The Neo-Hippie Pope: Pope Francis as His Freakiness

by callthepatriot

The Neo-Hippie Pope: Pope Francis as His Freakiness

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

 

In ancient times, St. Jerome, a priest, confessor, theologian (author of the Vulgate version of the Bible), historian, and, later, made a Doctor of the Church, wrote that the floor of Hell is littered with the skulls of bishops.   Depictions of bishops and popes burning in Hell are to be seen in many medieval paintings.  Centuries later, the greatly egotistic and self-made Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte had once, it is said, contemptuously shouted at a prelate that he could utterly destroy the Roman Catholic Church.

Having a quick wit, the high cleric, Cardinal Ercole Consalvi, then rapidly responded in a famous riposte that, as far as may be known, went something like this: “We clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you’ll be able to do it?”   A 21st century commentator could still wryly add that, nonetheless, the clergy do keep trying, inclusive of popes.  What is meant by such a statement?

Ever since 1965, the Church has been in a true crisis, though both secular and clerical liberals and leftists have routinely misdiagnosed the cause, nature, and extent of this ongoing catastrophe, assuming that many really see one at all.   One symptom can be mentioned below as an illustrative example of this unfortunately continuing disaster that afflicts Holy Mother Church.

The priestly order pointedly denominated as the Society of St. Pius X has been denied, for scores of years, regularization and unrestricted acknowledgement of its wanted full communion with the Roman Catholic Church; this has, essentially, been for only one basic reason.   It adamantly refuses to ever accept the heresy of the Second Vatican Council, meaning its then complete legitimization as a, thus, supposed ecumenical council truly inspired by the Holy Ghost, as its many ever avid supporters and defenders do still always allege, contrary to much adverse evidence.

The Vatican, in turn, recognizes the Society as a serious threat because, unlike the traditionalist Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Society of St. Pius X also runs schools, which means that their generational influence and demographic control insures more handily that tens of thousands of orthodox Roman Catholics will be more conscientiously oriented against Vatican Council II.

Therefore, a more extensive and normal parish life and consequent vitality can, logically, exist by which to then more effectively and efficiently counter this heresy and its cognate evil effects.   The Priestly Fraternity, with its seven year program for prelate formation, produces only a relative handful of priests each year versus the ever expanding and unfilled demand that readily exists.  Compared to the Society, it is fairly inoffensive, unthreatening, and, thus, controllable.

Some defenders of that 1960s-era conclave, however, even have the unmitigated nerve to say that it was, also, a dogmatic council, contrary directly to the documented historical record denying fully such an exalted ecclesial status.   As a result, controversy appears unending and disputations unresolved; meanwhile, Pope Francis, with a new title given here as “His Freakiness,” wants even further openness toward the world, inclusive of a strongly pro-homosexual stance.

Argumentation Presented

Heresy, admittedly, is an extremely strong accusation.  There surely ought to be, therefore, concretely substantive and substantial facts, details, knowledge, etc. brought forth here readily to so validate and substantiate such a genuinely grave charge; this is by which fair and objective witnesses can freely attest to the inherent veracity and accuracy of what has been then forcefully stated; also, major contradiction of this quite serious asseveration should be, in context, objectively impossible as to the fundamental matter of the truth involved.

Historically, e. g., the Arian heresy was of just such a nature in that the assertion can be and, in fact, had been totally validated; and, in the time of St. Athanasius, moreover, most of the Church hierarchy itself had been thoroughly contaminated by such religiously incorrect thinking.  So, it is, insightfully, seen that such a terrible situation is not at all unprecedented, meaning, thus, within the noted scope and breath of recorded ecclesial history.

The Second Vatican Council, Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum Secundum, constituted, as to its set integral nature, the fomenting of heresy as its legacy, which can be critically perceived by what has then historically, empirically, happened as a result.  That is, admittedly, a rather bold and strong statement to make.   Pope Francis is, one can here rightly note, very comfortable with this terrible situation.  Proper argumentation, therefore, ought and will be gladly given in solid support of this highly important and quite abrasive assertion.

