaning God.   There can be no real substitute found in any supposed liberating therapeutics for, say, any PTSD in that the vast majority on average will remain, more or less, mental-psychological cripples their entire lives.

This will be with the growing need for drugs, psychiatric sessions, therapy dogs, and the ever available panoply, exemplary of myth, magic, and superstition, merely distracting them from turning to God for authentic solace and genuine salvation.  It is, thus, no real surprise that various forms of neopaganism has arisen among the Western populace, meaning as always much needed faith in the one true God has substantially decreased.

Many people suffer from what may be termed ISSS (invidious secular suffocation syndrome) that keeps them distanced from the Supreme Being, meaning as they pursue different or, sometimes, multiple therapies and/or drug treatments.  After all, it is known that, e. g., Sigmund Freud had, eventually, reached the secularist conclusion that all profound human problems could be solved by getting people on to narcotic drugs and, thus, simply maintaining them there during their lives, for he himself became a cocaine addict.

Freud, moreover, had to receive reconstructive surgery for the extreme damage he did to his nose from snorting the stuff, and people are to be amazed at his “virtue” of actually practicing what he preached?  It must be rightly and logically concluded, however, that there would be almost no cases of (supposed) PTSD if religion, once again, because the truly central and controlling aspects and reality of the lives of extremely distraught people.

What is needed, from the Christian point of view, is the reconciliation of the wounded hearts and minds with the souls of the people afflicted by seeing their salvation in Jesus Christ by forgiving and loving their enemies.   All things, all experiences of human suffering and trauma, are to be seen in, by, and through the reality of Christ for the lives of all people.

Unfortunately, most people do not know the difference between loving and liking; one is not required to like one’s enemy; many of the saints of the Church did not like each other but tried very hard to love each other for the love of God.  The often noted severity and presumed profundity of almost all traumas would be greatly minimized or, perhaps, eliminated, for the vast majority of the sufferers, if they would truly see the liberating light of the Lord in their lives.

For instance, Christian soldiers in combat ought to fight with the spirit of chivalry by hating the evil that the enemy represents, while trying to know that the love of God extends also to the enemy; of course, the opponents are to be killed when essential to saving one’s life or those of one’s comrades or civilians; and, this logically requires, at the least, the ability to dislike them reasonably enough to shoot at them to inflict death when needed.

But, with the unfortunate fading away of the beneficent fullness of Christianity and its implications and ramifications, today’s typical secularized soldier, firefighter, police office, etc. facing potential death and destruction is found unable to find the needed peace of Christ that properly enables the ever requisite reconciliation of mind, heart, and soul.   The secularization of society and culture mandates that millions will, therefore, necessarily remain with severe mental-psychological wounds making them cognitive and emotional cripples for their entire lives; this is because the therapies, inclusive of therapy dogs, are only equipped to deal merely with the surface effects and not the deep cause of the affliction to be found in the soul.

Secularity, thus, has its ongoing disastrous, surely terrible, and remorseless consequences, for there can then be only the extreme rarity, if ever, of true and final spiritual healing (through the possibly applied therapies), which is what is actually needed for achieving the wanted and loving wholeness within one’s soul.  The always greater and surer path toward such spiritual liberation is by rightly seeking Christ and His Kingdom first, not the vainglorious allures or alleged therapies of this world that are, in the end, only distractions.  Faith in Christ is primary, not the sorry illusions of the Therapeutic State certainly.

Secularization, though rarely admitted to these days, blinds people to the real need to seek spiritual wholeness; this is by which, in turn, mental and psychological peace and reconcilement can be obtained because the pursuit of holiness, not earthly personal exaltation, is what is properly required for better achieving spiritual wholeness, for overcoming traumas and their effects and affects.

The cure of mind and body from the excessive shock, stress, and strain of significant traumas must be concerned primarily with the condition of the person’s soul, not with value-neutral judgments-attitudes or relativistic opinions.  The therapeutic point of view, necessarily oriented toward secular “salvation,” is obsessed with the treating of mere symptoms that do then relate to a quite superficial understanding of and myopic view toward man’s precious humanity.

Therapies that do claim to be humanistic are, in actuality, mechanistic in approach more than would be ever admitted, of course. Man is also a spiritual animal, not just a creature of various appetites.  Secular society deals operationally and functionally with the primary manifestations of inward disorder in those pragmatic, positivist, and materialist terms of practical reference appropriate, of course, to a Godless perspective.

Secularity of outlook must ever tend toward a “logical” reductionism in thinking as a direct result. The results, predetermined as it were, then must deal oddly with symptoms, not causes, as when adults, as with war veterans, are bizarrely given the equivalent of a baby’s pacifier by being assigned a therapy dog.  What does this ridiculous situation really imply?  What is here the reprehensible scandal involved?

Neither spiritual maturity nor mental-emotional maturity are, thus, permitted to be obtained whenever the supplying of, in effect, four-footed pacifiers become poor substitutes for the realization of the need for genuinely seeking that true peace and inner comfort that, in fact, only Christ can give. Until then, only infantile attitudes get professionally encouraged and, moreover, intellectually supported, through these therapeutic gambits of sadly making presumably substantial social science paradigms, out of mere disguised infantility oddly denominated as being helpful therapy.

So, yes, this is what one strangely gets when so relying upon the secularist dictates of a degraded and degrading, decadent and depraved, societal and cultural reality sliding off, ultimately, toward nihilism that must lead, in its turn, to eventual insanity. This is to be perceived in the glorification and attempt at the assumed professionalization of modal cognitive infantility, as codified by certified professionals, who need, one suspects, to find appropriate places for themselves in lunatic asylums.  Instead, they have a completely unapologetic and shameless regard for what is being seriously or routinely offered as the modern treatments and therapies.

Of course, speaking of any of the above harsh truths among a congregation of professional therapists, psychiatrists, etc. would bring upon the supposed “heretic” massive amounts of denunciations, scorn, derision, and personal vilification, as being just an ignorant, heartless, vile, and inhumane cynic.  It is supposed to be much more humane and caring, humanitarian and considerate, to help keep people as, perhaps, permanently being mental and/or emotional cripples for their entire lives if needed, rather than for them to leave Plato’s Cave to gloriously seek the real world.

And, as for Christians, to find their much needed salvation by achieving spiritual wholeness, ethical and moral completeness, for their souls through, by, and with Christ.  Dedicated humanists and atheist-naturalists, however, have only their supposedly sophisticated contempt and definite disdain for such blatant nonsense.  This all terribly assists, unfortunately, in maintaining and supporting the prevalent therapeutic mentality that upholds the ugly fanaticism usually so encountered; this is whenever the demands and superstitions of the Therapeutic State are properly and righteously questioned and confronted by an educated, concerned, knowledgeable, and compassionate opposition.

Insane Abolition of the Human Condition

Contrary to the quite worldly ways of the majority, there is a decided difference, markedly so, between vain aspirations to live as a successful, well-adjusted secularist and, on the other hand, striving mightily for the needed holiness of a confirmed Christian life. The two widely different choices are, therefore, both inherently incommensurate and indicatively incompatible goals, to say the least.

Upon critical analysis, what is going on consists of the abnormal desire to normalize insanity through various euphemisms. Pain, suffering, anguish, loss, deprivation, shock, etc. used to be considered parts of just normal human life; Moreover, the reading of history so easily demonstrates that, e. g., war, not peace, is much closer to the true norm of things and reality.

So, what is really going on here in deceitful terms of the Therapeutic State and its often unmentioned intentions?  It is, in reiteration, when honestly observed, the quite vainly attempted normalization of insanity to then supposedly remove all social and psychological stigmas attached to it, by this highly absurd effort, to, thus, do the impossible on earth.

Of course, to the now amassed professional armies of ardent defenders of ADHD, PTSD, ADD, etc., these words sound deliberately offensive, harshly impolite, necessarily discordant, and, in all honesty, even very nasty. Yes, the truth hurts.  For if it was not the truth, then people could just, perhaps, shrug all their collective shoulders and then say, so what? If what has been asserted were, in fact, not the truth, there would be no negative reaction from social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, etc. who do vigorously adhere to the therapeutic creed or faith adamantly affirmed by modernity in thought.

In the very early 13th Century, Pope Innocent III wrote his On the Misery of the Human Condition to so dramatically help highlight the sadness, corruption, sinfulness, and frailties of such mortal creatures.  The Therapeutic State, in sharp opposition, wishes emphatically to deny the existence, the reality, of the human condition, which covers fits of insanity, mental/emotional derangement, and plain insanity itself, of course.  Any other view, naturally speaking, simply presents an unreal world that would be inhabited by many equally fictional people; but, Catholicism offers an alternative and opposite vision of life.

Supporters of PTSD and related matters seek an exemption or an odd reprieve or, perhaps, a supposed remediation of the human condition, which, this side of death, is still just impossible to ever achieve on earth; the condition of humanity is, therefore, fully coincident and congruent with human nature itself, not foreign to it nor can it become alienable through therapeutic superstition or magic; this is, usually, backed up by  the mythic structuralizations of a pseudo-reality conjured into existence by the “priests” of modernity or, now, postmodernity.

Because it really does need to be constantly repeated, as if it is just a mantra, human beings are fallen creatures living in a fallen world; and, consequently, the tremendously idyllic conditions of the Garden of Eden, regardless of all utopian/collectivist attempts made to the contrary, cannot be ever brought back into being in this sorry world.  The human condition, in reiteration, is an absolutely definitive and inescapable reality naturally pertaining to what actual human nature is all about on this terrestrial globe; it is, in truth, entirely unavoidable.  What are, however, the rather necessary implications involved?

This then means, logically, any effort to fruitlessly, uselessly, try to ever to find any supposed real exemptions from man’s obviously innate humanity becomes, by definition, insane. The final project of modernity, which has been sadly carried now into most of postmodernity, is always the so ludicrous attempt to somehow or other normalize insanity for achieving the reification of human nature against the will of God.

Consequently, the heresy of immanentism, backed by philosophical nominalism, manifestly so resides within the demonic aspiration for achieving Utopia on earth, even when millions of people must be terribly sacrificed on the bloody altar of Moloch (by whatever euphemism). Though unrecognized and, of course, unacknowledged as such, (professional) therapeutic support for PTSD, etc. is, therefore, directly related to this Satanic lust for normalizing insanity for the, thus, cognate degradation of man’s humanity, of course.

Where this architectonic concern for glorified emotionalism and the rather intensive cultivation of sensitivities leads can be perceived right empirically; this is in how the college and university campuses are generously overfilled with too many precious snowflakes, emotionally overcharged and intellectually undereducated students, who wish to overtly manifest symptoms of infantilism.  It is really no joke or exaggeration on how such things as coloring books, which have advanced forth for today’s increasing adult use, and play dough have actually gotten distributed to the young adults who wish to escape the urgent demands of mature adulthood, of course.

It is extremely frightening to consider that most of these oh-so-tender snowflakes, graduating from the elite, Ivy League universities no less, are sincerely being groomed prepped become many of the future major leaders and shakers of America and, by extension, the Western world.  There is no rational doubt, moreover, that PTSD diagnoses will then inevitably be extended, one knows, to these notable hapless idiots, schooled pantywastes and wastrels, who are seen as functionally incapable of reaching any truly meaningful mental adulthood.  Many, of course, have been assigned therapy dogs to sooth their nerves.

And, of course, their highly pathetic protests and enervatively emotive gripes, very childish petulant screaming and obnoxious crying, are simply just expected to be taken both seriously and respectfully. What is needed by them will, unfortunately, never occur: a good, vigorous, and decisive spanking of each and every one of these spoiled-rotten children, most of whom are so certainly children of privilege, taking up academic space, at the Ivy League level.  For this is the way it must be, meaning as long as religion and informative traditional theology remains foreign to the actual realities of the secularized campus.

Since the time, generations ago, when William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote his revealing God and Man at Yale, it is so easily known that conditions there and elsewhere have now definitely become, at a bare minimum, many times worse.   When Buckley wrote it, there was, at least, the semblance of the veneer or façade of some Christianity that could so, perhaps, plausibly claim still a fair linkage to some broadly Christian aspirations, more or less.

Today, the brutal victory of secularism in academia, minus the yet overtly religious institutions that are in the distinct minority, is readily evident beyond the need to supposedly document the too obvious fact asserted confidently here.  Of course, suitable to the bigotry of the enforced conformity to be found, no therapies or counseling sessions are to be found for those assumed miscreants who may object to the secularization.  And, further in this specific context and regard, the suspicion arises naturally as to why there is no PTSD diagnosis to be discovered for those who do suffer the agonies of secular society and culture.

In this case, as G. K. Chesterton might have ironically remarked, they won’t even do them the mere assumed courtesy of sending any of them to the canine therapists. What has now happened to human beings?   Modernity has sought to increasingly anesthetize and cushion mankind from what used to be the basic reality of people normally experiencing the profoundest depths of suffering, shock, and trauma that do define the sad human condition.   It is fundamentally inconceivable, therefore, that, for instance, any of the metromen snowflakes would be eagerly prepared to volunteer themselves for any present or future American wars/foreign conflicts.   (God forbid that any military draft be reinstituted!)

Such tremendous hardships and mind-shattering horrors to be found upon typical battlefields are to be kept far away from these pathetic specimens, precious pansies, who do faint at the mere thought of any severe adversity. People who absolutely cannot tolerate any ideological viewpoints contrary to their own are not likely to willingly endure the much greater and graver impacts of life’s so truly deeper and important traumas, which surely bodes ill for America in particular and the Western world in general.  They are, no doubt at all, the true children of the Therapeutic State.

Reflecting seriously upon such troubling thoughts does not aid, to put matters here rather mildly, in the encouragement of optimism; appropriately contrary judgments, however, would fairly seem much more realistic and, thus, justifiably applicable for proper rational and reasoned consideration.  Academia, in its mainstream reality or plain manifestation, will be usually turning out emotional retardates and psychological misfits basically incapable of any sustained or, perhaps, truly sustainable adult maturation process to be seen in their lives.  And, they are mainly people without any theological training and religious hope for their then degenerate and, typically, meaningless lives.

This should be perceived, furthermore, as being both a societal and cultural horror of a definitely serious magnitude, at the least, with so shuddering implications and abominable ramifications for civilization’s merely basic requisite maintenance as such.  An at least partial generational disaster is now manifestly looming, on the immediate horizon, as millions of these pitifully wretched creatures get themselves poured out of the institutions of the higher learning and, thence, into the larger society.

Not nearly enough kindergarten cribs, coloring books, and nicely soothing toys are yet available to handle their predetermined disappointment with the many annoying and uncomfortable hardships and sufferings of just normal adult life.  Oh, Captain Kangaroo, where are you when we need you?

It is not realized that, contrary to the shallow beliefs of pragmatists, humanists, and positivists, that societal and cultural secularization freely allows for the true weakening of human minds and wills, especially through sinfulness and its operation; for as Chesterton had so sagaciously noted, moreover, once people cease believing in God they are made susceptible to believe in anything, including myth, magic, and superstition galore.