Classic historical background reading would still include Dietrich von Hildebrand’s The Devastated Vineyard and his Trojan Horse in the City of God.   Among others, Bishop James Henry Ambrose Griffiths, STD (1903—1964) had been present at that strange assembly; a convert from Protestantism and a quite theologically learned man, he came back, however, to say how exceedingly appalled and saddened he was at the horrendous sight of heresy boldly defended, of evil plainly sought.

For among those who know and understood the traditions of the Faith, a contemporary and participant in the events keenly knew when Catholicism was being threatened and undermined; and, of course, he was not alone, in his then current observations, emotionally expressed with profound alarm and anxiety.   Has consequent history come to substantially vindicate his major fears?   One can yet consult: The Great Façade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., or The Second Vatican Council – An Unwritten Story by Roberto deMattei, a more recent book.

Enough valid time, several generations in fact, have sadly passed to give an evaluation, assessment, and consideration of the vastly negative impact upon the Church of the horrid aftermath of Vatican Council II (1962 – 1965), hereafter usually referred to as VCII.    As Jesus Christ Himself said in the New Testament, you will know a tree by its fruit; a good tree bears good fruit; a bad tree yields bad fruit.  And, such evil produce is poisonous.   For as St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, in his Letter to the Tralians,”heretics mingle poison with Jesus Christ, as men might administer a deadly drug in sweet wine.”

Ultimately, all of the various conclusions and thoughts to be rendered, by this present cogent analysis, are as basic and simple, fundamental and noncomplex, as is that revealing epistemological statement emphatically made by no less a personage than the Son of God, the one and only Messiah.

What, starting with the basics, makes something a heresy?   The meaning of heresy is, literally, a special opinion; it is, thus, a choice, says St. Isidore in his Etymologies, “by which each chooses according to his own will what he pleases to teach or believe.”   For Catholicism, however, heresy means much more than just an errant or naughty opinion; it is an idea, doctrine, notion, or any movement of thought or activity contrary to any of the three pillars of the Faith, which are Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium; none of which contradict each other and, moreover, all do logically uphold each other.

Those three theological principles are forever consistent and necessarily, by definition, fully orthodox in their natures, as is, e. g., the Trinitarian Dogma itself.  The primary danger of heresy, set contrary to the teachings of the three strong pillars of Catholic religious life, is that it has and will lead to the unwanted damnation of souls; it must, therefore, always be abhorred and opposed unequivocally.

How would one define a heretic?  In The Common Man, G. K. Chesterton, often considered an unofficial lay Doctor of the Church by his ardent admirers, had this to say: “The heretic (who is also a fanatic) is not a man who loves truth too much; no man can love truth too much.  The heretic is a man who loves his truth more than the truth itself.  He prefers the half-truth that he has found to the whole truth which humanity has found.  He does not like to see his own precious little paradox merely bound up with twenty truisms into the bundle of the wisdom of the world.”

What has been said of VCII?   The Spirit of the Second Vatican Council is often placed against the Letter of the Second Vatican Council in a kind of Hegelian dialectic, which is thought to then lead to a kind of synthesis appropriate for modernism in thought, though not for true Catholicism.  Any Hegelian dialectic is, by its very nature, vehemently anti-Catholic to its core and so stands forever hard against orthodoxy because it is so corruptly founded upon nominalism in philosophy.

A kind of weird theo-ideology, a sure abomination to behold, has been theologically and intellectually constructed by which VCII has become seemingly immune to any valid criticism whatsoever, especially in specific terms of its becoming the new touchstone of modern Church orthodoxy.

Those who do know that VCII is a heresy but still uphold it, furthermore, have no real fear of God or Hell, much less the criticisms of any fellow human beings; their hearts are hardened deliberately against truth and justice.  Moreover, one ought to ask why opposition to it has substantially increased, such that Pope Benedict XVI thought it necessary and prudent to promulgate his motu proprio: Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007?

No such desperation has ever or, moreover, will ever exist for the swelling together of great crowds of people intensely hungering for the New Mass, which should not require any guess work as to why not.

Of course, many have and will say that it, the Summorum Pontificum, was only narrowly aimed at just helping to supply more traditional Latin Masses, now called the Extraordinary Rite, and was not really directed at fighting the sad results of Pope John XXIII’s radical Council.   This bare fiction is inventive, if not at all impressive or expressive of the whole truth.   If this contention were even halfway true, then the traditional Latin Mass, meaning demand for it, ought to have dwindled and, eventually, vanished from sight almost everywhere on earth.