One can come to realize, especially through (orthodox) Roman Catholic theology and its religion, that the epitome of the therapeuticized infantilisation of thought can be vividly seen in the absurd effort to irradiate and extirpate all evil from the world, meaning under the demonic auspices of the secularist Therapeutic State.   But, it is definitionally impossible for, in effect, Satan to make war upon Satan, so this version of social-welfare statism can, in fact, never deliver what it supposedly promises to its many “true believers” and “fellow travelers.”

Admittedly, they would completely deny, however, the truth of this aforementioned assertion as to their ultimate but covert goal behind the demonic spreading of their many superstitions, myths, and vainglorious efforts at magical conjuring through skillful usage of psychotherapeutic terminology.  The Devil, as with, e. g., the legions of therapists allied to the Therapeutic State, always claims to be doing good, for they do mightily resent being questioned as to the positive intentions ever asseverated.


Meanwhile, among the certainly very best that can be somehow or other “magnanimously” done by the seemingly dedicated secularist society is to just keep handing out more and more trained therapy dogs.   And, this is what gets so absurdly and strangely called modern compassion, professional concern, and informed understanding for the nation’s highly honored veterans no less – send them all to the dogs!

The point being that a genuinely good society and a frankly good culture, dedicated forthrightly to the advancement of the sincerely best qualities of humanity, ought to truly do much better and, moreover, as both history and Christianity actually teaches can, in fact, do much better.

By providing the necessary means of spiritual salvation, especially as seen through orthodox Roman Catholicism, Christianity offers the proven and time-tested alternative to the furious fanaticism and mendacious methodologies meanly proffered by the Therapeutic State and its many misdirected minions.  In short, the human condition, as was above noted earlier, cannot ever, in fact, be abolished; and, the assigning of doggy companions, for suffering people, is not the same as seeking the genuine spiritual healing of souls.

One ought to correctly and rightly see, therefore, by all that has been carefully discussed previously, that the ever proverbial road to the Infernal Regions is yet notably paved with supposed benevolent intentions on the part of the secularist-humanist therapists and their (too) many naturally allied legions of supporters and believers.  For truly, one ought to religiously see that only Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, not the delusional Therapeutic State.


Athanasius contra mundum!




  2. Ramifications of the greatly perverse thinking of the Therapeutic State can be easily seen, these days, almost everywhere, inclusive of popular culture, of course, as with many contemporary movies. A movie, e. g., entitled The Blind Side ought, if decent truth be told, to have been much better titled: “The Celebration of the Saga of Self-inflicted Pain.”

The Blind Side is a film that is supremely perfect for depicting the stereotype of bleeding-heart, White Liberals seeking to do Christian “missionary work” among the local “heathen” Black people.  It is the poignant true story of a mentally retarded, African-American, high school football player who was so solicitously “redeemed” by a White, upper-class family.  All righteous sympathies are directed, by this film, toward the self-inflicted pain of the depicted drug-addict, unmarried mother of the football player; this is by which his family, meaning dysfunctional, lower-class, family life, gets involved in the entire saga centering on his, no doubt, clearly unfortunate early life.  But, that is not the point in dispute.

Of course, in fairness, there is no denying that actual human suffering and misfortune has been, in fact, definitely involved in this both admittedly horrendous and presented situation. But, the former ghetto resident, the athlete, is redeemed by being made a part of the missionary family, by which there is seen the triumph of hope against tragedy.  But, this is, nonetheless, ultimately all false.  As Léon Bloy rightly said, “There is only one tragedy in the end, not to have been a saint.”

The mother had over a dozen children, by a number of indifferent fathers, who left for parts unknown, of which this particular son had been born with mental limitations; it was, however, made a minimal handicap by his having quite substantial athletic prowess to become a remarkable, champion, collegiate football player to his, of course, undeniable credit. This cloying and unctuous cinematic production, however, toward the very end, depicts the telling of the tale of another Black man whose life was cut short, for he had not been as fortunate to have received redemption.

The impression is left with the viewers that if only there existed a much better Welfare State, then these tragedies could be avoided. No thought is given to the rather important fact that it is the Welfare State itself that inherently creates these terrible calamities, by sustaining and enabling a sadly dependent and warped Black subculture, called the inner-city ghetto. Q. E. D.

3.    Admittedly, for instance, mental disorder versus actual demonic possession is to be most carefully discerned by knowledgeable, holy, and skilled priests. Some matters that logically and reasonably point toward there being rather definite mental, physiological, and psychological ailments not amenable to religious help and counseling, even to the extent, when needed, of outright exorcism do, in fact, exist.

The directive discussion in this article covers, however, the vast majority of cases that would be properly assisted toward cures, when the spiritual dimension of human beings, the existence of immortal souls, is both freely and openly acknowledged as being, in fact, true. And, this is precisely what, in point of fact, the mainly predominant thrust, justification, and logic of the Therapeutic State denies, categorically and axiomatically, as to such an asseverated veracity.  Thus, the Therapeutic State must ever be thoroughly denounced and totally rejected in the name of (orthodox) Roman Catholicism.  Why?

The seeming paradox exists of what may be called the cruelty of kindness and the kindness of cruelty. With the exception of the criminally insane, almost no one, these days, really wants to put people into institutions for the mentally ill, mentally disturbed.  It is thought to be much more humane for them to, if necessary, wander the streets endlessly until they are found dead someday due to their own neglect, not that due to any institutional harm being possibly inflicted.

Thus, a maggot-filled corpse found in a public gutter is supposed, one guesses, to be greatly preferable and more humane than having any maggot-filled dead body found inside an institution for the insane or mentally impaired. The latter tends to get the added publicity and concern, heartfelt sympathy, and righteous outrage and allied indignation, the former usually gets, in typical comparison, only the shrug of any occasional shoulder.  Thus, there is the shocking cruelty of kindness and the kindness of cruelty exhibited by human beings toward their fellow (and suffering) creatures.

Nonetheless, an axiomatically anti-institutional bias normally is quite praised for being so very sophisticated, enlightened, humanitarian, concerned, and, of course, entirely humane in its, thus, public or empirical solicitation and supposedly genuine regard for people qua human beings.  But, is it?   Is it really so?  It would be significantly better, on average, for a new Christendom to have as one of its tasks the care of these unfortunate people, for they are still validly among the children of God.


Full Gospel Christianity Isn’t Real

Full Gospel Christianity Isn’t Real: The Roman Catholic Perspective

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

Yes, the four Gospels are from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.   No, the actual entirety of the true fullness of the Gospel, the Good News, goes considerably well beyond just Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  How is this to be known?   There is a limitedness, a circumscription, to Holy Scripture, which will be expatiated and elucidated upon, in this article, critically questioning the so-called Reformed Religion.

Moreover, any Sola Fide religion based upon Sola Scriptura can only, by its very restricted nature, offer up a merely partial Gospel that, by definition, can never really be the full Gospel of Christ.  The logic and reasoning to be presented is absolutely impeccable and, as such, irrefutable as to the set definitional reality.  Neither faith nor reason, therefore, should be seen in isolation of each other.

In historical fact, there was the existence of full Christianity, which Catholics can so freely refer to as Catholicism, prior to the official codification of those selected scriptures that, later, became the New Testament. Reason knows this to be a fact.

The Roman Catholic Church, therefore, had helped to create, define, protect, and preserve the Christian Bible, through St. Jerome and other efforts, for many centuries, meaning well prior to the later modern rise of Protestantism. But, the careful exegesis to be given here, however, requires a profundity of both thought and reflection, cognition and discernment, for the better informing of Christian faith.

It is, thus, a consequent and staggering fact that any so-called Reformed Religion presents only a very deformed, reduced, or partial Gospel at best, a weirdly “Christianistic” parody at worst. The full Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is, thus, always far greater than the Bible and existed, in fact, before the New Testament was finally all written down for the future reading of it, which notable point ought to set intelligent Protestants to thinking.

Inadequacy of Mere Scripture Exposed

As a result, e. g., any Protestant denomination billing itself as a “full Gospel Church” is, by definition, just a plain fraud. Only Catholicism contains the fullness of the Gospel, because it is theologically framed within the greater context of Holy Tradition and Holy Magisterium, the full wholeness of Sancta Mater Ecclesia.

For clarification, this brief article is directed toward those who hate Catholicism and, usually, claim it to be unscriptural or antiscriptural, though at each and every Catholic Mass, Holy Scripture, both Old and New Testament, gets freely cited. What is to be here plainly confronted goes by the detested names of bias, bigotry, prejudice, and, if truth be told, much sheer stupidity backed firmly by a tutored ignorance, as St. Thomas More, martyred by the Protestants, would have so surely agreed.

Before the consolidation of Christian writings into suitably readable texts, what had to exist was Church ad its ecclesial tradition, inclusive of the important oral tradition. With the various ancient Roman persecutions that included the many burnings of these scriptures when found by the authorities, the oral tradition yet ensured that the sacred knowledge would not be ever completely lost.

Prior to the changes of modernity, with its seemingly endless supply of books and other publications and communicational abilities, people were, routinely, expected to have really good or great memories for retaining vast quantities of knowledge.

This is clearly why, among other reasons, the Catholic Church properly recognizes Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Sacred Magisterium, the last being the holy teaching office, authority, and power of Holy Mother Church. And, one manifestly sees why, logically, that the requisite fullness or completeness of the Gospel does not ever historically exist with nor did simply begin, supposedly, with Protestantism.

In short, the highly important historical reality of Christianity did not just begin in the early 16th century, in Europe, for the much greater the knowledge of Church history gained, the greater, thus, becomes the obvious case for Catholicism and acceptance of it.

The direct contrary is, however, evidently true. Through several centuries, inclusive of many harsh times involving extreme persecution of the faithful and the wide proscription of Christian texts, it was up to the Sacred Tradition and Magisterium to necessarily fill in the created gaps and carry on the missionary proclamation of the totality of the Gospel.  The Bible alone was not enough.  And, more importantly, the vast bulk of Protestants do not intelligently understand or comprehend that any such overconcentration upon the Bible would have then greatly retarded and made much more enormously difficult the wanted spread of Christianity, of Catholicism.

Only a fool, therefore, would ever asininely assert that all that Jesus ever did or said is contained in the four Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not able, being mere human beings, to write down everything actually pertaining to the life on earth of the Christ, of the Savior. Human imperfection so requires that a “Trinitarian” solution be provided for this inherent problem; thus, Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium all come together and contribute to the larger process of always better ensuring that the truly full and universal Gospel can, hence, be really preached to the entire world.

While it admittedly took the labors of thousands of monks, priests, and scribes throughout the early, intermediate, and later Middle Ages, the composition, writing, of Bibles was only a part of the great effort regarding the needed transmission of Catholicism, generation by generation.   And yet, at best, each Gospel by the four Evangelists is only a kind of attempted synopsis, not any absolute compendium, of all of what Christ communicated to the people of that era or of all the actions that he committed.

It simply would not have been possible to actually record everything. There is a good reason why, for instance, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are, in fact, referred to as the Synoptic Gospels.

The overt witness of St. John, in the last lines of Chapter 21 and closing his Gospel, makes the so surely notable point, “This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” To which, it must be logically said: Amen!

The above citation, rendered by St. John himself remember, is a rather explicit acknowledgement that what exists, in addition, as the New Testament is so woefully incomplete, terribly inadequate, as justly being the right wholeness of the true Gospel message presented to the whole world at large, to all Christians in particular; that most salient fact, moreover, forever invalidates Protestantism’s (false) claim to giving out with a full Gospel, meaning with its myopic regard for the Bible only as the (limited) word of God.

In point of obvious fact, the Lord’s word is absolutely unlimited, it must then, by definition, go always beyond the New Testament, beyond the whole Bible; it is seen best fulfilled in the Roman Catholic Church and its confession of the Truth; the Truth being that it is the only Church really founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, which all the Reformed Religion ignorant followers, liars, and hypocrites do, thus, vehemently deny to the peril of their immortal souls’ salvation.

It is a fair certainty, of course, that the Acts of the Apostles simply does not contain all and everything done by all of the Apostles in the time of the early Church. Thus, again, the need for both Tradition and Magisterium to requisitely provide much useful and pertinent coverage for what otherwise might have very well been lacking, in the rather myopic (read: Protestant) provision, for having only Scripture alone.  Of course, whenever Scripture is turned against the Reformed Religionists, then, suddenly do develop an aversion for it because it may not conform to their own highly selective Sola Scriptura prejudices and preferences.

Will they then think it quite so expedient to, in effect, silence the Gospel of St. John for the sake of their heretical beliefs?  After all, it is not historically unprecedented, for it is known that Martin Luther had once preferred to expunge the entire Book of St. James because it did not, in fact, conform to the heterodox Protestant demand for Sola Fide belief as the Reformed Religion’s orthodox.  This supremely proves, once again, how every heresy, with degrees of urgency, seeks to become its own orthodoxy, sooner or later, as one may both independently and easily witness the empirically observed phenomenon of Protestant denominationalism, of Reformed factionalism.

As Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, a convert from Protestantism, noticed, the more one knows the history of the Church, especially in depth about ancient and medieval times, the more it becomes quite impossible, reasonably untenable, to just absurdly remain a Protestant, for the dramatic logic of becoming a Catholic becomes, then, so greatly compelling. Getting at the true fullness and magnitude of meaning of the Gospel requires having a historical mindset that duly recognizes the significance and critical nature of having a respect for Tradition and Magisterium, not just a singular overconcentration upon Holy Scripture alone.

Prior to the neat regularization and uniformity that officially descended upon the Church by having, at last, a written presentation of what ended up being the Holy Bible, with both the Old Testament and New Testament, there was only, in fact, the spoken word-of-mouth and the existence of the Church as founded by Christ. Out of empirical and historical necessity, the three main pillars of the Church, of the Faith, became Tradition (God the Father), Scripture (God the Son), and Magisterium (God the Holy Ghost), with all three properly confirming each other and, in addition, none contradicting the other two.

Therefore, the true sum of all three exists as being ever greater than a mere composite structure, where the whole is, indeed, of much more consequence than the mere sum of the individual parts, for the full Godhead, explicitly, witnesses to the important truth known as the Trinitarian Dogma.  What had truly happened was due to the rampant nominalism of Protestantism with its vilely inherent reductionism, which produced an endless number of sects, sub-sects, and cults apparently without an end, which is a scandal of Christianity, as well as of just basic logic itself.

The Gospel, as to the true fullness of the Gospel message, got reduced or limited to the Holy Scriptures and variegated interpretations that all could not be consistent but had to, sooner or later, conflict. This necessarily points directly to the ever expanding denominationalism of Protestantism, for heresy itself is fruitful of ever more heresies, as error spawns further errors.

The completion of the Gospel concerns how it has been properly supplemented by Church Tradition and Church Magisterium; this is why all of Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, Mormonism, Unitarianism, etc. can only yield a partial Gospel or sense thereof, not the entirety, the wholeness, of the Gospel truth. One can come to the practical realization that, for instance, the Lutheran Church was, actually, founded by Martin Luther, of course, not by Jesus Christ.  The same can be exactly said for Calvinism, etc.

All these different denominations had, in fact, various different founders, though all impossibly claim to be the one true Church of Christ, which is simply illogical at best, scandalous at worst.

But, regardless of all these false claimants, there is still only the one Roman Catholic Church that has physical proof (St. Peter’s bones, etc.) in Rome, theological justification (the Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome, etc.) and tremendously much else besides to vindicate the truth, the Catholic truth.  The 11th century schism of the Greek Orthodox Church does not at all lessen the claim to absolute validity, since it took the obvious prior existence of Rome for there being something to, thus, break away from in the first place.

The Petrine Doctrine, the Rock of St. Peter, remains fully with Catholicism, not otherwise. For if it were otherwise, then Jesus Christ was just a mere churlish and contemptuous liar, which, obviously, HE is not, in His being the Son of God no less.

“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I shall build my Church.” Jesus said nothing about multiple churches (the scandal of Protestantism) founded upon multiple rocks or even pebbles for that matter, though all Protestants, willfully, do still insist otherwise, contrary directly to Holy Scripture no less.  Of course, they often go through incredible feats of odd biblical exegeses that torture logic so violently, to sophistically deny the very Primacy of St. Peter, as to make even a hardened Jesuit blush at the “Jesuitical reasoning,” so quite amazingly applied – one guesses it – by tendentious Protestant apologists.

Innumerable converts from Protestantism, over many centuries, including St. Edmund Campion, John Dryden, Orestes A. Brownson, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, Mother Mary Alphonsa, G. K. Chesterton, Msgr. Ronald Knox, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, Malcolm Muggeridge, Mortimer J. Adler, St. Edith Stein, etc., among many others, had freely recognized the truth and then totally agreed with it; the logic, reasoning, and rationality of the Catholic faith have, moreover, been overwhelming in their impact upon unprejudiced minds.

Nonetheless, the holy words of Jesus must be ever sincerely repeated to Protestants and all others who wrongfully and bigotedly continue to reject and deny the Truth of the full Gospel: “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I shall build my Church.” Against each and every Reformed Religion lie this ought to be, must be ever, fearlessly and endlessly reiterated for upholding Holy Scripture, if for no other reason.  Furthermore, the sanctity of biblical truth must, then, be defended against Protestantism and all of its errors because Christ is not a liar.

The Protestant, thus, openly defames, slanders and denigrates Jesus.  If the Rock is, in fact, not the Big Fisherman, then all the other holy words in the New Testament can be also questioned and doubted, by asserting the validity of a single lie, supposedly uttered by the Savior.  This is not rationally tenable.

The Reformed Religion followers commit the old “onion fallacy” of trying to vigorously strip away, as the Puritans had claimed to radically purify Christianity, by supposedly then getting at the real onion.  The ridiculous claim is that if only all the excesses, excrescences, appendages, or such other alleged things are simply removed for, thus, attaining religious or theological purity, then there will be seen a pristine Christianity revealed in a heavenly new light.  Such attempted or asserted perfectionism, however, is not of this world filled with fallen (sinful) creatures in a fallen world.

Such utter nonsense pouring forth by revolutionary doctrines attacking the Body and Blood of Christ is an obscenity before God and His Holy Church. They repudiate the Papacy, the history of the Church, if or when it includes Catholicism; and needed veneration (not worship) of the Blessed Virgin Mary; often times, the panoply of saints, Purgatory, all, most, or some sacraments, etc. But, this ardent stripping away of all or most things Catholic is, of course, the same kind of bold reductionism and radicalism analogously seen in Liberalism and Leftism.

Revolutionism is political-ideological Protestantism, for both these quite virulent aspects of modernity triumphant do, thus, attain the fundamental essence of the revolt set against proper order, hierarchy, authority, tradition, custom, and, ultimately, upon undergoing a clear and cogent analysis, God Himself.

As there are degrees of reductionism to be found, so, also, there are many degrees of Protestantism or, perhaps, more appropriate to speak of a Protestantization being involved; this ranges, of course, all the way from High Church Anglicanism through Methodism to Puritanism and onward toward Unitarianism, Universalism, and Quakerism, all along the further and further radicalization spectrum of the well noted reductionism concerned with such nonsense.

They piously refuse to recognize the logical truth that the entire onion, not any absurdly stripped down version thereof, is the full object and aspect of any truly good Christian’s desire and devotion, namely, the Roman Catholic Church.

But, Protestants, being ingrained in their hypocrisy, deny the manifest literalness of what was said and is meant, while, in contradistinction, often affirming that literalness is demanded of the Bible, especially in those places of their own choosing, of course. And, as ever, it is publicly so known that a multiplicity of Reformed Religion believers, with their religious revolutionary notions, can certainly cite a multiplicity of interpretations of Holy Scripture, at their merely beckoned command.

What an objective person would clearly recognize as subjectivism and relativism at work, however, gets usually denominated as inspired Christian interpretation or, perhaps, an exegesis done “in the spirit.”

However, Catholics must righteously defend the unadulterated Word of God that ought never to be made vilely subject to the idolatry, though usually covert, of a convenient tergiversation to so better uphold Protestant apologetics because of its inherent nominalism. One can understand, by now, that only Catholicism, because it fully witnesses to the aforementioned and demonstrated reality of the Holy Scriptures, contains the blessedness and fullness of the Gospel, of the truthful message of the salvation of souls in, by, and through Christ the Lord.

Someday, it may be hoped that millions of Protestants will cease to be idolaters; for it is no wonder that, e. g., the Puritans had greatly idolized the Hebrews who, as to the Jewish descendants, had fully rejected Jesus as the Christ; the Hebraicism of the Puritans should, thus, be obvious in their concentration upon the Bible. They too wanted to be a people of the Book, as in the City on a Hill.

As with all “Reformed Religion,” in general, these believers have made the worship, their devotion to Biblicism, greater than God, which is, by definition, idolatry.  Equally, the reductionism involved in Protestant thought is too often simply unrecognized because of the nominalism so naturally and pragmatically inherent within Protestantism, within heresy.

To truly be a genuine Protestant is, therefore, to be an actual idolater, for there is no middle ground, as with the pompous Anglicans, thinking of themselves as the via media. As the Lord God rightly detests idolatry, so He must, logically and completely, also abhor and definitely then reject all of Protestantism, which ought to be so manifestly obvious, meaning as to the authentic truth, the full Gospel, of what can be actually known as such.  The situation that exists is simply not wrong; it is entirely ludicrous.

A so-called Bible-centered “Christianity” must, necessarily, become obsessively fixated upon a clearly myopic theology that must, in its turn, strenuously seek to self-justify itself by, thus, reducing all to the Sola Fide requirement incestuously demanded by the Sola Scriptura (supposed) mandate.  Heterodoxy, unsurprisingly, has easily found fertile ground, for when the only primary tool (the Bible) exists as the hammer of God, all the other objects then begin to look like nails.  As Richard Weaver correctly pointed out long ago, therefore, ideas do have consequences.

Because of Reformed Religion’s integral reductionism, its attendant nominalism cannot really tolerate any genuine orthodoxy within the radical theology and, as a so direct logical consequence, the many resultant religions, all of them, piously or routinely, are claiming the overtly presented purity of being Christianity. Fallacies do build upon fallacies when the logic gets corrupted to serve a highly flawed kind of reasoning, which, of course, gets called Protestantism and in all of its many variations thereof.   It lacks, by definition, the Catholic fullness of combining Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and Holy Magisterium, kept all together.

What is, therefore, the here absolutely inherent problem in successfully practicing a cogent logic and reasoning?   The many reformed religionists must be able, in effect, to (supposedly) believe something and its very opposite to be true at one and the same time, same instant.  But, to all such rather blatant nonsense, Catholics would rationally have to say to all these sorrowfully deluded Protestants: Get real! 1

The Protestant Revolution, called the Reformation, helped to vilely destroy the only historically real time of the existence of and true meaning of ecumenism when there once existed, in the Medieval Era, the ecumenical reality of Christendom. This is no insignificant fact.  It was not, of course, any perfection on earth, it was, however, a true Catholic community of interest, a koinos kosmos (the sense of a shared humanity of culture).

The enormous lack of there being Christendom, let there be no rational doubt, led to many aggressive nationalisms, the rapacity of State Capitalism, formation of atheistic ideologies, both World War I and World War II, the rise of a belligerent secularist modernity, and the pandemic Culture of Death.

Moreover, the horrid and definite stepchild of Protestant culture became Liberalism with the ongoing advancement of the spreading secularization that, logically, had accompanied the Protestantization of most of Western civilization. Pragmatism, positivism, relativism, materialism, and hedonism advanced under fabulously shining and bright banners wildly proclaiming freedom and liberation from the past, meaning, of course, deliverance from the Roman Catholic Church.  A revolutionary spirit, iconoclastic to its core, was violently let loose upon the world that wished to uproot and destroy the existing order.

The Protestant Revolution led to the murders of millions of human beings; the French, Soviet, Chinese, and other Leftist revolutions had consumed well over 100,000,000 lives and still counting, with Cuba, Venezuela, and elsewhere still forwarding the evil Communist agenda of endless hate, bloodshed, and malice.

The above noted absence of Christendom, of a Roman Catholic ecumenical world-society, is not merely solely unfortunate or, as often denounced, just simply nostalgic for medievalism; it is absolutely tragic, beyond any question, in its surely monumental meaning and solid significance, beyond mere human imagination, which is, really, only a most minimal statement of fact.  The unfortunately permanent dividing of the former Christian commonwealth into fractious and still multiplying denominations has greatly helped to spread immorality, relativism, and hedonism leading, first, to nihilism and, finally, insanity itself set well into the 21st century.

Rationalization and Streamlining of Religion

When one fully appreciates the amount of blood spilled, in just the past 20th century alone, the total lack of any real ecumenism that would have had the force of Christendom reveals the profound depth of the errors of Protestantism in its always vain quest for the absolute supremacy of Sola Scriptura.   Ideas have consequences.

Vile attacks upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, by Protestants, has not helped the situation.2   Moreover, the scandalous existence, the ongoing denominationalist obsession, of the terrible Protestant worldview, its horrid Zeitgeist, has had its results, its demonic favoring of an anti-Christendom attitude that had surely encouraged secularization.

The “Bible or burn” approach to human reality, world-historical reality, has had its many so massively shocking and lamentable costs, which could not be, in fact, religiously compatible with the theological message of the Christian peace favored by Gospel truth.   Until all Protestants realize this rather obvious verity, there can be no real and actually substantive and substantial ecumenism anywhere on this face of this sad earth, for it would mean the needed and requisite affirmation for and righteous recognition of a new Christendom in the world.

And, the ugly and abominable heresy of Sola Fide would be, therefore, utterly rejected as a terrible lie, a reprehensible falsehood, truly offensive to the Lord God Almighty because such a limited Gospel, the Reformed Religion, is not Christian nor exemplary of any genuine Christianity.  For if it were Christian, it would not seek to offend the Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by denying transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist of the Holy Roman Catholic Faith.  Q. E. D.

For the Morning Star of the Reformation, Martin Luther, with his vilely barbaric contempt for human reason, totally rejected one of the brilliant fundamental elements of advanced Western civilization by his spurning of Hellenization and its validity; even Desiderius Erasmus, among the main leaders of the New Learning as it was called, had been able to easily recognize a confirmed barbarian when he saw one.

This bold attack upon all rationality, which ought not to be confused with the ideology of Rationalism, twisted and deformed most of Western reasoning, cognition, for centuries thereafter; it lead to the two truths theory’s revival on a massive scale by which, e. g., science was held to be in conflict with faith, which is not true at all. As St. Thomas Aquinas and others had properly taught, truth does not contradict or conflict with truth, for the ultimate Truth, by definition, is God.

Protestantism had, thus, let loose fits of irrationality that, in turn, supported emotionalism as a means of substituting it for proper reason in religion.  On this matter, one can read Fr. Ronald Knox’s rather instructive book entitled: Enthusiasm.

Indicatively, the need for explicitness and the attempt at the demystification of religion by a reformed theology opened the flood gates for Rationalism, not the advancement of a reasoned religion, which already existed with Catholicism anyway.   The objective of the need to rationalize faith produces not an improved religion but, rather, the kind of rationalization that corrupts faiths with necessarily cognate efforts at applying various degrees and kinds of reductionisms within religious beliefs.

One leaves behind Catholic transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist to go to many varying degrees of Protestant consubstantiation that gradually, as the theological radicalization process continues, leads to merely more and vaguer kinds of supposed symbolizations of meaning. These assumed symbolizations, in their “logical” turn, do become then too symbolic as to be, in fact, worthless for both intent and meaning, which ought not to be that too surprising, given the vapid and ugly premises of the overall rationalization of religion desired.

Over the centuries, as Protestantization has had time to work its many wonders, rationalist beliefs tended to cover an increasing spectrum of feelings and spirituality all claiming, more or less, to be Christian in either origin or inspiration, as is conveniently alleged.  This rationalization and streamlining of religion, versus what used to be denounced or dismissed as just mere Papist nonsense or mystical priestcraft becoming bizarre, is often not recognized as a direct threat against any attempt to bring about a new Christendom.

Rationalism and explicitness in cognition, being the result of the reducing of Protestantism into secular terms of reference, gave birth to social, cultural, and political Liberalism as with, first, the creation of classical Liberalism with it individualism and, then, modern Liberalism with its collectivism; being two sides of the same coin of modernity.  Unsurprisingly, whether classical or modern in orientation, a real (secularist) Liberal is, in effect, an inverted Protestant, a thoroughly secularized kind of Puritan.  And, this observation has been made by many Catholics and non-Catholics over many generations by now.

The dissolution of religion, therefore, became increasingly inevitable as the inherent principles of the Reformed Religion got themselves rationalized further toward the secularization of thought and life, cognizance and lived culture.

An absurd presumption found to be truly fallacious is that this lead toward a more rational and reasoned world totally (or nearly so) freed from past ancient or musty medieval (read: Roman Catholic) concerns for superstition, myth, and magic. On the contrary, both the features of modernity and postmodernity became greatly absorbed with these terrible errors of reasoning.   When true religion, the Catholic Faith, was violently kicked out the front door in the (false) name of liberation, then corrupted metaphysics was variously smuggled in through the back entrance.3

Because, ultimately, of Original Sin and human sinfulness in general, the highly mendacious promise of rationalization and its rationality is as old as the promise of the Devil in the Garden of Eden made to Adam and Eve.  Human beings, when guided by Rationalism, are not made into true earthly gods, they merely become less human, meaning less humane, and act more beastly by becoming mortal predators set against their fellow mortal beings.

Thus, for instance, the French Revolution of 1789, so loudly proclaiming its liberté, égalité, fraternité, produced instead, as to the latest estimates, about a million dead bodies and allied wicked bloodshed galore, in the “glorious” name of the Enlightenment no less.  Napoleon, in his many wars of needless conquest and with his demonic personal ambition, added at least 5,000,000 more to the total, as to the fuller price to be paid.