Logically, there would have been, in fact, no significant need to so dramatically oppose the hardened intransigence of the vast majority of the hierarchy, on this matter, if it were not for the growing need sincerely expressed mainly by the laity, not the majority of the clergy.   Pope John Paul II’s earlier motu proprio: Ecclesia Dei of 1984, allowing for Indult Masses, was later found to be mainly inadequate to the important task, due mainly to the rigid obstinacy, vile incalcitrance, of the bulk of the bishops.  But, such a weak gesture was better than nothing; traditionalists, however, still keep praying and hoping for more, much more.

The Latin Mass Community, interestingly, represents those devout Catholics, denounced as the bells and smells miscreants, who usually have very large families; their children, in turn, gradually grow up and they normally do get married and they also have very large families; more and more of such tradition-oriented Catholic children as later adults, therefore, are then available for vocations to the holy orders.  This reality is fundamentally unlike the New Mass Community that is mostly contracepting and aborting itself out of existence with, on the whole, almost no vocations; it is geared mainly toward the Culture of Death with its adherence to VCII.

Traditionalist, prolife parishioners, in addition, are routinely among those who are quite generous toward their local churches strongly devoted to upholding religious orthodoxy, which is an important point to note.   They are, of course, a beleaguered, marginalized, vilified, despised minority subject to discrimination and contempt, prejudice and scorn, by the hierarchy.  Latin Mass churches are usually in ghetto or other such neighborhoods due to their parishioners being regarded as pariahs and outcasts. And yet, the future is theirs; demography is destiny.  Orthodoxy fosters the Culture of Life.

Hint: Demographics, vocations, and money are, clearly and heavily, on the side of the anti-VCII forces, not the modernists, the nominalist fetishists.   Generation by generation, over the many scores of years and, thus, centuries to come, victory, over the passage of time, will be with the Latin Mass Community (LMC), though prayers for the spiritual enlightenment of Pope Francis and the hierarchy should yet be encouraged.

However, since he feels no love for them, benign neglect would be the best thing that the present Holy Father could practice toward the LMC.   But, the odd ghost of VCII hovers still over Church deliberations, though one doubts it is a heavenly spirit.   Meanwhile, the traditionalists may intelligently pray for the indulgence of benign neglect seeing how Pope Francis, concerning, e. g., his World Youth Day tour in Brazil, has quite openly manifested a major noted inclination to stir up youth, not truth.

Moreover, his equally bombastic denunciation of clericalism, coming incidentally from the Church’s chief cleric, has a rather ironic and hollow sound.  [In strict obedience to him, should all Catholic youth stir up tremendous opposition to the Vicar of Christ, he being the greatest representative of clericalism?   What a buffoon!]

More than that, however, the Spirit of VCII is normally held as being always religiously superior to the mere Letter, in seeing that the Spirit of the Law ought to liberate, while its Letter alone imprisons; this Hegelian Spirit has, of course, a theologically liberationist function fully alien to all of proper Catholic theology.   Consequently, all manner of things heretical have come, not surprisingly, to find their crude or often sophisticated justification (aka rationalization) by conveniently citing the vaporous VCII Spirit in all of its inherent and deliberate ambiguity, its artful tergiversation and often semantic obscurity.

Does the passage of time, however, circumstantially confer some sort of allied substantive validity to ecumenical or other councils?   The Synod of Pistoia of 1786 was, finally, rightfully denounced by the Church, by Pope Pius VI, in 1794, who had condemned 85 of the Pistoian articles; the same sagacious result is, someday, hoped for regarding VCII.   As ever, a profound understanding and comprehension of the major religious, theological, and spiritual struggle needs to be epistemologically attained for having better philosophical cognition, advanced cognizance, about the critical issues involved.

The interesting point being made is that VCII is not to be thought, somehow or other, just permanently sacrosanct merely for having been fairly popular at the time or, moreover, after the particular era that  weirdly gave it birth.  Chronological precedent is not a guarantor of truth.  Therefore, the mere passage of time does not, in and of itself, lend total authenticity or rightness to any such council or synod.  VCII’s own ecclesial authority is set on shaky ground, if somehow based upon longevity alone because, as noted, such gatherings can be/have been theologically and historically invalidated, finally repudiated.

Has there been a truly remarkable worldwide plenitude, a kind of spiritual avalanche, of conversions to the Catholic Faith as a direct or indirect result of VCII?   With the exception of parts of Africa and a few other places, the Faith, on the whole, has been shrinking and dying elsewhere, especially in Europe and, of course, in Italy, which most directly felt the impact of VCII; and, thus, this should not be surprising.

Pope Benedict XVI, himself having been present at VCII, had declared, some time ago, that it was not at all a dogmatic council, only an ecumenical or pastoral assembly.  It is a fact that no new Church dogmas, had been there promulgated or officialized in any way whatsoever; regardless of that significant detail, its rather blind acceptance had ended up becoming a test of modernist orthodoxy.

Have there been, perhaps, many massive surges of eager postulants and enthusiastic candidates for the vast majority of the religious orders?   Except for the minority of orthodox congregations, one must, realistically, say not really.  It has been well researched by now, and numerous books and articles can be cited in firm support of the idea, that VCII has, moreover, quite miserably failed to revitalize or energize the Church, as had been once predicted.  But, the fruitless defense of it continues nonetheless; and, even regardless of its fundamental spiritual sterility; it was a conclave where requisite orthodoxy was sidestepped.

The emptying of the seminaries and convents, cultural Catholics (non-practicing sentimentalists), and “cafeteria Catholicism,” among other unfortunate examples of the decline of the Faith, have notably proven the bad fruit given by the very bad tree at the horrendous fiasco known as the Second Vatican Council.   Furthermore, the unctuous use of the vernacular for the Novus Ordo, New Mass, has not, in fact, excitedly attracted waves of Protestants in that vain and absurd effort to Protestantize the Mass in the overvalued name of reform spuriously cited.  Lex orandi, lex credenda.

The evil plague of modernism, meaning philosophical nominalism addressed aggressively toward both religion and theology and afflicting the Roman Catholic Church, has been continuing; it is manifested by the New Mass of Pope Paul VI that embraces the world of men, not an orientation favoring solemnity, holiness, tradition, and a righteous concern for Catholic orthodoxy.  An ever extended range of notions, concepts, ideas, practices, symbolisms, aberrations, and much else has wildly contributed to the ever expanding subjectivity and odd variability connected to and, moreover, generated by the existence of the New Mass and its many baleful consequences, including often a lack of needed solemnity.

But, this radical concatenation of absurdity plied upon asininity has not led, as once so optimistically predicted, to a veritable springtime of a vibrant surge of worldwide Catholic evangelization nearly unprecedented in the entire history of the Church, rather, instead, the opposite has basically occurred.

Millions of Catholics and others had committed the simple rationalization, in their untutored minds, that the Protestants did the modern language thing much better, i. e., English language religious services in the USA as an obvious example.   In short, one would be quite blind, deaf, and dumb not to notice the fundamental ruin and sad wreckage caused by VCII.   It is an often disguised attempt at promoting the hidden agenda of what honestly can be seen as the evil effort to achieve eschatological immanentism, which only halfway succeeded with Protestantism and not just with its more radical variants.

There now exists the widely celebrated fallacious historical notion, moreover, of a supposed preconciliar Church, the evil “Dark Ages” of Catholicism, as being widely different from the postconciliar Church, the good/joyous “Era of Enlightenment” since VCII.  Pridefulness has, also, played an ugly part in sustaining a positive view of what is objectively a quite terrible situation to behold, though it is known that “Pride goeth before a fall.”

Unfortunately, too many clerics and others had and still have publicly staked their entire intellectual reputations upon their acceptance of and interpretations related to this particular Church gathering that has caused shock waves similar to the Arian Heresy, which was an entire religious movement and not any kind of isolated matter.   Its evil impact, however, seems to be much worse than the Arian Heresy because the full force of the heresy of modernism, as was vigorously warned against by Pope St. Pius X early in the 20th century, has boldly and tenaciously taken hold of the contemporary Church.