Yes, once again, ideas do have consequences, which can include what gets called the law of unintended consequences, as when Luther’s preaching had stirred up the Peasants War, for which he publicly urged the Protestant Princes to suppress the peasants as brutally as possible.

It has been, furthermore, observed that it is historically rare for great heresies not to provoke bloodshed in their social, cultural, and political course through societies.  Protestantism, thus, surely bears the true Mark of Cain from its ugly birth, through the massive carnage, mayhem, havoc, slaughter, and butchery provoked, by its truly revolutionary spirit and intensity.

In the quest for fairness, could all or most of the so-called Reformers foresee what the rationalization and streamlining of Christian religion would then necessarily lead to?   Certainly not.  They believed, most of them, that they had many good intentions and appropriately moral aims, of course.

However, the path toward the Infernal Regions is paved with presumably many nice goals in mind; they just neglected to properly consider the effects of Original Sin and its horrid results among human beings, not creatures of a New Eden.  The Reformed Religion was, without any doubt, tainted at its very birth with too much unexamined utopianism and various elements of millennialism, mixed oddly into a potent brew, which made spiritual drunkards of those who wrongly thought themselves to be rather quite sober Christians.

The religious radicalization process, in addition, opened the terrible door to degrees of immanentism, under different guises and names, as denominationalism ignorantly spread and spread forth mightily across Western and Eastern Europe and, ultimately, the world at large.

Of course, these days, with a heretical Pope Francis, being publicly questioned about his faith by no less prominent ecclesial personages than Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, trying to get people, especially non-Catholics, interested in matters contained in this article has become much more difficult.   Nonetheless, this ardent defense of the Catholic Faith, made against errant Biblicism or the entirety of Sola Scriptura fanaticism, must still be requisitely made; and, moreover, this is whether or not the world is largely indifferent because, let it be known, God is not indifferent to the Truth, for the Truth is, in fact, synonymous with God.

It is an open affirmation of the metaphysical order of reality and, furthermore, its spiritual rightness and holy righteousness, as well as the proclamation of Ad maiorem Dei gloriam, forever and ever.  Thus, the Holy Father’s recent theologically and religiously horrid co-celebration of Lutheranism, of the asserted Reformation, with the Lutherans should be logically seen as having been completely inapplicable to and absolutely incommensurate with Catholicism and its important reality as to orthodox faith versus any forms of heterodoxy, i. e., Protestantism.  Q. E. D.


With all the above argumentation kept cogently in mind, it becomes simply apparent that although Catholicism, for over 2,000 years has had a sensus Catholicus, no such equivalent religious claim, by definition, could be ever made by Protestantism with its odd multiplicity of conflicting denominations.  Hence, upon critical and open examination, an orthodox Calvinism or orthodox Lutheranism would, therefore, be an oxymoron, as would be any supposed claims to a Protestant orthodoxy, since it would be a mere intellectual solecism, indeed.

One could, e. g., speak of mainstream Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, etc., of course, versus other variants, but theological orthodoxy means much more than specified denominationalism.

What gets even more so epistemologically odd is to hear of any Reformed Lutheranism, Reformed Baptist, Reformed Calvinist, etc. sects. Protestantism, in fact, had claimed to be itself the Reformed Religion.  To paradoxically discuss either such a thing as orthodoxy within the heresy of, for instance, Lutheranism or the nature of a Reformed Baptist religion ought to give one pause, as to the set inherent contradictions involved in confusing and conflating such matters.

The typical Lutheran today, moreover, has shifted so far to the ideological Left such that he would be, of course, rather quite shocked by the (relatively) conservative views of Martin Luther himself.

But, (an orthodox) Roman Catholic can, e. g., assent to the Nicene Creed as could any (orthodox) Roman Catholic more than a thousand years ago because there is the sensus Catholicus being fully present in the agreement with the declarations of the Nicene Creed.  Assemble, say, perhaps some several dozen Calvinists, Methodists, Unitarians, Anglicans, Presbyterians, or Episcopalians in a room, and it will be so certain that no absolute Protestant consensus dogma could be found by which all or the majority would agree with it.  Moreover, any such possibly theoretical “agreement” would be anti-Protestant in nature.

The obvious theological individualism of Protestantism, which parallels the individualism of what gets called classical Liberalism, comes to be seen and, more to the point, provides empirical proof of the lack of any so-called Reformed Religion orthodoxy.   In manifest contrast, all traditionalist, non-Novus Ordo Catholics can, however, concur completely with the fundamental assertion of orthodox Catholic beliefs as to the appropriate theological sensus fide, also, appearing in the Apostles’ Creed.  Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

None of this is a small matter, for such a creed acts as the affirmation of Gospel truth, the distillation, so to speak, of the substance of what the belief in the Good News is really all about, as to proper faith in Jesus Christ, meaning, thus, all that that means.

Athanasius contra mundum!


1.    The quite horrid results of all this amassed reductionism, illogic, and idolatry of Protestantism have created painful and sorrowful results beyond measure. An important example can be pointed given.

The author of this article personally knows someone who refuses to get baptized because one of his beloved and respected grandmothers told him that he was a Christian by faith and never, therefore, needs to be baptized. Since he has been told otherwise, he cannot claim being sent to Hell out of an “invincible ignorance” because he sought, of his own free will, to always deliberately remain ignorant and defiant, consciously oblivious and utterly recalcitrant.

This man is, certainly, on his way toward damnation, not salvation, if he stubbornly remains unbaptized, for even, e.g., Jesus freely submitted Himself to the Baptism given him by St. John the Baptist. Such is surely among the harshly bitter fruits of Reformed Religion that a mere sinner thinks himself better than Jesus Christ concerning this particular important matter.  Of course, he would totally deny such a characterization, but the noted facts are the facts, nonetheless.  His inordinately vapid and obnoxiously obstreperous sense of pious Protestantism, or the so wild interpretation or misinterpretation thereof, demands that he goes to Hell rather than to ever so meekly submit himself to God through Baptism.

2. In the break from the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestants felt the need to, increasingly, distance themselves from the Holy Mother of God, who they absurdly misinterpreted as being worshipped by the Catholics or as being equal to God. The disparagement and slanders, moreover, placed contemptuously against the Blessed Virgin Mary, being that She is, without question, the honored Holy Mother of Jesus the Christ, Theotokos (God-bearer), cannot really be that pleasing to the Son of God.

How either routinely ignoring, ignorantly neglecting, studiously minimizing, or just plainly spitting up Her holy memory is, thus, supposed to be really honoring Jesus all the more is, at a bare minimum, truly one heck of a thing to strangely rationalize on the part of the haughty Reformed Religion. It is, also, another of those paralleling Hebraic aspects of Protestantism (seen more clearly in Puritanism) that, more or less, disrespects the idea of the Immaculate Conception, for an incarnational theology and religion is rejected explicitly by Judaism.

Through the logic presented, one can come to correctly perceive and affirm that Protestantism is, thus, a highly retrogressive theological misconstruction and sadly cognitive deformation of the very nature of Christianity itself!

The dishonorable rejection of Mariolatry, on the part of the heretics, always supremely illustrates the fundamental nature of all such heresy that immorally negates what God directly proposes, in this case the deliberate choosing of a human vessel for the spiritually important effort to help man achieve salvation.  Holy Mary as the true Theotokos is surely the Mediatrix of all Graces.  Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.


The Roman Catholic Love of God versus Indifferent Gods

The Roman Catholic Love of God versus Indifferent Gods: Different Comprehensions of the Deity

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

We have recognized for ourselves, and put our faith in, the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him.” – St. John the Evangelist, Gospel

“God’s love for us is not greater in Heaven than it is now.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibets

It will be contended that Roman Catholicism has to the one and only logically and rationally correct comprehension of the Deity. Thousands of different religions, beliefs, faiths, cults, superstitions, etc. have, as is publicly known, widely different and many varying conceptions of the metaphysical order.

The right kind of acknowledgement of the Supreme Being, the Lord God Almighty, makes Catholicism totally unique as both a theology and cognate religion; it is a radically different religion that is staunchly antipagan to the core. For every theology develops, for better or worse, its own religious culture.1

However, before getting directly to the topic of this article, much speculative and definitional debris must be swept away, in a requisitely heuristic manner; this is for yielding a then heightened sense of substantive clarification, of right expiation, for gaining critical knowledge of what is precisely meant.

Since all polytheisms or pagan beliefs are to be axiomatically excluded because, e. g., Aristotle’s Natural Theology had dispensed with such considerations thousands of years ago, even centuries before Jesus Christ was born on earth. This pagan Aristotle had been able to clearly reason his way toward the so important knowledge that there must necessarily be, in fact, only one true God.

Therefore, refutations of polytheism given here would be just very ridiculously redundant; it would be a total waste of time, print, and effort to, in effect, “reinvent the wheel” for any cognizant or intelligent readers.  The very significant lapse of Roman Catholic catechesis, in America and the western world in general, duly makes this exercise seemingly mandatory to explain the absolute inadequacy of all non-Catholic belief systems still existent today.   What used to be thought quite simply obvious must now be painstakingly brought forth to new generations being fundamentally ignorant of classical Natural Law teachings, the main rudiments of Natural Theology and, of course, the high points of Catholic theology.

Why Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam are All False Religions

Critically speaking, there are only four possible contenders, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam as to an offered monotheism.   Why stating four and not the supposedly traditional three faiths?   Something sensible needs to be affirmed.

There is, actually, no such supposed religion as “Christianity” because such a general knowledge or sense of faith includes covering all of Catholicism, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox and variations, and, also, a seemingly endless variety and extensive number of what could be called “Protestantisms” all composing, regularly and irregularly, what gets just generally denominated as being a broadly applied Christianity. But, not all monotheisms are really ever the same thing in the end, for syncretism is ever a heresy, not an assumed greater wisdom of the world.

The next critical consideration as strict analysis of theological and doctrinal credibility concerns purity of the faith. Taking the last consideration first, Islam, under examination, is an amalgam or hodgepodge of ancient tribalistic beliefs and superstitions, Moon worship, selected parts of Judaism, clipped parts of Christianity, some superficial Hellenism, and other rather odd bits and pieces of beliefs covering, in addition, many magical and fantastic genies and jinni; all of which, if ever put on truly neutral display, should embarrass any really thinking and honest Muslim.

It is, when seen objectively, a primitive and heterogeneous belief system good only for primitive minds or for those merely seeking relatively simple attitudes toward a jumbled belief in some diverse type of or, perhaps, sort of a God. Many Natural Law teachings have been corrupted by Islam’s nominalism in its theology, for different comprehensions of the Deity necessarily produce different kinds of religions.

The religious culture created by such a wild fusion of ideas and impulses has directionally created an agitated religious orientation greatly adverse, at a minimum, to Western civilization itself, with most fundamentalists of the creed, if requisite truth be told, longing to return nostalgically to the 7th century.  What is easily observed, especially with the ultraviolent Islamic State, is a retrograde religion tolerant of much savagery and barbarism galore in hot praise of its bloodthirsty Allah and Prophet Muhammad; such a “religious” genuineness is, nonetheless, truly exemplary of Islam and its quite demonic reality seen through the ages.  And, there are real-world consequences.

It is the most inferior and questionable kind of inadequate monotheism yet imaginable. Hilaire Belloc, though a Catholic writer, did Islam the high “courtesy” of at least calling it a Christian heresy, though that assertion is still highly debatable.  At a minimum, no rational and logical mind should accept the absurd religion of Muhammad, especially considering its rather strange militant origins and incredibly slapdash composition as to unfortunate beliefs.

In short, nevertheless, no serious intellect should bother taking Islam seriously or ever deserving of any respect as to the monotheistic test of validity merely because of its long history of brutal and brutalizing converting of peoples. It was and remains a “religion of the sword” that to this day practices slavery, concubinage, oppression, and much else still indicative of its strong affinity for barbarism, paganism, ruthlessness, and heathenism.  Truly ignorant Westerners, such as Victor Davis Hanson, a Protestant (of course), think that Islam can be helped by its having an experience of Reformation, not knowing that Islam fully thinks of itself as being, in fact, the absolutely verified reform of all religion on earth.

At first glance, Judaism, of course, would easily seem more than just superficially to be a yet genuinely prime candidate among monotheistic beliefs. Not so.  During the literally thousands of years that the Hebrews had spent both living among and near many pagan tribes and empires, they had an extremely hard time preserving the purity of their beliefs and that approximately 400 years of captivity in Egypt did not really help, (along with Aaron working on that Golden Calf, at the foot of Mt Sinai no less).

For instance, at one time Yahweh was thought of as only a regional Deity, as when David, finding himself outside the Holy Land, lamented that he was, thus, unable to worship the Lord because of this situation. Judaism is still, moreover, wrestling with its diluted paganism today and, in addition, certain Natural Law proscriptions have been intellectually ruined by Judaism.

If there be any doubt, one can go freely read Torah or what the Christians call the Old Testament for more than ample documentation and affirmation of this very confidently asseverated truth, which is more than just obvious.  Among other many integral defects that forever detract severely from the purity of their religion concerns their rather settled incorporation of the eminently pagan quid pro quo attitude, as could be found, e. g., among the ancient Greeks and Romans.

Paganism posits a functionalistic and operational kind of religion or religious belief with its theology suitably inclined either formally or informally, directly or indirectly, toward the noted quid pro quo understanding held between the believers and their gods.  Judaism has never repudiated this approach that keeps it oriented more toward paganism than its believers would ever care to admit.  It is behind all the past and ongoing rejection of Jesus Christ to this very day.

Because the Messiah did not come as a glorious, fighting, tribalist war-god to utterly best the Romans at their own game of power on earth, the Son of Man was, of course, completely rejected as just being plainly inadequate; this rejection aligned perfectly with Hebraic sensibility as to its reductionistic pagan orientation, meaning that the natural order is reduced to being just an extension of metaphysical order.

For thousands of years, the Jewish people have refused to properly understand that the God of Israel, seen by Christians as God the Father, gives to them what they do need, not what they hubristically, so pridefully, think they do deserve as the Chosen People. The Jewish people, as if through some sort of religious-cultural osmosis, absorbed a definite kind of paganistic pride from the past tribal peoples that they had encountered in their many wanderings.  Judaism, consequently, still retains these theological and religious impurities that prevent any progress toward ever acknowledging the truths of Christianity.

This has given the Jewish people a seriously defective theology and, thus, inherently flawed religion as a direct result, for the option of Christianity remains unthinkable and reprehensible because of that willful pride supported firmly by the unshakeable and aforementioned quid pro quo attitude.  The nature of paganism involves itself in this bargaining aspect with its interactions with Deity; Abraham, who saw this practice among the heathen tribes surrounding his people, had actually tried it with Yahweh who, at last, just settled for ten morally righteous men in Sodom (who, alas, could not be found).