The odd postconciliar Church would be substantially unrecognizable to St. Pius X and for good reason.   Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, if returned to life today, would be thoroughly shocked at the doings and practices allowed to exist.   It is extremely doubtful that Pope St. Pius V, among many other worthy pontiffs, would simply give his unreserved blessing to the prevailing theological and consequent religious chaos, which has led to this ongoing and heartbreaking crisis within the Church.

What gets called “reform” is, in truth, actually radicalization, not the sage application of some certain prudential change, kept ever spiritually in proper line, by studiously attending to the requirements of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium rightly concerned with orthodoxy.   But, VCII supporters are too ideologically, emotionally, and intellectually committed to see any of its tremendously inherent flaws and faults, including, of course, the notable and undeniable de-Christianization of Europe.

The preconciliar Church celebrated Christ and the means given for salvation through the Church; the postconciliar Church celebrates the people as a religious community and presents the means for their intramundane glorification.   How is this known?  The traditional Latin Mass, the good seed that will help to bring forth good fruit, has the priest properly facing the altar for the worship of God; the New Mass has the priest facing the people to better worship them; thus, obvious actions speak louder than words, so much for the modernist tinkering with liturgy.

And, this is naturally why the Novus Ordo has too much of a Protestant feel to it, not so unexpectedly.   Michael Davies, among others, had written extensively on this important matter, as with his extremely insightful volume entitled: Pope John’s Council: Liturgical Revolution: Vol. II.   Also, one can profitably read his Volume III: Pope Paul’s New Mass.   [A bibliography against VCII would have the effect of more than tripling the pages of this brief article.]

Meanwhile, among more recent popes, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the former a truly formidable charismatic pontiff and the latter an equally formidable intellect as a pope, had so surely engaged themselves in the ever pitiful reform of the reform of the reform, in a vain and fruitless effort to somehow make it all work as expected.   Guess what?  They failed.  Regardless, the vain attempt still continues.

But, things never worked out as planned.  Of course, many people ignorantly pin their hopes upon the Catholic Charismatic Movement that apes Protestant charismatic groups, which ought to be a warning sign; they are somewhat equivalent to the late Medieval flagellants whose raw fanaticism was wrongly seen as somehow purifying, revitalizing, and, thus, spiritually superior to much of the moral sloth and inactivity of that past era.  That earlier historical freakishness and the freaky and contemporaneous Charismatic Movement, seeking many endless emotional highs, are, in truth, just spiritual dead ends, not productive religiously-oriented futures.

John Paul II, an adherent of VCII, had himself participated openly in quite vile acts of horridly profound blasphemy by, e. g., placing pagan idols on a Catholic altar as at that greatly infamous gathering held at Assisi, Italy, though, currently, he’s on his supposed way toward sainthood.  Perhaps, it is an effort to help legitimize the heresy, especially by laudably calling him John Paul the Great, a man who had been a bold celebrator of many anti-Catholic aberrations, again, one sees that corruptively perverse Spirit of VCII.   Canonization and Church politics seem here to be wrongly united and geared toward incestuous reciprocity.

Or, in religiously needed opposition to such blatant error, as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his Oxford University Sermons, had so notably written: “Here is the badge of heresy: its dogmas are unfruitful; it has no theology.  Deduct its remnants of Catholic theology, and what remains?  Polemics, explanations, protests.”  One could, thus, suggest that such is the forever exceedingly faulty scaffolding, heretical argumentation, of VCII, meaning when honestly put on open display.

Presenting the ever improper notion, even semantically, that there is a postconciliar Church versus the preconciliar Church totally vitiates and negates the orthodox dogmatic assertion that there can be only the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Pope Benedict XVI had, in fact, publicly spoken about such an important point as to its both complete inappropriateness and inherently fallacious nature.

Nonetheless, literally speaking, it is widely known that many millions of Catholics, thousands of clergy, and, also, many non-Catholics do commonly voice themselves concerning the genuine differences and major distinctions of two fairly dissimilar bodies as to their noted or supposed past and present realities.  Different churches, divergent liturgies, consequently, do seem to exist, besides the opposed theological points of view.  What is needed today is the Church Militant, not the Church Ambivalent.

If VCII was, as claimed, theocentric, meaning strongly Christocentric, it ought to have spiritually swept through both the heights and depths of Western civilization with an intense evangelization not seen since the Middle Ages; instead, of course, its artful anthropocentric orientation is revealed by its basic sterility, for this curse upon the Church will not be effectively lifted until the entire Spirit of VCII is utterly repudiated and, in a forceful public manner, done for all time to come.