Protestantism, in its now various multiplicitous and miscellaneous varieties of sects, sub-sects, and cults, exists as a defective assortment of beliefs, as only inferior or mighty impure “Catholicisms” at best and a hopeless and endlessly variegated miscellany of sectarian-oriented opinions at worst. The Protestant Revolution, which is still an ongoing but tiny minor force today as easily compared to the initial revolt, has, also, tended to seek paganistic reductionisms within its own belief structures and attitudes.

This is easily seen whenever, e. g., Evangelicals, unable to correctly perceive the actual truth, denounce Catholicism for its supposed paganism, while also not recognizing how Natural Law considerations have been deformed by Protestantism. One can properly read about this is E. B. F. Midgley’s The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations or Heinrich A. Rommen’s The Natural Law.

Protestant religious culture can, indicatively, be heard in its plaintive pietistic hymns; Catholicism is at home, in contradistinction, with lyrical baroque fugues or Gregorian chants; the two cultures are, thus, entirely incommensurate, disproportional, just organizationally uncomplementary, and not really ever compatible as such. A true Protestant world must, by definition, be inherently adverse to any actually Catholic one; and, it could not be, logically speaking, otherwise due to opposed theologies.

The theological and doctrinal purity standard, once again, meets a sustained failure and yet, moreover, embraces it quite steadily within the nominalist philosophical bounds of Protestantism. And, the ever tremendous philosophical problem of persistent nominalism in belief can be perceived as well in both Judaism and Islam, of course.  And, forever set truthfully contrary to the heretic Pope Francis, Islam and Christianity definitely, and Catholicism in particular, do not ever worship the same God.  This is the old heresy, by now, of syncretism that is encouraged openly by the evil Holy Pontiff himself.  But, let the main discussion still go back to the unfortunately deformed or warped Christianity of the Protestants.

The Hebraicism to be found in Puritanism, moreover, splendidly illustrates the reality of how paganism has become engrafted, so weightily, within the basic Protestant creed, though Christianity itself, as is often said, need not be just dismissed as “merely the universalizing of Judaism.”   The colonial Puritans of New England, which point can be researched independently, were so greatly fascinated by Judaism as to their expressing the public desire that Hebrew be so adopted as the new language of an independent America.  In fact, a great deal of their Puritan theology, unsurprisingly, was Old Testament oriented.

Lutheranism, furthermore, willingly adopted the largely paganistic, fatalistic attitude overtly found in Martin Luther’s bold irrational denial of the rational existence of free will. It was an odd christening of a retrograde pagan fatalism, placed under a pseudo-Christian disguise by Luther, to give it an updated but yet false credibility.  Thus, Catholics should pray for the Pope’s soul, concerning this co-celebration of Lutheranism, that he the avoid believing in such heretical beliefs as supposedly being merely variants of Catholicism, which is, of course, just absolutely untrue.

No doubt the so-called Reformation let loose upon the world various forms and types of paganism or, more properly, neopaganism, as was true, e. g., of the 16th century Millenarian Anabaptists who took over Münster, Germany, along with their encouragements of sexual license (rape).

Calvinism, as another example, exemplifies readily the quid pro quo mentality, again, by stressing how God’s favor gets empirically indicated by how wealthy a man becomes, thus, so surely “proving” God’s anointment of him.  And, the world is still suffering from the evil consequences of the Reformation or Reformed Religion.  One comes fairly to perceive manifestly, upon both doing an intelligent analysis and objective investigation, how much paganism has, indeed, gotten retained in all of Islam, Judaism, and Protestantism, without any rational or reasonable doubt whatsoever, as to the truth of this assertion.

What needs to be properly understood is that these religions represent different but still quite highly complementary sorts of comprehension of the Supreme Being, with Islam, Protestantism, and Judaism having really much more in common than is popularly realized; Catholicism and its form of spirituality, in contrast, has a much more distinct and dissimilar comprehension of the nature of God, especially when compared to those other monotheistic faiths oriented toward naturalism (materiality).

In contradistinction, Catholicism, the truly needed fight for the salvation of souls, possesses a radically different theology, as G. K. Chesterton came to realize.   And, it takes much greater courage than ever to say this bold and liberating truth in a very heavily PC-dominated society and culture gone insane with, e. g., well over 300 genders – and still counting, though no doubt the combative Chesterton would have had a certainly glorious field day tearing to bits all or any multi-gender reams of absurd propaganda.

Spirituality as aimed toward religion with concern for proper theology ought to replace considerations favoring materiality, even, e. g., to the avoiding of having a hording mentality such as the sad need to accumulate objects, inclusive of such inconsequential things as books, as an example. Centuries ago, admittedly, they were relatively precious objects due alone, if for no other reason, to their simple scarcity.  Today, for too many people, they have become “burdens” of materiality that do hinder the development and needed progress toward spirituality, which, for Catholics, so means the desire for attaining holiness to lead truly spiritual lives.

The things of this earth are to be, in effect, held in complete contempt, including such things as books, compared to the requisite desire for God and the eternal life in Heaven, meaning the salvation of one’s immortal soul, not, e. g., the amassment of a great library for ego satisfaction. There are, in fact, people wrongly obsessed with possessing texts, tomes, and volumes.   Books, as with all such worldly objects, however, should only act as mere limited means, not ever ends in themselves, which, e. g., even such a dedicated bibliophile as Mortimer J. Adler would, in the end, have rationally agreed.

This passing world, moreover, when put into the blazing light of eternity is as nothing, for Christ is ever everything. In the end, whatever any Christians may have, do, or realize, in their entire lives, must then unquestionably be rightly oriented always toward Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.   Catholics are to willingly seek the true light of Christ in their lives.  Thus, any and all pagan or materialistic obsessions or excessive preoccupations, inclusive of any bibliomania, are to be always properly reviled and freely rejected for gaining better the needed love of God, spouses, family members, and neighbors.

What needs to be said?   Various forms ad degrees of paganism and modernist neopaganism inclusive prefer, to whatever extent, an indifferent God for different but, ultimately, related reasons.  People seek an easier way by blindly following age-old traditions as if symbolism and ritualism will magically yield the only path to salvation as with, e. g., Judaism, or linking their spiritual lives Hebraically to a book, as with Islam’s Koran or Protestantism’s Bible, notably or, perhaps, usually the King James’ version thereof.

But, that which needs to be rightly understood is that the true God is always an inconvenient Deity who really does not want human beings to “hide” themselves in any mere book, whether Torah, Koran, or Bible.   This retreat or regression to a wrongful form of religious primitivism, though still unfortunately unrecognized as such, is unworthy of any of those who profess a truly monotheist faith.  In contrast, practicing Catholics are to only live by, for and with Christ, not in the shadow of a mere text no matter how revered or old it may be.  The result is making the worship done greater than the God, which is, of course, idolatry.

What is being critically noted is too often not correctly perceived as to the truth of genuine faith that involves spiritual risk, especially the invited risk of acknowledging an inconvenient God who is so owed everything. One sees this, dramatically, as when Abraham really thought that he had to sacrifice Isaac.  Indicative of what is very significantly meant is how Jesus, after telling that His flesh and blood must be consumed, saw thousands literally walks away; but, He did not ever run after them to say that the hard doctrines could change to somehow or other suit their relative preferences.  A loving God could not do so because the Lord is Truth itself.

An inconvenient, troublesome, Messiah stood in their very midst and courageously and publicly spoke the real Truth of Being to them, as to the necessary metaphysical ontology involved for being a devout and practicing Catholic.  The choice is forever Christ or chaos.  There is, in fact, no real middle way, no middle ground.   One wonders how so many millions upon millions can remain perpetually blind to this realization, which has, unfortunately, been increasingly obscured by the horrid aftermath of the Second Vatican Council since about the late 1960s.

In firm reiteration, the strongly heathen elements properly noted and seen in Islam, Protestantism, and Judaism do not ever exist, however, within traditional (orthodox) Roman Catholicism, the needed fight for the salvation of souls. Of course, one sees that modernist Catholicism, admittedly, has been both increasingly and unfortunately paganized since the Second Vatican Council, which can be overtly seen, most recently, in Pope Francis’ supported, heretical, and so very morally perverse document: Amoris Laetitia.2

Uniqueness of Traditional Roman Catholicism

Any religion that features strong elements of paganism (aka materiality) exhibits what ought to be seen as the positing of an indifferent God or Gods, which, upon analysis, must ever be the case encountered. The God worshipped by Roman Catholics, in sharp contrast, is not at all indifferent to the reality of the Roman Catholic religion and the theology that developed that particular religion.   Jesus as the Messiah is, also, a readily personal God who is both the friend and brother of all Christians, not an unconcerned or absolutely above-it-all Deity set away far off in a distant universe; it is not the depiction of an 18th century Deists’ version of a “Ghost of a God.”

All Christians, all Catholics, are to be immediately responsive to, loving of, and are, in fact, answerable instantaneously and eternally to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. There are no exceptions.   There are no qualifications to this straightforward belief, to this ever truthful faith.  All of Protestantism, as to its basis in Sola Scriptura, is, by definition, heretical and, as such, constitutes a false theology and an allied and necessarily untrue religion.  How is this to be better properly known as to the truthful and discoverable, the honest and verifiable, presentation and recognition of Divinity?

Though God the Father is recognized, the supposed “God” of Judaism and the God of the Catholic Faith are not, therefore, the same Deity; the Catholic doctrine of supersessionism states clearly that the New Testament is, indeed, the New Covenant because the Jews broke the Old Covenant by totally rejecting Jesus Christ, their Lord and Savior.  Judaic religious culture is, by its very own nature, exclusivist, inner-directed, and most substantially opposed to any attempts at universalizing its religious sentiments, as it inherently lacks, for instance, any missionary spirit.  All this, thus, ought to be obvious as argumentation and historical facts, therefore, do exist forever in quite adamant support.

The High Priest Caiaphas had so publicly, deliberately, blasphemously, and sacrilegiously tore his sacred vestments consecrated to God from the bottom up; the veil of the Temple was ripped, by the power of God, from the top down to also publicly and plainly indicate that the Old Covenant was, indeed, then fully broken forever with the Jewish people.  It could not be otherwise.

Caiaphas, in the name of the entire Jewish people, definitely knew the profound seriousness of what he had done, meaning by so openly and irrevocably breaking faith with God, by tearing his highly sacred and blessed vestments. He, both undeniably and absolutely, had then completely repudiated the Old Covenant by thought, word, deed, and the rather obvious symbolism empirically involved.

His displayed enormous anger and excessive vitriol, moreover, gave affirmative truth to the then open acknowledgement that, in fact, Jesus was the Messiah who had been, nonetheless, rejected utterly. The High Priest of Israel had, in effect, spat at the face of God by angrily and contemptuously rejecting the Son of Man who came to earth to gloriously liberate men from the evil of sin, not Israel from the rule of the Romans, as most had thought.  The Jews, as to the majority of them, only wanted a violent warrior-prophet as the Messiah, not a personal God of love sent for the holy purpose of eternal salvation.

Although most believing Jews, usually the Reformed and Conservative Jews, do fully accept the Ten Commandments, the Orthodox Jews must believe in and accept 613 commandments as part of their faith; the Orthodox faithful, trying to stay true to the earliest origins of belief made impure by pagan elements, think that God can be fooled by human beings. How so?

To carry keys on the Sabbath, a long dangling key chain may actually be worn, meaning as if it were just a supposed unconscious “afterthought” that fits the (technical) prohibition of not doing or being ever involved with any work on the Sabbath. This is so that Yahweh is not to bother noticing how convenient it certainly was for those keys to, somehow or other, manage to get into a pocket that, thus, just had “merely happened” to be available by a coincidence.  Such is the true religious primitivism of paganism.

Thus, it becomes evident, without question, through the above reviews of the other religions given in this article, that the Jews, Moslems, and Protestants all do worship only a false god, not the true Lord God Almighty.  And, this greatly significant fact divides forever all such claimed monotheistic beliefs from the correct understanding of the demonstrated purity and righteousness of the overt standard of theology and religion so possessed by traditional (orthodox) Roman Catholicism.  Q. E. D.

Among monotheistic beliefs, an indifferent kind of Deity can best be seen in Islam in that the real actual meaning of “Allah” is not God but submission, meaning enslavement of one’s mind, thought, spirit and will to the absolutism of such an unapproachable Being.   The impression, directly or indirectly, is given that all of creation can be, at any time, an indifferent sort of concern or regard from this Absolute Being unconcerned about the doings of mere tangential creatures subordinate to the demanded enslavement of will and spirit, of the nature of Islam’s religious culture.

Judaism, connected to the God of the Old Covenant, has seen, in the past 20th century, the response of millions of Jews becoming atheists or, at the least, near atheists by witnessing, in their minds, the lack of God’s expected compassion by allowing the Holocaust to occur.  They, meaning, thus, in their minds due to their religious culture, constituted viewing the horrid sight of an indifferent Deity who had (perhaps carelessly) so permitted such an enormous tragedy to be imposed upon some six million or so Jewish people.

What needs to be beheld here, though not often recognized as such, is also how Protestantism has wrongly constructed for itself the supposed nature of an uninterested or, apparently, dispassionate Supreme Being, which is the direct opposite of Catholicism, of course.

And, this forever very critical difference, relating to divergent religious cultures and their implications and even more significant ramifications, needs to be so appropriately understood. Luther, by willfully asserting there being the very lack of any free will, and Calvin, by then mandating in his mind absolute predestination, had raised up a rather disquieting kind of God who can, haphazardly or casually, make men into earthly playthings no more of concern as if they were, in effect, mere pin ball objects.

This all quite reasonably suggests that anyone, now consciously yet remaining a convinced Protestant, Moslem or Jew, should have his head examined, meaning as to if such a God is worth believing in with these quite terrible and imputed attributes. Why?  Only an indifferent God could satisfy the debased epistemology and corrupted ontology, required by such a theology, mandating conclusions geared to nominalism in reasoning.  It would be so highly funny, if it was not, in fact, so very irredeemably sad, especially regarding that German firebrand with his 95 Theses.3

It takes a rather profound comprehension, being further on as to requisite thought, to critically perceive the many terrible consequences of a decadent spirituality that results naturally from forms of idolatry sanctioned, by accepting an ingrained and hardened nominalism in cognition. How may this be clearly known and rightly recognized?   Decadence, as C. E. M. Joad, had correctly defined it, is the loss of the object.

Decadent spirituality becomes the very definition of the loss of the proper object in terms of correctly recognizing what ought to be the truth about the Godhead being so worshiped, celebrated, honored, recognized, proclaimed, etc.

Christ publicly denounced the Pharisees and Scribes for making the worship greater than God, which is idolatry, which, in its own turn, then became Judaism itself inverted. Spiritual decadence has made the vast majority of Jewish people into basic secularists whose earthly god, as is seen easily in America, has become idolatrous Leftist politics; the minority of truly religious Jews do knowingly reject all forms of secular salvation.

The predominant majority chose the inverted Messianism of radical politics. Moslems, as yet another illustration, favoring iconoclasm produce their own version of idolatry, though in an inverted way, by scorning images while man himself has been, in fact, made in the image of God.  ISIS, now, exists as a truly genuine expression of resurgent and authentic Islam as these evil terrorists do go about willfully destroying many ancient pagan temples and Christian churches, in widely observed open support of their iconoclastic viewpoint.

Protestants, manifesting their own sort of spiritual decadence, have made the ever pervasive idolatry of Sola Scriptura into their earthly god that must be obeyed, regardless of the high cost to theological and religious truth.  Decadent spirituality, as ought to be obvious by now, necessarily then both corrupts and resultantly deforms any attempted creation of a theology that must, logically, come to harshly ruin any such cognate religion proclaimed and adhered to by the believers.  How may this be made known?

For the three principles relating to Catholicism, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi are, axiomatically, so related logically to all theologies that produce religions.  There is an inevitability to all this discussion and philosophizing, regarding theology and any resultant religion, as is particularly as pertaining to a religious culture.  And, it is rather plain that the contemporary world aggressively challenges any such culture by often crudely pitting the entitlement mentality against spiritual gratitude.4

What is, therefore, the important consideration being now so vigorously proposed?   This means that idolatry, whether inverted or otherwise, corrupts the religion that reflects back upon the failures of the theology in question to, then, offer a better appreciation and understanding of man’s need for God, the manner of worship, and theological and religious truth inclusive.

Thus, one can come to better see that Islam, Judaism, and Protestantism, meaning their being all false religions, do then logically share certain definitive nominalist affinities that are, in fact, always to be found completely lacking in (orthodox) Roman Catholicism. This is a most significant point to clearly remember, furthermore, and reflects back insightfully to many earlier thoughts and ideas mentioned both analytically and positively.

Affirmative knowledge concerning the attributes about God can be gained, though He Himself will forever remain inscrutable and ineffable, by definition, in terms of the infinity of the reality involved. From ancient times, Catholic thinkers knew fundamental truth as to the Supreme Being, as is noted by St. Augustine, in his De Natura Boni, when he confidently says, “”God alone is immutable; and whatever things He has made, being from nothing, are mutable.”

Regarding the reality confronted, St. John of Damascus, in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, related: “For He does not belong to the class of existing things: not that He has no existence, but that he is above all existing things, nay, even above existence itself.”

As St. Thomas Aquinas, in his surely impressive Summa Theologica, there clearly states, “God alone is completely immutable; for that reason true and proper eternity is His alone.”  He, further, adds in his discussion of De Divinis Nominibus, that, “To realize that God is far beyond anything we think, that is the mind’s achievement.”  However, none of this is ever meant, by Catholic thinkers, to be indicative of an indifferent Godhead presiding either forever within or beyond the mere universe experienced by mortal creatures.  Moreover, Catholic Christology completely forbids this notion, as would be correctly affirmed by the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Realization of this understanding of a personal God was well expressed by Msgr. Robert H. Benson, in his Christ in the Church, when he says that, “If God be Truth, and God be Love, is it not absolutely inevitable that the love of God should bring the truth of God down to the level of the very simplest.” One sees here factually that Catholicism is truly an exoteric, not esoteric, religion supported firmly by a suitable theology, oriented toward urging the salvation of human beings, by proving the means for this through the Church and its cognate sacraments.  For it is, also, known that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

Benson further adds to the important thinking involved when, in his The Religion of the Plain Man, one notably there reads: “It was the man in the street who understood our Lord, and the doctor of the law who was perplexed and offended.”  Catholicism, way before the rise of Protestantism as the so-called Reformed Religion, knew that God through Jesus had made Christ immediately accessible and a friend and brother of common men, not just an object, e. g., for religious elites alone.

In critical contrast, Islam, Judaism, and to the extent that the absurd overconcentration upon the Bible as if it were the Christian Torah that seeks to re-Judaize the Protestant religion, all three of these faiths do posit God as the absolute Other, as with, e. g., Martin Buber’s existentialist speculations grinding on toward abstractionization. And, resultantly, the more that false notion of “the wholly Other” that gets expressed, the more indifferent the Divinity is then made to seem or appear to those who may think of themselves as being religious people.

Thus, with traditional Catholicism, the Supreme Being gets not wrongly abstracted into just being the Other; He is, forever, truly and without any question Jesus the Christ, the Son of Man, the Son of God, who suffered and died on the Cross; it is fairly hard to think of a much more personal act, moreover, and to the extremely important point being made concretely here, than being willingly crucified, sacrificed, because of His great love for mankind. Such a compassionate and loving Deity is hardly indifferent.

Against the aforementioned “Jewishness” of Islam, Judaism, and Protestantism, the opposed knowledge of a personal God is defended explicitly by Roman Catholicism; and, among many others, one could then easily give St. Francis of Assisi as a reference for this discussion of Catholic truth. The Canticle of the Sun is not just a religious song once composed by Saint Francis, for it surely is an affirmation of his personal theology of intimacy in having a private or intimate relationship with God, which, thus, did not arise as a supposed Protestant idea, as in invoking, e. g., one’s personal Lord and Savior as Jesus.

This is actually because Jesus is not to be thought of as the abstract Other; He is ever the living Christ, the reality of the redeeming Lord and Savior, the Messiah of the universe, both immediately considered and, of course, always forever.

As Blaise Pascal had correctly well noted, in his Pensées, “The Christian’s God is not a God Who is simply author of mathematical truths and of the order of the elements; that is the lot of the heathen and of the Epicureans. He is not merely a God Who employs His providence upon the life and wellbeing of men, in order to bestow on His worshippers a long and prosperous life; that is the heritage of the Jews.” He adds these words, later in the same paragraph, concerning the true God in that the Lord “is a God of love and consolation …”

But, the highly thoughtful and religiously perceptive St. Francis de Sales, in his Spiritual Conferences, so interestingly enlarges upon the theme of Divine love in that, “If God had not created man He would still indeed have been perfect in goodness, but He would not have been actually merciful, since mercy can only be exercised toward the miserable.” Added to all this is the Mystery of Deity, besides the Mystery of Evil and  the Mystery of Good.  As to fallen mortal creatures in an also fallen world, how may this be made better known to a church humanly staffed by, of, and for miserable earthly sinners all standing before a righteous and Holy God?

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman gives the correct understanding and answer of how Catholicism works; this is not by the supposed modernist evolution of dogmas approach, but by describing the proper way Catholic teaching has become more thorough and unequivocal over the centuries, while the later enunciations of any fundamental Catholic doctrine, being orthodox, remain theologically then consistent with the earlier basic declarations; this represents, of course, the holy desire for maintaining a much wanted orthodoxy and truth for better informing Catholicism, the universal faith.

On the other hand, what often sadly exists as Catholic “ecumenism” acts as a deceitful means of hiding Catholic truth, both from believers and nonbeliever alike, in the unutterably vile and reprehensible effort to be, supposedly, more inclusive in today’s world. Such obnoxious “inclusivity” fully deserves unreserved condemnation, however, not praise; it is a true horror that should always be avoided, not sophistically advocated in any possible way, shape, or form whatsoever, contrary to the terrible desires of Pope Francis.

Thus, Pope Francis’ evil and heretical co-celebration of the harmful Lutheran Revolt, set against Holy Mother Church and (what had once been) Christendom itself, ought ever to be so absolutely rejected, spurned, and reviled without any doubt whatsoever. One ought to intelligently and theologically know that this incredible and despicable happening is, therefore, definitely not just a merely slight matter of no lasting importance or significant consequence.  It so clearly violates the doctrinal understanding of Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, and its vile irregularities could not be logically or reasonably sustained according to Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

This is a most grave and heretical profanation of an excessive magnitude and scale that so demonically sanctions sacrilege that should not, ought not, to be ever tolerated.   It is, so right manifestly, a truly enormous abomination and contemptuous blasphemy before God; it is blatant idolatry.  The Pope and any and all Catholic prelates and laity involved, moreover, should be openly and thoroughly condemned in the strongest terms imaginable and possible.5

In any event, this article’s larger discourse about theological epistemology should have demonstrated why, given the proper logic of Catholicism as being the only true faith, then all other religions are, by definition, only forms of abhorrent idolatry, which ought to be then shunned or avoided totally.   Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

Furthermore, totally unlike paganism, there is no bargaining, no quid pro quo conditions, found with a Christocentric Catholicism in interactions with the one true God who is to be worshipped and loved unconditionally, as a plain fact of metaphysical reality. Love and justice, endless honor and praise, are absolutely due to the Lord God Almighty, nothing is owed to humanity by the Supreme Being, meaning the cause of all being, of all existence in the entire universe and beyond that matter as well.   One learns even from the ancient pagan Plato, without question, that, “God is the measure of all things.”

Moreover, even if human beings supposedly received totally nothing in return, including the possibility of salvation, the Divinity would still be quite axiomatically owed all love, justice, honor, praise, and glory forever and ever, as, also, St. Thomas Aquinas would have fully agreed. All of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, also, confirms the truth of the primacy of God, not the assumed supremacy of Man.

In addition to all that has been said, Catholicism rightly rejects the fallacious “two truths theory” that alleges something can be true in religion but false in science or vice versa. This absurdly posits the totally erroneous notion of an antagonism that is often supposed to exist between science and religion, which is, in fact, always utter nonsense.  As Christopher Dawson knew, this is a central understanding of all genuine Catholic culture.  When each is correctly understood to have its own proper sphere of right expertise neither confronts nor contradicts, neither confutes nor confounds, the other.

One ought to know that any physical or natural science, e. g., that attempts to ever theologize is, by definition, simply illegitimate, not really the practice of true science. As St. Thomas Aquinas truthfully taught, moreover, there can be no conflict between faith and reason when each is properly understood.


While saying that Jesus is the Christ has intellectual consequences, equally, the statement asserting that there is only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith represented by Catholicism must, therefore, also have its cognitive consequences, not just simply religious or theological. By ever rejecting strongly any decadent spirituality, furthermore, a supportive liturgy, doxology, soteriology, eschatology, Christology, etc. comes to support adamantly the honest truth of what gets asseverated theologically and religiously.

It could not rationally be otherwise. The same goes for the assertion that Allah is the one true God and Mohammad is his Prophet, for there have been, most certainly, many theological and religious results, of course.  Nonetheless, mere declaration is not proof of anything nor is the relative strength or lack thereof of any believer’s faith, whether with or without any quid pro quo style paganism being present.6 In addition, modernity’s too often overlooked or denied significant contribution of myth, magic, and superstition has only greatly aggravated and disoriented the condition of the postmodern world, not improved it.7

The mere idolatrous faith of a Jew, Muslim, or Protestant is, however, set not in question as to, for instance, all possible axiological, epistemological, or ontological realities; the verifiable truth of the Catholic theology and allied religion is, though, not definitely and necessarily held seriously in question, until and if a (supposed) contrary veracity can be established beyond disproof. For what is proven is  according to the Trinitarian dogma and, thus, to be done In nómine Pátris et Fílii et Spíritus Sáncti. Amen.

What can be surely known of the advanced theological epistemology developed by the Church Fathers, Patriarchs, Scholastics, Confessors, Doctors, and others, however, truly upholds the openly presented understanding and comprehension of God that has been articulated and defended as being consistently true. Furthermore, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman would, therefore, have completely agreed, for Catholicism concurs with right reason, common sense, and, as Midgely and Rommen would have fully assented, with Natural Law as well.

Among numerous other signs and indications, attendant proofs and clues, the saints and martyrs of Sancta Mater Ecclesia do freely attest to the truth of the Faith without any question, for all are true valid parts of the known, accessible, and authentic Catholic culture that has been here, in fact, confidently expatiated and intellectually secured as such.


Athanasius contra mundum!


Select Bibliography

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

Catechism of the Council of Trent.

B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

Heinrich A. Rommen, The Natural Law



  1. This article, and others written by the same author, has been attempting to try, however feebly and desperately, to clearly articulate and reconstitute an authentic Roman Catholic religious culture; this is by reminding Catholics, as forcefully as is possible in mere print, of the main reality of what used to be basically understood and comprehended as to the theological and religious sensitivities and proclivities, sympathies and inclinations, of orthodox Catholicism, meaning especially since Vatican Council II. It would help the reader to read what the great Catholic historian (and convert) Christopher Dawson had prominently written about the great importance of authentic Catholic religious culture and the need to defend it.
  3. One can, relatedly, cite Thomas P. Neill’s Makers of the Modern Mind, especially his quite revealing chapter on Martin Luther.
  6. This article’s consideration of how one may objectively judge the different merits or failures of monotheistic belief systems has not meant to slight the reality of the affects, definite influences, of history upon religions. Catholicism is, of course, an assuredly historical religion; Christ was born, died, and resurrected all within historical time, not outside of it.  Furthermore, one factor, among a number, that contributed to the development of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam was, surely, the humanizing process of Hellenization.

Hellenization can be defined as the spread of the ideas and ideals of the ancient Greeks, especially after the conquests of Alexander the Great.   Inferior and cruder societies and cultures, over time and through increased interaction as an osmosis, tended to yield more and more to these quite humanizing Greek attitudes and aspirations, sometimes for better or worse, depending upon a wide variety of historical situations and circumstances, of course.

In general, one could fairly say that the splendid humanization of thought brought culture into a more receptive civilization that, in intent, sought to thoughtfully, philosophically, encompass all of mankind within the greater koinos kosmos (a shared world, common humanity), a truly ecumenical, meaning universal, world for all peoples.

In St. John the Evangelist’s Gospel, the Logos, the Word, was freely adopted to mean Jesus Christ, which is a prominent example of how a definite part of Greek philosophy got itself transmuted into Catholic theology.  Notably, the entire Septuagint, in the 3rd century BC, was a translation of the Old Testament that had, of course, been then written entirely in Greek.  Because it was much too indicative of the true signs of the Messiah, the Jews, only after the rise of Christianity, then rejected it suspiciously as being a supposed poor translation from the Hebrew.

If it confirmed Christianity, ergo, it just then had to be wrong!   The nasty “logic” of sheer bigotry, by definition, always thinks it’s so totally impeccable and should not be ever questioned.

The elders of the synagogues made sure that the Hebrew scribes, especially after the Diaspora, rewrote selected parts to help skillfully exclude any references to the Savior that could in any way be attributed directly to Jesus Christ.   That is why only expurgated versions or editions of the Jewish Torah now exist today, which considerably help to obscure or deny that Jesus is the Christ; and, this obscurantist belief system is, proudly, called Judaism, for Hellenization, after all, had its limits.

To really say more about the impact of Hellenization would only be just redundant, beyond any real need. One can reasonably conclude, therefore, by saying that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam had all benefited substantially by the past process of Hellenization since few, if any, religions are truly freed of historical reality.  The main flaw of such Hellenism is, of course, the anthropocentricism to be found hidden at the heart of all paganism, however disguised, since it could not be otherwise.