For instance, the postconciliar attitude seems to substantially minimize or, at times, just discard entirely the significant ancient and venerable doctrine and dogma of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which is so greatly pivotal toward the proper understanding, by definition, of the entire spiritual universalism, always claimed by Catholicism, as to its total exclusivity and exceptionality; this only relates, logically, to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; there is none other; there, moreover, never was or will be; it is a notable part of definitional catholicity and about as dogmatic as one could get.

Aggiornamento, which can be translated as “a bringing up to date”, was definitely one of the key words and slogans joyously and widely used during the Second Vatican Council both by bishops and the clergy attending the sessions; it meant full-scale modernization, which included an embracing of the world, for the sake of the lively rejuvenation, wholesale revivification, of the Church.

It was not for nothing that John XXIII was, moreover, referred to as the “Maoist Pope” as an indication of his well-noted attitude favoring ecclesial change and novelty.   Aggiornamento, therefore, became an axiological incantation for deviously conjuring up the wild forces to be willingly directed by the Spirit of VCII, along with its explicit desire for modern ecumenism, of course.

But, as a horrid result of VCII, it is realistically possible to correctly assert that two different and opposed theologies now exist by which communicants of the Latin Mass Community, an embattled minority, find themselves forever estranged, alienated, from the often seedier and sleazier aspects of the New Mass Community with its Novus Ordo.   It is far from the Church Militant.

Truly separate Church realities, thus, have and will increasingly develop because the mainly divergent theologies are so integrally incommensurate and essentially incompatible; the former is geared only toward requisite orthodoxy; the latter finds it ever crescively hard to somehow avoid varying degrees of heterodoxy representative of modern ecumenism.   There now exists, as a consequence (which ought to have been logically expected), the preconciliar Church, staying ever faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, versus the postconciliar Church, having an anthropocentric orientation, with its observed predominant loyalty to VCII.    It is certainly difficult for it to battle against the Culture of Death.

Furthermore, millions of those same New Mass Catholics talk about their assertion that they never want to “go back” to the preconciliar Church, thus, de facto, if not de jure, clearly recognizing its (past) formal existence as a quite different Church or, at least, religious environment.  Today, the Latin American Pope Francis, a mainly happy-go-lucky fellow, appears quite supinely content to essentially live with the gross existing mess, more or less, which is not exactly inspiring. And, may God have mercy upon his soul.

Pope Francis: An Interlude with a neo-Hippie Mediocrity

If not necessarily having a heated objection to the traditional Latin Mass, he has shown an indifference to this one sure bulwark of true Catholic orthodoxy that could be readily and usefully put at the service of the Church much more effectively and efficiently than is now the case.   However, from what can be publicly guessed at or discerned, Pope Francis, lovingly called the “Slum Pope” by his many admirers, has absolutely no noted great desire to promote needed orthodoxy, passively or actively, through the Latin Mass and its orthodox religious demands.  This Holy Father has quickly decided to become a full parody of a media pope.

His touchstone for the modern Church is VCII as the assumed test of the “new orthodoxy” and the ever nauseously ongoing reform of the reform of the reform.   Those, the majority, who he may think of as being either his fervid or erstwhile supporters are laughing behind his back, for the joke’s on him.   They do let him freely indulge in his own idiosyncrasies and foibles, more puppet than puppet master, indeed, which may suggest why he needs the prayers of the faithful for his future salvation.

Instead of engaging righteously, as the Vicar of Christ on earth ought, in an attempt at doing a valid sea change for true reform in right favor of requisite orthodoxy, there is the pitiful effort at maintaining a substantial holding pattern; this is, of course, the doing of negligible repairs of just minor things that do, unfortunately, distract vital attention from the impressive gaping wounds that rudely cause the body of Christ on earth, Holy Mother Church, to figuratively bleed profusely.  A Leo the Great, an authoritative shepherd of Christ’s flock, is so urgently needed now; however, another version of a Pope Paul VI (or worse) exists currently to fiddle, while Rome burns and Catholicism suffers.