Catholicism and the Moral Struggle of Contemporary Life: Gratitude versus Entitlement

Catholicism and the Moral Struggle of Contemporary Life: Gratitude versus Entitlement

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

“Gratitude is not only the greatest of the virtues, but the parent of all the others.”Cicero, Pro Plancio

“Learn, too, to be grateful. May all the wealth of Christ’s inspiration have its shrine among you; now you will have instruction and advice for one another, full of wisdom, now there will be psalms, and hymns, and spiritual music, as you sing with gratitude in your hearts to God.  Whatever you are about, in word and action alike, invoke always the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, offering your thanks to God the Father through Him.”Colossians 3:16-17

Ultimately, though it is granted that variously different words may be so used, there are just two basic attitudes toward life; one leads to the Christian view that is most concentrated within orthodox Roman Catholicism, the other veers inevitably toward either varieties of neopaganism for most people or just outright secularism for some others. How is this to be here posited?

Catholicism is the most radical faith imaginable; all others pale in comparison and into insignificance because they make compromises or adjustments toward the sad world and its very often malleable approaches to generally dealing with life and its consequences, for good or ill.

Not even, e. g. Orthodox Judaism comes close to Catholicism because, e. g., the Jewish tradition requires that someone who does harm must first ask forgiveness of the aggrieved party, before any pardon may be given; in one instance, among many, of an endlessly tremendous ethical, moral and spiritual divide, Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, commands forgiveness and even regardless of the disposition of the evil doer. That, as just a gross understatement, is truly and notably significant.

This is because, although often unrecognized, there is unquestionably unconditional gratitude that is to be given to God in that Catholics are notably privileged to forgive, yes, privileged to forgive, in the hope that they may be so forgiven, as the totally essential and necessary condition of attaining their eternal salvation in Heaven. Before the Supreme Being, there are definitely no entitlements.

The final reward, a permanent blessedness as a saint, is incalculably great; and, all semblance of human pride must be willingly sacrificed by committing the act of forgiveness, with no thought of any supposed entitlements. As St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the Scholastics, had verily taught, God does not even owe human beings justice because He, by definition, is the real source of all justice, all mercy, and all truth.  The actual subordination of mere human beings is not that commonly recognized these days and, because of a rather heightened degree of human hubris, increasingly so.

The Unmitigated Evils of Entitlement and Ingratitude

Why?   Because something needs to be understood and properly comprehended, concerning gratitude due to the Lord, as to the truth and justice and His righteousness.  Thus, this supremely vital reality must be rightly known before anything else.  All the many concerns, thoughts, injustices suffered, problems, sufferings, torments, evils endured, and anything and everything else that has afflicted all human beings, past, present and future, who have, do, and will ever live on this earth are just absolutely nothing, when compared to the rights, honor, and glory of God.1

Without, in effect, getting down on one’s knees to thank God, every day, as a sincere act of needed and owed gratitude, there is then lacking something, quite monumentally missing, in the Catholicism, in the Christianity, of an alleged believer. But, ingratitude is the typical characteristic and touchstone of basic modern reality.  There are many practical consequences of this harmful attitude, in the real world, which certainly affects all of politics, society, economics, culture, and, ultimately, the quality, or lack thereof, of a civilization itself.  Lack of noticing this fact indicates both an insensate intellect and a dead soul.

There is even an ideology that unreservedly reflects and, moreover, openly celebrates ingratitude, and it is usually known as Libertarianism. And, it will be here convincingly and easily demonstrated how such individualism and collectivism, furthermore, do kiss each other passionately, on the matter of a mutually accepted sense of ingratitude; for they are, in fact, simply the two sides of the very same coin of overt modernity.

Thoughtful people often do look around and wonder what has been, for generations now, helping to terribly destroy this country’s society, politics and culture and, of course, all of Western civilization in general. Many various terms or words, no doubt, could be freely used, in either popular or learned descriptive efforts, at properly defining and analyzing the reasons, causes, tendencies, issues, etc. for the effortlessly observed decadence, dissolution, decline, and degradation.

Besides hubris and vanity, behind them all, whether overtly or covertly recognized as such, one would inevitably find the sense of entitlement. Social Security, Supplementary Security Income, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare payments, Unemployment Insurance, and much else exists as part of what are called entitlements, which have assisted in creating the overall vile entitlement mentality that so intimately and increasingly governs now the lives of tens upon tens of millions, whether citizens or even illegal aliens.

\What the churches, private charities, social organizations, and generous people used to do, meaning before the great evils of excessively confiscatory taxation, vilely cancerous government growth, and massive secularization, the Omnicompetent State is now supposed to all provide.

So, everyone is made by the government to think that they are just axiomatically and naturally entitled to everyone else’s (meaning the taxpayers’) income. Socialism, by whatever possible euphemism, has substantively and thoroughly gripped almost all of the minds of the modern Western world that, in turn, actively caters to encouraging decadence, dissolution, decline, and degradation.  But, socialism and its wrongly assumed opposite, individualism, both do specialize in fostering and approving of ingratitude because both affirm, in their different ways, the same entitlement mentality.

Since no gratitude whatsoever need be shown to God by Libertarianism, libertarians, by any name, feel entitled to whatever they may own or have since no Supreme Being has allowed them the opportunity, as far as they are concerned; and, socialists, by any name, do equally feel entitled to anything they may have or can get at the expense of the taxpayers. Ingratitude and entitlement are, thus, surely two sides of exactly the same coin, not antagonistic principles, as either the libertarians or socialists would falsely claim.2

This article, in firm support of its thesis, will present a “Burkean” style defense of the Roman Catholic Faith; this will be given particularly concerning the, thus, titanic moral struggle of contemporary life, by strenuously denouncing the lack of gratitude that most people have and, also, by repudiating adamantly any support for the very regnant entitlement mentality. The great Edmund Burke was correctly said to have solidly stood on exactly the same ground of argumentation when he, first, ardently defended the American Revolution of 1776 and, later, vigorously attacked the French Revolution of 1789.  This missive will, therefore, be a Burkean performance for the entertainment of the readers.

All Christians, especially orthodox Roman Catholics, should religiously repudiate utterly the entitlement, egocentric prerogative, mentality and any notion of ingratitude, rank thanklessness. In contrast, Adam and Eve had exhibited both ungratefulness and a sense of seeking wrongful privilege by wanting to be as gods, in the knowing of good and evil, thus, the permanent commission of Original Sin.

Not being fully content with the enormous bounty both freely and generously provided by the Supreme Being, they still wanted more, much more.  Spitting contemptuously under any due deference and humility, human pride, inordinately desiring an improper equality with the Supreme Being, had mingled with greediness and a bold envy.

These basic attitudes, going over the centuries under many guises and names and whether material or immaterial in actual nature, have sadly stayed, with the fallen human race, ever since as to the mortal propensity to sin within the confines of a fallen world.

As Alexis de Tocqueville so correctly noted, in his justly celebrated Democracy in America, the American people, as with other peoples, could have the possibility to sustain free government, as long as they did not realize that they could institute public theft through the ballot box.  Once that corruption took hold in their minds, corruption was to increase massively and free government would no longer be actually sustainable as “democratic despotism” (sinfully) grabbed at the economic wealth of the nation.

Millions upon millions of citizens, generation by generation, were no longer satisfied with the material and other bounty that God had provided by allowing for the existence of America. They yet wanted more, much more.

With their carefully contrived situation ethics and value-neutral attitudes that do reek of hypocrisy, they face a (deranged) world made supposedly amenable, in their own warped minds, to a moral and ethical subjectivity called, of course, existentialist, value-preference objectivity. With goods and services seen galore, due to an increasing vile lust for a populist statism (aka democratic despotism), there have been many horrid results quite complementary to and truly congenial with both the necessary advancement and valid consolidation of tyranny, of course.  It really could not, therefore, be otherwise.

And, the political-ruling class in this country simply were too eager to supply those wants, meaning as long as the people increasingly gave up civil liberties and civil rights in the process, which has occurred, with the vast expansion of supposedly unlimited entitlements. America is, therefore, a much less freer country, as a direct consequence, than it was just, say, a mere forty or fifty years ago; statism demands its sacrifices, as it is the modern Moloch, which functionally and operationally exists as Thomas Hobbes’ supremely celebrated “Mortal God.“

But, as with all material goods and services, because of the inherent sinfulness of human nature, it will never really be ever enough; more and more is, thus, constantly demanded and necessarily expected. Ingratitude and entitlement, by their very natures and integral characteristics, do feed off each other and intensify each other’s worst features, as a true result.  More is never enough, as night follows day.

Both of these features of mass, advanced, modern societies spawn so enormously greedy desires that become insatiable and axiomatically increase, as the democratic functions and operations of a country becomes crescive as well. The people assume that they can easily just vote themselves into a condition of guaranteed prosperity, which now exists as the American Welfare-Warfare State (aka Administrative State, Regulatory State, or Bureaucratic State).

It is fairly much the same, one suspects, as was written about, some generations ago by now, in Hilaire Belloc’s The Servile State and, of course, as was noted in Friedrich von Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom or Garet Garrett’s The People’s Pottage.  Now, millions upon millions of Americas and the vast majority of the people of the western world in general are steeped in a passionate ingratitude and do worship the supposed god of entitlement, not seeing the condition of enslavement that inevitably must come.

For as Burke intelligently wrote, centuries ago, “Their passions forge their fetters.”   The sinful lusts of materialism, hedonism, and secularism lead inevitably toward despotism or, if one prefers the term, tyranny.  Sinfulness, when actively and intensively present on a mass scale, calls forth political, social, economic, and cultural corruption to the greatest degrees imaginable, as is abundantly seen in America, in particular, and the Western world in general.  The only real chance for true American renewal is the one that would be, so axiomatically, rejected by the vast majority of the domestic population, meaning orthodox Roman Catholicism.3

As modernity has, in effect, sanctified the Seven Deadly Sins, it is, also, the case that ingratitude has been made a kind of virtue, whereby the people feel simply entitled to whatever they think is the new minimum such as a free (aka taxpayer paid) healthcare system for life and for covering all normal and extraordinary needs. Public schooling, in America, exists freely for both grade and high school, as is provided by the government; free food is provided by food stamps and various other programs; the Obamaphone Program gives out complimentary cell phones.

This renders aid and comfort, significantly speaking, to the ever radical-political enshrinement of much unholy greed, plain and simple; and, it naturally feeds into the human condition as to base sinfulness and moral depravity. It caters to the illusion of something for nothing, which ignores the enthrallment of the then degraded and debased population at large to the demands of statism, meaning tyranny, and, thus, the observed cognate mass secularization of society and culture.  The situation is clearly demonic.

Many suitably envious predispositions are being endlessly encouraged, ideologically stimulated, by the ever abundant government largesse that, logically, affirms publicly and loudly the ugly idea of highly covetous entitlement, which is, of course, the Leftist political rationalization and lustful justification for pure greed perpetually unsatiated.

For as the Communist Karl Marx himself wrote, in knowing full well about usual human weaknesses and imperfections, ”Don’t tell me what people need, tell me what they want.”   Claiming idealism, Socialist ideologists, to better, thus, conceal the ever vicious truth from themselves, confidently lie to themselves freely when they then, always, wrongly do think otherwise.  There is a demonic disregard for the truth.

Soon, given the progressive “logic” involved, voters will eagerly demand that they be well supplied, for life, with free housing and cars, summer-vacation homes, all free electronic equipment, gratis tickets to amusement parks, complimentary movie tickets, and definitely so much else besides. A $15 minimum wage guaranteed by government is just chicken feed; many groups are now demanding $25 and others say up to $50 per hour.  All this, however, does not ever really lessen any demand-supportive mentality, rather, it then so much further powerfully stimulates, as a consequence of Original Sin and the known sinfulness emanating from it, the evil, pernicious, and dreadful human emotion of one of the classic Seven Deadly Sins: Envy.4

Postmodernity, consequently, has spawned a grievance, entitlement, and ingratitude-oriented culture in which all societal conduct exists as a zero-sum game, whereby if any one person gains, then someone else or other people must necessarily lose; socialism, due to its nature, adds to the endless turmoil by insisting that the “economic pie” is, thus, a shrinking entity resulting from this assumed zero-sum game that paints the picture not of a collectivist Utopia but, rather, a contempt-filled dystopia, a Hobbesian world, as to a worst case scenario. And yet, worrying too much, being extremely disquieted, about the things of this world, which are distractions, is clearly un-Christian conduct.

One can readily tell the extent of secularization, in a society and culture, as is seen in the ingratitude to God overtly shown by excessive concerns about: physical appearance to be enhanced by cosmetics, the anxieties and fears connected to paying the bills of one’s existence, the outcomes of professional sports games, need to always see the latest movies and other popular entertainments, etc. Most people worry tremendously within such a civilization concerning, e. g., their standard of living, not the high standard to be set for the proper and needful sake of their souls’ eternal salvation, for the joy and happiness of Heaven; the metaphysical order exists, if ever at all, as just a mere or simply vague afterthought of an inconsiderable kind.

It is no real surprise, therefore, that such ideas as grace, holiness, humility, and piety become so totally incomprehensible. There are only such matters as value-free preferences, value-neutral judgments, and situation ethics allied to positivism, pragmatism, and naturalism to, eventually, yield nihilism ending in an ensuing insanity, though by whatever name.  One sees this easily, for instance, in the literally quite insane positing of there supposedly being anywhere from about 200 to 300 genders or, perhaps, still many more in the future.

This clearly secularist attitude shows a much debased worldview without knowledge of grace and given only to materialist-hedonist calculations of right versus wrong, in a starkly Benthamite manner, with social and economic utilitarian parts constructed for man’s vain earthly cunning and deviousness. The entitlement mentality is, thus, regarded by so many contemporaries as a supposed new virtue because subjectivity has become the new PC objectivity, in that perversity exists a simple synonym for the ever ideologically demanded diversity.  And, nothing should be now plainer to obvious sight as to the current understanding of an obnoxiously plastic or endlessly protean sort of “truth” infinitely amenable for all or any occasions, for such is the nature of madness.

What is said to exist is the presumed amoral “no man’s land” filled with ego enhancement units, known as self-actualized persons, struggling as if in an enormous bee hive, though the deluded participants are supposed to still have utopian aspirations.  Holiness and piety are just odd antiquarian notions with no pragmatic and real cash value.  As a jocular result, the insanity of all this is, of course, rarely recognized because it gets too often quite vainly disguised by Marxism and neo-Marxism, and also known by the many various euphemisms.5

A contrasting good sentiment is indicative, according to classical Natural Law teachings, of what ought to properly prevail. The many benefits of gratitude include an emotion expressing true thankfulness for what one has, which is ever diametrically opposed to a materialistic emphasis on what one wants and, consequently, demands.  Increasingly, one may note, in an ironic manner, that the subject of gratitude is receiving a great deal of contemporary attention as a definite part of positive psychology studies that are accumulating and demonstrating that people can intentionally encourage gratitude so set within themselves and, as a beneficial result, can grow a personal sense well-being and happiness by seeking to do so.

Also, there is the good realization that gratefulness, especially when seeking to express it to others, is normally related with an increased sense of energy, optimism, and sympathy shown toward other people; and, in other words, it has a justly genuine humanizing and truly socializing effect as favoring brotherhood and a decently fair sense of human commonality. For Catholics, this is to be found in the appropriate drive toward a wanted holiness, for the better seeking of the proper obtaining of grace and a belief in right wholesome Christian solidarity, the very best, ultimately, of all the positive features of a true Christianity filled with a right sense of wholesome thankfulness.