His wondrous pontificate seems well on the way of seeing just how studiously the fiddling is done in the midst of the multiple trials and terrors facing modern Catholicism in the contemporary world.  This is not meant to deny that he is what he appears to be, meaning a good man who tries to work at holiness and urges it upon others; he may be, moreover, a good enough pope and, perhaps, just enough of a pontiff that God has allowed the Church to have at this time in history, meaning as a punishment, of course.

However, his clearly existentialist and phenomenological approach toward various moral positions and teachings bodes ill for Holy Mother Church, as with his, e. g., openly pro-homosexual views, which will, e. g., willingly grant him free entrance to Hell, if not repented sincerely prior to his death.  Yes, of course, it is well known that he “reaches out to the poor” and those who suffer; he does a lot of nice stuff.

But, if one goes on this way, it would be an unctuous means of condemning him with slight praise, which is not the purpose of this present article.  The noble cry for enforcing orthodoxy goes unheeded by the See of St. Peter.  He, the Apostolic Pastor and neo-Hippie Pope, has ears but hears not; he has eyes but sees not.   Dante, to no one’s surprise, wrote about popes burning in Hell.   St. Jerome’s statement has already been noted.  At the Final Judgment, what excuse will Pope Francis, the Bishop of Rome, give?

Has the Holy Pontiff recently noticed, e. g., any major concentration camps in the Western world filled exclusively with sodomites, laws forbidding them from owning any property, pogroms organized by governments set against them, forcing them to wear pink armbands for quick identification purposes, laws forcing them to live in ghettoes or making them victims of political persecution, etc.?    Are they absolutely marginalized currently out of existence in the areas of politics, education, law, entertainment, culture, science, etc.?    Could it be true that the perverts, the sodomites, are an endangered species?

What a true reform papacy should do would properly include the following, among many other good recommendations: defang the “lavender mafia” (sodomite cabal) by removing them, their friends, and associates from all positions of power and influence; whenever possible, close all convents, monasteries, and seminaries proven to be hotbeds of heresy, appoint an independent board of auditors to monitor and supervise the Vatican Treasury, and weed out of the Consistory and other papal departments those known to be subversive of the orthodox teachings of the Faith, meaning those who oppose these and other reform efforts, at a minimum.

Of course, the nominally diffident, formally speaking, Pope Francis can be expected to do none of the above, as to possible actions.   He can be expected to put forth many nice words and do symbolic things that will generally impress spectators and news reporters.   Piety will be noted, not expressions of his authority and power as the Vicar of Christ ready, willing, and able to uphold the three pillars of the Faith against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  He is certainly no Pope Nicholas II or Gregory VII, nor even a Gregory the Great.   Nor is this a mere matter of exclaiming: O mores!  O tempora!

Consequently, the openness to the world proclaimed by VCII is to broadly continue by which temporized or moderated “orthodoxy” gets promoted in its fashion, while traditional, meaning non-VCII, orthodoxy gets substantially ignored.  This is to be the existential and phenomenological situation.  Such is the true nature of the Spirit of VCII.   How should the crisis be analytically considered?   A prominent 20th century example of cogent thinking can be creatively cited for illustration purposes.

Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (1887- 1975) was criticized wrongly, in the 1930s and 1940s, for then strategically not pursuing the Japanese invaders vigorously enough; he sagaciously said that they were merely like a disease of the skin; the Communists, however, were a serious disease of the heart and, therefore, much more dangerous and lethal for the health of China.  History, of course, has proved that he was completely correct as to the comparative weights of the jeopardies involved.

The malignant heresy of that grand Council, held in the early to mid-1960s, remains difficult to correct, for it is an insidious and maleficent disease deliberately aimed ever at the vital and sacred heart of Holy Mother Church.  Until this terrible fact of religious reality becomes necessarily recognized as to its being an essential and justly irrefutable truth, in theological and spiritual terms of profound acknowledgment, nothing effective can ever be really done to successfully combat it.   VCII simply cannot be reformed; it must, therefore, be thoroughly extirpated and repudiated without qualification.

One must become appropriately aware and rightly cognizant of the true nature of the crisis, for getting the proper diagnosis and for seeing the prognosis for what it really is, before the known proposed cure is perceived as truly needed and viably requisite to the particular task.  The promotion and promulgation of a bold and uncompromising orthodoxy is, therefore, urgently required without question as the, thus, obligatory antidote for heresy, which, if left unchecked, insures the damnation of souls.

While it might be slightly hoped that, perhaps, Pope Francis may, someday, be needfully inspired by the Holy Ghost to oppose VCII, however, no one should absurdly hold his breath in imaginary anticipation of a miracle.  Nothing short of a miracle seems needed for breaking the iron grip of this abominable heresy commended by the ideological watchword of aggiornamento, which wanted forever to put the Church Militant to sleep; and yet, the true defense of Catholicism qua orthodoxy means the complete rejection of VCII.

Meanwhile, he publicly denounces the (supposed or imaginary) marginalization of homosexuals, while supinely permitting the continued and real marginalization of traditionalist Catholics, so much for his flaunted compassion, understanding, and tolerance.  His gross hypocrisy, therefore, ever stinks mightily to high Heaven and low Hell.  His sinful condoning of sodomy is, by definition, immoral and, moreover, directly contrary to the confirmed teachings of the Church, of Catholicism, of the Culture of Life.

Of course, it was reported that Alessandro Di Antonio, an officer with the National Union of Gay Italians in Rome, warmly welcomed the pontiff’s favorable remarks.   Currently, nonetheless, one hopes not to be a witness to the possible queering of Catholicism or the outright perversion of the Faith, for the evil Culture of Death sides openly with sodomy.

In opposition, traditionalist Catholics should, perhaps, add an additional entreaty to their prayers for the defense of Catholicism: Please God, protect us from the neo-Hippie Pope.

Conclusion

While the repercussion, the mobile destruction, of VCII marches on, one can only remark, supposedly, that papal mediocrity is as mediocrity (read: Pope Francis) does.  Meanwhile, each harsh decade after decade, generation after generation, the evil legacy and aftermath, the evil fruit, of that gathering still causes increasing divisiveness and antagonism, endless controversy and consternation, unlike, for instance, the First Vatican Council, which helped greatly to strengthen the Church and, moreover, instilled a further missionary zeal in its spirit.

The fruits of that ecclesial assembly, on the whole, were substantially good; those of the other, on average, were nearly uniformly bad and, moreover, any ridiculously anticipated improvement should not be expected any time soon.  The Faith’s internal and external apostates must be opposed as to their nefarious plans first openly revealed at VCII, which explains why it needs to be forcefully denounced.

But, it is true, as keenly noted by the sapient Fr. George W. Rutler, in his book well entitled: A Crisis of Saints, this present decadent age, dominated by the postconciliar Church, has not, in fact, produced any wondrous overabundance of self-sacrificing saints of a significant stature to righteously overcome this rather too heinous crisis.  Only the good fruit of Catholic orthodoxy can, therefore, properly turn the tide against any further infection and devastation; at a minimum, the heretical sedevacantists, those who have gone to the opposite extreme of VCII, will never become reconciled under the present conditions.

Only an indomitable Athanasian (read: orthodox) position ought, thus, to be adamantly taken against all manner, kind, or manifestation of heresy, and totally regardless of how much of the hierarchy opposes this moral effort, for such evil is surely hated by the Lord God.  It is a direct affront to the Almighty, the Supreme Being, the Living God, regardless of what the neo-Hippie Pope may think who seems to forget that he is the spiritual descendant of St. Peter.   He needs to strongly defend the Faith, to protect the Church, not his evident faddishness and folly.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor himself, taught that any Catholic had the right to admonish even a pope when done in true defense of the Faith, as did, e. g., St. Teresa of Avila and St. Catherine of Siena.   Of course, e. g., the idiotic retort is often given that only saints have a right to speak out against a pope, ignoring totally the obvious fact that such outspoken critics were not canonized during their lives.

The heroically valiant spirit of St. Athanasius is, therefore, clearly needed now more than ever to fight against the often none-too-disguised effort at trying to achieve eschatological immanentism.  A great lion of the Church, a splendid champion and hero of the Faith filled with a moral tenaciousness, must rise up to sincerely struggle and seek a blessed victory for genuine Catholicism qua orthodoxy, the good fruit.

Athanasius contra mundum!

 

 

Advertisements