Seeking Gratitude: The “Art” and “Science” of Being a Catholic

Gratitude, moreover, points its keen attention toward the greater good. Christians ought to be grateful of many things; Catholics, moreover, should be even more so because of a plentitude of opportunities for gaining grace toward salvation itself and, if for no other reason, the very fact of just simply being a Roman Catholic.  Members of the Church of Rome are, thus, to be grateful for having the Pope and the hierarchy, no matter how despicable, in fact, various members are, for Christ instituted, founded, the Holy Roman Catholic Church and, in addition, the sacred principle of Apostolic succession.

The quality or lack thereof of the numerous actual people involved, many Catholics do forget, is not God’s fault. No matter how terrible things get, because of the priority, in perspective, of the then ever absolute rights, honor and glory of God, human beings are to still remain unquestionably grateful to the Lord Almighty.  Even such an earthly evil human as suffering is yet to be rightly understood as being, through the sincere love of God and showing of gratitude, a truly splendid and joyful privilege.6

Definition can help with clarification of meaning. The following will either be quotes or paraphrases that were taken from George Crabb’s volume titled: Crabb’s English Synonymes: Centennial Edition (1916).  To cite most pertinently here: “Thankfulness, or a fullness of thanks (from Anglo-Saxon thanc, a thought, hence a pleasant thought, a grateful remembrance), is the outward expression of a grateful feeling.  Gratitude, from the Latin gratitudo, is the feeling itself.”

And yet, all that still requires some further needed elucidation and extrapolation. Personal gratitude is measured by the nature of one’s actions.  Nonetheless, it is possible for someone to seem very thankful, at a certain time, who, later, “proves very ungrateful.” Many human beings can, it should not be doubted, be exactly that way.

As a kind of much needed emphasis, concerning the fact of a reciprocity, one also, in Crabb’s English Synonymes, notably reads that, “Thankfulness is the beginning of gratitude; gratitude is the completion of thankfulness.” Both such highly interesting points, as to their own acute instructiveness, are worth remembering, for the former feeling cannot be truly genuine if the latter is not heartily felt, which can present, one suspects, a seeming dilemma or paradox to sagacious minds.

Of course, adverse to the commendatory quote from Marcus Tullius Cicero’s (106 – 43 BC) Pro Plancio, given at the beginning of this article, highly supporting such a morally upright and ethically generative, positive virtue, one could yet come across a negative quote from the ever cynical François VI, Duc de La Rochefoucauld, Prince de Marcillac; this is seen in his Maxims: “Gratitude, in most men, is only a strong and secret hope of greater favors.”

He, generally, gives what could be so easily called “from the rat’s eye” perspective concerning a woefully imperfect humanity and its many failings. True gratitude, set especially in a Christian sense, ought to be always genuine, not ever meanly counterfeit, to help avoid a supposed dilemma that ought not to exist. Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

Nonetheless, in terms of genuine Christianity, the gratefulness of all men to God is to be, in effect, as unlimited as is the Supreme Being Himself and, if properly understood, absolutely with no intentions of any quid pro quo, as is true with paganism.  And, in speaking of paganism, even wise Plato knew, totally contrary to the Sophist Protagoras, that “God [not Man] is the measure of all things.”

To acknowledge such truth, all Catholics can say the prayer of Saint Richard of Chichester (1198-1253): “Thank you, Lord Jesus Christ, for all the benefits and blessings which you have given me, for all the pains and insults which you have borne for me. Merciful Friend, Brother and Redeemer, may I know you more clearly, love you more dearly, and follow you more nearly, day by day.”

Hence, the true justice of always yielding and rendering, which ought to be obvious beyond question, all ultimate thankfulness to the infinite Creator of all things. And, from this, as to its imperativeness and so cognate implications, one could properly derive both the need to love God and, as an allied function of that, one’s neighbor as well, for the Lord’s sake, not just our own.   As the Creator loves all His creation, humans are to reciprocate that love of all His human creatures, which should not, however, be confused with liking everybody.  There are, in fact, significant differences for proper consideration.

The saints certainly loved their fellows as they were obliged for obtaining holiness, though they were all not known for liking them all. One must intelligently come to correctly perceive that loving and liking are, therefore, not (always) the same thing.   A Catholic father must, e. g., unrestrictedly love his son, but if the child sadly becomes a slothful, slovenly, wayward, unrepentant, and corrupt adult, he does not have to admire, respect, or even like him at all.  Christian love does not, therefore, demand some sort of inherent and strangely implacable stupidity or, perhaps, quite an excessive indifference to the very plain truth about certain human beings and their so observably nasty or downright reprehensible conduct.   All people are, therefore, to be loved but need not be liked.

It is the duty of Catholics, no matter how extremely difficult and very sorrowful that it may surely be, to, for instance, always love and pray for Pope Francis, though he ought to be still rightly disrespected and disliked for any evil that he does.  For the higher sake of one’s soul’s salvation and a life geared toward holiness, the unreserved gratitude that ought to be always felt toward the Almighty God so necessarily mandates, thus, all such requisite and proper love.  One’s needed thankfulness to the Lord makes love and prayers for the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, absolutely and without question ever mandatory.

Again, however, the still distinct matters of liking and loving are really different, not just supposedly equivalent, which may yet need to be significantly reiterated, in the closing off of this particular topic related to an obligation for the love of God. For to acquire the right attitude, especially against the evil entitlement mentality, human beings are nothing compared to the Lord God Almighty, in that the things of Heaven that people ought to crave should then make all earthly matters axiomatically pale into an increasing insignificance.

In Luke 17:11-19, there is the interesting and evocative story of the ten suffering lepers, for when Jesus was traveling between Samaria and Galilee, He entered a town. There, these ten lepers had urgently implored Him, from an appropriate distance, to have mercy on them.  Jesus, knowing full well the Judaic Law, responded by telling them to go show themselves to the priests.  Lepers could be allow back into society only after they had been actually certified by priests that they, in fact, were totally cleansed of the leprosy.

But, just one (a mere 10%) of the entire ten, a Samaritan, came back to Jesus to sincerely express his earnest gratitude. After reverently prostrating himself before the feet of Jesus and rendering great thanks, the Samaritan heard Christ declare publicly to all who were present: “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine?  Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” (Luke 17:17-18).

It is the case that the Messiah wanted, most definitely, all of the listeners, meaning without any doubt, to get the noted point, which He considered to be of very obvious importance. In effect, He was openly rebuking all unrepentant sinners, not just simply commenting on the nine other former lepers, as to their noted behavior or, rather, gross misbehavior in this morally critical matter.

This New Testament passage certainly makes it rather manifest that gratitude pleases Jesus very much, while its lack brings Him sorrow.  The fact that Jesus did not simply cure all ten lepers immediately fully allowed them the reflective occasion to so decide whether they should come back to Him directly and express their appropriate gratitude, as soon as their cures had taken place.  The so deliberately delayed miracle easily permits the story to explicitly underscore the extreme significance of proper gratitude and, moreover, summonses all Christians to keenly perceive why Jesus values it so highly.

And, moreover, the evident lack or absence thereof, offends Jesus so greatly. This point ought, then, to be undeniably crystal clear for all to so readily see and without question.  Thus, among other necessarily important considerations, any deliberate ingratitude, on such a scale, is a mortal sin, which logically relates to the resultant damnation of souls.

And, though serious sin and damnation are rarely, if ever, on the jaded minds of average contemporary people, the truth of all this survives; this yet remains, however, especially for those who may say that they adhere to Catholicism as their faith, as being a lesson. Such a point ought not, therefore, to be wrongly lost.  The ugly ingratitude, the repugnant thanklessness, of the nine lepers, also, indicates strongly how terribly sordid and vile the concomitant modern attitude of the entitlement mentality really is, for its integral evil celebrates the true spirit of Godlessness.

A practicing Catholic’s life and love is, therefore, to be always Christocentric, not ever anthropocentric or naturalist-secularist-humanist oriented because the Lord God, the King of King, is, it should be so manifest, the true measure of all things. And, this thought is never to be thought of as just a mere jest.  Furthermore, due to the reality of the Cross of Christ, the ultimate price to be fiercely paid for genuinely holding this important belief can, in fact, be one’s utter destruction unto desolation and death, meaning that ultimate form of Christian gratitude shown toward God in martyrdom.7

Christians, as it ought to be true of all people, are to praise God for everything, the good and the bad, no matter how very hard it may, at times, be; pain and joy, life and death, sadness and gladness, suffering and elation, are all times for praising the Lord, for being and beingness are good, not evil. This is fully opposed to the modern environmental-ecological movement, endorsed by the vilely evil Pontiff Francis,8 which looks upon man as just a horrible, unnatural cancer upon the earth to then be, eventually, utterly wiped out by ZPG, abortion, euthanasia, birth control, etc.  It is the conveniently postmodernist home and Green Power emanation of age-old immanentism, as to a much glorified secularization, in all of its so disgustingly demonic “splendor.”

In all things, nonetheless, God is to be honestly thanked, since He is the absolute source of all being and beingness because of the existence of the Creator, the Supreme Being of all, besides the gratis eternal gift of instituting the Roman Catholic Church through Jesus Christ.

Admittedly, times have surely changed. It has been a long time since the right gallant Robert E. Lee, one of the greatest men in American history, said that the word “duty” was among the most sublime words in the English language; this was considering the denotative and connotative qualities involved with that word.  But, for Christians, as Lee knew, they ought to know that it is a privilege, honor, obligation, and duty to love God, which is the ultimate thankfulness that humans are capable of showing.  What this all relates to, as the bottom line, is the honest ability to express a genuine humility.  The proud can never enter Heaven because they are, as the old saying goes, just too big from their own britches.

True gratitude, however, requires the human precondition of humility. And, authentic humility is part of the main ticket toward the admission price expected and needed for attaining Christian beatitude and salvation.  Humble hearts can, of course, express thankfulness readily; truly arrogant and egocentric minds are, unfortunately, too consumed by the entitlement mentality that praises itself for being in a demanding mood, so suitable for a degenerate secular society and culture, and knowing no God.

For ever seeking gratitude, Christians, and more so for practicing Catholics, know full well their eternally great indebtedness to the Lord God Almighty and, as to Catholicism, the Church and its set sacraments inclusive. Only the Crucifixion of Christ was able to pay the debt created by Adam and Eve by opening the doors of Heaven forever, nothing less. Thus, Catholicism involves adhering to the humility of being truly grateful and, with that real thankfulness and pursuit of holiness to obtain grace, remaining a good Catholic, therefore, unto death itself.


And, every Catholic ought to know that the Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament of Thanksgiving for God’s chance at gaining redemption, for the best practice of one’s Catholic faith necessarily revolves around the good idea of gratitude. This is directly seen, of course, in the traditional Catholic Mass. In contrast, entitlements are, in effect, many satanic claws grasping greedily at many people, especially at professed Christians, who really ought to know better than to serve Satan or, rather, his secularist surrogate, the modern State in all of its profane unholiness.  Bitterness, envy, greed, and grievances are allied to this supremely secularist attitude calling forth endless recriminations, malice, resentments, and spite.

It needs to be so rightly understood, therefore, that gratitude is the virtue by which a person properly recognizes, interiorly and exteriorly, assistances gained and seeks to make at least some recompense appropriate for the assistances or favors rendered. The attitude of gratitude is, basically, synonymous with Catholicism itself, as is the true thanksgiving so represented by each and every Holy Mass.  To be a practicing Roman Catholic is, moreover, to be ever grateful and indebted to God in a both practical and spiritual manner.

The prayer before meals illustrates perfectly what the Christian life, the Catholic life, of truly boundless gratitude is to be all about: “Bless us, O Lord, for these thy gifts, which we are about to receive from thy bounty, through Christ, our Lord. Amen.”   The true religious and, thus, undoubted need for such explicit thankfulness, overt appreciation, could hardly be made that much clearer.

Athanasius contra mundum!


  2. These matters can be instructively expatiated upon for some useful amplification. Contrary, e. g., to the libertarian Thomas Woods, Jr., therefore, Catholicism is not really compatible with the ideology of Libertarianism (by whatever euphemism) or, for that matter, any ideology; in opposition to the very anti-libertarian Christopher Ferrara, Catholicism, also, is not to be ever seen as being harmonious with Socialism (by whatever euphemism).  Since Catholicism is, in fact, not an ideology; it can then, as a truly radical religion, thoroughly repudiate both the evils of the entitlement mentality and the ingratitude shown by both individualism and collectivism, in their different but still complementary ways.

Woods, Jr., author of Real Dissent: A Libertarian Sets Fire to the Index Card of Allowable Opinion, and Ferrara, author of Liberty, the God That Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State, from Locke to Obama, used to be good friends turned quite bitter rivals who, nonetheless, are yet intimately united by their ingratitude and entitlement fixations.  Real antagonists, as engaged disputants and competitors, do have much more in common than they would ever realize or, of course, care to admit, especially by, directly or indirectly, mirror-imaging each other so much.  Such a conflict is, thus, quite morally painful to watch.


4.   See: Helmut Schoek’s masterpiece volume Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour

5.   Among a literal plethora of fallacies, Marxism, courtesy of Karl Marx himself, made the so incredibly stupid mistake of positing a form of perfectionism. He had, so asininely, just calmly assumed that what he blandly defined as Capitalism had totally eliminated forever the economic problem of scarcity and calculations, thus, necessarily and naturally dependent upon the empirical economic fact of scarcity.  For him, this definitely meant that Communism could, in its turn, build up upon this (alleged) achievement (actually, a sand castle) and, thus, come to outdo Capitalism itself, in the process of bringing about the New Eden on earth without, of course, God.

This supposed elimination of the definitive core economic problem is quite highly illustrative of the utopianism inherent always within Marxism and all of its many collectivist, Keynesian, etc. variants to this present day and for all time.  It is but one fatal instance, among so very many, of true Marxist brainlessness.  Scarcity and price function are “mysterious” matters that “collectivist economics,” an oxymoron if ever there was one, which do remain forever beyond the intellectual capacity of all these utopian dreamers.  One can, instructively, read Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action (3rd edition) and his Socialism to understand the empirically verifiable truth of what is written here.

Relative paucity (by whatever designation) and its omnipresent economic reality on earth renders, by definition, all of Communism/Utopia forever impossible. Marx, being a supremely radical-bourgeois urbanite, was just incapable of possessing the concrete knowledge of even the simplest peasant that perfection can never exist in this world.  It literally takes millions of people, the more the better, to help make a modern freemarket economy function; no hubristic central planners have the collective brain power or capacity, much less the humility, to run entire economies better than the freemarket itself can.

Thus, collectivism always inevitably fails, as easily witness one of the latest examples of such insanely attempted Utopia building: Venezuela, where people are literally starving to death in the gutters. And, this is, of course, called with quite hellish irony yet another “Worker’s Paradise.”





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: