The New Prideful “Arians” Within the Roman Catholic Church

The New Prideful “Arians” Within the Roman Catholic Church:

On Why Most Catholics Abhor or Reject the Extraordinary Rite

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

 

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi –

(Latin aphorism that expresses the profound criticality of worship, life, identity, culture, and mission of the Roman Catholic Church.)

In his speaking of the traditional Holy Latin Mass,“… so many young people are attracted to this venerable form of the Roman Rite.” – Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland, OR, April 28, 2018

 

As a prologue to much that may be said, it would help to mentally recognize that contemporary human beings do live in a morally and spiritually dark age of secularization; it is made mostly comfortable by often ameliorative technological advancements that, as a rather odd convenience, usually masks the regnant horror existing.   And, for the most part, this dreadful situation is thought to be just a normal condition of contemporary society and its simply laicist (read: Godless) civilization dedicated, directly and indirectly, towards evil.  And, much evil gets spread through ignorance.

Uninformed intentions, often due to an unfortunate lack of requisite knowledge, can then produce an unneeded confusion and confounding of means and ends, which, of course, the Devil really loves; this would be for an attempt at helping a situation or even a recognized crisis to be properly met, carefully resolved, and sufficiently overcome, for these are truly desperate times (e. g., a massive lack of vocations) within Holy Mother Church.

Equally, cause and effect, moreover, can also be significantly misperceived or misunderstood.  And, for instance, the ongoing secularization of the Church is a real force much too often unrecognized as such, especially since the Second Vatican Council, which, cheerily, had embraced the temporal world.  As a harsh result, even very serious considerations of (mortal) sin and damnation were, in fact, impiously temporized for the improperly catechized laity, long on much earnestness, short on much requisite intelligence.  If this hurts to read, know then that the truth can sometimes or, really, often hurt people; however, only the truth can make people free.

Having even the best of intentions is not really good enough, inclusive of the decades-long horrible crisis that the Church is still in, fully regardless of (many failed) attempted remedies, and comprehensive of the here assumed jocularity of  the “reform of the reform of the reform.” It is ever quite solicitously productive of a strange seriousness and earnestness, highly productive of human asininities parading as true wisdom, settling in and within the Church, backing false charming solutions and lovely pious hopes.  An odd parody of utopianism, one might guess.

And, now, what ought to be the shock, such oddly formulaic “incestuous” remedies will simply not do; it has been ongoing and nauseously productive of much unrecognized insanity, inclusive certainly of the aforementioned secularization of both Catholic theology and its related religion; this is as perceived, most surely, in the Novus Ordo Mass, subject as it is to protean vernacular performances, which, as such, sadly prohibits the needed comprehensive fullness of Catholic culture’s right blossoming.  It, also, supports the secularization process observed.

Sometimes, as an imperfect human being, one can be much too close to a problem and, consequently, just not be able to consciously see it. This, logically, can lead to difficulties, besides innumerable raucous absurdities, perhaps, unconsciously suspected by the simply theologically depraved.   And yet, ‘tis a wonderment, indeed.  Nonetheless, spiritual violence must be done, to the (knowing or unknowing) enemies of the Cross wherever they may be, in the proper name of Christian charity and for opposing evil.

A wrong diagnosis, severe enough, enables a then false prognosis to occur, which can prove sometimes rather fatal to a patient or, in this specific cited case, an entire religious institution.  And, fortunately, only the Holy Ghost ultimately ensures that no earthly final disaster can, in fact, so occur, though this remonstrative article may imperiously get dismissed, by the enlightened ones, as yet another vacuous, tedious parlous screed.  So be it.  Truth is eternal.

Prologue for a Sensible Catholic Epistemology

What may be critically needed here is to insightfully mention two interesting heuristic terms taken from Sociology, “manifest” and latent,” for better illustrative purposes.  What is manifest is that which can be only easily seen on the overt surface of events or social realities; what is said to be latent, on the other hand, concerns that which can only, with some usual attendant difficulty, be discerned beneath the mere surface of events or social realities.

And, all this is related, intimately, to what can be called Catholic epistemology, the proper study of the knowledge of why Catholicism ought to be ever synonymous with orthodoxy; and, the righteous fight for the morally and spiritually needed promotion the traditional Latin Mass, sometimes called the Tridentine Mass (as a more limited meaning), though this manner of the Mass has actually historically existed long before the 16^th century Council of Trent.

Most observers, if not professionally trained, perceive solely or mostly that which is obviously manifest; rarely, do many people ever quite clearly, e. g., recognize latent causes.  Effects, too often being quite superficial by appearing on the surface (of the human condition), get often misinterpreted, more than is typically suspected, as supposedly then being the true causes.

Thus, upon critical analysis, for instance, the attrition of many young folks from the Church is not a cause but, rather, the effect being observed. The true cause is a lack of fundamental orthodoxy in the modern Mass versus the venerable, traditionalist Holy Latin Mass, now also called the Extraordinary Rite.  The latter ever rejoices abundantly with an effulgent celebration of the righteous Trinitarian Dogma, which Arianism always wrongly condemned, of course.

It is perceived, by many knowledgeable critics, that the New Mass has a fully conformist attitude shown explicitly by its use of the vernacular languages in line with secularist-oriented expectations; the traditional Latin Mass, in contrast, explodes laicist demands for a wanted conformity and, moreover, challenges vigorously the corruptive sociocultural norms of such Godlessness.  Consequently, what is one greatly positive result for solidly advancing Catholicism with the Latin Mass?

Theological and religious orthodoxy has ever attracted sincere, inquiring, or great minds towards it, as with the many notable and outstanding conversions of the 19th and early to mid-20th century: Orestes Augustus Brownson, Isaac Hecker, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newsman, G. K. Chesterton, Monsignor Ronald Knox, Evelyn Waugh, Lord Kenneth Clark and, literally, a plethora of others; novelties in religion or theology, in contrast, do produce diverting distractions that, more or less, eventually repel most people who tend, on average, to keep seeking after other (and, perhaps, some much more attractive) novelties.

Only the (Catholic) truth consistently and continually expounded and defended for ages produces the logical mental and moral gravity of sincere attraction; bland mediocrity, observed inconsistency, or very long-term compromise creates, instead, a natural repulsion, where evil gets tolerated and often endorsed.  This is so very true, moreover, of all heresies.

G. K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, significantly written when prior to his conversion, explains the adamantly pro-Catholic tendencies, by which, one can see, “the thrilling romance of orthodoxy.  People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe.  There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy.  It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad.”   If only the bulk of the (insane) hierarchy of the Church intelligently ever felt this way, the appropriate return to the venerable Latin Mass would have, lovingly, occurred quite long ago by now.

To this extremely important and notable point, he quite sagaciously continues there that, “To have fallen into one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame.  But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.”

As he, a brilliant defender of the Catholic Faith, would have fully agreed, the true, the good, and the beautiful are to be found supremely, unquestionably, united in the Holy Latin Mass, which forever possesses architectonic timelessness and sacred universality, among many other very important attributes.

Chesterton’s theological logic is, thus, simply superb, for compared to the truly boring monotony of repeated lies (heresies), era by era, the truth ought to be ever exhilarating, but can be often difficult to clearly perceive.  To add to the greatly unfortunate turmoil, Satan, moreover, has made it difficult, with the ongoing metaphysical struggle on earth, for very many to accurately recognize the truth, beauty, and what is actually good.  Too often, sin and damnation get ignored as being the logical companions of evil.

Thus, most souls, to no surprise, eventually go to the Infernal Regions; they will not reach the Church Triumphant in Heaven, for their tutored ignorance will simply not then be bliss.  Universal salvation is, therefore, just another heresy, for many are called, few are chosen.

For humans, as part of the omnipresent human condition, are fallen creatures living in a fallen world, which, admittedly, seems platitudinous to say.   Nonetheless, mortal imperfection is so definitive, not ultra-sophisticated sapiential cognizance surely.  It needs, thus, to be understood that a half-truth, a typical heresy, is like half a brick; it can be thrown farther and is harder to see, though this will just be dismissed, by opposed critics, as yet another merely witless diatribe against the Second Vatican Council.  Good reading can be recommended as a mental palliative.

As an extended “preface,” one could then instructively read such books as: Peter Kwasniewski’s Nobel Beauty, Transcendent Holiness: Why the Modern Age Needs the Mass of Ages; Peter Kwasniewski and Fr. Jonathan Robinson’s Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis: Sacred Liturgy, the Traditional Latin Mass, and Renewal in the Church; The Great Facade: The Regime of Novelty in the Catholic Church from Vatican II to the Francis Revolution, 2nd Edition, by Thomas E. Woods Jr. and Christopher A. Ferrara; Treasure and Tradition: The Ultimate Guide to the Latin Mass by Lisa Bergman; and, here for good measure, Dom Prosper Gueranger and Peter Kwasniewski’s The Traditional Latin Mass Explained.

Thus, while it may be, e. g., considered latent that much substantive stupidity supports a heresy, it is quite manifest that the mainstream of the Church hierarchy does support it, meaning such stupidity, and so mightily at that.  What would help may be called the noetic development of a way of treating proper cognizance that could be called, for want, perhaps, of a better expression, a “synthetic intelligence.”

This so pertains to the needed philosophical ability to critically perceive and integrate the necessary interconnections and interrelationships between and among pivotal ideas, for as Richard M. Weaver noted long ago, ideas do have consequences.  There needs to be a way, therefore, of synthesizing the ideational elements, within the necessary interconnections and interrelationships between and among pivotal ideas, for creating a comprehensive cognitive context for rationally achieving a better perceptive knowledge base.

Otherwise, for instance, many surely related ideas, concepts, social, economic, cultural, aesthetic, religious, and political movements are simply seen in isolation, one from the other, as if there were no larger meaning or context for a better, needed, and more precise understanding and comprehension of reality.   Human intelligence, if nothing else, would seem to fairly require this prudent consideration, especially in a day and age predominated by so much rampant insanity and, worse yet, glorified hypocrisy too.

The disastrous calamity, e. g., known as the Second Vatican Council did not happen by mere accident; many truly nominalist-oriented ideas, percolating for several generations back, had come together to finely shape, design, and formulate the determinedly modernist outcomes and, moreover, the permanent revolution (almost never noticed), so planted in a “Trotskyite” manner, as the horrid aftermath.

This is whereby the alleged “practical” Letter of VC II is too often set, supposedly, against the “idealistic” Spirit of VC II.   All of which, upon intensely cogent study, is seen to be just blatant nonsense, for the Council must be taken or rejected as a whole, not continually reinterpreted or semantically reinvented; this has been illegitimately done, through much sophistic argumentation and knavish persiflage, as with “the reform of the reform of the reform,” to, then, wrongly serve often tendentious or certain meanly partisan ends.  The truth, thus, should be clear.

And so, regrettably, most of the clerisy persists with a clownish regard for the truth, by preferring sets of semantic, gymnastically-astute verbal and printed performances, certainly unworthy of the honored name of Catholic theology.  Not very surprisingly, mainstream Catholic religious practice has severely suffered as well, along with a drastic, scandalous, and noted continuing decline in holy orders vocations, generation by generation.  And, it needs to be wisely remarked here, this matter, at the least, is productive of much evil.

Brief Analysis of the Terrible Tragic Situation

The new “Arians” who eschew (almost all unknowingly) profound orthodoxy and the historical ones do have a great deal in common, more than either would admit.  The ancient (nominalist) Arians, both firmly and comfortably entrenched within the structure and hierarchy of the Church for a long time, felt no urgently compelling need to possibly consider that they were, in fact, fundamentally wrong.  Winners rarely do.

Both the new “Arians” and their ancient counterparts, of course, did not think of themselves as being heretics.  But, what is the valuable historical understanding to be here conveyed for useful elucidation?

Arianism explicitly denied the Trinitarian Dogma by claiming that Jesus Christ, though created by God the Father, remains forever separate from the nature of the Father and, as a permanent consequence, exists as an inferior creature to the Lord God.  They vilely dared to blasphemously defile the honor and righteousness, glory and Godhead, of Jesus the Christ.  Nothing less was implied.

Notice the clearly cognitive reductionism, the obviously reduced understanding and appreciation of the Messiah, the Savior of the World. (Better yet, notice the tendentious absurdity involved, especially if one cannot easily deal with the clearly inherent blasphemy.)

The total victory of Arianism would have, in fact, significantly forced increasing degrees of ardent secularization, within the body of the Church, because of its rather blatant theological and, of course, consequently kindred religious reductionism, its nomnlism.  For as William F. Buckley, Jr. was fond of quoting Leon Trotsky, who says A must say B.  Q. E. D.

In critical extrapolation, since it rudely attempted to then handle the doxology of Christology in a more secular (or easier) way of understanding Trinitarian theology and its quite cognate religious implications, Arianism needs to be intelligently seen as a form of rather subtle secularization in cognition.  Mystery was to be reduced more into human terms of comprehension, meaning rather than orthodoxy’s truth being upheld against error and in adamant defense of proper Catholicism.

As crudity and rudeness do complement each other, the same holds for bigotry and heresy, contrary to orthodoxy as the guardian of rational and metaphysical truth.  How, nonetheless, may this cogently presented cognizant insight be more readily and appropriately discerned for proper theological and religious purposes and, thus, augmented insight?

It is as with the earthly naturalism, against supernaturalism, seen in how the Son of God (being the mere “son”) must, thus, be always held subordinate to the Father.  But, such silly half measures, as it were, for supposing the Trinity’s doxology is ludicrously poor fodder for starving souls really needing the genuine truth, as necessary food for eternal life.  Generation by generation, therefore, Arianism was more and more found to be ultimately unsustainable claptrap, not ever any creative or truly inventive theological revelations of a rather high order, as was claimed, for no heresy invented is superior to true orthodoxy and its related glory.

As usual, Hilaire Belloc, in his The Great Heresies, gives the clear explanation that, “Arianism was a typical example on the largest scale of that reaction against the supernatural which, when it is fully developed, withdraws from religion all that by which religion lives.”  And, upon close examination, the direction of the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council has, in fact, done the same by increasing spiritual dissolution over time, through mostly covert secularization of the Catholic spirit in theology and religion.   But, if this important fact is not recognized, there will only be the sad case of the blind leading the blind.

The marked inability of so many presumed (and presumably educated) Catholics, being absolutely unable to perceive the obvious, speaks volumes, negatively, about the tremendously poor catechesis involved, if nothing else.  The situation has long ceased being merely pathetic; it is obnoxious, indeed, and intolerably reprehensible as well.  Why the notable concern and severe censure?

The true Catholic spirit joyously exalts supernaturalism, as with openly acknowledging the Mystery of Evil and the Mystery of Good, besides, of course, sacredly championing what must remain mysterious in all of the Seven Sacraments of the Church.  All the blessed angels and saints in Heaven would agree, of course, along with the Communion of Saints, for all the holy souls in Purgatory, in addition, would not dissent.  The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception triumphantly shouts the truth of this absolute superiority of the metaphysical order versus the mere temporal order.

For the proper requisite defense of holiness, moreover, the Church, in truth, has no other choice.  Verily, Christ’s Birth, Resurrection, and Ascension are, in fact, all miracles, though broadcast media these days remain skeptical with their seemingly bold immaculate perceptions to the contrary, for Christ is the Cross and the Cross is Christ.  There is no genuine salvation without the Cross, without the Holy Son of God Triumphant.

In deep contrast, the new “Arianism,” in which, e. g., the many vernacular languages (aka the vulgar tongues) have replaced Church Latin, represents its own vulgar version or attempt at a not-so-subtle theological secularization; and, this situation has logically created the smugness of the majority of the present heretics who are greatly incapable, of perceiving their own heretical notions; this is, principally, because of nominalism in philosophy that has sadly, also, overtaken most of extant Catholic theology as well.

So, insightful and indicative parallels, basic equivalents, with the ancient Arians do properly exist in substantial terms of a certainly strange sort or kind of modernized “neo-Arianism.”  Of course, it is rarely perceived as such due to the basic prevalence of nominalism and how it rots way the intellect.

After all, they (the original Arians) notably were, at the time of their main and predominant influence, the known majority and, in many places, even the vast majority of the Christian believers of that era.  A supportive thought among the Arians must have so occurred to them: Could the majority, the existing plenitude of the faithful in so many lands, be that seriously wrong?   Pridefulness leads to blindness.

They, the majority of the new “Arians,” do piously seek only Easter Sunday, not Good Friday, as their chosen ideal.  And, once again, it will, thus, historically be up to the struggling orthodox laity, over some generations, to help dissuade, carefully disabuse, the necessarily erroneous and deficient beliefs of the laity’s miscreant majority and, of course, the equally ignorant majority of the hierarchy.¹

Unfortunately, both of these unorthodox and, thus, so nominalist belief orientations, though set many centuries apart, share many of the same ugly characteristics, as, of course, extant heresies so often do.  The heresiarch Arius was indicatively fond of utilizing secular thematics, for his religious propagandizing, by utilizing popular tunes to sell his message vocally, while seeming to be yet orthodox.

Many of the new “Arians” also think themselves to be highly or, at least, logically orthodox in their own beliefs, and look down upon or, at the least, tend to seriously question the rightness or justifications of the Catholic traditionalists.  With being surely much exacerbated in recent years, the resulting chaotic ecclesiastical situation prevailing has, in fact, become increasingly problematic; this is as to many doctrinal and dogmatic matters of faith among the believers, most of whom do simply appear, on the surface, sufficiently sanguine with evil Pope Francis’ continuing progressive liberalizations.

But, as is illustrated vividly in The Latin Mass magazine and elsewhere, too many observers by now have so well noted that the traditional, preconciliar Latin Mass Catholic Faith is, essentially speaking, completely opposed to the predominant Novus Ordo Church.  For Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi profoundly encapsulates, therefore, the inclusive sensus catholicus truth of the true Faith.

Those who recalcitrantly do not “get it” are in line for quite a sore awakening after their mortal deaths.  Such words, pointed verbiage, may offend liberal or progressive Catholics, but what is so tremendously under consideration here is of a true profundity, not an existent ecclesial soap opera.  What must be said?  There needs to be a profound, Catholic, traditionalist restoration within the Church, sooner rather than later.

And, it could not, must not, be ever otherwise.   For as Theodore Maynard, in his Orestes Brownson, had rightly written: “To be a Catholic at all a man must be orthodox.”   How clearer could this splendid admonition be?  Maynard, furthermore, correctly noted that, “There is, properly speaking, no liberalism in Catholic theology.”  If only that absolute truism were made much more widely known today, perhaps, many demands for the demonic normalization of insanity would happily cease to exist.  But, there is certainly witnessed an ecclesiastical establishment bizarrely caught up in a horrid form of wanted and practiced theological and religious schizophrenia no less.

There are, for those with honest eyes to plainly see, now two distinctly existing opposed liturgies, doxologies, and, thus, two very opposite compositional belief structures so weirdly occupying Holy Mother Church; while the Latin Mass traditionalists are manly on the fringes with Christocentric theology, the new “Arians” have their cognition as being, fundamentally, anthropocentric (often even explicit) in set orientation, though most often not recognized clearly as such.   And, what of the sadly beleaguered and orthodox opposition?

In reiteration, the traditional Latin Mass Community’s mode of orientation is, in always sharp contrast, necessarily Christocentric both by intentional design and cognate fervent commitment; this holy attitude always cannot, moreover, be otherwise, for, in a rather deliberately pointed restatement here, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi.  And, certainly once again, it could not, must not, be ever otherwise.  The logic is plain, the devotion is real.

What absurdly exists, since the Vatican Council of the mid-1960s, is mainly the hip desire for being “relevant” by promoting social welfare reform, not the older (read: orthodox) and correct focus upon the needed sanctification and salvation of souls and, always more importantly, the needed adoration and glorification of God, of the Divine Lord Transcendent.

Too many Catholics forget that they are not Protestants engaged in the building of social communities through religious efforts; modernist Catholics expect the Church to supply them with social functions, activity groups, or, perhaps, even various entertainments; in opposition, traditionalist parishes exist for only two fundamental reasons: 1.) the absolutely required worship of the Lord God Almighty and 2.) helping souls to try to get into Heaven.

Nothing really much more than that should ever exist, meaning as to proper ecclesial expectations.  Thus, the principal core directive efforts are ever aimed at seriously promoting holiness, not, e. g., the formation of attendant social clubs for parishioners.  Moreover, as to the larger perspective, the rejection of philosophical immanentism, especially as regarding Catholic eschatology, must be absolute, must be orthodox.

Everything or anything else as to parish life, if it may exist, is merely frosting on the cake, purely secondary, tertiary, or less in importance.  Success, as to the Church’s primary divine mission, allows for the resultant organic growth of a Catholic social community centered on a parish, as parishes then get centered on a diocese.

Thus, the proverbial cart, the Church and its sacred purpose, ought never to be put before the horse, the variable propensities of the Catholic population, in a backwards manner. When efforts are (so wrongly) reversed, therefore, both the theology and religion of Catholicism do suffer, usually greatly.  How may this be explained?

Because of philosophical nominalism clouding the minds of the new “Arians,” it is, therefore, virtually impossible for almost all of them to critically perceive any persuasive truth to the manifestly orthodox position of what can be called the preconciliar-oriented, Latin Mass Catholics.

This now fully religious, intellectual, theological, and spiritual divide makes any true communication nearly impossible, as there are two camps existing, in two quite different worlds of discourse; each becoming sadly, more and more as time goes on, indiscernible and so completely incommensurate one to the other.  An existentially de facto, if not officially de jure, schism both experientially and phenomenologically exists, to the evil amusement of Satan and the immorally assembled fiery hosts of Hell.  How can this situation be empirically observed?

The Latin Mass adherents, by the Catholic majority, are usually perceived as either kindly but irascible miscreants, haplessly misguided believers, or just nastily obstinate reprobates. They, the believing remnant, are quite normally marginalized, sidelined, ghettoized, and generally made to feel like outcasts among their own religious brethren.  Nor can there be any middle ground of compromise, nor should there be.  The followers of the Second Vatican Council (VC II), meaning the so-called postconciliar Church, cannot, by their truly quite hardened commitment, see any absolutely fundamental flaws that do, in fact, manifestly exist.

The orthodox Catholics who adhere to what may be denominated the preconciliar Church, equally, cannot simply compromise their adamant support for and deep devotion to the eternal and sacred truths of Roman Catholic orthodoxy.  Compromise, moreover, would be a genuine mortal sin practiced by practiced knaves, not sincere, believing, and active Roman Catholics.  Why is this declared to be?

The so pervasive nominalism in support of the Novus Ordo Mass and, moreover, all that it logically involves prohibits authentic communication in terms of any informational discourse aimed at suitably effectuating any reaching of common dialogical ground; in turn, the needed basis of discursive speech would, therefore, be actively premised upon a communicational platform to hold a, thus, true dialogue, within the same one universe of genuinely conversational-communicative discourse, for an authentic exchange of ideas.   Until then, ignorance remains so fairly prevalent.

An empirical case-in-point can be, appropriately, offered by looking at the surely sad dilemma of His Eminence Bishop Joseph Edward Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas; he unwittingly offers, in microcosm, what is truly destructive of the Church in the macrocosm, as to the overall disastrous ecclesiastical reality itself.   Though filled with true and virtuous will, Bishop Strickland, being yet a confirmed nominalist, can, of course, still correctly see that young people are, increasingly, leaving the Church, which is so certainly true; it is, in fact, supremely undeniable and does not have to be imagined as to a major reality.

But, the profoundly caring Bishop, though compassionately filled with obvious good will and Christian devotion, incredibly misinterprets what he perceives.  What he (wrongly) thinks of as the actual causes of this noteworthy disaffection of the young people are not the genuine causes; they are, rather, the definite effects, both directly and indirectly, of the real (read: nominalist) causes themselves.

Consequently, he will only attempt, through repeated failures, to, in effect, place many band aids upon severely gaping wounds bleeding profusely, and fully regardless of how many mere band aids do get lovingly and sincerely applied.  Nonetheless, because of a profound misperception, many young adults are routinely “dying” in their souls and lost to the faith, for lack of knowing the mightily transcendent spirituality of Catholicism.  And, the majority of young people, in their idealism, do seek some form of transcendence.

The dreadful misunderstanding (which is not at all deliberate on his part) has nothing to do with his still very clear compassion, sincerity, commitment, integrity, devotion, honesty, or wanting of what is good for his people, for his diocese.  But, as Dr. Milton Friedman, in paraphrase, said so very long ago, one can be, indeed, quite sincere, dedicated, honest, and committed – and still be wrong!

The main, not solely, authentic cause of the continuingly great loss of so many young people is, basically speaking, the lack of the traditionalist Latin Mass; and, all that it fundamentally concerns; this is as to the important proper focus upon an openly intense and purely fervent orthodoxy, not the (implicit or too often heavily implied) anthropocentricism of the morally and spiritually deficient Novus Ordo Mass.

Among many others, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, a most knowledgeable theologian, has openly remarked that the unity of Catholic tradition and liturgy reveals how very sadly deficient and totally inadequate the Novus Ordo will always integrally be, when compared to the much superior Latin Mass.  The best medicine against heresy is the profound affirmation of Catholicity, meaning orthodoxy, not the liberalism, relativism, and subjectivism found in the beliefs of the modernists or progressives within the Church.  Thus, the Latin Mass acts as a most logical traditional bulwark against heretical threats to both the needed preservation and promotion of truly Catholic theological knowledge and religious truths.

This is not, of course, naively said here as if that alone will be the one and only absolute cure-all magic elixir.   It is, rather, all the spiritual matters and holy attitudes fully surrounding and encompassing the reality of the Latin Mass, which, appropriately, incorporates rightly the vital and attractive nature of why orthodox parishes, on average, routinely grow and the Novus Ordo ones routinely shrink.  Corrective thinking must often include a firm frontal assault on the consequences of nominalism that do logically include myth, magic, and superstition, much more than is ever typically suspected.²

As a great historical instance of such a fact, the Hegelian “wizards,” at the VC II, wanted to hegelianize forever the fundamental thinking of Catholicism as a permanent replacement (read: permanent revolution) for neo-Scholasticism or anything like it.  This laid down the pervasive and perverse groundwork for what became the Catholic Enlightenment myth of VC II with its own Hegelian Dialectic.  How so?

The Letter of VC II is to be the Thesis, the Spirit of VC II acts as the Antithesis, and the progressive urge toward modernization/liberalization is the Synthesis, all are forms of (much too often unrecognized) secularist magic.  In addition, the terrible ecclesiastical superstition involved is the absurd notion that VC II is now absolutely sacrosanct.

What was, back then, publicly declared to be only a pastoral council, later, was retroactively redefined as having supposedly been an ecumenical council instead.   Both neo-orthodoxy and neo-Catholicism, therefore, functionally resulted in religious and theological support of this inordinately dreadful use of the ideologically repetitive Hegelian Dialectic.

Neo-orthodoxy, in adamant support of neo-Catholicism, dates from the still destructive aftermath of VC II and, seemingly, a functionally blind obedience to it has become mandatory for the Church.  Thus, this harmfully generated myth, magic, and superstition fully carried over from known modernism and is now involved with today’s postmodernism, for there can be no supposed reform of the reform of the reform.  The Hegelian Dialectic, imbedded at VC II, supremely thinks of itself as being the permanent reform that has, in effect, become the permanent revolution in the Church.

For Bishop Strickland, having a “liberal” mind, he then unfortunately misperceives cause for effect and vice versa to the significant detriment of his failed attempts, sooner or later, and misconceived efforts at finding solutions to the loss of the children, when they become young adults. Why, in essence, has this unfortunately happened on such a momentous scale?

First, the paradox is presented.   All of this is a logical result of the definite fracture that sadly occurred at the VC II, which began the so-called Enlightenment Era of the Church. That Council was said to be a great period of Catholic renewal d reinvigoration that, factually, was seen not to be true.   It is easily probable, moreover, that none of the followers of the Novus Ordo, within the Roman Catholic Church, who do, in fact, constitute the definitely vast majority of adherents of the ecclesiastical establishment, ever think of themselves as (ignorant) heretics.  Perish the thought.

And, in historical fairness, the exactly same thing could be, equally, said of the ancient Arian heretics who simply had thought of themselves as just being normal Catholics or, at the least, proper Christians.  They had, quite righteously, condemned the actual Catholic, meaning thus orthodox, followers of the Church as, in fact, being the then supposed true heretics.

They were often driven to the outskirts of the cities, marginalized, ghettoized outcasts who became the minority desperately clinging to the vitality of orthodoxy, the true life of the Church.  St. Athanasius was exiled five times during his repeated persecutions by his fellow (Arian) Catholics.  Yet, deservedly, for several centuries thereafter, Athanasianism became an accepted synonym for true Catholicism, for there is no way to bypass sin and damnation, regardless of what the sophisticated cognoscenti may say.

Second, the new “Arians” with their Novus Ordo do, indeed, have the earthly power; this is because they control the vast majority of Church buildings, sources of revenue, the prestigious status positions, etc.  In short, as in the days of St. Athanasius with his fight against Arianism, they are “the Church” overtly visible to the world.

And, third, as the old Arian heresy took a few centuries to finally get passed out of the Church’s entire fundamental system, the same situation seems to be now exactly true of this new manifestation of a massively anti-orthodox orientation.  Is it, therefore, the supposed case that the lunatics running the asylum are to determine the membership (read: orthodoxy) of its inmates too?

Perhaps, to better understand what needs to be known, there should be the proper comprehension of the Church’s Magisterium, as to if properly orthodox criticism of the current tragic malaise (covering more than just several decades) within the Church, is validly legitimate or not.³

In any event, as the theme of this article should make clear by now, the basic cure for what troubles the Roman Catholic Church is the urgently needed return to the traditional Latin Mass throughout the entire world, not just in isolated places.   One example below, among many that could be given and such are, of course, noted in The Latin Mass magazine, can fairly suffice for proper illustration.

When Archbishop Alexander Sample had, recently, celebrated the traditional Latin Mass, in Washington DC, he there, during his homily, readily and pleasingly appreciated the fact that there could be seen the attendance of a “very large presence of young people who have come to participate in this Holy Mass.”

Noting how the beauty, sense of mystery, and transcendence were fully present at the Latin Mass, he, quite significantly, referred to these traditional youth as “a great sign of encouragement and hope for the Church.”  And, Archbishop Sample, furthermore, interestingly cited how priests and bishops had conveyed their true bewilderment, astonishment, or shock that “so many young people are attracted to this venerable form of the Roman Rite.”⁴

It is so genuinely sad that what ought to be just plain common sense is now to be regarded as being so astonishing, especially so among the (modernist) clergy.  What does this scandalously say about the thinking of the majority of the hierarchy and priests?   The Church, thus, has this tremendously great treasure that certainly attracts young people toward spiritual reverence and devotion, but it virtually keeps it hidden, mainly due to the preponderant existence of the Novus Ordo that, in fact, has no such strongly compelling or comparable affect on large numbers of young, believing Catholics.

They are actively seeking, therefore, both effectual transcendence and a dramatic sense of devout holiness, for it represents the finest ideal of Catholicism to often idealistic youth yearning for the truth, the truth of the Catholic Faith.  It is no surprise, moreover, that such prominent converts as Evelyn Waugh and Lord Kenneth Clark, among many others, had protested vigorously against the loss of the venerable Latin Mass after VC II.

It is emblematic of the Church Militant, as is, for instance, St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine’s Controversies of the Christian Faith, translated into English by Father Kenneth Baker, S. J.   In particular, Bellarmine, a leader of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, had confronted and refuted magnificently the advocates of the Protestant Revolution of the 16^th century, while Catholic martyrs were dying in Great Britain and elsewhere for the sake of the Holy Latin Mass.

The modernist forces that do surely oppose the old Mass, of course, need to be better theologically understood for determining the proper gravity of the sorrowfully divisive struggle that yet so fiercely continues.

For clarification sake, although, especially since VC II, there has been a predominant neo-Pelagianism; it is in the protean nature of most heresies, throughout the length of Church history, that they do not really stand intellectually alone; usually, one or more are involved, so it gets often a bit difficult to fully disentangle one from the other; the “radioactive” core of what motivates the pervasive neo-Pelagianism is this persistent “neo-Arianism” that heavily grips the minds and hearts of most of the (self-deluded) laity and clerisy inclusive.

Conclusion

Of course, the deliberately “take-no-prisoners” writing style of this brief article reflects the often sad kind of intense war being waged, so assiduously, against orthodoxy, especially as it is splendidly represented in the traditional and Holy Latin Mass.

Meanwhile, the (increasing depraved) denizens of the postmodern world have their rather idiosyncratic or ideological teleologies (aka half-baked witticisms) axiomatically indicative of so equally relativist and personalized entelechies (of a much diminished sort).  In short, the absurd objectification of ultimate subjectivity glorified exists, which Catholicism must exist to adamantly repudiate and utterly confound; this by willingly offering the always needed and solely valid alternative seen best within the venerable Latin Mass.  What more may need to be here cogently and concisely asseverated in closing?

This writing is not, therefore, designed to unctuously ameliorate the comfortable or to ever comfortably assuage the powerfully smug.  So, there really is, in truth, an ongoing horrendous struggle against the new “Arians” within the Roman Catholic Church, which is, of course, a so terrible tragedy afflicting fallen creatures in a fallen world.⁵

However, as ever, the great Chesterton’s sapient words can, in just one sentence, be superbly applied to thoroughly demolish the vilely overdone, contemptuous, and pompous pretentiousness of all of VC II: “I don’t need a church to tell me I’m wrong when I know I’m wrong; I need a church to tell me I’m wrong when I think I’m right.”  And, that sagaciously salient statement should be eagerly taken as the proper encapsulation of a Chestertonian sensibility, of a quite sensible Catholic epistemology.

Contemporaneously, the Church Suffering must endure, as the present calamity significantly undermines efforts at supporting the Church Militant, for there is a definite Catholic culture (separate from just Western culture) that ought to creatively inform and inspire all of Catholic life.

Ultimately, of course, what has and is happening is a major failure of ecclesiastical leadership, over the past sixty years starting at the top down, throughout the realm of Holy Mother Church.⁶

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

 

Athanasius contra mundum!

 

Notes

1.)   https://callthepatriot.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/theology-and-ontology-roman-catholic-reflections-on-ontological-theology/

The promotion of either traditional Scholasticism or a neo-Scholasticism is basically inadequate without the consideration and incorporation of the requisite critical contentions of ontological theology for Catholic thought, philosophy, and theology.   For instance, certain features of Late Scholasticism and much of what became known as neo-Scholasticism had definitely picked up too much of nominalism that, therefore, necessarily weakened the needed basis of presentable and defensible Scholasticism.

It could be seen that ontological theology, as to its informative principles, insightfully provides a then substantially and substantively superior intellectual basis for Scholastic thought’s required cognitive emendation, correction, and advancement for a, thus, wanted renewed success.

One can find this particular matter, namely, the greatly corruptive influence of nominalism, quite lucidly covered and expatiated correctly in such as volume as: Dr. E. B. F. Midgley’s The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations.

See also: http://restorationisttheologyforadecadentage.blogspot.com/

2.)   https://callthepatriot.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/myth-magic-islamic-state-and-roman-catholicisms-greatness/

3.)   https://callthepatriot.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/discerning-the-higher-magisterium/

4.)   https://gloria.tv/article/UfSozRdhG8yM4zvcJAkjiK89e

See also: https://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the-rise-of-latin-mass-youth

The Latin Liturgy Appeals to Catholic Youth

https://www.newsmax.com/US/Latin-Mass-Catholic-rebirth/2015/03/30/id/635405/

Young Catholics Embrace Latin Mass

https://www.ncronline.org/news/parish/do-new-ordinations-signal-rising-popularity-latin-mass

http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/ordinations-signal-growing-popularity-of-latin-catholic-mass/article_a8a85b5b-b340-538b-80c7-a3dce8a2131e.html

https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/rigidity-of-latin-mass-is-exactly-why-we-like-it-young-catholic

5.)   The omnipresent background reality, it needs to be openly said, of what is happening to humanity worldwide goes far beyond the confines of the Roman Catholic Church and its difficulties.  For instance, the world fertility rate, already heading near unsustainable negative levels, is being projected toward virtual human self-annihilation; this is, e. g., as it can be guessed that, eventually, hundreds of millions of people will prefer exquisite “sex” with fully nonjudgmental and exotically-erotically capable robots.

Moral irrationality ever compounds, therefore, the truly major loss of needed and basic moral sanity where there resides Godlessness qua presumed normality.  Future reproduction of the species, if it will somehow persist, will be done in only specially constructed bio-factories, which may, perhaps, be totally unlicensed by governments.  This is because of an extreme devotion to mortal sin, the desire of most men and women not to have children, added to the known contraceptive/legalized abortion/infanticide revolution.  Humanity’s predictable self-destruction, if present trends do greatly continue just unabated, seems fairly or reasonably assured.

The continued march of nihilism and its logical outcome being insanity will, eventually, force the closure of even all of the bio-factories as being contrary to an ultimate humanist liberation from God, as is fully wanted by this Culture of Death, in the true demonic service of Satan and the horrid hosts of Hell.

6.)    https://callthepatriot.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/the-retroactive-fallacy-an-examination-of-valid-criticism-

Revivalism: Catholic Pilgrimages and One’s Own Life Pilgrimage in a Dark Age

Revivalism: Catholic Pilgrimages and One’s Own Life Pilgrimage in a Dark Age

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

For devout Catholics, each and every Advent is a holy pilgrimage and mystery; and, the religious and theological significance of the profound understanding of this meaning ranges ever far beyond just the Church season leading up to Christmas each year. Against the rather dark moral and spiritual background of the existing, aggressive, secularist, Western society and culture, why is this said?

The Mystery of the Redemption is not and should not seem to be an easy ride; one must seek to actively earn it by deeds and prayers, not by just having supposed faith alone, which amounts, upon critical analysis, as the cheap having of a belief in faith itself, not really in the Lord God. Thus, to be a true or practicing Catholic is to simultaneously be a meek pilgrim, engaged in this mystery, in this fallen world.

Should there be, however, a Catholic revival of the idea of making physical pilgrimages?   It could not hurt one’s soul if sincerely done always for the right reasons, not frivolously entertained as just a silly lark.  Of course, such places as the Middle East and elsewhere are much too dangerous for practical choices, as to possible religious sites or shrines for visiting and praying at, as a means of better securing redemption through the penance involved.

What is meant? The penance involved is the deliberate turning away from worldly things and ambitions to, instead, rightly seek religious and spiritual benefits and cognate blessings, as a so humble pilgrim for the Lord’s sake.  It can be rightly remarked, nonetheless, that many Catholics do still, these days, go on various pilgrimages, though it is hardly a common practice attended to by the vast majority.

There are, e.g., many North American shrines to visit (which ought not to be life-threatening endeavors, unlike the typical reality of the Middle East, whether ancient, medieval, or even contemporary times).

Of course, people of different faiths, all over the world, have surely been going on spiritual or religious journeys for literally thousands of years. The Hindus, in India, take trips to the Ganges River that they regard as being sacred.  In ancient, medieval, and even modern times, Christians have gone to various locations, such as the more famous sites, including Santiago de Compostela, the Camino de Santiago (the Road of St. James), which is a huge system of ancient pilgrim routes still certainly extending across Europe and joining together, finally, at the holy Tomb of St. James.

Different Journeys by Different Religions

The Roman Catholic pilgrimage, a free celebration of Christian spirituality is, however, extremely different from, e. g., the Moslem pilgrimage, known as the hajj, to Mecca that is, in fact, a sacred duty not involving free will. How is this specifically meant?   After all the myriad of qualifications and fancy frills are removed, their principal religious journey, many times of a lifetime, is yet functionally thing-centered, which will be explained.

And, this raises an important point for significant discussion as to the nature of this type of purportedly religious-oriented trip, as this present effort at expiation will come to elucidate clearly, for the Spirit of Christ is an incarnational reality, not an inanimate one.

Of all people, the radical Jihadists do, insightfully, have some basic truth on their side in that they do denounce the terrible idolatry of worshipping the supposedly sacred stone of Islam, instead of rightly worshipping God, their Allah [which word actually means submission]. Occasionally, even extremists of this sort can get things notably right, the way that even a broken clock is absolutely right twice a day.

Many of them have publicly said that they would actually destroy the building housing that absurd thing and, of course, the very preposterous revered stone itself. Being such self-declared religious zealots, purists, or Islamic “Puritans,” they are absolute iconoclasts who, thus, do so adamantly insist that these existing Mecca-based things be totally eliminated for the assumed holy sake of further purifying Islam.

In such an aforementioned context, their avid logic would seem, therefore, to be highly correct and so integrally undeniable, quite impeccable, meaning as to both its fairly apparent overt validity and evident justice; this is, however, set within the strict limits of making their religion so much more abstract, for the logical end of this iconoclastic cognition must, one supposes, further insist upon destroying the Koran as a mere affectation of religion, for as Trotsky said, who says A must say B.

Muslim pilgrims, going on a momentous hajj, perform a sacred ritual centered on The Black Stone of Mecca, the Kaaba, a physical symbol of their no-graven-images faith that is related to the Archangel Gabriel in the thinking of Islam.   Contrary to this so ridiculous idolatry, Catholic spiritual journeys are God-centered, meaning even more especially being Christocentric events dealing with ultimate matters, such as the important salvation of souls.  Places or locations, thus, ought never to be the true theological or religious issue involved.

And, different religions produce deferent orientations toward definitions of the sacred, meaning that which is holy, and the profane, what is of temporality alone being separate from the sacred.  For Roman Catholics, the religious significance is not the particular or actual geographical location, the object(s) to be found there, or any other physicality involved whatsoever; the means provided is faith, the holy object is to give ever greater glory to God, not to the sacred shrine or mere place, of course.

What is critically meant is similar to denouncing the dumb slander, repeated by Protestants and others, that Catholics worship plaster saints, not God, or the supposed worship rendered to the Blessed Virgin Mary.  While Moslems believe there is, by definition, inherent religious virtue in the Kaaba, no Catholic’s faith ought to be ever summarily destroyed if, e. g., absolutely all the shrines (and their contents) of what used to Christendom were to be entirely destroyed.

Christ and His Kingdom would still exist; the Roman Catholic Church would still be present, the glorious truths of the Faith would yet permanently be in full existence, etc., regardless the vile active onslaught of secularization with its “gospels” of pragmatism, materialism, hedonism, positivism, and nihilism.

Truth resides in the Lord Almighty as to the substance of Catholicism, not in things (especially in and of themselves); there is, therefore, no inherent or integral substantiality of religious value, meaning in the highest sense, to be found present in the mere symbolism of physical objects qua objects, meaning totally unlike what Islam’s Kaaba intrinsically represents to all those who are committed believers.  In short, superstition is not religion, except, one guesses, for Moslems and other heathens who may be so inclined.  The ancient Hebrews, as another instance, were told by God, in Deuteronomy 16:16-17, to make journeys to the Temple three times per year.

As was noted earlier, the more radical (and, perhaps, more logical) jihadists easily recognize the highly superstitious nature of centering the focus of an important pilgrimage on what is quite obviously only a rock, glorified, true, but still just a stone.  It is so truly pathetic, as is always superstition itself.   For as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman would have wisely insisted, and more to the point needed here, false ideas of religion do harm people.

For instance, the English Protestants, during their occupation of Ireland that even partly continues today, could have burned and utterly destroyed all the churches, shrines, etc., but there would still be the Faith regardless, which is not a superstition.  Pilgrimages, nonetheless, are today a foreign concept to almost all dedicated (committed) Protestants, especially those who are doctrinaire about the so-called Reformed Religion, who would never tend to naturally develop such (Papist) desires.

After all, The Pilgrim’s Progress, written by the Puritan John Bunyan, is, at bottom, an anti-Catholic screed.  Yet, there are many different journeys made by different religions, for there is no true religion by the generic name of Christianity, contrary, of course, to what many people may ignorantly believe.

Although in both ancient and medieval times being told by a priest to do penance by, thus, going to visit a shrine could be made religiously mandatory to separate one’s self from mere profane reality; nothing like that is prevalent these days, though not really impossible nor just inconceivable, if it may so further the salvation of one’s precious soul, of course.

For believing Moslems, meaning for those who possess the ability to do so, the hajj is simply mandatory; it is a definite part of their demonic faith that sanctions brutality and massacres in the horrible name of their devil-god Allah.¹  Christians, however, are not under any such obligation to go anywhere for such a purpose because a truly much different theology is at work as well as different spiritual values, sacred values, not simply or vainly a contrary monotheism as such.

No inanimate object or place, therefore, possesses the religious power of compulsion as does the Kaaba for the confirmed believers in Muhammadinism, which point needs to be kept so keenly in mind.  For Christians, the “movements” of the soul are ever much more highly important and spiritually indicative than, in sharp contrast, the mere peregrinations of the physical body, unlike the opposed thinking of devout Muslims.

Of course, admittedly, a typical Moslem would strongly deny such any extremely denunciatory assertion about the Kaaba, but, ironically, the radical Jihadists, being devout Muslims themselves, have uncovered the disgusting truth and exposed this much too pietistic nonsense for what it, in essence, really is; the jihadists, the more logically radical of them, do recognize and condemn the preposterous worship and veneration of an object, presumed, in fact, to be just a meteorite – of all things to be so very excessively cherished by (presumably sensate, rational) human beings.

Predating Islam by centuries, the Greek historian Herodotus, who had catalogued many of the ancient world’s then religious practices, would have likely agreed. But, people, throughout the course of history, have certainly demonstrated a rather wide and incredible capacity to believe and practice many diverse and amazing beliefs: Muhammad, they believe, was lifted physically at death seated upon his much celebrated horse.

Thus, both he and equine companion with full regalia were dramatically levitated up into the extremely erotic and ever highly sex-obsessed Moslem paradise, an ethereal, prolific, and infinite orgy.   And, as Moslems must believe, there he is spending eternity preoccupied in everlasting coupling with his 72 perpetual virgins (or, as a jested failure of their scripture, is it actually just one 72 year old virgin?).

So, over the many centuries now, millions upon millions of the faithful adherents of Muhammadinism, [which it should really be called – in the ways that, e. g., Lutheranism signifies that Martin Luther created his Protestant religion and John Calvin developed Calvinism as yet another Protestant belief system] – have loyally done their hajj to honor Islam and its founder.

All Muhammadans, moreover, are required, if financially and otherwise able to do so, to make at least one such journey during their lifetimes to get near this particular rock and devoutly to perform many spiritual exercises publicly celebrating it. In fact, one can view, either online or otherwise, many pictures and videos of people intensely circulating around the building housing this much celebrated rock; all of which exists as a monument to unrestrained heathenism and unadulterated ignorance supreme.

The situation to be beheld there is, thus, either mindlessly pathetic or, perhaps, pathetically funny to the nth degree. In any event, it is greatly unlike what St. Augustine, in his Tractates on the Gospel of John, said of the Christian life as so being a “pilgrimage in this wilderness …” Spiritually speaking, therefore, this fallen world, the very epitome of mere profane reality, filled ever as it must be with equally fallen creatures must, of necessity, be a place of pilgrimage, of seeking to promote Catholic holiness.

He there further wrote: “Let us during this our earthly pilgrimage be ever occupied with the thought that we shall not always be here, and then, by leading good lives, we shall be preparing for ourselves a place whence we shall never pass on.”  Thus, in effect, all true Christians, meaning all practicing Roman Catholics, are true pilgrims for their entire lives on earth (this wilderness), meaning, in particular, after their sacramental baptism.

Every practice leading toward holiness, therefore, makes that aspect of the practice a recognition of the sacred, though both the sacred and the profane coexist, within human reality, even as it reaches toward the divine in the lives of truly sincere and humble Christians.

Quo Vadis, Pilgrim?

Leading a truly Christian life, especially in terms of Catholicism, must include the idea of being a lifelong pilgrim who cannot spiritually find any genuine rest prior to the achievement of salvation in Heaven. It is, moreover, religiously incumbent upon every Catholic especially, whether clerical or lay person, to engage in this earthly quest, when still in the City of Man, that is to have a specifically heavenly end, meaning the City of God, as St. Augustine would have so fully agreed.

And yes, it is much easier said than done, for many are called, but few are chosen. There are difficulties in trying to elude the mounting temptations of a secular, hedonistic, materialistic, consumer-oriented society and culture diligently worshipping (a supposed perpetual) youth, (endless) sensuality, and then, ultimately, consequent nihilism, resulting insanity, and inevitable profane death, if truth be told.

So, verily, the greatest human delusion, as to vanity of vanities, is still ever self-delusion, regardless of what rampant secularism, pragmatism, positivism, and relativism appear to joyously offer to often witless willing fools. Contrarians, however, should sagaciously seek Christ and His Kingdom first, the sacred order, not profane reality.

Of course, the Roman Catholic Church has always imparted the thinking that that a pilgrimage is a beneficial way to creatively reinforce one’s Christian faith and piety.  In sharp contrast, the Protestant Churches, being more open to secularism, generally excluded the idea of pilgrimage, as based upon their marked nominalist predilections ²; this was basically because they ignorantly believe that it gives people an erroneous idea about God concerning places and things.

They, in effect, question the incarnational reality of Christian faith more than they ever know or, perhaps, would ever dare to admit to doing so.   In short, (orthodox) Catholics are not as embarrassed about Jesus Christ as Protestants tend to be.

Why is this said? Because average people, not well tutored in much of religion and, especially, theology often lack the higher ability to be so perceptive.  Rationalization of Christianity, seen in Protestantism’s reductionism, recapitulates, the old saying, on how Christ was/is always “a folly to the Greeks [Gentiles] and a scandal to the Jews.”

And, this ever critical matter deserves to be properly reiterated here for requisite emphasis as to what constitutes the orthodox foundation of Christian Faith, namely, the reality, both in the past terrestrial and forever supernatural, as to the true founder of the Catholic religion, namely, Jesus the Christ.  The first “pilgrim,” dying, seemingly only, a mortal’s death, was the Messiah Himself and His earthly journey was completed with the Crucifixion of the Lord God at Calvary about 2,000 years ago.

In historical fact, going on a pilgrimage was, certainly, always popular in the Middle Ages, when people were less embarrassed, ashamed, about an incarnational religion, and, remarkably, is crescively gaining in popularity again; this is, perhaps, because some serious Christians are spiritually probing for a truer Christian identity, within the necessarily antagonistic bustle and commotion of an otherwise secularizing contemporary life, for better seeing all things or places in Christ, the sacred order.

The good idea of religious journeys publicly celebrating the historical places evocative of Christianity, moreover, was ever quite notably prominent since the earliest centuries of the Church, of its intimate foundational history no less. The Blessed Virgin Mary, for instance, had adamantly urged her fellow Christians to reenact the Passion, which eventually became the “Catholic calisthenics” of the Stations of the Cross, for those who could not be at the actual locations.  A few more examples ought to suffice, many more could be given if needed, even as the profane world may scoff and belittle Christian humility.

In the History of Eusebius, it is there plainly noted that, in 271 AD, Bishop Alexander had “performed a journey from Cappadocia to Jerusalem in consequence of a vow and [be it known] the celebrity of the place.”  What could be more plain as to the truth of what is being said?

The religious status of such journeys, more to the point, was greatly more elevated after the conversion of Constantine and, in such association, the consequent visit to Jerusalem of the Empress St. Helena; thereafter, the various pilgrimages to the Holy Land became so exceedingly more common. It is usually connected to the story of the finding of the true Cross because its simply relational influence was mainly so obvious.

Specifically put as to the facts involved, the first church of the Resurrection was built by Eustathius the Priest. But, the indicative stream of pilgrimages began, in certain strength, about four years after St. Helena’s deliberate visit (in approximately the year 326 AD).

After that time, the Roman Catholic Church, as an official body partly caused and somewhat resulted from the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), had then willingly sustained the same religious custom as to its proper validation.   The Council had, therefore, publicly given the ecclesial stamp of approval to this holy practice of properly seeking to so venerate a surely major Christian pilgrimage site.

Thus, e.g., those Protestants saying that they wish to be Augustinian Christians are only disreputable liars, if they should denigrate, minimize, or coldly dismiss the spiritual and moral benefits of Christian pilgrimages.  But, in short, Protestantism, ever dependent upon the violently iconoclastic Protestant Revolution that sought Christianity’s rationalization, is never a suitable vehicle for the truly sacred celebration of Christianity athwart the profane world; this is forever proved, moreover, as with the Deist Thomas Jefferson who genuinely thought that he could easily write up much better Scripture, as with the greatly blasphemous Jefferson Bible.  It is a rather odd work that was previously unthinkable without the prior radical theological existence of Protestantism.

Rationalization and reductionism, given enough time, eats away at belief, so the so-called Reformed Religion ranges from Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, etc. and to the rather far fringes of Mormonism and Unitarianism/Universalism, as the “Christian” link becomes necessarily ever more quite tenuous toward its logical and eventual obliteration. A secularist society and culture, especially modernist ones, do, logically, result, for the seeking of true holiness, especially as a Catholic pilgrim, cannot ever abide the worship of secularism, meaning, ultimately, Satan and his so fiery kingdom.

Departure from true religious and theological orthodoxy, therefore, always has its greatly deleterious, spiritually toxic, consequences; these results are, thus, normally called heresies, which do really end up being fatal, denoting as truly regards a soul’s important hope for achieving, through needed practiced holiness, salvation, meaning, thus, for finally reaching Heaven.  Keeping one’s eyes on the prize really helps.

The last location for the beautified souls exemplifies the acknowledgment of that, by definition, which defines sacredness forever set against the greatest blasphemous profanity, of course, which is Hell itself. But, some requisite amplification will be rendered next, for better heuristically illustrating, what needs to be enhanced in religious cognition for advanced comprehension.

Two concepts from sociology will be used here, with different connotations, to so help reinforce what needs to be properly said for providing further axiological extrapolation and clarification: Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society).  For Roman Catholics, especially orthodox and practicing ones, their religious community is or ought to be far separate from the destructive values of the surrounding and extremely larger secularist society, as well as the Protestant society seen only as a subset social structure more congenial to secularism than is often publicly admitted.

The Catholic Gemeinschaft must be alienated from and appalled at the secular society ideal held by the predominate and usually ruling majority of the American and Western elites, for it is a sacred sense of community opposite to the temporality observed in the profane social and cultural realities prevalent.  A laicist Zeitgeist can often readily produce an abundance of pity, with always very little real and deep compassion among the so jaded populace.   But, why is this said?

The aggressive, laicist, and so pervasive Gesellschaft, dedicated to the terrene glorification, in effect, of nominalism in cognition, as the very basis of (relativist) truth, cannot be ever combined with the sacred community of believers; they are the ones, ever urged on by traditionalist Catholicism; they are the ones who ought to absolutely reject the profound profanity of the decadent social order and its many degenerate cultural constructs, and without, one hopes, any hesitation whatsoever.

For as St. Augustine correctly had put it, Christians are only in the world, not really of the world; there is present, therefore, the conflict set between the City of Man (the world, the flesh and the Devil) versus the City of God (the pursuit of holiness toward, one hopes, future salvation in Heaven).

The traditionalist Catholic community, dedicated loyally as it is to the true Faith, ought to ever take a necessary precedence to the wayward or, at the least, very questionable demands of the society at large; the former is to be the true standard, the moral compass, of normal right versus wrong, simple normality, not the latter component of the dying and decadent culture worshipping, as it so obviously does, death and its harsh realities.

At a bare minimum, for a Christian life on pilgrimage, there is to be a much greater and wanted fidelity to seeking God and His Kingdom and a certain determined lessening of desires oriented toward the many things of this distracting world. Unfortunately, these days, the Christianizing of C. S. Lewis’ “mere” Christianity is really needed more than ever, so, e. g., sincere and devout pilgrimages would not hurt to be taken.

Seek Ye the Greater Good

Unlike ancient and medieval pilgrims, perhaps, today’s modern religious journeys are not so fraught with danger, especially if done more locally or within, e. g., only the borders of the United States. The potential dangers, in earlier times, of such usually long trips were basically taken in stride as part of the reality to be confronted realistically by fallen creatures in a fallen world, but the mystery of it all has not, regardless of the many past centuries, departed from Catholic life.

What are many or, perhaps, most pilgrims seeking? Would not it be fairly said that they do hope for perceiving intimations of the divine, as to their personal experiential perceptions, involved in doing such a spiritually special journey? Many sites in Europe were, indeed, formerly places that pagans had taken excursions to and the Church decided, in its wisdom, to Christianize them by giving a new meaning to those locations.

This is especially so if the ecclesiastical authorities could not really sufficiently convince the stubborn majority of the locals, even, perhaps, after a number of generations, to stop frequenting those particular destinations.

The indigenous people, for (many) hundreds or, in certain cases, even thousands of years had felt, for whatever reasons, that the localities visited had some definite connection to what was considered to be divine as to a hierophany, an actual physical manifestation of the sacred or holy in the profane world; it would be, therefore, helping to act as a spiritual eidolon for mystical imitation or practical adoration, a physical manifestation of the holy or sacred that serves as a spiritual eidolon for emulation or worship, if not (always) explicit or greatly dramatic kratophanies, manifestations of divine power.

Such traveling is usually fraught with inconveniences, sometimes unexpected obstacles on highways or roadways, and other things or people that may be even more annoying. Such are but normally small sacrifices, especially when the final goal is kept in mind, for the pilgrimage is the encompassing fullness of the spiritual journey, not just the physical destination in and of itself to be sought.

Sanctification of the soul, which can include rightly acknowledging the glorious Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ or, perhaps, the Virgin Birth, is sought above and beyond merely revering, in person, a particular religious site; that could, unfortunately, verge unto a form of idolatry.

Yes, it would be logically more safe to simply just stay at home or in one’s own village, city, or town; but, these spiritual “adventurers,’ throughout the ages, sought out the greater good of making pilgrimage as a physically manifest sign of faith, of, in essence, a symbolic journey toward God.   For the symbolism involved goes fairly deep into both the heart and mind of the believer, for too many abuses, by venial superficialities, ruin unnecessarily the soul of the pilgrim and vitiates the quality of the pilgrimage.

Lesser matters have gotten pushed aside, regardless of how often busy a human life may seem to be. The riches and attractions of this world may need to be sacrificed, for the sake of the spiritual richness and treasures gained, by having taken such a journey that can have the effect, one hopes, of positively changing one’s temporal life for the good, for intimations of the divine.

Sometimes, one must think of the broader spiritual implications and benefits involved by so forsaking immediate goods (or what may seem so) for the better pursuit, instead, of what has been rightly noted already as the greater good, the worship of Jesus Christ and the adoration and veneration of His saints as to the sites visited. The honoring of their holy memories continues from the beginning of the trip there, during the actual visit, and any thoughts thereafter associated to the reason for the pilgrimage.

Of course, it may not be that easy to correctly recognize the larger or much more complete good to be sought, as if looking through a darkened glass toward the outer world.  People, even members of the religious, may lose themselves in particulars (e.g., concern for a church choir, organizing parish groups, etc.) while not keenly perceiving the larger appropriate reality of what they are supposed to be about as to their humble mission in life, especially the salvation of souls.

An instance had sadly occurred in [to fictionalize it] Our Lady of Sorrows Parish in Pinesvilley, Texas of a priest being unable or, perhaps, unwilling to sacrifice a lesser good for the higher sake of preserving the traditionalist Latin Mass-oriented nature of the parish.  This is sad to observe.  Instead, the decision was made by the pastor, Fr. Ernest Lovely, as a sort of Vatican II moment (an inability to separate the sacred from the profane), to take the unfortunate road, the horrid path, toward a rather obviously Novus Ordo-oriented direction for the parish.

In yielding to the values of the Gesellschaft, there is said to be the great need to embrace change and to be not fearful of it; the parish has, in effect, received its own version of the aggiornamento (renewal and updating) marching orders; the then proclaimed requirement to obey has, thus, proceeded so logically.  Instead of lovingly and properly uniting the parish, the terrible existential choice was made to keep a highly controversial choir director, as a paid employee no less, who had lacked, in fact, any such prior actual experience for such a position.  Why is this being said?

Thus, a rather bad-sounding choir, which does not seem to improve with practice, exists that causes real occasions of sin because of the laughing/remarks usually made by Mass attendees at the 10:00 am Sunday services.  It is much like the proverbial tail being permitted to wag the dog, the particular has been made to govern the general reality; priorities, in short, have gotten screwed up quite terribly.

If Fr. Lovely could but perceive the important and requisite need to seek the genuinely greater good in this matter, removal of the inexperienced choir director would signal that the focus is to be upon the traditionalist Holy Mass, not oddly catering to the allowed poor performance of a choir.  Instead, as a consequence, the split in the parish will continue needlessly, and, one suspects, so thoughtlessly as well.

Those who prefer the non-choir 8:00 am Mass will, therefore, continue to eschew, to reject, the 10:00 am one, thus, forever breaking the sense of useful harmony and unity in the precious and difficult life of the parish, filled as it is with the marginalized, scorned, disrespected, and ghettoized believers.   The “alternative” choir has formed for the earlier Mass, thus, intensifying the split and, since coming with the pastor’s permission, officially then solidifying the division in the parish.

This is a much worse condition for traditionalist-minded parishes versus Novus Ordo ones because the former do seek a unity of orthodox faith, the latter typically is filled with people who are not that much concerned with spiritual, liturgical, and moral unity; heterogeneity is what the latter generally find more congenial as to the Novus Ordo parish life and their choirs that, not surprisingly, do reflect this doleful reality.

Our Lady of Church, however, is supposed to be a traditional Latin Mass parish whose orthodox focus of intentional attendance ought not to be the dreadful choristers, the singing performers, for it is not, e. g., a Protestant church nor, in particular, a Novus Ordo one either, of course.  The congregation is now unfortunately divided (along this entirely unneeded fault line) against itself for neglect, by the pastor, of rightly seeking to find and follow the more substantial spiritual good versus the lesser particular good or choice of keeping the novice choirmaster. But, can a parish divided against itself for long stand?

For what really attracts people to a viable church is the bold proclamation and adamant defense of the truth, especially the ultimate Truth, not a choir (and, certainly, not a terrible-sounding choral group that oddly seems to get worse with the more practice sessions done).

And, this matter was rudely handled as a Vatican II-style fait accompli action; this quite tiny parish, precariously holding on within the diocese in terms of its marginalization, must be disproportionately made to support a paid choir director/organist chosen, ultimately, by Fr. Lovely, with absolutely no prior consultation with the parish’s Finance Committee; a (relatively) great financial burden put upon a tiny parish of (an average of) only thirty-five families, which makes it, thus, having been a disproportionate action to take (about $12,000 per year).

As C.E.M. Joad well and correctly put it, decadence is the loss of the object.   The pastor, regardless of what may be his good intentions, has chosen the well-known Novus Ordo path toward the acceptance of decadence for the now divided parish.  Great axiological harm has, thus, been done to the Catholic Gemeinschaft, which ought to have been adamantly defended in the name of Catholicism.  This choice probably cannot, one suspects, have any truly good consequences, especially in the long run of things.³

The object lost is the need to worship the Lord God Almighty in general and above all other precise considerations, not catering to any one faction, the choir, of the parish in particular. Why the serious lack of perception held by Fr. Lovely?   Nominalism in cognition makes it often difficult to recognize corruption, i e., decadence.  One fairly knows, thus, that decadence ought to be ever regarded as a moral horror and, subsequently, forever righteously rejected as being sinful.  But, recognition of it can be, at times, difficult due to one’s mortal imperfection, giving to many often different “perceptions” of reality.

Fr. Lovely has, therefore, chosen to be blind to the reality of the situation that is being permitted to exist that will then, so necessarily, lead to the further spiritual and moral detriment of his parishioners.   For as always, the road to the Infernal Regions is paved with good intentions (and profane consequences often as well).   It is greatly hoped, however, that the pastor of Our Lady of Sorrows Church will, someday, see the unfortunate error of his ways, accept this rebuke, restore sight to his blindness, and take a good spiritual pilgrimage toward the Light of Christ, the Mystery of Mysteries.

Conclusion

The sacred quest is for seeking a path of salvation toward the Savior, who through His Crucifixion, provided the Redemption possible for human souls who seek His Kingdom, not earthly things as to profane fixations and orientations.  Unsurprisingly, one ought to see Catholicism, especially its vital orthodox understanding and comprehension, as in itself being a true religious journey or, perhaps, a lifetime passage for seeking intimations of the divine.

For there is ever the constant battle between the sacred and the profane, the pursuit of the love of God versus the world, the flesh, and the Devil.   It is, therefore, mightily exemplary practice for the Catholic Gemeinschaft to uphold the Faith, regardless of the aggressiveness of the secularist Gesellschaft and its temptations, which are extremely prolific and many more subtle than they may simply appear to be.

As the Father of All Lies, Satan, as is known, often slyly wraps evil under the cover of what may seem to be an apparent good, during the momentous journey of a person’s life on earth; most people, however, are blissfully unware of the invisible but yet powerful metaphysical struggle that actually exists, in the entire universe, until the end of time, for the Devil and his minions certainly hate not only God but, in fact, all of the Great Lord Almighty’s Creation.4

For every Christian starting at Baptism and, for Catholics, ending at Extreme Unction, that is the absolute finish, the full journey’s end, of the pilgrimage of one’s life here in this sadly fallen world. Santa Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

And, yes, as J.R.R. Tolkien had long ago truly remarked, Roman Catholicism is, indeed, quite a “severe religion;” and, much more than that, let it be known that the only real tragedy, in this life, is not to have died a saint on one’s life pilgrimage, in the soteriological expedition toward the Christian mystery of final salvation.

 Athanasius contra mundum!

Notes

1.)   For believing Christians and, in particular, especially for orthodox, traditionalist Roman Catholics, since all other religions do not worship the true God, they, by definition, are put into the category of the worship of demons instead.   Conversely, of course, the Moslems do say exactly the same thing about those who do not believe in Allah.

Incidentally, the Jews, who are no longer the “Chosen People” by rejecting Jesus Christ as God in, thus, breaking the Covenant, no longer worship the true Lord and believe in a demon substitute; this is openly affirmed, moreover, by the doctrine of supersessionism: Catholics are now, by definition, the new Chosen People living under the New Testament.  Of course, this does NOT mean, in any way whatsoever, that all Catholics simply go straight to Heaven upon their deaths; quite the contrary, many are called, few are chosen.

2.)  With emphasis, it can be stressed that nominalism, when fully accepted within one’s cognition, becomes a form of (often unrecognized) insanity.  Modernity, in fact, could never have advanced as quickly as it did, starting in the European Renaissance, without a peculiar form of ratiocination that normalized what would have been otherwise seen as being cheap rationalizations for, e. g., the lust for power, as with Machiavelli.

Thus, the rise of and any success attendant to Protestantism is surely a manifest function of modernity. Nominalism, as the formative basis of modernity, then produces rationalizations for the acceptance of subjectivism, positivism, pragmatism, materialism, hedonism, nihilism, and, ultimately, insanity itself, which is seen at its logical nadir in postmodernity.   A very good example of modernity is the so-called Reformed Religion of Christianity.

Protestantism, therefore, ought to be regarded as a logical synonym for nominalism. By rejecting the Papacy, the Protestants had, in effect, said that the Gates of Hell had, indeed, prevailed against the Church, though they willfully exempt their own churches, of course.  Nominalism, then, operates best by rejecting the proper and sound Aristotelian principle of logic that something can and cannot be true at one and the same instance; thus, the Devil, according to Protestantism both simultaneously, has and has not won over against the Church, which is, by logic, right reason, and common sense, not ever possible.  Q. E. D.

In the postmodern world, therefore, bizarrely disoriented boys say that they are really girls, girls say they are actually boys, people claim to be truly lower animals, folks with otherwise healthy limbs demand one or more be chopped off – all of which is now to be held to be simply normal, instead of being appropriately recognized immediately as the insane nonsense it really always is.

None of this would be possible without the prior victory of nominalism becoming as pervasive as the air breathed and, now, seemingly unnoticeable to the vast majority of contemporary human beings who just think it to be plain common sense. In short, insanity has become a normalized condition.

3.)   Besides bearing the cross of one’s life (among other crosses to bear), yet another has been added by having to endure a grandiloquent gesture made toward a vainglorious enterprise, denominated as a church choir no less.

The less personal (invisible) crosses, endured during a life’s pilgrimage, includes having to live in a dying, decadent, Western world, inclusive of America; it is unfortunately experiencing, as with ancient Rome, the ever-advancing harsh and relentless tides of the parasitical barbarians who, thus, colonize and do not really wish to assimilate, meaning to any major degree of actual positive acculturation as such.

The once so much higher American civilization must sadly then yield, increasingly, to the unwashed, brutish, envious, often hate-filled, barbarous multitudes, mostly ignorant of the baleful consequences their truly destructive and usually quite dangerous habits and desires, e. g., the Moslems. More than all that, however, the now celebrated postmodern world vilely sees the actual, social, political, and cultural glorification of sodomites, transvestites, abortionists, etc., in short, of all manner of true evil that claims to be positive good; it is, of course, the ever ongoing revenge of Hell and its Chief Demon.

There is, indeed, the great archetypal kind of burdensome cross to bear of having to actually live during the ebb tide, the crescive nadir, of a rather markedly degenerate and, by definition, highly secularized, culture and civilization. This noted ever advancing and aggressive, pragmatic secularization makes the unwanted invasions, the disgusting incursions of the worst sort, less and less tolerable.  No wonder that many joke about the long awaited S.M.O.D. (Sweet Meteor of Death) to someday come as a substitute deus ex machina.

4.)   Some particular clarification may help to illustrate dramatically the cognition and theology, within this article’s purview, as to the vitally important suppositions attendant to the epistemology involved; this ever relates critically to the ontological order that includes both physical and metaphysical order simultaneously, which should, logically, inspire both holy fear and awe.

By creation, for Christians, especially believing Catholics, means something set very far beyond what an atheist or agnostic (read: cowardly atheist) would limitedly ever mean; all of actual reality encompasses both the delimited, finite physical order (covering the “mere” entire universe) and all that is beyond, the metaphysical order, which includes Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, and the literally impossible to comprehend and amazingly mysterious infinity of the Supreme Being Himself.

Comprehensively speaking, therefore, definitely all of this constitutes the Catholic’s notion of God’s Creation, nothing less, which is, thus, necessarily always contrary to Protestantism and any other such terribly deficient faiths, philosophies, or beliefs.

References

Why Are Pilgrimages Important?

https://www.catholicsandcultures.org/practices-values/shrines-pilgrimage

https://www.quora.com/Where-do-Catholics-go-for-their-pilgrimage

Pilgrimage: Traveling with a spiritual purpose

Pilgrimage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Catholic_pilgrimage_sites

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9360

https://www.fisheaters.com/pilgrimage.html

http://catholicism.org/catholic-pilgrimage-a-spiritual-journey.html

Evil Pope Francis vs. Ad maiorem Dei

Evil Pope Francis vs. Ad maiorem Dei: The Infusibility, Instantiationability, Indissolubility, and Ineffability of the Roman Catholic Church

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

[The Church is St. Peter’s concern that like a] “boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.” – Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, on 15th July 2017

The above cited, recent words of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, one of the most prominent intellectual and surely spiritual leaders of the Church and, more so, the entire world Catholic community as well, should not, however, be ever at all lightly dismissed as merely being the vague or inconsequential musings of just a doddering old fool. He is, definitely, a major prelate of renown and distinction by any measurement, besides being a prolific Christian author and profound thinker.  And, his thoughts are truly alarming.

Those specially chosen words, both highly evocative and provocative, ought to then, logically, be a most rather significant and not simply ignored clarion call for the always requisite defense of Holy Mother Church and the Catholic Faith. What are suitable proofs, fully supportive of the great urgency for such a remarkable consideration as statement, set in terms of deep religious truth and holy fidelity?

It is well known, through the study of Catholic theology, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses the spiritual attributes of impeccability, indefectibility and infallibility as the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, because it was, in fact, founded by Jesus Christ Himself. All this, however, is in spite of the monumental and ongoing grave crisis in the Church, since Vatican Council II, in the mid-1960s.

A convinced disciple of that wayward Council, evil Pope Francis, in his terrible efforts to radicalize and pervert the Church and its holy purposes, seems to have forgotten the meaning of these attributes in supposedly thinking that they only describe himself and his papal powers. Such, although not seemingly suspected, will yet prove to be his own fatal Achilles’ heel, regardless of the popular press adoring and cheering him and, one suspects, many Satanists secretly applauding him in a snooty snide manner.

There appears to be, one greatly suspects, a (deliberate) sort of forgetfulness that he is only the chief Servant of the Servants of Christ, not an absolute dictator, imperial autocrat,  or unrestrainable tyrant.  Yes, he is, also, the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, and Sovereign of the State of Vatican City known as the Holy See, besides then being the Petrine Apostolic Primate Extraordinaire of the entire Catholic Church no less.

Nonetheless, there is no need for the vilely gross absurdity and obnoxiously worshipful sycophancy of papolatry.   He is merely the Vicar of Christ on earth, not a new Incarnation, as many Catholics may so blasphemously suppose, in their unfortunate ignorance and tolerance of papal vanity popularly parading as a feigned humility; his gross pomposity and vile arrogance, moreover, deserves true reprehension and contempt, rates public reproof and scorn, for much papal aggrandizement and pontifical puffery.

In any event, what is important is to avoid hatred toward the current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter, better to pray for his soul’s salvation, and concentrate, instead, on the blessed defense of and love for Catholicism, a miraculous creed. How may this be done?

Strengths of the Orthodox Reformation

With all the above properly kept in mind, there are other theologically orthodox implications and ramifications as to other (read: orthodox-traditionalist) attributes of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. One of these may be denominated infusibility due to the ever ongoing guidance of the Holy Ghost.

This is logically since the combination of impeccability, indefectibility and infallibility ensures that heresy can, thus, never be made formally or officially any valid part of true, meaning authentic, Catholic teaching, hence, the both integral and inherent infusibility of Catholicism, of the hope of the martyrs and the joy of the saints.

It is, as a direct definitional consequence, the only true perfect religion qua genuine faith allowed and sanctioned by Jesus Christ as authentic, meaning defined by Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium.  The spiritual protection of the Divine Paraclete Himself, moreover, fully guarantees this as a dogmatic certainty without question, for God, by definition, loves the Truth and hates all heresies.

Because the salvation history of the Church validly suggests optimism, this provides an ever requisite amplification and reinforcement for the four cardinal virtues of justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude.

The loved totality of the intellectual and theological defense of the Sacred Faith should then always, therefore, properly include its related infusibility and as a suitable and appropriate means of refuting heretics and the plainly ignorant as well; and, of intellectually, morally, and spiritually reinforcing the important need for holy orthodoxy and a life dedicated to holiness.

This factor of resolute infusibility negates efforts to absurdly strip off elements of the Church as if one could get at, e. g., the “real” onion by peeling at it until nothing is left of it. One sees here absurdity compounded, especially by those who wish to attack or denigrate Catholicism.

Thus, analogously, there is no genuine viable or possible authentic way to get at a “primitive” Church before “Romanist” accretions had supposedly obscured the true religious body; among others, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman came to intelligently recognize this most salient and pointed truth, which included his proper total rejection of any assumed via media alternatives as being presumed substitutes.

Another quite readily cognate attribute might be called the Church’s “instantiationability” in that it will exist until the end of the world as the primary empirical and verifiable instance of the ecclesiastical organization on earth representative of the actual intention of Christ to found it as being His one and only Church.

This confidently asserted instantiationability legitimately concerns the instantiation qua representation, within an ecclesial mode of existence as a visible sign of an ongoing reality, present in this world for the salvation of human beings, until the consummation of all time has, at last, occurred. Furthermore, Catholic eschatology and soteriology, of course, both freely affirm this assertion.

Proofs of such overt and supremely Christian instantiation do axiomatically include the all of the Holy Church’s authority, history/historicity, Catholic origins of the Bible, the Biblical sanctions for all its Holy Sacraments, and the fact that the obnoxious heresy of Sola Scriptura is not really supported by the Bible.

Catholicism, therefore, provides an instance of or, moreover, rather concrete evidence seen in adamant support of a particular realization of faith, as is maintained by the ecclesiastical body known as the Roman Catholic Church when properly sustained by orthodoxy, by its holiness and sanctity.

This is, surely, a manifestly definitive means of observed instantiation, as to the theological reality and representation of the fruit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which was explicitly intended by the Lord and Savior Himself and, thus, ought never to be questioned by any Christian. Catholic Christology and doxology do firmly support this great truth expatiated and elucidated through intelligent religious epistemology.

The Church acts as the both existential and experiential incorporation of an imperative religious and theological entity that defies any intramundane logic and reasoning thrown against it by pragmatists, positivists, materialists, atheist-naturalists, and nihilists all combined or, moreover, multiplied to the nth degree.  Meaning that it is hard for most fallen creatures in a fallen world to believe the truth, even when made so obvious.

Consequently, the bold asseveration of instantiationability necessarily affirms the integrity and integral nature of Catholicism being both spiritually and empirically consonant, meaning with the representative characteristics and signs of the Roman Catholic Church, and, more to the specific point here, none other. All this is thoroughly supported by Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium, of course, being that they, as is taught theologically, are always the inerrant Three Pillars of the Faith.

One more feature may be mentioned as to the clear indissolubility of the Church on earth.  The ancient Roman Emperors sought to destroy the work of Christ, the Arian heretics attempted the same, as have other such enemies; the Protestant Revolution claimed it would first surpass and then totally replace the Church; the French Revolution thought it could also destroy Catholicism; the Soviet Revolution tried its hand at a total demolition; in short, the Gates of Hell, repeatedly, have not prevailed to eliminate the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

Even the current heresiarch evil Pope Francis cannot succeed in exterminating the roots of orthodoxy within the Church that will joyously continue long after his evil pontificate. The evident fact of this historically noted indissolubility has manifestly thwarted evil doers, heretics, and other various mischief makers throughout the ages and will, quite predictability, continue to do so in the future.

Traditionalism, as combined responsibly with the dogmas and doctrines that form the blessed centrality and core of the Holy Faith, is to be reasserted athwart the demonic innovative spirit stirred into being by the duplicitous Second Vatican Council, a triumph of Modernism, which holds grace in contempt.

The stubbornly indissoluble nature of the ecclesiastical entity ever encompasses much more than just the physical structures of buildings and the hierarchical offices no matter how extensively considered, inclusive of the entire Vatican power and machinery notwithstanding. The Arian heretics, for instance, had most of the hierarchy and the Church properties in their foul possession for some centuries but still lost in their ultimately futile but highly vigorous attempt to conquer Christ’s creation.

Consideration of the unbreakable nature of the Church means that it is more than just a merely human institution founded by (through merely secular eyes) a bunch of illiterate parlous rabble in and around the obscure Sea of Galilea in ancient Palestine, a low-account province of the once vast Roman Empire.   Was it really that “propitious” that the Founder was regarded, by the local authorities, as being merely a crucified Jewish miscreant, an obscure Nazarene carpenter’s (assumed) son?

Anti-Catholic and anti-Christian historians have been, of course, quite inventive as to seeking what they considered to be fairly plausible explanations qua many rationalizations for the incredible survival of the Church.   When these assertions are properly placed under any advanced sort of very intensive scrutiny, however, they still fail various tests of plausibility, meaning whenever the miraculous gets conveniently excluded from any such possible pragmatic calculations of terrene success.

Just when it seems to be at the critical point of an expected failure unto ruin and ignominy, more or less, the ecclesial structure and its people appear to rebound somehow or other back to life unexpectedly, for Ecclesiam nulla salus is the truth, the Catholic truth, the sensus fidei, to be ever upheld by instructive dogmatics and Catholicism’s ontological theology.¹

The repeated attacks against the Church by militant Arians, aggressive Protestants, both French and Soviet revolutionaries ought, logically speaking, to have killed off any secular or such typical organization a very long time ago. Rather, its very existence must be, thus, regarded as miraculous within such a given context of often quite virulent anti-Catholic and anti-Christian hatred directed, for many, many centuries, against it.

As St. Paul, in Ephesians 6:12, had wisely written, “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.” Thus, as St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, truly knew, the superior metaphysical order of reality, therefore, commands the highest attention and respect of Catholicism as to its greatest affirmations.

Catholic orthodoxy definitely knows and teaches that powerful metaphysical forces are battling and struggling, pertaining to that which is of the invisible order but are still more real, much more so, than mere humans typically know. Atheists, pragmatists, positivists, nihilists, and secularist-humanists do, however, scoff at such theological cognizance as being primitive nonsense, meaning as the power of evil gains strength and dominance in the very face of their rationalist superstition.

No basically human institution could have ever withstood the terrific onslaught of so much greatly intensive and rather bitter hatred, denunciation, and persecution for ages and ages, in defense of the Sensus Catholicus.

To suggest otherwise is either blandly ludicrous or shamelessly ignorant of the historical, psychological, sociological, and cultural facts of human reality that would have worn down such an organization into nothingness, after these so many centuries of typically strident condemnation and private and public revulsion and contempt.

Its noted indestructability for ages is an amazing phenomenon well beyond any existential or phenomenological rationalizations that exclude its true nature as a really supernatural institution defiant of mere human will or, on the other hand, reductionistically secular understanding; it is, ultimately, inscrutable because it proceeds from the everlasting will of God, as defended by the Holy Ghost.

The last feature (or mode of knowledge and reflection) to be critically cited, in this article, is ineffability.  How is this meant?   Toward the very end of his life, St. Thomas Aquinas is said to have admitted that all he had written was just “so much straw,” as to indicate the true utter insignificance of “mere” theology, no matter how extremely profound, when incomparably compared to the Beatific Vision, which he was once permitted to glimpse, for the greater glory of God.

The Holy Mysteries vouchsafed singularly to the Roman Catholic Church are all, ultimately, well beyond any merely human means of expression and thought, comprehension and cognition, which is true to the nth degree. God is, by definition, is entirely limitless; human are not.  A notably and conscientiously full listing of the entirety of the attributes of the Supreme Divinity, the Lord God Almighty, the Divine Order Himself, would take up quite a hefty tome, indeed.

Such sacredness, at last, becomes too undefinable, as with secularists thinking that seeing pain and suffering as a privileged path toward grace is not at all understandable; nonetheless, Catholicism has always possessed an axiological regard for affirming religious and theological truth, regarding of all the skeptics, the naturalist-humanists, in the temporal world, past, present, or to come, for secularism, atheism, is but ultimately an empty shell of tautologous contradictions.

Aquinas, therefore, sagaciously taught that humans can only perceive analogously, termed the analogia entis, at best concerning the actually indescribable, truly inexpressible, realities of the final absolutely metaphysical, meaning supernatural, order of things.  The Trinitarian Dogma alone, as has been said many times, is a brain buster in and of itself. Besides the great truth that Jesus is the Christ, all the Divine Mysteries together, as taught, defended, and elucidated by the Church, should make any normal human being fall to his knees in worship and fear, love and awe.

The Lord God is, then, inscrutable because the metaphysical order is, by definition, miraculous; for as the spiritually wise G. K. Chesterton would have just paradoxically remarked, if Christianity lacked the miraculous, it could not be believable. He knew that the Church was an exercise of the Divine Will.

Thus, ineffability (synonymous with inscrutability), the last named but not insignificantly recalled or thought the least, ensures that the supernatural order is not to be wrongly neglected when considering what human beings forever owe to God, when thinking about the greatness and majesty of the Holy Catholic Faith. This is why Catholics are required to believe in things that a both visible and invisible.

Finally, when there is that which is set so extremely beyond all human thought and comprehension, cognition and cognizance, one perceives correctly that all of existence is by, in, and through Jesus Christ forever and ever. Amen.

For all of reality is, moreover, purely contingent being; there is no inherent necessity within solely material matter whatsoever. Creation is, therefore, a free gift of God because nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.  All these principles need reiteration because of a typically disbelieving humanity fixated usually upon the worship of Man, which axiomatically excludes miracles and grace.

But, most intriguingly, why is that which is miraculous so vitally important to the Catholic Faith and its Church as the representative for such a compelling creed? Well, if the Incarnation is not a miracle, what is?   And, by the way, how about both the Resurrection and the Ascension thrown in for good measure?   St. Augustine, an eminent religious authority, is quoted on the miraculous when saying, “I should not be a Christian but for the miracles.”   Such a clear statement, moreover, is very explicit.

He added, in his The City of God, “Although, therefore, the standing miracle of this visible world is little thought of, because always before us, yet, when we arouse ourselves to contemplate it, it is a greater miracle than the rarest and most unheard of marvels.  For man himself is a greater miracle than any miracle done through his instrumentality.”   And, this thought should be held as being simply axiomatic in nature, for supernaturalism logically defines the very reality of the metaphysical order itself.

The Lord God Almighty, as St. John of Damascus both correctly and concisely put it in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, made his disciples, the Apostles, “captive in the net of miracles and drew them up out of the depths of ignorance to the light of the knowledge of God.”    In his Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas had clearly written about, “the miracles by which Christ has confirmed holy apostolic doctrine.”

And, of course, all good Catholics must absolutely concur on such a valid point, as with cognate support for and affirmation of the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity.  Aquinas further, interestingly, states in his Commentary on the Sentences, “Miracles demonstrate the veracity of the announcer, not directly the truth of what he preaches.” Finally, one quite instructively learns, from the theologically rigorous Summa Theologica, that, “Miracles are signs not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.”

Centuries later, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his Present Position of Catholics in England, had rightly noted: “The Incarnation is the most stupendous event which ever can take place on earth; and after it and henceforth, I do not see how we can scruple at any miracle on the mere ground of it being unlikely to happen.”

In speaking forcefully against the then 19^th and early 20^th century German Protestant “higher criticism” theology, which sternly rejected the miraculous within Christianity, Chesterton had playfully written, in his brilliant Orthodoxy, ”The only thing still old-fashioned enough to reject miracles is the New Theology.”

Furthermore, in his looking toward the future in The Common Man, “there is every sign of there being a great deal of mysticism and miracle in the twenty-first century; and there is quite certainly an increasing mass of it in the twentieth.”   Perhaps, Chesterton easily had in mind the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Miracle of the Sun at Fatima (October 13, 1917), for this year, in fact, will be exactly the 100^th Anniversary of that extremely well-documented historical event.

In The Belief of Catholics, Monsignor Ronald A. Knox (a Catholic convert) noted: “I cannot understand people having historical difficulties about miracles.  For, once you grant that miracles can happen, all the historical evidence at our disposal bids us believe that sometimes they do.” And, therefore, any truly effective moral and spiritual resistance, needful and righteous opposition, within the Church, prelacy and laity combined, to the present Bishop of Rome’s policies is, seemingly, quite amazingly miraculous, in and of itself.  The Age of Miracles, thus, has not yet passed.

Fortunately, many of God’s people, resolutely allied with many loyal and faithful priests, bishops, and cardinals, are the remnant, the seeds, that the current Holy Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, cannot entirely crush out of existence.  In addition, all the seven characteristics or features cited, either collectively or individually, do truly help to constantly both revivify and sanctify Sancta Mater Ecclesia, the earthly home of all Roman Catholics and those who may wish to be united with the Faith, ad maiorem Dei.

And, may the spirit of St. Athanasius always defend the Church, as being ever synonymous with the ultimate Truth, for too often the glory that is Catholicism gets wrongly forgotten, while the Church works for the eternal sanctification of soul. This holy bishop, a Great Lion of the Church, was hunted, hated, and persecuted, for most of his life, by the hierarchy, the majority of whom were Arians.  All that is needed is for at least a remnant, the relative few, to keep valiantly fighting on for the blessed Truth of Catholicism regardless of the cost.

Also, in firm reiteration, let not the weighty and profound remarks of Benedict XVI, as to the terribly precarious condition of the Church, go wrongly unheeded by the faithful. Nonetheless, the orthodox reformation cannot be stopped by merely mortal men.²

The goal of all the effort, repentance, pain, and suffering is the salvation of one’s soul, for being able to go to Heaven and possess the seven fantastic but real properties of the glorified/beatified body, as was noted by St. Thomas Aquinas.

These are enumerated as: identity (perfect soul-body unity), integrity (perfected humanity), quality (distinction only by degrees of holiness and existence in prime of life vitality as either male or female), agility (instantaneous transporting of the self anywhere/anytime), subtlety (ability to bypass any/all physical obstructions at any time/place), impassibility (eternal and absolute happiness and everlasting joy with no possibilities whatsoever for any sadness, boredom, etc.), and clarity (an ever impeccable brilliance of being, a magnificent holy beauty forever well beyond all human imagination).

In short, it is blissfully meant to be an eternal Heavenly experience as an immortal being forever so possessing the Divine gift of immortality. Even for sapiential minds, having advanced perspicuity beyond the normal range toward genius or far beyond, this notion is yet incomprehensible and incommensurate within a purely human understanding and comprehension, i.e., cognizance by an imperfect intellect also necessarily bound by its mortal corporeality.  In brief, most people think it to be unbelievable, meaning if they lack faith.

One can see immediately why Satan, necessarily kicked out of Paradise forever, seeks vigorously, indeed extremely mightily, to prevent as many people as possible from ever trying to attain holiness on earth, for fear that such people will, thus, make it to Heaven, of course. It is dreadfully distressing, by the way, that Pope Francis is doing his seeming best to assist Lucifer in his so very despicable plans for expanding Hell, the harshest, most punitive, anti-Heaven of them all, beyond human imagination.  Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

This is why the Devil’s disciples are usually either as “enlightened” secularist dupes who absurdly insist that he simply does not really exist at all or vicious Satanists who rather enthusiastically lie about the Evil One being supposedly “slandered” by many uncharitable people, assorted religious bigots, or just ignorant fools. Such tautologies are truly laughable, but they do still tend to convince the unwise.

One should not be that surprised, one suspects, if His Holiness should serendipitously come to think that a so lively “dialogue” with the Satan worshippers should be fruitfully commenced; on that staggering point, nothing outrageous should be thought beneath contempt, as easily judging by his past and vast infamies, for this haughty theological adventurer and spiritual swashbuckler, this liturgical bon vivant and doctrinal buccaneer supreme.  Further, the Lord knows he has a swinish regard for Catholic truth, though too many dare not admit it publicly or boldly.

Fortunately, for Catholicism, it is not really just a pure coincidence that impeccability, indefectibility, infallibility, infusibility, instantiationability, ineffability, and indissolubility are seven features that do quite neatly match the aforementioned seven attributes of Heavenly beatitude. There is a supernatural reciprocity and symmetry existing that mightily sustains the veracity that metaphysical order is for real, that the Lord God Almighty is for real, because the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against Sancta Mater Ecclesia.

Conclusion

Can the evil Pope Francis, now at 80 years of age no less, really succeed, e. g., where the full terror and might of the hellish Arians, for some brutal centuries, had just ended up so miserably failing? Though he may vainly think otherwise all he wants, the fullness of the life of Church is really not dependent upon the existence of any one individual pope, and it is ever more, much more, than any physical structures.

It can be rightly and easily assumed, therefore, with informed, great and sustained confidence that the previously noted infusibility, instantiationability, ineffability, and indissolubility of the Roman Catholic Church will defeat him and his many nefarious purposes and plans.  The forceful protection and proper guidance of the Holy Ghost, moreover, spiritually guarantees this simply to-be-expected outcome.

This will all, moreover, be reciprocally matched to its impeccability, indefectibility and infallibility, added to the powers of Holy Mary, Mother of God, as the Mediatrix of all Graces. These are the ever inherent strengths and gifts of the righteous orthodox reformation that is to follow his papacy, regardless of all his malevolent machinations to the contrary. Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis peccatoribus!

After all, the Holy Father, the Supreme Pontiff, holds only an elected monarchical office, not a tyrannical one, for the love of God should provoke all opposition to vile papal corruption, arrogance, and intrigue.  Grace and sanctity will finally defeat him.  Because the sanctification of souls is one of the true glories of Catholicism, therefore, confidence is to be placed in Jesus Christ and His Holy Church, not in the doings of any mere miscreant and (relatively) temporary popes.

The pain and suffering caused among many of the faithful by His Holiness, therefore, is not endured just in vain, for provision for salvation is among the greatest boasts and proofs of the truth of Catholicism.³   And, one must logically come to see, in the end, that the true struggle against the Pope is not just some arcane quibbling or “scholastic” sophistry over dogmas, doctrines, liturgy, etc.; it is, through perceiving with spiritual clarity and moral concision, both a surely full-scale and unmitigated metaphysical combat involving the hate-filled forces of Hell.

Nothing less is, thus, being considered regarding the extreme importance of this ecclesiastical civil war that has, in fact, provoked a genuine schism, though few dare so say publicly.⁴

Verily, of course, there have been good, bad, and even some indifferent popes. Complacency, however, is not being called for here, rather, a thoughtful and reflective appreciation for the entire history of the Church and how it has incredibly survived many, many threats, both internal and external in nature, over many centuries.

But, of course, fasting and saying rosaries are both still needed for combating the great evil ever setting in upon humanity; and yet, faith in Christ should always yield a proper kind of optimism in the midst of such heartbreaking malevolence, as is truly coming from the Vatican itself.

After all, if some average person would have been told, in about the year 60 AD, that the Apostles, some apparent nobodies, would so be the initial and actual vanguard of about 1 billion followers in the world, that person would have, surely, laughed very heartily and would have been also, of course, totally wrong at the same time. Some Great Lion of the Faith will lead the worthy war against blatant heterodoxy and evil heretical teachings.

So, fallen creatures ought to perceive that Jesus the Christ is always the true light of the world. Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto: Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.

 Athanasius contra mundum!

Notes

1.) https://callthepatriot.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/theology-and-ontology-roman-catholic-reflections-on-ontological-theology/

2.) http://orthodoxics.blogspot.com/

3.) http://painsufferingandsalvation.blogspot.com/

4.) Unfortunately, very few high prelates are willing to publicly take on this corrupt theologaster, who grossly toys with many supremely venerable Church teachings, having no pious respect whatsoever for established tradition, custom, or prescription.  He has a radical social engineer’s Benthamite regard for the past history of the Church, as if it is all just a tediously boring and hoary presence needing major acts of innovation and Protestantizing to the nth degree, whenever he thinks it necessary, of course.

 Bibliography

Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Catechism of the Council of Trent

W. Crocker III, Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, a 2,000-Year History

Heinrich Denzinger-Peter Hunermann, Enchiridion Symbolorum: A Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations of the Catholic Church

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus

Anthony J. Mioni (Editor), The Popes Against Modern Errors: 16 Papal Documents

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, The Development of Christian Doctrine

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Blessed Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors

Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Saint Pius X

___________ , Pascendi Dominici Gregis

References

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-myth-of-hermeneutic-of-continuity.html#more

http://www.apostle1.com/apostasy_rc/what_is_the_indefectibility_of_the_catholic_church.htm

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura2a.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_true_church

http://www.catholic365.com/article/1723/5-reasons-the-catholic-church-is-the-true-church.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Centennial of Our Lady of Fátima’s Appearance: Somber Reflections

Centennial of Our Lady of Fátima’s Appearance: Somber Reflections

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

Yes, it will be, if no great 100^th Anniversary signs and wonders appear, a time of enormous sinfulness and blasphemous doubt of the truths of the Roman Catholic Faith, regardless of there having been three shepherd children visited six times by the Holy Mother of God, every 13th of the month, May through October of 1917.

Too many millions have become unfortunately dependent upon the debatable need for seeking enormous auguries and divinations contrary to true faith, to the principles of authentic religion, versus ignorant superstition. How so?

Both in May and October of 2017, the hundredth year commemorations of the very certainly forever extraordinary events at Fátima, Portugal will be the dramatic scene of tremendous expectations and extravagant anticipations, elaborate hopes and fantastic imaginings, in the minds of millions both there and, literally, around the world.   This year is expected to be eventful, to say the least.

But, will millions of Roman Catholics end up, perhaps, questioning or doubting their religion, meaning if highly special “somethings” – equivalent to wonderful Hollywood epics – do not occur, either in May or October of this year?   Time will tell.

The Fátima Miracle Industry, Inc.

A recent search online, on Bing browser alone, showed 40,800,000 hits for: Fátima Centennial 2017. Obviously, to say that there is a great deal of contemporary interest in this subject would be an understatement.  Thousands of websites and blogs are, of course, seriously devoted to this theme.

Given the amazing nature of what had occurred, a hundred years ago, involving the Miracle of the Sun, it would be fairly inevitable that such natural (and supernatural) interest would be exhibited, with such a massive display of communicational devotion, to this rather important topic.  The Shrine of Our Lady Fatima is just 70 miles north of Lisbon and is undoubtedly one of most famous and heralded pilgrimage sites in the whole world. Each year, there are about four million people who regularly go to see the shrine, museums, and historic sites at and around that location.  It is assumed that a record crowd will gather, logically, for this centenary year.

Modern Fátima, according to many of those who have visited it, exists now as a typical, tawdry tourist trap. No doubt the tourists, for the once-in-a-lifetime 100^th Anniversary, are going to be milked for all they have, or even more so, if the eager and prolific venders typically have their materialistic way.  Expectations are now reaching, figuratively, several miles high this year; and, there are many reasons, given below, for that quite significant situation.

Turmoil, chaos, mayhem, confusion, disorder, and often bold anarchy itself in the world seems at a mighty fever pitch, Moslems are willfully invading Europe, in the millions, with no end in sight; many wars on earth tend to seem interminable, especially when fought by the United States of America.  And, all that, one could add, is only just some parts of the troubles existing.

Pope Francis no less has been denounced publicly as both either a heretic or a vile apostate, the Church is in a tremendously severe crisis that appears to many as being simply permanent; rampant sodomy, pornography, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. are now just daily realities seeking normalization and, thus, total societal, cultural, and moral acceptance as well. In short, it is a world truly ripe and needful of a salvific miracle. The Satanic triumph of modernity, of secularization, has left many begging for God’s mercy.  (But, would an unexpected miracle be found acceptable?)

Millions are, therefore, frantic and desperate, agitated and distressed, and looking for some true hope and some kind of deliverance from all those above cited and yet many more evils. Plaster saints, without a doubt, will be voluminously sold at Fátima at a premium, in set terms of the higher priced sales because of the now, unsurprisingly, elevated demand and aroused expectation, the spiritually-induced suspense; it is, for many, now at a fever pitch.

Of course, this basic sort of thing, as to commercialization, has truly gone on since at least the earliest medieval fairs.  Skepticism often grows in the fertile soil of disappointed credulity, for caution and sober thoughts are requisite for mature consideration and a decent reflection.  What is meant?

The word “tawdry” itself came from the St. Audrey (St. Ethelreda) Fair held in Ely, England; goods sold at this fair were notoriously cheap, quite common in quality, and, thus, gave rise to the expression ‘of St. Audry’, which was, later, simply abridged to tawdry.

One hopes, however, that Catholicism has little or, better yet, absolutely nothing to do with the many vile, unwanted shenanigans that will surely occur at Fátima this year. Literally, many tons of books, pamphlets, devotionals, holy cards, etc. have been/will be published revolving around or about, directly and indirectly, the Miracle of Our Lady of Fátima, no real doubt about that assertion.  But, the significantly heightened expectations, brought out by the coming Fátima apparition’s significant centennial, may yet be dashed.

What may be said?  This energized coruscation of minds and hearts, with hot emotions soaring to the far skies, is concerning what had occurred, somewhere near (or not excessively far from)  the location of what an online ad says is, “Just 400 metres from the Fátima Sanctuary, Cova da Iria Hotel offers air-conditioned rooms with free Wi-Fi and a private balcony.”  (There’s nothing quite like having one’s “revelations” experienced in some maximum comfort, you know.  See: www.booking.com/hotel/pt/cova-da-iria.html)

One hopes that the above-cited actual establishment is not endorsed by the local prelate, but who really knows these days?   Reports, nonetheless, have it that Fátima has been substantially “desacralized” in main terms of what could be considered to be its both commercialization and secularization of functional intent, especially since the late 1960s and the baleful results of Vatican II.

Regardless of all the above discussion, the matter is still the subject of private revelation, not of the integral and central beliefs of Roman Catholicism.  This fact should be, thus, kept properly in mind for maintaining thinking on this issue within that appropriate perspective.

Indeed, the subject itself, of course, is of legitimate importance, though not all of the materially weighty stuff that has been, for better or worse, connected to it, or, usually, for worse, one sadly suspects.  It usually takes some expertise, much knowledge, to separate the gold from the dross of all that has been said, written, and tangentially speculated about as to its meaning.  And, the right exercise of a calm prudence may be wisely recommended.

Nonetheless, the eyes of a suffering world, an oppressed humanity, are urgently turning toward Fátima in expectation of something absolutely marvelous that will either shake up the world for the good or, perhaps, just destroy it completely.  Why are things, in the minds of vast hordes of people in the world, heading toward such a boiling point of high emotional tension and vitalized anticipation?   It is certainly because of the ever increasing, century-long impact by now of a private revelation, of course.

Catholicism v. Private Revelation

Some theology is vitally needed here. However venerable a private revelation may be, it is still not held as being dogmatic unless and until it has been declared officially to be a de fide matter that would then spiritually, morally, and intellectually force its acceptance as fully binding upon all loyal, faithful, and practicing Roman Catholics.

Then, it so becomes held an infallible teaching (meaning something set that should not ever be doubted) of Holy Mother Church, for the impious denying of even one single dogma puts all of the Catholic dogmas into question, as to the clear, inherent logic involved.

For example, way back in the mid-19^th century, Great Britain’s Lord Acton had once vociferously denounced the notion of papal infallibility; this was up until it was declared ex cathedra (from the Chair of St. Peter) an actual dogma of the Faith, then afterwards he maintained his silence, with the presumption that silence gives consent.  It is an apt illustration of truly proper Catholic behavior as to a proclaimed dogma of the Faith; it should, moreover, never be otherwise.

Of course, the well-documented, witnessed, and verified Miracle of the Sun added considerable validity and cogency to this private revelation, and the Church has publicly endorsed respect for Our Lady of Fátima as having truly been a genuine apparition; this is totally unlike, e. g., the very specious and nastily spurious so-called Lady of Medjugorje, for idolatry is to be always avoided and rejected as immoral.

Nonetheless, the absolute bottom line is that whether or not anything does or does not happen at Fátima this year ought not to ever be any kind of a qualifying determinant or basis of one’s Catholic faith. That would be entirely absurd; more than that, it could be highly sinful if it should lead to apostasy or (an increased) skepticism or doubt of the Catholic religion.

Remember the words of Christ. Jesus said to him: “Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.”   Catholics are required to believe in things that can be both seen and not seen.  The excitements of private revelations need to be prudently judged, cautiously investigated, and sagaciously examined as to those qualities that do rightly submit to orthodox cognition in theology, careful logic, and human reason, not irrationality.

Sadly, if things do not go at Fátima, in May or October, the way that millions seem to think they ought to go, those millions, it is assumed, will be surely disappointed in Our Lady of Fátima; this is because they may expect to see fantastic, wondrous, or, perhaps, some spectacular signs and wonders or, at the very least, some kinds of special auguries sent or made for the faithful.

But, the exact place of this 1917 appearance of Our Lady is not to be thought of as just a mere carnival sideshow. The  Fátima believers, however, may be unpleasantly frustrated or, perhaps, terribly exasperated by not seeing much or more of what they may hope that they might see.  But, do they have their true faith in Christ and His Holy Catholic Church, or is it just a “faith” in their peculiar kind of crippled or limited faith that must be, somehow or other, sustained by what they can or, one presumes, do wish to see? This is, thus, so greatly problematic.

Many Fátima-centered believers may, in fact, have a very weak or tenuous faith not worthy of the sacred name of religion but is just merely instead, upon close analysis and examination, superstition alone acting as if it is religion.  A genuine Catholic will believe, without any real question, that Jesus is genuinely the Christ and that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces, regardless, e. g., of what may or may not be seen at the Cova da Iria this year.

If a great miracle or several occur in either May or October, then fine and good. If not, then fine and good.  Christians, especially Catholics, are supposed to pray that the Will of God is done, no matter what.  Either way of what may or may not happen should be equally regarded as being consonant with Divine Providence, not vain human wishes, hopes, or aspirations for many magnificent signs or wonders, perhaps, beheld across the wide glorious skies.

Fátima should not be made a litmus test of one’s Catholicism. Faith, true belief, ought to be based upon solid reasons and knowledge, not emotional inclinations or mere feelings.  If the world, for instance, does not end next month or in October, this should not diminish belief in the Faith of Our Fathers; this is as if any events or the lack thereof, in a place in Portugal, should determine all possible future cognizance of human and/or spiritual reality thereafter or forever more to infinity.

God deems to send people what they need for their salvation, not what they think they may deserve or possibly could use. What may be wisely sent could be a sign of contradiction, as is the Sign of the Cross, especially in the warped minds of secularists.

There could be experienced a silence, as with a silent contempt by God, for the thoroughly obnoxious sinfulness of secularism and apostasy existing on a truly gargantuan scale. That would not, one suspects, please the masses of people seeking something much different, something more spiritually exhilarating and marvelous to behold, an epic revelation.

There may be rudely given to the people at Fátima, for instance, an admonishment concerning the need for repentance, done on a massive scale of profound endeavor, in requisite reparation to God, for the aforementioned severely heinous and blasphemous secularization of the world that has so shamefully occurred. Such a spiritual rebuke ought to be fully accepted.

Of course, this might not be so highly appreciated by many of the Fátima believers, especially those hoping for some genuine moment of religious exaltation or a rare spiritual high, the true experience of a lifetime, a (supposedly) mightily superior instance of “quality time.” Neither of those expectations, however, might occur.

Some have speculated, e. g., that the Devil was given just one hundred years from 1917 to do all the horrid mischief possible toward the spiritual destruction of humanity and that a time of retribution is then to occur against Satan.

However, such types of definitive “predictions” or pronouncements ought to be critically held in the realm of mere speculation, until such time as they may be sufficiently verified by unfolding events. Otherwise, various degrees of disillusion and disappointment are probably to occur for many folks, awaiting the equivalent of something like Moses at Mount Sinai.

But, what are people really expecting?   If they leave, after May or especially after October, with only a greatly deflated experience, should nothing much occur there of a manifestly spectacular nature, meaning of an anticipated enormous magnitude, what would that then empirically say of the (rather poor) quality of the Catholic faith of these Fátima believers?

Fátima may not necessarily be the begin all or end all of all things. Events in the future, or the probable lack thereof, will prove the truth of what may be known.  All else may be just pure speculation, not any expression of absolute certainty.   Miracle or no miracle this year, Jesus is still the Christ, the only Son of the living God, as is made known by Catholicism. Certainty ought to logically preclude apparent speculation no matter how pious it may possibly seem.

What this particular situation, making it religiously historic for 2017, may surprisingly reveal is the test of whether or not the faith of Fátima is to be held as being properly congruent with the Roman Catholic Faith.  And, this is surely the ever greatest consideration or question involved in this entire matter.

Many non-Catholic Christians, also, are looking eagerly toward that place in Portugal to actually see if anything happens on this particular set anniversary. Something may occur.  Perhaps so, perhaps not.  However, a belief in a private revelation, no matter how seemingly venerable, is still not any Catholic requirement for the salvation of one’s soul.  And, this is true.

One sadly suspects, it seems, that the equivalent of a Hollywood epic is to be, thus, supposedly experienced for real either in, around, or somewhere or somewhat near the famous Cova da Iria this year.   But, perhaps not.  Signs and wonders, moreover, ought not to constitute the definitive basis of any religion as a whole, for true religion is not any sort of vile superstition.

Extravagant expectations of magnificent types of spiritually-directed glorification may prove too excess, if that must be the assumed result of a pilgrimage to this particular place on the Iberian Peninsula.  That would be, therefore, so terribly ludicrous beyond measure, to say the least. Catholicism, moreover, should or ought to mean much more than an idiosyncratic, limited, or, in fact, any extremely Fátima-centric worldview.  In short, it should not matter if absolutely nothing at all significantly spectacular or really remarkable happens there.  Why?

God still reigns in Heaven, Divine Providence governs all. Praise the Lord’s Holy Name forever.  Honor and love the Roman Catholic Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Jesus Christ forever.  This is all substantially part of Catholicism, the true Faith.

Conclusion

The Centennial of Our Lady of Fátima should not, therefore, be ever hyped beyond all rational thought. Should a prodigious apparition or incredible event improbably engulf those at the Cova da Iria, let it be positively related to any cognate elements or orthodox teachings of the Catholic Faith, not otherwise.  St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics would have agreed.

But, alternatively, if absolutely nothing ever happens in May or October, there should be no gnashing of teeth or uproar of substantial indignation against Holy Mary the Mother of God.  True faith, thus, always so rightly precludes such certainly gross nonsense and, furthermore, appropriately denounces it as being just contemptible and condemnable superstition, which it definitely is.

In confirmation and reiteration, one should, thus, repeat the wise words, spoken by Jesus, and interestingly directed toward St. John the Baptist: “What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swaying in the breeze?  No! Then what did you go out to see?  A man dressed in fine clothes?  Look, those who go in magnificent clothes and live luxuriously are to be found at royal courts!”

In the preceding New Testament citation, Christ was stressing realism.  Making an Idol out of Fátima, by rejecting a realistic orthodox perspective, is to be completely and unquestionably condemned.  A chastisement would, therefore, be much better.

For those who may go to the actual location of the Miracle of the Sun and may see only mere reeds “swaying in the breeze,” the religious hope, therefore, is that they will not then become sinfully idolatrous by making the worship greater than God.  Ora pro nobis peccatoribus, Sancta Maria, Mater Dei! 

Athanasius contra mundum!

Pope Francis: The Degenerate neo-Pelagian Pontiff Exalting Himself

Pope Francis: The Degenerate neo-Pelagian Pontiff Exalting Himself

But, is it really worth the price of the ecclesiastical civil war called schism?

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

Admittedly, it is difficult trying to properly grasp the full nature of a pop culture figure who happens to be a widely known religious leader of many hundreds of millions of people, the presumed believers. Popularity, as a result, can often so obscure the true image of such a public figure, a dramatic character, who looms rather large upon the world stage.

As is known (or should be), Francis, an egoist, is the first pope of his kind by being a Jesuit pope and coming from Latin America, from the Southern Hemisphere, and the first non-European Vicar of Christ since the days of that Syrian Pope Gregory III who had reigned from 731 to 741 AD.   His unique nature inordinately bolsters his expansive pride of self and disproportionate sense of historical importance, besides, e. g., existential or phenomenological considerations as to the Papacy itself.

Necessarily, misjudgments are, on average, not just simply possible but fairly predictable as a direct consequence of not fully appreciating and seriously analyzing the weighty reality of the person being confronted, intellectually and otherwise. The indicative matter to be most clearly and significantly focused upon concerns what appears to be a totally neglected issue, namely, the great horror of degeneracy, both theological and religious being here entirely inclusive.  How is this critically meant?

A Frightening Sight to Behold: Medusa

Most (deficient) analyses of the current Vicar of Christ either wish to charge him with some degrees of Communist influence or, alternately, deny fundamentally such influence. Both miss the deeper reality, the true moral ugliness, involved.  The man is a confirmed heretic, not just a neo-Marxist.  The best way, thus, to intellectually and honestly approach Francis is to understand that his central religious view is a neo-Pelagian one, and it has had negative consequences; this is meaning as to the ultimate heresy he so prefers, while it is true, in addition, that he has congenially embraced other heresies as well no doubt.

In brief, the original heresy goes back to its basis in Pelagianism; in essence, it is the haughty denial of the pernicious results of the existence of Original Sin, though other features were, of course, attendant to the theologically radical, heterodox, thinking of the heretic priest Pelagius (354 – 420 AD).   This British troublemaker, also called a moralist, had made a name for himself in Rome with his God-defiant thinking seen in his so terribly perverse soteriological speculations, especially that Jesus Christ was not really important concerning salvation.

He openly rejected the Augustinian idea of predestination and, instead, declared adamantly in favor of an absolutist version of the doctrine of free will.  People, he preached, can simply attain their salvation by, in effect, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, the exaltation of the self. Pelagius had totally denied the need for the requirement of divine aid, meaning grace, in the performance of any good works.

Human nature was not, therefore, ever corrupted by Original Sin and, thus, people could, by their mere will, fulfill the entire law of moral conduct and attain spiritual perfection, moreover, without any need for divine grace whatsoever. Metaphysical order, for Pelagius, was made basically superfluous as to the possibilities of Man, when the orthodox theocentric viewpoint is rejected in favor of a seemingly vibrant anthropocentricism.

The Pelagians, being obvious proto-Protestants, referred to Deuteronomy 24:16 in public affirmation of their obviously radical and scriptural position against fundamental Christianity.  Unsurprisingly, therefore, the Council of Carthage, recognizing a religious deviant when they clearly saw one, had so naturally declared him a heretic.  Thereafter, this Pelagian/heretical interpretation of the assumed doctrine of free will was then denominated as Pelagianism.

Among others, Calvinism and Arminianism, of course, are logically and necessarily related to the noted basic foundation of this rather pivotal ancient heresy attacking the very foundations of (orthodox) Christianity and, thus, creating a crisis.  Moral law, according to the Church, is meant to inform and strengthen the human conscience, not to be set at war against it as the modernists would so wrongly have it.

The Roman Catholic Church, for many centuries, was fortunately able to suppress Pelagianism, until its reification had occurred, at the infamous and notorious Second Vatican Council.   Ideological influences crept into the brains of the dedicated modernists at the Council, particularly the pernicious doctrines of Hegelianism as to thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, which relates back to philosophical nominalism in general, of course.

The ideologized version of the heresy is seen in neo-Pelagianism, which was sustained and reinforced by Hegelianism, and was so willingly embraced by the future Pope Francis who had imbibed freely in the Spirit of Vatican II way back in the mid-1960s.  Thus, he is, quite manifestly for those who presciently know, a neo-Pelagian Pope who seeks to reconstruct the Church into an image more suitable to his personal deviant wishes and heterodox opinions, regardless of the highly sorrowful cost to religious purity and theological sanctity.  This needs to be firmly accepted as being true, otherwise, misinterpretations will logically occur.

Almost all commentators on the Holy Pontiff, however, do not know this very vital fact as to the correct interpretation, understanding, and comprehension of this current Bishop of Rome.  It is, in this sense, quite superficial to just label him either a “Marxist” or “neo-Marxist” and to move on to other matters.  This is too simplistic, as is, also, the bold denial of his often noted Communist leanings.

While it is surely true that he is an overt supporter of neo-Marxist Liberation Theology, with all of its own implications and ramifications attendant thereto, yet, that realization stops far short of the much deeper roots of the truly radical-heretical thinking and cognate prejudices that do directively guide his (perverse) thoughts, words, and actions.

After all, one can insightfully perceive that it is not any “Communism” that provokes his sympathies toward embracing aspects of Lutheranism for the Quincentennial of the Protestant Revolution, rather, he is strongly attracted to the Pelagian elements within Lutheranism.  This refers to the Lutheran denial that good works are necessary for salvation, thus, axiomatically also excluding any need for divine grace connected to such works.

Pope Francis, logically, has an ideological and strong spiritual affinity for many heresies to the cognate extent that they may have their (destructive) roots in Pelagianism, which all fully reinforces his great and observed hatred of Roman Catholic theological orthodoxy.  One can see that immanentism, that vain attack upon being defined by metaphysical order, subtly undergirds the thinking elaborated that celebrates nominalism, by obliterating objectivity in moral and other questions; and so, this is to be evilly done through wrongly seeking to “creatively” illegitimate dogmatic ecclesial knowledge, which is yet preeminently demonic in its covert aspirations, of course.

Nothing less, sad to say here, is now being immorally attempted forcefully by this quite miscreant Holy Father and those worldly-minded ecclesiastics allied to him who are most certainly secular-oriented accommodationists, Protestant-minded appeasers.  Thus, as Christopher Ferrara would probably agree, have no doubt that significantly much worse is yet to come that will go well beyond mere indifferentism or latitudinarianism.

Modernism, as was rightly condemned by Pope St. Pius X, will now see its particular dangerous fruition, through a neo-Pelagian orientation toward the Church’s religious activities, based upon a demonically perverted theology having a sinister backwards form of reasoning.  Millions of more souls, as a result, are to have a merrier way of going to Hell, through such immoral efforts, done in the name of good intentions and, also, having a relativist regard for redefined “charity, mercy, and compassion,” of course.

The sagacious ability to keenly perceive these highly significant matters clearly and immediately assists in increasing rapidly the profound cognizance highly requisite to properly analyzing various whys and wherefores involved in past, current, and future decision making by the Pope.   He is, e. g., never really acting in any supposedly fashionable obstreperous or, perhaps, oddly cantankerous manner by being willful as to suspect actions taken or words spoken; rather, this so quite crafty and cunning prelate is seeking to be deliberately heretical, not accidentally so.  One should see certain method in his madness.

There is a definite method to the wrongly assumed or often casually dismissed spontaneity of approach to issues that he very much favors and, therefore, pushes along ever fully athwart orthodox Catholic teachings and doctrines.  But, further instructive thought must be here rendered for clarification and substantiation of what actually needs to be ever intelligently noticed.

Failure to see this ugly reality of the perversely subversive mind of the octogenarian Pope Francis is, certainly, tantamount to absurdly believing that, in fact, he really doesn’t mean what he says or does, which is unquestionably not true.   Papa Bergoglio, thus, seeks to become a quite dedicated heresiarch as, indeed, was Martin Luther, one of his major religious-cultural heroes.

His neo-Pelagian cognition, the supposed touchstone of all valid truth, both guides and fortifies, directs and sustains, him in his ardent desire and effort to revolutionize Holy Mother Church in a Protestant manner.  This will, openly, be observed in his forcefully commendatory words and actions warmly and enthusiastically co-celebrating the Quincentennial of the Protestant Revolution, starting only initially with Lutheranism but, as will be easily seen, not ending there, of course.

The Vicar of Christ is going to imperiously demand, in various ways, that Catholicism more and more vigorously emulate and, thus, help warmly validate the so-called Reformed Religion; and, moreover, let no one naively doubt this plain and presented assertion of fact regarding this papal effort at subversion.

This evil effort is to be directed toward demonically undermining and subverting the Church while, one suspects, protesting that his “good intentions” are pure.   The nominalist cause of Protestantism is found worthy, in the eyes of Francis, who takes a syncretistic attitude toward various heresies, as if only mere semantics and not any vital moral substance divides Christians, as a result of the so-called Reformation, which is to be emulated vigorously.  What may be properly said?

All the Catholic martyrs loyal to the Counter-Reformation (or Roman Catholic Reformation) must be spinning in their graves by witnessing the many blasphemous and sacrilegious antics of this Argentinian high prelate.  The precious and holy blood of the martyrs can only adamantly curse the wicked neo-Pelagianism observed.

Pope Francis, thus, is to be rightly noted as a true champion and paladin of inherent wickedness, of consummate malevolence, aimed contemptuously and deliberately at the Catholic Faith, the Church established by Jesus Christ Himself.  Nothing less should be accounted as to the allied intention involved, in actively seeking to demonically subvert Catholicism, by its doctrinal and pastoral dissolution through the cunning practice of artful tergiversation and, in effect, the evident silence of consent.

Some members of the Roman hierarchy, possessing a distaste for heresy, have decided to go public and be the whistle blowers or dissenters from this neo-Protestant Revolution being foisted upon the Roman Catholic Church.   Although dissenters such as Christopher Ferrara or whistle blowers are normally, in the popular mind, supposed to be fairly honored and admired figures, the Pope wishes everyone to only hold these people in cold contempt.  There is exhibited not merely an unofficial rejection but a firm contempt for theological orthodoxy.

The popular image of a supposedly humble and meek Pope is false, when opposed to his own manifest imperious contempt, a notably prideful one, for those who do disagree vehemently with his extremist opinions, as is presented (by proxy) in such documents as Amoris Laetitia.  The mean spiritedness of the vile papal wrath is manifested in the strong climate of fear that exists in the Vatican created by his paranoia and vindictiveness reaching out to vilely infect the entire household of the See of the St. Peter.   With mockery, many do refer to him now as the Holy Father, who seeks to make pariahs out of those who theologically and religiously disagree with his “love” for heresy that surely brings him joy.

Submission to Amoris Laetitia is the latest litmus test being applied, by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, to all Catholics who are to affirm heretical beliefs for the sake of pleasing the intentions of Vatican policy and, of course, its chief occupant.  It is recognized, nonetheless, that judgment can become problematic when seeking to get to the complete justice of judgment concerning a papal reign and the person who is or was the Holy Pontiff.

The Vatican II pontiffs have nearly uniformly neglected their most central role of pastors of the universal Church by diluting orthodoxy such that the existent Catholicism had become incoherent, theologically and doctrinally, in the pursuit of popularity, adulation, praise, and overall fame.

What should have been the central theological focus of authoritatively and righteously affirming the eternal truths of the Catholic Faith to a largely often hostile and indifferent world ought, thus, to have been given the logical top priority; this is, need it be said, as to the everlastingly important mission of salvation; unfortunately, for the sake of the Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it was not. This is not to deny, however, that much good had been, in fact, accomplished.

But, the annoying cultic papacies of John Paul II and Francis are diametrically opposite to the always fundamental centrality of the primary concerns and reality of what the Vatican is to represent to the world, not just what Catholicism is generally supposed to be proclaiming.

The popes of the post-Vatican II Era have been degenerates, in the correct epistemological sense meant by C. E. M. Joad, in that they had “lost the object” of what they, essentially, are ever to be about as to Catholic truth, not any quest for wide popularity certainly. How so?   They mainly neglected, as does the current holder of the Holy Office, to powerfully exercise their pastoral authority, from the Chair of St. Peter, to reverse mightily the ongoing dissolution of the Church’s teachings and mission.  Authority improperly exercised becomes corrupt, as power tends to corrupt, but the lack of using warranted (Catholic) power is degenerate, as is seen particularly in the theological and religious failure of the postconciliar popes to both forcefully and unequivocally defend, e. g., the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ in the world. Q. E. D.

Pope Francis, therefore, is quite obviously a nauseatingly degenerate neo-Pelagian Pontiff publicly and privately exalting himself in his obnoxious status as a papal cult figure. Such is an abusive and so unconscionable status absolutely unworthy of any true Servant of the Servants of Christ and, at the least, corrupts terribly the important fact that he is also the Holy Bishop of Rome of the Church Universal.

He is also an idolater in making the worship, meaning his desires qua theological opinions, greater than the God being worshipped; he has, thus, lost the object.  The very stiff attitude being displayed by the current Pontiff will surely, furthermore, lead to the horror of the ecclesiastical civil war called schism, if his intransigence remains vehement and defiant in the sinful cause of willful heterodoxy.  It is not just his paranoia being well noticed.

It is, moreover, a blasphemous and sacrilegious scandal of immense scope and magnitude that such a degenerate is, of course, simultaneously and necessarily the Vicar of Christ on earth. One can, legitimately and readily, say that it is appalling almost beyond description to sadly witness such a truly loathsome, vilely despicable, spectacle that makes even the tawdry and nasty reign of Pope Alexander VI (Borgia) look fairly respectable in contrast, for at least that surely unctuous, Renaissance scoundrel and reprobate was, in fact, still orthodox as to his theology.

Although it was a term once used several times by Michelangelo to harshly describe Pope Julius II, the designation of Francis as a “Medusa” is not really that far from the truth, if only people could come to a view of this cultic Pontiff; this is if ever freed from the typical seeing of him through rose-colored glasses, as is normally supplied by the popular media, his clerical supporters, and other such sycophants.

Because of his ethically and morally disreputable theological and religious opinions and advocacy, this Vicar of Christ is, without question, both a living horror and moral monster vilely parading around as an assumed exemplar of papal virtue and related righteousness; he is, in this 21^st century, a rather frightening sight to behold, not a model bishop or holy prelate certainly.  But, it is still a major significant misjudgment to think, as almost all are wont to do, that the sheer or simple immorality involved is what principally propels the supposed seeming urgency for revolutionizing Church doctrines, in a devilishly backwards manner, through deviant pastoral practice.

Much more is related to this highly sinister effort that makes it not just nasty in its import but thoroughly insidious in its intended consequences and ramifications thereto. How so?   Few see very plainly that the modern dynamism of neo-Pelagianism is aided by the Nietzschean transvaluation of values.  By cleverly saying that the doctrines are to remain untouched and only practice is to be modified, Francis wishes, so to speak, to now pour new wine into old bottles, a neo-Protestantism, for better fooling people.

This is why, therefore, that the noted Nietzschean element should be keenly kept perceptively in mind; this is when rightly evaluating and intelligently considering the greater fuller context and so more comprehensive implications concerning the important matters discussed. The Holy Father’s paranoid religiosity ought not to excuse him or, always more importantly, his terrible errors of judgment.

The Response to Pope Francis

Most or, perhaps, almost all of the Church appears to be more or less sanguine about the basic direction toward which this Vicar of Christ wishes to lead the entire ecclesiastical body. The proper catechesis of the vast majority of Roman Catholics has been downplayed so extremely, in the last few generations, such that the average believer remains logically clueless as to what the disputes may be about; this is as to their vital substance, indicative implications, and pertinent ramifications as well.

So, the average parishioner can be generally excused from having the necessary theological insights and informed knowledge, regarding various specific doctrinal matters, that now normally do appear quite abstruse, abstract, or, perhaps, just plainly unknown. This should not, in truth, be that surprising at all.

At the time of the writing of this article, there seems to be the reality that the majority or vast majority of the hierarchy is, directly or indirectly, acquiescing and assenting to the many heretical dictates being promulgated; one then sees this is by which pastoral practice, the proverbial “tail,” is to “wag the dog,” meaning the quite sacramental and dogmatic teachings of Holy Mother Church itself.

Francis, as his own existentialist-cultic hero, has set things and matters simultaneously upside down, inside out, and backwards to better absurdly accommodate his ardent neo-Pelagian affectations and necessarily odd heterodox idiosyncrasies.   Such many vain and disgusting pomposities, in the harmful antagonisms propounded through so much deceptive language, do offend the Sacred Heart of Jesus, besides gaining the displeasure, one suspects, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mediatrix of all Graces.

These surely pernicious pretensions and egomaniacal eccentricities are, in turn, emblematic, indeed, of profoundly blasphemous and sacrilegious orientations so directed as demonic daggers against the Holy Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, that’s all. But, one would think that would be, thus, very easily enough to make frantic alarm bells ring out throughout the Catholic world at large, though this appears not to be the case, sad to say.

Fortunately, the majority of the African bishops are absolutely alert to this most vicious nonsense and theological depravity, besides some bishops and cardinals in the Western realm of the Church.   Open resistance and the urgent need to remonstrate vigorously with Francis have been, so far, limited and somewhat, at times, more furtive than typically apparent.  One may hope that the struggle will increase, especially as classical Natural Law teachings are not to be neglected.

Some of the hierarchy have gone public with their needed disagreement in the hope of provoking some charitable clarification on the part of the Holy Pontiff, though it seems to be entirely in vain at present; this is when judging the troubling situation by his open desire to be greatly combative, not informative at all.

Antipathy and contempt are, however, ranged against faith and conciliation concerning the evil crisis provoked deliberately by the neo-Pelagian Pope, meaning in his pursuit of unquestioning fidelity toward heterodox pronouncements of questionable doctrinal validity at best. Pastoral practice so-called is to be schizophrenically set athwart the recognized doctrinal and sacramental teachings of the Church as they have been known and taught for, quite literally, many centuries of time.

The teachings of the Church are known. But, Francis the Imperious, filled with pejorative denunciations, seething intolerance, and not exactly the healthy spirit of good Christian charity, will have none of this.  May God have mercy on his soul.

Cardinal Raymond Burke, along with Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, submitted the Dubia, a statement asking five yes or no questions, in September 2016, looking for clarity from Pope Francis on whether the exhortation Amoris Laetitia genuinely conforms to Catholic moral teaching.   This response is energetic and deferential, of course, but not really forceful enough given the very important exigency concerned, meaning the crisis that, in fact, has been so wrongly created by the Holy Sovereign Pontiff.

When the Pope failed to issue any expected response after about two months, the cardinals then felt the added moral and spiritual need to release the Dubia publicly, which the Holy Father then took as a figurative slap in the face.   At all times, proper procedures were taken in accordance with Canon Law provisions with many prayers given, no doubt, for his salvation.  But, he yet took it as an unkind rebuke.

After this very valid attempt at both respectful and courteous dialogue proved fully useless of results, Cardinal Burke courageously disclosed that an instituted formal act of correction would, therefore, be made appropriately necessary; this was, of course, if the Pope was both determinedly recalcitrant and had still declined to properly elucidate the true sense or meaning of his at least ambiguous exhortation. Cardinal Burke, contrary to some of his pro- Bergoglio critics, is not the one being schismatic regarding this critical matter; in fact, the direct contrary, however, seems much more logically to be true.

While obviously exceptional, this advocated matter, as to an attempted admonition seeking a true recantation of erroneous papal opinions, is not at all without historical precedent, as in the prominent case, e. g., of Pope John XXII (reigned 1316 to 1334) occurring in the 14^th century.  John submitted, and he recanted his errors concerning the Holy Beatific Vision.  A crisis in the Church was, thus, amicably and correctly solved toward an appropriate solution authentically preserving the complete integrity of the Papacy and, much more importantly, the eternally valued Honor of the Holy Lord God.  The hurt feelings of John XXII did not matter nor should that be a consideration about Francis.

It is highly doubtful, given now what is publicly known of the excessively vindictive and so haughtily prideful nature of Francis, if he ever would.  This small-minded and too petty Vicar of Christ, being a dedicated, neo-Pelagian stalwart of the worst sort imaginable, holds the Honor of God in cold contempt, so why should he care?   Also, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, head of the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, fully supports the Pope’s heterodox position on communion for certain categories of divorced Catholics.

As yet another prominent example, Cardinal Schönborn insists that Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia is a great catechesis on marital and familial love that all Catholics ought to admire and embrace.   Cardinal Müller, in addition, has stated that there is to be no required correction of the Pope because there Is, in his opinion, no danger at all to the Faith.

Unless a Church council should convene to depose Francis, nothing short of his death – or some kind of a small miracle — could actually come to successfully resolve this quite terrible crisis, for there is no real or substantive humility present within his hardened heart, intolerant mind, or snappish soul.  And, his supporters, seeing no heresies whatsoever, have formed into a sort of Pretorian Guard to make sure that his imperial will is not to be thwarted.  Thus, Müller, Schönborn, and the rest are to see to that outcome supposedly.  But, such is far from the main point to be understood.

As was carefully proven, earlier in this article, an observably egotistical and degenerate prelate sits atop the papal throne pridefully and nastily defies any and all who would dare to say him nay.   Some naively would make an appeal to, of all things, the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council and uselessly hope for what has been called “the reform of the reform.”

This cannot realistically ever be.  Why so?   Vatican II’s aftermath axiomatically thinks of itself as truly being, in fact, the ongoing permanent reform, sort of analogously like Leon Trotsky’s absurd ideal of the Permanent Revolution.  Thus, many confused Catholics, also, cite Vatican II against Pope Francis’ errors without seeing any contradictions whatsoever, nor seeing the Hegelian Dialectic being present within neo-orthodox postconciliar thinking.

Pope John Paul II, through numerous encyclicals, etc. actually had tried that thrust at presumed reform, without any real success whatsoever. Error, ultimate error, can only be refuted, not reformed; the so-called Reformed Religion has empirically and intellectually proven its inherent failure through the easily observed and continuing multiplication of divergent Protestant sects and cults, many or, sometimes, most of which do claim (directly or indirectly) to be the only one true Church.

What has, by now, the ever attempted reform of the reform of the reform produced?  Pope Francis.  Need one say more?

The machinations of the Pontiff, a charismatic figure exalted by the press, are usually misunderstood or misinterpreted, due especially to poor catechesis, in a world terribly engulfed by rabid existentialism, pragmatism, positivism, phenomenology, gestalt, and the overall relativism of situation ethics.   The evil involved tends to be discounted as possibly coincidental or simply not intended.  Such is not the case.

While the pagan ancients, as with Plato, thought that the doing of evil was because of an ignorant lack of knowledge of the good, Christianity realizes that people can, in fact, so willfully choose to do evil.  Perniciousness and malevolence can be intentional, as the Pope’s demonstrated hatred of Catholicism qua orthodoxy is empirically palpable, which is, upon examination, an understatement.  What is the danger?

There are consequences to having a heretical leader of the Church. Ironically, the best response to Francis is to be, in a sense, more papist than the Pope in defending the Papacy by admonishing the Vicar of Christ regarding his highly important papal responsibilities, duties, and obligations.  The Holy Pontiff should not, and if he would what to spiritually and religiously avoid any sort of malevolence, ought not to do anything adverse to the Holy Magisterium of the Church, for Holy Scripture, Holy Magisterium, and Holy Tradition are never to be in conflict.  This means within the proper context of authentic orthodoxy.¹

The obvious conflict through the heretical opinions created by Francis is, therefore, logically opposed to the desired rightness and needed righteousness that ought to be responsibly exhibited by the Papacy, as to its vital prerogatives and privileges in defense of the Catholic Faith.  If his mind were not so set upon the anomalous commission of evil, then he would readily recognize and firmly uphold these matters as being substantively congruent with affirming Catholicism; and, it would be reciprocal concerning the basis of the Papacy in its authoritative capacity for instructing the faithful; thus, the Vicar of Christ on earth is to be, by definition, the primary Shepherd of the entire flock of Christ for defending the Faith.

Having a mind consumed with sin, regarding the heretical notions that the Pontiff supports, makes him participate, directly and indirectly, in the moral destruction and spiritual rot of the Holy Office; this is by undermining its basis of being, with its implications and ramifications, as to empirically irresponsible conduct shown by the past unfortunate papal endorsement of the heretical exhortation promulgated so insensitively contrary to Church teachings, namely, the Amoris Laetitia.  But, as to genuine Catholic truth, taken as a whole, it is joyless and perverse, cheerless and demented.

Repentance and renunciation should occur. Instead, the Pope has taken an entirely intransigent, fully intractable, attitude involving the condemnation and ongoing vilification of any objectors who oppose the heresies he favors, which bodes ill, of course, for the immediate future of the Church and, moreover, will have the sad presence of much long-term harm seen in its wake.  But, Catholicism will survive, even if it gets as isolated to desperate places of refuge as is Iona, yet, those hardy Irish (and typically stubborn) monks of the early Middle Ages kept it yet alive against the savage barbarians.  There will always remain a minority, a remnant, tenacious enough to strongly guard and save the Faith; and, if or when necessary, as with Iona, under conditions certainly far from being thought ideal.

Nonetheless, the elected papal monarch wishes to now run roughshod over any disruptive Catholic subjects of his realm with a vengeful monarchical disregard, which will corrupt the principle of monarchy by embracing a form of tyranny as he, thus, equally debases the Papacy as well. May God have mercy on his soul.²

The response to the Pope needs to alert him to the dangers and sorrows of tyrannizing over any of the faithful who wish to merely remind him of his important duty, obligations, and responsibilities concerning the ever requisite safeguarding of Catholicism from any doctrinal contamination or dissolution by deliberately perverting pastoral practice.   Such is no small matter to consider, of course.

It needs to be critically recognized, therefore, that what he is consciously doing is, in fact, evil because his mind has been wrongly set upon the intended commission of such malevolence, wickedness, to then better clearly uphold the neo-Pelagianism, the heresy, so verifiably near and dear to his wicked heart and dreadful ambitions.

An indicatively salient point must be informatively made.   One must, correctly, perceive here the active choice of measured malice, done on the part of Francis, to more perceptively gauge and intensely comprehend the repulsive fact that he really wishes to do evil, not that he is, supposedly, just being only unknowingly wayward, mischievous, or miscreant in some odd manner.

Almost all of his critics, overawed by the Holy Office of the Papacy, refuse to perceive the horrible truth, concede him the (false) idea that good intentions are involved, and actually excuse this Vicar of Christ; this is as if only mere peccadillos, slight failings, were involved in his noted perpetrated debasement efforts demonically directed against Catholicism, meaning all fundamental theological and religious orthodoxy, of course.

What is being heretically done by the Pope is not simply haphazard, incoherent, or uncoordinated by active intent. There is no rationally requisite requirement to so render him the assumed benefit of a doubt; his many words and actions are clear and verified, documented and definite, not obscure or uncertain.   Too many times have his defenders said that he was supposedly misinterpreted or mistranslated to then better help cover up the truth about his malevolence and spite, pertaining to the attitudes and heretical opinions, by which he so wishes to revolutionize the Church toward a definitely neo-Protestant direction. ³

He, then, thinks that mere human will can determine what gets accepted or promulgated as to dogmatic Church teachings, not the true need to conform teachings to the will of God. Consequently, Francis, being so hubristic, perceives himself as the actual center or focus of the Church and its supreme head, not Jesus Christ.

This demonstrable fact should be fairly apparent, by now, except among the most naïve or misinformed Catholics unaware of perennial Church teachings or, perhaps, those who, basically, stand in (mindless) awe of the Bishop of Rome because of the sacred existence of the Holy Office itself. Yet, this necessarily creates dangerous distortions of perception and much attendant faulty knowledge of the authentic nature of what needs to be vitally known.

The Pope is not God on earth, only the Vicar of Christ, not any divine substitute in flesh, unlike, for instance, the Dalai Lama who is regarded, by his loyal followers, as being a god occupying a merely physical body at present.   Admittedly, it is hard to absolutely sever perfectly the known office from the man concerning the Supreme Pontiff, however, he and all Catholics (for the assumption is that Francis still professes to be one) are both morally and spiritually obligated to defend the Faith; and, this is, logically, even more so for the supreme leader, the Shepherd, of the Faith for protecting the believers and, of course, for ultimately affirming the greater Glory of God.

Cardinal Burke’s aforementioned worthy effort of seeking an appropriate ecclesiastic forum by which to discipline and admonish the Pope would seem, given the current and observed degenerate state of the majority of the Church hierarchy, rather farfetched and nearly impossible, especially under present poor circumstances and the immediately foreseeable future.  Few in the hierarchy, e. g., could fully comprehend and intellectually defend the imperative necessity of Catholicism’s ontological theology.⁴

However, with Pope Francis now being 80 years old and not an extremely healthy man with only one lung, the better alternative, in a more practical sense, is to lay the hopeful foundation, the prepared infrastructure, for positive actions consequent to the coming of the then next Bishop of Rome. Realism would, on the whole, appear to be needed unless some truly divine intervention may surprisingly arise to resolve the situation either amicably or, perhaps, more readily.  Many prayers, penances, and sacrifices, however, would be needed for that possibility.

Without a minor miracle to spur on the normally reluctant hierarchy in the direction of faithful orthodoxy and with the added willingness to then defend it vigorously, nonetheless, there is little likelihood of any real basic success for effectively dissuading Francis and seeking a recantation and abjuration of the ugly heresies he so very strongly favors; it is, as such, a quite realistic assessment because the whole of Catholicism is ever greater than any pope.

The overall situation of the Church, however, will not be helped because most of the faithful are now really neo-Catholics supported in their beliefs by the neo-orthodoxy established through allegiance to the Second Vatican Council.  Over several past generations, increasing degrees of relativism and situation ethics have been imbued into the consciousness of so many such that they cannot easily come to oppose, much less properly understand, arguments that would greatly support Catholic dogmas without question.

Catechesis among Catholics has been woefully deficient for many decades by now, the clergy has been dumbed down too in the Novus Ordo seminaries, and much religious thought slides toward either a general indifference or a willingness to simply tolerate what ought to be seen as intolerable heterodoxy.  And, also, many who may think of themselves as being fairly orthodox Catholics will still come to side with the Pope out of a weary spiritual slough eager to avoid conflict, even for upholding the righteous Honor of God against the Pope.

None of those four above cited conditions, moreover, seems to be undergoing any massive change any time soon. Ambiguities in the notably modernist teachings, furthermore, that have become fairly pervasive by now mean that few of them, in the Novus Ordo, can actually comprehend and recognize the exact foundations of the profound dispute, much less ever to come to a critical awareness of the seriousness involved.  And, one may logically add, this is so suitably matched to and reinforced by the relativist attitudes freely, publicly, exhibited by Francis himself.  What could today be clearer?   The situation could be hardly worse.

He has a hardened heart that so nastily spurns all Christian charity toward his many sincere opponents in this matter who have a theocentric point of view, the ever legitimate desire to serve the Holy God, versus the Pope’s rather contemptuous anthropocentricism, meaning his neo-Pelagianism; that heresy has an inherent devotion to heterodoxy at all costs, and Francis will, therefore, fight for it with all the powers at his imperious command.  His personal tenacity ought not to be ignorantly underestimated or, perhaps, moderately discounted concerning the corrupt nature of his both spiritually and woefully defective character.

Why would this be said? Those who may doubt this do not really know and correctly understand the feisty man Bergoglio who demands that such things must go his way and that his critics be shown, in effect, the highway.  He is an old gutter fighter, known as such to people in Argentina, willing fully to brawl it out with enemies who has only contempt for gentlemanly manners or, to him, courteous affectations, when he engages people in struggle.  A known supporter of Marxist Liberation Theology, which he is, could not think otherwise.  Nor would he have any personal incentives, moreover, to do or act otherwise as long as he totally remains in power as the Pope of the whole Church.

In basic terms of sheer unadorned viciousness, therefore, Cardinal Burke is clearly outclassed and seems to be underestimating the kind of person, of the ruthless character, he is dealing with, meaning concerning this sly and cunning Servant of the Servants of Christ. Francis, of course, thinks that he has all the big cards in his hands and is going to play any of them needed and would not, moreover, ever hesitate to load the deck, whenever or wherever required to ultimately get his way, with a kind of neo-Protestantism.

No one should here naively doubt this harsh fact of reality qua current papal reality, for when he sets the Holy Magisterium in supposed opposition to Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, he so then becomes fully God-defiant, not simply miscreant in thought and action.  Let this be clear.  Let no one doubt the truth.  What is actually going on is the deliberate commission of mortal sins, which should be obvious beyond question.  How may this be better understood and confirmed as to its veracity and certainty?

If Francis had to confront the preconciliar Church of the 19^th century’s First Vatican Council, there would be no question whatsoever as to the logically assumed success of trying to control an aberrant or deviant pope.  Today, however, such an attempted confrontation is, one so realistically suspects, at best problematic and, at the least, severely doubtful of any good fruition to just put the matter quite mildly.

The Pope will, as in the sad days of the Arian Heresy, call all his staunch opponents schismatics and, thus, claim that he is the true defender of the Faith, for it will take significant moral and spiritual courage to rightly defend needed orthodoxy during this crisis of faith.

For Francis, going too far is never really far enough to stray from Catholic dogmas to then better serve his notably wayward and too corrupt intentions; a mere figurative slap on the wrist cannot deter him from revolutionizing the Church into having a real anthropocentric orientation, meaning the worship of Man on earth, being that he is, in truth, a disciple of evil. As such, it is no major prediction here that he will become, given the predilection already exhibited for simplification, an iconoclast toward the end of his pontificate.

Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.  Amen.

Conclusion

And so, Catholics enter still into the Third Millennium of the Roman Catholic Church, in this late second decade of the 21^st century, with the real prospect of a schism, given the observably uncharitable and quite clearly intolerant attitude of the notably vindictive and visibly unforgiving Holy Pontiff.

Thus, neo-Pelagianism, reinforced by the Nietzschean transvaluation of values, is stridently in the saddle and is now confidently riding forth toward even yet greater infamies to come, while Pope Francis is in charge of the Church.  Not to notice this salient fact is to be rather unfortunately blind to reality or, perhaps, simply naïve beyond belief where credulity itself becomes fairly utopian in inspiration.

The terribly both beleaguered and outnumbered forces of right orthodoxy and good human decency are, therefore, going to have to then become so righteously shrewd and, also, militantly prudent; this is when confronting such a formidable papal foe who is, as one perceives, adamantly determined to win, even at the sad cost of schism.   Cardinal Burke, one reasonably suspects, must then somehow seize the moral high ground and use it to the fullest extent and advantage possible, whether Dubia or no Dubia.

This should be by publicly saying that all his criticisms are not at all personal but, rather, constructive and affirmative for, then, better acknowledging the true rights and responsibilities of the Papacy itself, not done for any attack upon the present occupant of the Holy Office. The arguments ought to be theological and religious, moral and ethical, not ever aimed for seeking any personal animadversions.

To help avoid the struggle from giving the unwanted appearance of a personal duel between Cardinal Burke and Pope Francis, a good tactic should be the skillful use of Bishop Athanasius Schneider as the main spokesman for an ecclesiastical and canonical inquiry into the uncharitable obstinacy of Francis.   Flanking maneuvers are best, not a direct assault, as to the overall prudent and sagacious strategy to be employed in steadily mounting any growing pressure upon the notably stubborn Holy Father.

Of course, in the long-run there is always hope, either a Church council or, perhaps,  a future pope will basically or fundamentally correct the errors of this era, for no individual aberrant pontiff guides fully the course of the ecclesiastical body; only the Holy Ghost, who sanctifies the Church, does that forever, not Francis.  Heresies, inclusive of his odd version of neo-Protestantism, all eventually get intellectually crushed because they are lies, and only the truth can set men free, meaning (orthodox) Catholicism.⁵

There will be, no doubt, much short-term anguish and frustration, agony and distress, until eventually the wrongdoing has been deal with by the future triumph of orthodoxy, once again.

Athanasius contra mundum!

 

Notes

1. It helps to both correctly and theologically discern the lower from the higher Magisterium. https://callthepatriot.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/discerning-the-higher-magisterium/
2. The Pope’s pro-Lutheran public sympathies and related affinities are fairly well known by now. https://callthepatriot.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/heretic-pope-francis-vaticans-embrace-of-lutheran-quincentennial-celebration/
3. The Holy Father’s ambition to help bring about the equivalent of a Protestant revolution, by embracing the nominalist elements of the so-called Reformed Religion, should be rather obvious. https://callthepatriot.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/pope-francis-as-progenitor-of-the-second-protestant-revolution/
4.  What does not get taught at Catholic seminaries these days could, of course, easily fill volumes. https://callthepatriot.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/theology-and-ontology-roman-catholic-reflections-on-ontological-theology/
5.  Roman Catholicism, by definition, is theological and religious orthodoxy as to its verifiable truth. https://callthepatriot.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/a-powerful-case-for-roman-catholic-orthodoxy/

 

References

Amoris Laetitia: A Deceptive Joy

http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/statements/statement-on-amoris-laetitia-claims-serious-break-with-church-teaching-dangers-to-marriage-and-the-family.html

https://semiduplex.com/category/amoris-laetitia/

Reflections on “Amoris Laetitia”

Amoris Laetitia: All Things to All Men

http://catholiccitizens.org/views/66102/another-catholic-scholar-raises-objections-amoris-laetitia/

http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective909.asp

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-american-cardinals-question-the-dubia-submitted-to-the-pope-by-four-cou

http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective909.asp

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

http://ecclesiadei.org.nz/bishop-schneider-amoris-laetitia-demands-clarification/

http://www.onepeterfive.com/many-fingers-francis-holding-now-amoris-laetitia-submission/

https://dclatinmass.com/2016/10/27/reconciliation-after-divorce-cannot-contradict-the-indissoluble-nature-of-marriage/

http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/88cd932e0fb30da936d547131dbddacf-571.html

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2512-an-open-letter-to-bishop-athanasius-schneider

The Poison of the Novus Ordo “Mass”: Catholic Theology Refutes Neo-Trad Bloggers

http://www.onepeterfive.com/five-strong-statements-amoris-laetitia-sspx/

http://www.onepeterfive.com/another-catholic-scholar-raises-objections-to-amoris-laetitia/

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.

Conclusion

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!

 

 

Notes

1. St. Louis Grignion de Montfort, some centuries ago, had righteously cursed some evil people. http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n030rp_CatholicCurses.htm
2. http://isafeminizedchristaccurate.blogspot.com/
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.

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 18^th 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 20^th 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 17^th 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 18^th 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.

Conclusion

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

 

NOTES

1.  https://callthepatriot.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/myth-magic-islamic-state-and-roman-catholicisms-greatness/
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 19^th and early 20^th 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.

3. http://teleologyontologyandcosmology.blogspot.com/#!
4. 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 20^th 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.

5. 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: https://callthepatriot.wordpress.com /2016/04/08/myth-magic-islamic-state-and-roman-catholicisms-greatness/

6. http://metatheoreticaltheoretics.blogspot.com/
7. What is meant can be seen in the following: http://dialogicalpostmodernism.blogspot.com/

The Bloodless Martyrdom of Traditionalist Roman Catholics

The Bloodless Martyrdom of Traditionalist Roman Catholics:

Glories and Joyous Prospects for the 21^st Century

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewing the Field of Moral Combat qua Martyrdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Christian Mystery of Martyrdom

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

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

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

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

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

The hymn for conquering martyrs raise:

The victor innocents we praise:

Whom in their woe earth cast away,

But heaven with joy received today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What gets revealed in the lives of such saints is that, contrary to much Protestant propaganda, private conscience was not a (so-called) Reformation invention nor, for that matter, its then logical corollary of private judgment. Get real!  Starting with the earliest Christians, the Romans were up against people who could not compromise their conscience, offend their soul, by either worshipping Cesare or denying Christ.  A true martyr is not given to compromise.

In this context, as a quite necessarily private judgment, though not thought of as that in that era, these obvious dissenters were opposed, most certainly, to the majority, corporate nature-beliefs of the pagan community at large, not just to the imperial degrees mandating spiritual allegiance to the Emperor who claimed to be a god.

This needs to be properly kept in mind for better adding to the comprehension so required; having a private conscience, inseparable in the end from private judgment, as being absolutely inviolate, morally infrangible, is surely a fundamental Christian notion, not a supposed novel invention of Protestantism.

The right of private conscience and the right of private judgment were not, thus, some modern, abstract creations of the 16^th, 17^th, or 18^th centuries; they have, indeed, quite ancient lineages and, furthermore, having a stated “conscientious objection” to war had, in fact, required the previous political, social, and cultural acceptance and fundamental acknowledgement of a private Christian conscience.

However, one is seriously obligated to try to have as scrupulous a conscience as that of a St. Thomas Aquinas, not just being a general harbinger of mere contrary opinions or some speculative claims of a, perhaps, very highly subjective or just purely idiosyncratic nature. Objectivity, in its best accurate sense, is properly established morally and conscientiously, justly and assiduously, when knowing to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.  Q. E. D.

Both Henry II and Henry VIII, being the antagonists of Becket and More respectively, had then wrongly claimed what are metaphysical prerogatives only, in truth, due to the Lord God Almighty, not to the imperious head of any regime whatsoever.  Being good Catholics, they righteously had opposed such asserted supremacy against the Church.  That is why, as was so asserted previously, they were quintessential martyrs.

It was, in fact, but ancient Caesarism in a new disguise, and yet nothing really more than that in its fundamental essence.  Private conscience and private judgment, therefore, were of the integral and inherent nature of basic Christianity in its very origins, not ever a newfangled “Reformation” idea as was and is too often still falsely claimed.

Modernity, in short, did not supposedly invent, discover, the human conscience, though it has been and is, obviously, effective at corrupting it so mightily, as seen in today’s rampant lusts for the necessarily demonic cause of transgenderism, besides a seemingly triumphant sodomy itself.

Perhaps, in contrast, willingly dying for Christ may not really be that bad of an option, when needed. The alternative is too often the embrace of the material realities of this world that does not matter whenever compared to final Christocentric salvation, which could include holy martyrdom, as to the desired end of all rational souls.  Salvation, the final reward of Heaven, is the prize ever above price, which resides in the holy shadow of the Christian mystery of martyrdom, of supremely righteous virtue, made particularly real by the actual shedding of blood.

In a different way, the bloodless persecution of the Latin Mass Community, its nonviolent martyrdom, must be something, under the circumstances, that is just taken in stride as being of the nature of such contemptuous minor subjugation and tedious petty oppression.  The prideful followers of a triumphalist Vatican II are not cognizant of the true cause of the “jesters” of traditionalism; as the more traditionalist oriented among the Franciscans still know, one must be a fool for God’s sake, as the humble only can get into Heaven.

For it is known that, conversely, there is more than enough room in Hell for the prideful who are too big, too full of themselves, to ever fit in where the saints and martyrs do then most easily congregate and joyously live forever.  Even the very heinous,  odious, and morally despicable squelching, e. g., of the Roman Catholic missionary spirit advocated by Pope Francis, the Holy Father himself, has not stopped the actual rate or number of martyrdoms in the contemporary world.

Conclusion

And so, the “amazing” prospects, for the secularist 21^st century, allow both for the bloodless martyrdom of being a traditionalist Roman Catholic and, if called upon, the death-oriented choice of affirming Christ and His Church in the resistance to not only an aggressive and bloody Islam but rampant anti-Christian bigotry and hatred, in the Western world, coming from the ardent secularists and their so willing allies.

The Latin Mass supporters, being orthodox Roman Catholics, should, therefore, ironically rejoice in their observed marginalization qua martyrdom for the Lord God Almighty and His glory.

There are, thus, really but two ultimate ways of thinking. The lovers of this world do think that the perfection of life on earth or at least its enjoyment is the basic ultimate reality; the orthodox Catholic, the lover of Christ and His Kingdom, is supposed to know that the attempt to seek the perfection of his soul for its ultimate salvation is the only ultimate reality worth living or, in fact, dying for.

Secularization, in opposition, is just a (literal) dead end for both body and soul.  This is surely why the consciousness of holy martyrdom, as a true means of salvation, needs to be righteously revived, within the contemporary Church, for the greater glory of God.

In any event, are Christians prepared to just meekly accept, perhaps, the future deaths of, say, about at least 100 million men, women, and children?  Anyone who absurdly thinks this is simply an exaggeration has only a very limited knowledge of human history, of its many follies and horrors.  As did many of the Crusaders who slew them, there is the admonition to love one’s enemies, but fighting in self-defense is still properly and appropriately recognized by both the Canon Law and, of course, by classical Natural Law.

The good reading of this article, however, suggests the actual truth that must be now realistically confronted and accepted as to the many perceived facts of human reality and, moreover, the fundamental teachings of the Faith.  Our Lady Queen of Martyrs ora pro nobis!

Athanasius contra mundum!

 Notes

1. Although the position argued here is of a prudential and not ever an abstract libertarian or so broadly altruistic nature, ancient and medieval thinkers did not contemplate a modern, democratic, pluralistic, multireligious polity where people could permanently have “divided” loyalties and still be thought of as good citizens nonetheless.

For most of history as to normality, there was taken to be no possible actual division between what was thought to be ultimate loyalties. Thus, e. g., Protestant England saw Catholicism as its inherent political enemy; as a so logical result, Catholics could be, and most often were, just axiomatically then termed traitors because of their religion being seen as opposing the obvious interests and prerogatives of the Reformationist realm of Albion, with its so-called Reformed faith.  (Of course, the Puritans, called as such by their desire to allegedly better purify religious faith, did not think it was reformed enough.)

In old Europe, a man’s religion was supposed to be absolutely, or nearly so, fully consonant with his own politics and vice versa. This assumed attitude or, rather, supposition was not to be questioned.  Granted that exceptions have always historically existed, however, the nearly predominant normative pattern was an assumed, premodern unicity of loyalty, not a heterogeneous composite of beliefs also assumed to be still indicative of political loyalty.

That extremely different past world, so to speak, is a basic defining characteristic of what makes the nature of modernity, as to a way of disparate thinking, fully allowing for an endlessly and widespread heterogeneity; it was not, therefore, fundamentally typical of the premodern world where once usual custom and tradition had, regularly, confirmed and reflected both such matters as a man’s religion and politics.

And yet, this arguing prudentially for a requisite lack of religious persecution ought not to be ignorantly confused or supinely confounded, however, with any tolerance for heresy, which ought to never exist. Persuasion, not persecution, is the better moral option to prefer within the context of Christian charity.

Of course, Western, prideful modernists do condemn what had been (falsely) called the European Wars of Religion. The great Edmund Burke, among others, saw through this cheap canard.  They were not fought for the love of God, much less abstract religious or theological principles.  They were fought for power or, more vulgarly but honestly put, for the money.

Martin Luther’s protests were, from beginning to end, really all about the money; today, the Catholic German bishops (once again, it’s the Germans!) are still actually arguing about the filthy lucre, while pretentiously expatiating that it is really a pious dispute over holiness and deeply sincere matters of important and responsible faith. No, be without any doubt in this matter, it’s the money.

Bibliography

Peter Ackroyd, The Life of Thomas More

Godfrey Anstruther, Saint John Southworth: Priest and Martyr

Donald Attwater, Martyrs

Frank Barlow, Thomas Becket

Dr. Malcolm Brennan, Martyrs of the English Reformation

Bede Camm, Courtier, Monk and Martyr

Catholic Church. Congregatio pro Causis Sanctorum, The Catholic Martyrs of England and Wales: A Chronological List of English and Welsh Martyrs who Gave Their Lives for Christ and His Church During the “Penal Times” (A.D. 1535-1680)

Michael Green, St. Thomas Becket

Miriam T. Griffin, Nero: The End of a Dynasty

Frank J. Korn, The Tiber Ran Red: The Age of the Roman Martyrs.

Vincent McNabb, St. John Fisher

Fr. A. J. O’Reilly, D.D., The Martyrs of the Coliseum

Robert Royal, The Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century: A Comprehensive World History

Bernard Ruffin, The Days of the Martyrs: A History of the Persecution of Christians from Apostolic Times to the Time of Constantine.  

Joyce E. Salisbury, Blood of Martyrs: Unintended Consequences of Ancient Violence.

Reinhard Selinger, The Mid-Third Century Persecutions of Decius and Valerian.

Richard Simpson, Edmund Campion, Revised, edited & enlarged by Fr. Peter Joseph, Foreword by George Cardinal Pell

Myth, Magic, Islamic State, and Roman Catholicism’s Greatness

Myth, Magic, Islamic State, and Roman Catholicism’s Greatness:

Catholic Demythologization of Temporal Order for Its Sacralization and Sanctification

By  Joseph Andrew Settanni

On the Restoration of All Things in Christ – E Supremi, St. Pope Pius X

Why is so much of contemporary life burdened with an excess of seemingly pandemic mythical and magical nonsense, talismanic thinking, that must irrationally effuse through Western society and its culture? How did the typical norm of an awkward emotional and mental infantility, adult childishness, become, moreover, so intolerably regnant these days?

The passing modern age, now devolving itself into the low era of postmodernity, must live with the baleful consequences of how modernity had so greatly embraced, or rather re-embraced, both myth and magic, especially as it crescively rejected classical Natural Law teachings.

Modernity qua itself means the mindset, e.g., of Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, John Locke, David Hume, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Martin Heidegger, and Jürgen Habermas.  The normative or classical mindset, in rather clear comparison, would refer, e. g., to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Joseph de Maistre, Leo Strauss, Michael Oakeshott, M. E. Bradford, and Frederick D. Wilhelmsen.

This, the noting of myth and magic, is a too often neglected matter that is both amazing and enlightening to reasonably recount and extrapolate, which, at first, seems so incredible and discordant with what is popularly thought or generally surmised.  Basic rationality too often, one supposes, appears to be one distinctive hallmark of the often celebrated modern or, better put, progressive mind.

But, in sociology, there are the interesting terms of latent and manifest, which can be usefully used here; the former is descriptive of what is not seen on the surface of society or social order, the latter is what seems to be too obvious or quite noticeable kept on the surface of reality.

These beliefs known as myth and magic, assumed to have been eradicated by sophistication, became instead integral features of a triumphant modernity haughtily proud of its secularism, positivism, materialism, pragmatism, and relativism.  All of which, dramatically and tragically, helped to lead to World War I, World War II, atomic weapons, many genocides, and other such rather dubious “delights” of modern man, besides the predictive dead end of hubristic nihilism.

Christianity and Truth

Many centuries ago, Catholicism qua Christianity had then demythologized the temporal order,¹ meaning that the older eras of nature spirits, heathen gods and goddesses, the evil eye, superstitions, magic charms, enchanted forests, devil worship, and all such cognate rot had been tremendously displaced, if not entirely eliminated, by the spread of the Catholic Faith.

Catholicism had, in effect, liberated the older world from the darkness of the apparitions and superstitions that unfortunately had retarded social, cultural, and civilizational vitality, which made the Church, e. g., the inspirer and originator of what then became the liberal arts and sciences to be found at the great medieval universities.  The academic disciplines of the Trivium and Quadrivium had, thus, assisted in the civilizing and educating of Europeans for centuries.

It was a monumentally tremendous success of beneficent Christianization, the New Testament, that had advanced civilization and culture simultaneously, meaning wherever and whenever the Faith had, thus, sincerely and confidently triumphed within a host society and its culture.

Ironically, this also helped to pave the way toward a later secularization of human society and culture by freeing men from certain pre-Christian aspects of human life, meaning from the limitations created upon the spirit of man as to why he had much feared a world filled with miscellaneous demons and apparitions that, among other difficulties, denied the existence of free will.

The Catholic doctrine of free will ², building creatively upon the useful insights of the learned Greek and Roman ancients, assisted mightily in genuinely liberating humanity from a world of weary darkness and often fatalistic uncertainty or mystical pagan irrationality; this noted positive advance was much added to by knowledge of the Old Testament, of course, without question.

Added to all this was the Church’s adamant defense of the classical Natural Law tradition and the important Catholic political principles of solidarity, meaning membership and brotherhood in a common Christendom, and subsidiarity, the basic decentralization of political power and authority by seeking to address grievances at the lowest levels first before, if and when needed, eventually going to the highest.

The Church, also, favors a loving understanding of and support for social justice unlike all the modernist, corrupted versions of the term that necessarily do make a total mockery of it.  What is wanted, in further reiteration and useful clarification, is the holy and comprehensive ideal of a totally Catholic koinos kosmos (a blessed public world or lovingly shared universe) opposed to the ever distinctly and antagonistic anti-Catholic idios kosmos (a secularized, relativist world or endless cold multiverses.)

The above cited accomplishments and achievements of the Church, filling the vacuum made by the Fall of the Roman Empire, were not done without often overcoming many great numbers of enormous difficulties, besides the potent hazards of so many nasty barbarian invasions that had created tremendous havoc and mayhem galore. Various types of atheists with their hubris, and especially dedicated secularists, do rarely acknowledge this significantly important fact.

Aided by the best thinking and considerations of the pagan philosophers, the Christian faith offered a commonsensical, reasonable, logical, understandable, and rational worldview and a presentable world, subject to an overarching metaphysical order, defended by truth and justice in the ever glorious name of Jesus Christ.  When confronting wild barbarian hordes freely intent upon massive destruction, pillage, rape, and wild slaughter, there was, at many times, not much more than the Cross of Christ that could oppose them.

Modernity would have none of this, in its truly reactionary attitude of sinking back into myth and magic, so indicative of its intellectual rebarbarization, efforts of the “new barbarians,” of the Western world; it ever imperiously demanded, instead, the prevalent mythical and magical glorification of reified Man as an earthly god of power.  But, Catholic teachings, in adamant opposition, would have none of this absurd and backward-looking nonsense, for true religion is the direct opposite of (dark) superstition, it is a liberating, redemptive, and positive force for the human spirit, meaning support for the children of God.

As so many authors, both Catholics and non-Catholics, have demonstrated repeatedly, this, among many other absolutely great achievements and accomplishments, had made the very existence of modern, empirical science possible.  One could cite among such numerous volumes as: Thomas Woods, Jr.’s How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization and Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, a 2000-Year History by H.W. Crocker III.  Q. E. D.

Both primitive and pre-Christian men, it needs to be here historically recalled, were so beset by many unpredictable or seemingly unknown forces, believed to be earthly and/or astral in origins, that could so whimsically or otherwise determine one’s fate or destiny for good or ill.  They were, in fact, completely freely offered the only true liberation, the salvific liberation by, in, and through Jesus Christ.  A then competing Mithras religion had demanded the sacrifice of at least a single bull, which was, of course, rather cost prohibitive for impoverished slaves and poverty-stricken peasants, among others.  A way out of the black, pessimistic, fatalistic gloom was given gratis.

The Church, over time, had sagaciously banished these metaphysically oppressive forces of darkness and vile superstitions by invalidating and refuting the many myths and the numerous claims of magic supposedly possessed by such often presumably dire forces and phantasms. (This was, ironically, regretted by noted modernist thinkers such as Wagner and Nietzsche who thought that Christianity had always wrongly robbed peoples of their native vitality and raw inspiration.  Nietzsche, for instance, positively despised and denigrated Christian humility as slavish nonsense unworthy of vital modern men, especially for his domineering Übermensch.)

It was a superbly worthy achievement of a still much more worthier institution, namely, the One, Holy and Apostolic Roman Catholic Church, its teachings, and its often martyred missionaries, who, with enormous difficulty, had brought about a true and invigorating enlightenment, while attempting to more and more Christianize and, thus, civilize an aberrant and sinful humanity.

Modernity, with a fierceness only matched by that of savages, necessarily brought back myth and magic during the rise of the secular side of the Renaissance, the Protestant revolt, the European Enlightenment, and various terrible and violent eras of revolutionism, completely inclusive of all of Fascism, Nazism, and Communism, of course.  The Nietzschean will to power can be seen, along with Machiavellian pragmatism.

Historically, this necessarily runs the full mystical gambit from, e. g., the Machiavellian myth of a cynical virtu, the fiction of a Lutheran or Calvinist God, Hobbes’ mythical Leviathan qua the State, Locke’s tabula rasa, Adam Smith’s invisible hand, Rousseau’s volonté generale, Kant’s mythic notion of “God” as an anthropomorphic projection, Bentham’s utilitarian calculus, and Hegel’s (magical) dialectic.  Each has its inherently mesmerizing qualities, as with all others, of course, mentioned in the very next paragraph.

One can relatedly reference such indicative matters as: Darwin’s totally tautological “survival of the fittest,” Marx’s predicted withering away of the State through proletarian magic, Nietzsche’s death of God, Freudianism, the Social Gospel, Jungianism, Nazi race theory, (progressive) eugenics, Weberian Rationalisierung (rationalization) and Entzauberung (disenchantment), the minimum wage ³, scientism, behaviorism, Randian (atheist) Objectivism, the radical Spirit of Vatican II,  anarcho-capitalism, Liberation Theology, multiculturalism, environmentalism, the postconciliar Church, climate change (hysteria), victimhood (aka the “religion” of unctuous self-pity), and, of course, deconstructionism.

And, there is, no doubt, much else that is similarly either magical or mythical and, sometimes (or just more often than usually realized), both at once. Definitely, none of this ever makes a dedicated modernist or postmodernist blush from shame or, perhaps, the legitimate twinge of any guilt.  Such a mindset, dedicated to relativism unbound, is then integrally antithetical to the innate maturity and a true sense of responsibility existing requisite ever to the highly reflective classical/normative mind.

Liberals and Leftists are rather too sanguine, with their ever multiplicitous fictions, which do wrongly degrade epistemology, through ideological verbiage, in fairly odd service to a reified ontology (read: Utopia).  Witness how, e. g., a once mere grammatical term, gender, has quite weirdly replaced “sex” as to a natural designation; it is a clear type of Orwellian Newspeak trying to make what used to be thought of as normality abnormal and vice versa.  And so, it cannot be otherwise with the anti-normative mindset as has been illustrated.

Admittedly, there is here expressed a quite hardened, though healthy, skepticism, a marked incredulity, of modernity and postmodernity as to their dubious intellectual fruits. In contrast, a Christocentric society and culture, the affirmation of holiness, is much to be preferred, and there are those who have defended such a notion in various terms.

A name now fading quite rapidly from human memory, Fr. Charles N. R. McCoy, had become very alerted to how tremendously much myth and magic had been reintroduced, into social, cultural, and political life, by modernity; this was by his being a pupil of Ernst Cassirer (1874 – 1945), author of The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (1932) and, also, the posthumously published: The Myth of the State (1946).

Oddly or not, Ernst Cassirer was a true devotee of the spirit of the Enlightenment, a liberal of his era, who, nonetheless, could recognize both myth and magic when he saw them manifestly existing and, moreover, easily thriving in the various political, philosophical, social, and cultural contexts of the 18^th, 19^th and 20^th centuries.  Such an understanding, of course, does not fit the usual and expected bright narrative given by the many ardent or very enthusiastic supporters of modernity, especially of its atheistic revolutionism or the hubristic collectivist spirit.

Fr. McCoy, wisely, had successfully built upon and extended the most philosophically intriguing and mentally illuminating notions of Cassirer, in a useful prolific manner, quite suitable for his rather high intelligence. One can read McCoy’s The Structure of Political Though and On the Intelligibility of Political Philosophy: Essays of Charles N.R. McCoy edited by Charles Nicholas Reiten McCoy and Fr. James V. Schall, S. J.   But, where does Catholicism or the Church come into this particular discussion?

Prior to Vatican Council II in the early to mid-1960s, the Roman Catholic Church had once been vigorously engaged in solidly battling, as hard as it reasonably could, against the highly invasive myth and magic engendered by the rampant philosophical nominalism of modernity and its quite naturally attendant neopaganism that, in fact, logically results and exists.

Today, one sees how thoroughly the current Holy Father, Pope Francis, has both willingly and lovingly embraced the destructive Spirit of Vatican II and its ever lively promotion of the evil and supremely mythical and magical notions of postmodernity; the April 8, 2016 Amoris Laetitia document, completely approved by him, adopts fundamental moral relativism as the fallible guide for Catholics concerning family and sexual matters.  Such bold postmodern thought is the assuredly natural and brashly nihilistic child of an increasingly enervated, indolent, and anemic modernity conceived, as it were, in its rather decrepit old age.

What the Holy Pontiff has embraced, however, is clearly an anthropocentric death wish – with “acts of conscience” allowing for an extremely increased latitude for abortions and promoting significantly augmented artificial birth-control unto the fuller self-extermination of peoples — set so against the Church’s previous historical, religious, loving, and theological effort to fully demythologize the secular or terrene order of this world, in the holy effort to righteously and spiritually transform all things in, by, and through Jesus Christ.

This is, therefore, for the ever much needed sacralization and sanctification of human and natural reality for the greater glory of God. Instead, there is now the ongoing and demonic pursuit of the supposed greater glory of Man, his ontological reification, championed, of course, by the evil Spirit of the Second Vatican Council, which can be then empirically observed, more and more, by its truly horrendous and vilely devastating aftermath; this surely now includes Amoris Laetitia.  But, what can be reasonably known as to the interconnectedness and relatedness, the implications and ramifications, of these matters?

Postmodernity celebrates, as but a few examples, such myths as multiculturalism, PC thinking, diversity, and deconstructionism aligned ideologically with the magical notions of a Utopian world-community, a not-too-disguised form of brave millennialism, freed of all war, famine, pestilence, and all conflicts.  This is seen to be overtly exemplified and, moreover, praised to the nth degree in John Lennon’s nihilistic and so very representative, languid song: Imagine.

All the fundamental elements of such rabid mythical and magical thinking and regard can be found in that lyrical composition singing hosannas to a Utopian vision having no need for any ultimate and requisite metaphysical order (aka God).   Secularization is, thus, greatly praised to the skies.

Nor does any really known human imperfection, theologically referred to as sin, ever come into the truly idyllic picture painted with such unctuous, rapturous, and contemptible words faithful to secular humanism’s divined ecstasy and open contempt for the normative/classical mind.  This may be paralleled, as to insights, by C. S. Lewis’ thoughtful though short book entitled: The Abolition of Man, which more than just suggests the evil involved.

In short, the amazing myth of neo-Pelagianism, meaning, as to a definition, the postmodern or, perhaps, simply ideological secularization of the extremely hoary Pelagian Heresy that Original Sin has never actually existed; thus, an ever true and limitless human perfectionism placed on earth, again, an idyllic millennialism, is supposed to be so fully attainable, without question or pause, if only truly absolute and ever peaceful secularization could, through some unspecified nirvana, be finally reached. This goes against all right reason, plain commonsense, and classical Natural Law teachings, of course.

Petty earthly gods carelessly cavorting in a terrene paradise, a New Eden, of their own making, which is, thus, supposed to be taken intellectually seriously, of course, as a then surely set, thoughtful, valid proposition. In other words, speculative hogwash qua moral argumentation that tends to conceal a thinly disguised death wish easily supportive of euthanasia, among other things.

And, e. g., no matter how many people get massacred by ISIS or similar Moslem agencies, this clearly intramundane belief in myth and magic, often correctly perceived as immanentism, persists strongly and directly divergent to all of the massively compiled rational and empirical evidence, history, (obviously) dead bodies, and documentation observed being set to the contrary.

The past great devotion to modernist myth and magic, at the beginnings of modernity with Machiavelli and then Luther, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Bentham, Darwin, Marx, Freud, Lenin, Heidegger, and many others, has logically lead to the arrogant and avaricious worshipping of postmodernist myth and magic as compelling forces to contend with now and in the future.

The celebrated names of Michel Foucault, E. P. Thompson, Ronald Dworkin, R. D. Laing, Jurgen Habermas, Gyorgy Lukacs, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, Slavoj Zizek, Ralph Milliband and Eric Hobsbawm are notably infamous in this regard.  Utopianism, consequently, is then made to existentially seem, thus, compatibly normal and so “natural” as an ever contemporaneous way of thinking.   One could informatively read Utopia, the Perennial Heresy by Thomas Molnar.

It is an insanely terrible feat that could only be brought about by the incredible power that myth and magic can and often do hold over the human mind when enslaved by sin, when afflicted by a significantly rampant and pervasive nominalism that so freely corrupts both cognition and human will simultaneously.

Most likely, Fr. McCoy would have been, by now, thoroughly appalled at the most serious and lamentable devolutions of the political, cultural, and social orders of the Western world, which is just an understatement actually.  Civilization itself, assuming such a thing can be defined as existing, is at the near point of becoming epistemologically and ontologically indiscernible as to a concrete reality worthy of rational and axiological consideration.

Cynical observers, of course, would critically denounce such possibly incautious words as being rather much too optimistic and, perhaps, made only broadly in jest.

Of course, for instance, neither anything like heuristic Platonic myth nor harmless fairyland magic is being conjured up in this article. G. K. Chesterton, in his The Everlasting Man, reminds people that, “It seems strangely forgotten nowadays that a myth is a work of imagination and therefore a work of art.”

However, the clearly bold neopaganization of the Western world has disarmed it when faced, additionally, by the outrageous ravages of a resurgent and aggressive Islam that is obviously so very willing to act both barbarously and contemptuously toward an overtly effete, incestuously degenerate, and increasingly decadent West.

Many commentators have noticed what is called the reprimitivization of humanity that has occurred as people came to so witlessly embrace the many magical and mythical elements of assumed intellectual sophistication, sanctified oddly by modernity’s many civilizational failures, into the postmodernity of an “appropriately” neopaganized world.  Thus, one gets the valuelessness of a nonjudgmental people with their relativist disvalued ethics and morals having no axiologically sustainable values to adamantly defend or even debate; it is an endlessly corruptive nonsense.

As the evil Culture of Death spreads, nonetheless, mindless people, meaning the degenerate cognoscenti and illuminati, still are shocked by ever rising levels of provoked crudity, brutality, barbarism, savagery, and outright nihilism that has become crescively acceptable, as being quite prevalent societal and cultural norms for a nihilistic postmodernity.⁴

One so easily sees this in how the formerly confident and self-deluded, mistaken, people of Brussels, Belgium had become seemingly paralytically perplexed beyond measure, due to the March 2016 Jihadi bombings; they had deliberately pampered and privileged, indulged and advantaged, them and, in turn, their avowed Moslem enemies yet turned upon them – what a shock!

They do vacuously wonder why, with their bizarre utopian attitudes, on how Western abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia should reflect ever negatively upon them and their beloved sybaritic lifestyles, exercised within an ethical and moral vacuum.  No sense of true shame or guilt exists for them, except to the rather queer degree that they may be ashamed or feel guilty that they have not, in fact, yet engaged thoroughly enough in their so wanted and blatant nihilism.

It is not perceived that, because of the results of Original Sin ⁵ of which they claim they have no real consciousness of, the modernist effort to unceremoniously kick the metaphysical order out of the front door makes them try to push in an unadulterated metaphysics, of some strange kind, surreptitiously and somewhat guiltily through the back door.  This is arrogance combined freely with an unadulterated idiocy supreme, which all, in turn, arrogantly spits upon the firmly opposed normative mentality, the perennial realm of right reason and commonsense.

The significantly incredible but true re-empowerment of both reified myth and magic, by the intellectual and other vile forces of a debased modernity, has substantially assisted in the firm consolidation and transformation of such myth and magic placed into the cause and progress of postmodernity. How so?

Millions of people are now emotionally, psychologically and cognitively enthralled powerfully so by mythical and magical notions of an ersatz “reality” that Christian people, both ancient and medieval, would have simply scoffed at with only well-deserved contempt and a profound ridicule.  Multiculturalism and deconstructionism, as examples, would be simply laughed at as truly dumb jokes, never seriously accepted with any of today’s absurdly pious or devout secular reverence whatsoever.

Because of the aforementioned enthrallment, one sees, on what appears to be a daily basis by now, the weirdly but still notably magical notions of a Utopian, world-community Zeitgeist through which its subject populations, created as if by enchanted notions, are to so obtain a (terrene) ersatz blessedness and (ad hoc) beatification, which is reserved, as such in truth, by Christians, logically, only for Heaven.  Of course, the supposed many gods of modernity and postmodernity demonically do indicate otherwise, meaning as the Weimarization continues.

Those enlightened Christians, however, not influenced by either myth or magic, and certainly all orthodox, traditionalist, Roman Catholics, do always realistically know, by being in constant touch with human and existential reality, that no truly genuine paradise can ever exist on earth. Useful heuristic reading would certainly include John Arthur Passmore’s The Perfectibility of Man.

The demonic utopianists (by whatever euphemism), however, in here citing that ever felicitous Voegelinian terminology, do greatly wish to immanentize the eschaton, to declare their New Eden on earth, regardless of the obviously plain truth (and, by the way, innumerable dead bodies) set ever to the contrary.  Such error refutes itself.  Q. E. D.

Moreover, the greatest superstition of them all, it has been well said, is to idiotically believe that one’s own era is entirely free of superstition, in this cited case, whether modernist or postmodernist in origin.  A neat little volume to consult would surely be Superstition by Fr. Herbert Thurston, S.J., which delightfully gets to the heart of the matter, by showing how adherence to Catholicism can readily vanquish all those useless and false beliefs that hinder true experiential human progress, advanced culture, and higher civilization.

Sadly, Pope Francis ^6, the Vicar of Christ on earth, has willingly chosen to surely become, in effect, the retrogressive, celebratory high priest of the nominalist reprimitivization of Western society, culture, and civilization; this is as it so nihilistically wallows in the stagnant regressive morass created by the mythical and magical notions of a degraded and debased humanity. In short, secularization, contrary to its often claimed expectations, has not achieved its supposed nirvana on this planet.

Of course, this evil belief in Godlessness always anticipates its ever assumed success in some wished-for never-never land, once again, the blissful New Eden “guaranteed” by ever artful existentialism and applied phenomenology, along with situation ethics and value neutrality.

And now, a very quite morally and spiritually disarmed, pitifully Man-worshipping, anthropocentric, intramundane fixation, denying all absolutes except for secularist relativism qua an absolute principle, must, thus, nakedly face a terrifyingly absolutist, tyrannous, bloodthirsty, Moslem jihadist movement eagerly bent upon world domination at any cost.

One can guess which side is the more likely to win. Of course, there is, however, still a real choice, instead of the deliberately empty and so droll valuelessness of postmodernity, the post-Enlightenment realm, filled with ominous existential and phenomenological angst, hubris, and trepidation lest a (dreaded) value judgment be made.  It is on the same vain plateau as with positivism and its inherent fallacy of the immaculate perception.

The Western world can yet return to Roman Catholicism, to a then revived Christendom worth defending and loving, as the important moral and spiritual means to so much better combat an increasingly ferocious and thoroughly implacable enemy, having a religion that sanctions no real limits upon excessive brutality, cruelty, or, in fact, just sheer ruthlessness, concerning any of its opponents.  However, to put the urgent matter mildly, this would seem to require a gigantic miracle from as yet unknown quarters, perhaps, the Blessed Virgin Mary may assist.

Until then, nothing hopeful appears to be reasonably perceivable upon the normal horizon of most human speculation and consideration.  The so debased enthrallment of the postmodern mind, by its craven fascination with and ignominious subordination to vicariously imagined substitutes for reasoned thought and logical cognizance, bespeaks a contemptuous attitude full worthy of T. S. Eliot’s hollow men or, alternately, C. S. Lewis’ men without chests.

Modernity, Postmodernity, and What Next?

And, one of them, currently and conspicuously, does occupy the exalted and blessed Throne of St. Peter no less. That is why religion and theology are much more central to the survivability of human beings than is ever admitted to by the committed and deluded secularists who so often do applaud Pope Francis as being a kindred spirit.  He is among the last believers in a now dying modernity, which sought to ironically reinvigorate, not really eliminate, such things as alchemy, wizardry, and the search for the always elusive Philosopher’s Stone.

Modernity, though not simply meaning the modern age as such, was not that very far from the concerns of sorcery and conjuring, of talismanic cognition.   One could, thus, interestingly consult Eros and Magic in the Renaissance by Ioan P. Couliano; White Magic, Black Magic in the European Renaissance by Paola Zambelli, and The Queen’s Conjurer: The Science and Magic of Dr. John Dee, Advisor to Queen Elizabeth I by Benjamin Woolley.  Renaissance Hermeticism was taken seriously, as can be seen in Frances Yates’ Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition.

Myth and magic, therefore, were not far from the thin surface of those past centuries and influenced greatly the lives of many who thought of themselves as surely advanced thinkers, especially when they “freed” themselves from the Catholic Church, or Christianity in general. Such an elucidation, these days, is genuinely needed and requisite to the important task of breaking old stereotypes as to which side exists as the true defender of mankind and the dignity of man as created by God, not as a mere unit of a omnipotent State.

Misinformed writers, generally speaking, include among the principal features of the European Enlightenment great advances in the supposed freeing of human thought from superstition and traditional (aka Christian) religion and the assumed enlightened retreat of the hoary concept of the supernatural before the ever glorious advance of empirical and, thus, seemingly  liberating science.  Oh, really?  Historical evidence severely questions such biased tale evidencing much more progressivist propaganda than actual knowledge.  Was there such absolute rationality?

But, such historical interest in magic and mysticism had more than significantly continued into the Enlightenment, as is noted by: Solomon’s Secret Arts: the Occult in the Age of Enlightenment by Paul Kleber Monod; The Rosicrucian Enlightenment by Frances A. Yates; Beyond the Witch Trials: Witchcraft and Magic in Enlightenment Europe by Owen Davies & Willem de Blécourt; and The Dark Side of the Enlightenment: Wizards, Alchemists, and Spiritual Seekers in the Age of Reason by John V. Fleming.  Irrationality, in short, was celebrated as being a higher or esoteric form of deified Reason; mysticism easily combined with the worship of deified Reason.

Both Renaissance and Enlightenment had, therefore, definitely added quite a bit of darkness to the human mind, regardless of the enormous and continuing propaganda fixed to the contrary, and believed in by so many dedicated, in this case meaning deluded, atheists and humanists, of course.  Rationalism resulted from the vain dedication to both the deification and reification of modern Reason superstitiously gaining god-like status, as is true of most of hubristic science today, which needs to be stated here explicitly, for proper exposition purposes.

How is it known, nevertheless, that myth and magic are dreary and fetid whenever compared to the grace and glory of God?  Myth, though not equated, e. g., with noble Platonic myth, is the superstition of still primitive men, meaning those who seek explanations of metaphysical order that can be reduced to fables and stories mainly suitable for the childhood of a people.  Reductionism, therefore, becomes the byword of thought for better seeking the simplification that perpetual children yearn for as a stunted way of understanding their circumscribed world.

Magic seeks to accomplish what the will and love of God can do without any effort whatsoever and with an instantaneous universality that makes any purported “magic” look so interminably feeble and simply pathetic, frail and pitiful; this is whenever placed in bright comparison with, literally, such unlimited greatness and profundity always and ever coexistent, by definition, with the Lord God Almighty.

And yet, modernity, and its legitimate and nominalist child known as postmodernity, prefers dark beliefs in magical and mythical concepts and constructs that keep up a mere pubescent and irrational pretense, while the ravaged reality of the souls of men do, thus, become rather aged with their multiplying vice and age-old sin.

Interestingly, it can be cited that Fascism and Nazism, even slightly more than Communism, thought of themselves as being true youth movements.  Thus, as a contemporary example, it is not at all surprising how many, many young people flock around and with Bernie Sanders as being the latest, though rapidly aging, Socialist Piped Piper promising, once again, Utopia.

For many centuries, moreover, both “enlightened” and Protestant nominalist attacks upon Catholicism and the Catholic Church were alleged to be necessary preconditions for favoring, advancing, and vindicating the need for upholding the youthful spirit of Progress as evidence of humanity’s supposed rise up from both superstition and ignorance, from the hoary or simply antediluvian belief in Christianity in general.

Such informative books as Unpopular Essays in the Philosophy of History by Moorhouse F. X. Millar, S.J., have splendidly covered the realities involved, athwart the ever extravagant claims of modernity that have been often made repeatedly and, in truth, idiotically as well.  The many astute refutations made, in this aforementioned work, offer a substantial and substantive antidote to the poisonous beliefs that haughtily claim that progress and science are to entirely replace the truths of faith and doctrines, meaning, actually, the rejection of the Roman Catholic Faith.

Nominalism, over time, ruined the ability of the human mind to quite properly and needfully distinguish between proper rationality and mere Rationalism; they are definitely not the same thing, but modernists had, increasingly, refused to rightly recognize such a tremendously salient fact of reality as to the critical imperative distinctions ever requisite to acquiring a genuine cognitive maturity and, as one hopes, allied perspicacity. Good reading, for encouraging this, includes Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism by Robert P. George.

One can, for instance, read such interesting and instructive works as Michael Oakeshott’s Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays to get a better understanding of the important issues involved; also, reading, e. g., Makers of the Modern Mind by Thomas P. Neill helps to better round out a needed education in these important matters.

It may need to be critically added, however, that all ideologies, easily inclusive of Communism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, Feminism, etc., of a political nature do ever create or generate their own political mythology, regardless of any supine protests to the contrary.

But, lest it be thought that political mythology lacks documentation, a listing can be rendered, for proper thematic coverage, in the following citations: Political Myth in Aristophanes: Another Form of Comic Satire? by Nikoletta Kanavou, Henry Tudor’s Political Myth, Political Myth: A Theoretical Introduction by Christopher Flood, Der Mythus des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts by the Nazi Alfred Rosenberg, and, of course, Cassirer’s The Myth of the State.

Also, one could relatedly consult: A Philosophy of Political Myth by Chiara Bottici; The Politics of Myth: A Study of C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell by Robert Ellwood; Gladstone: The Making of a Political Myth by D. A. Hamer; Roland Boer’s Political Myth: On the Use and Abuse of Biblical Themes, and a suitable article: “Political Mythologies of the Twentieth Century in the Perspective of Hermann Heller, Ernst Cassirer, and Karl Löwith,” by Jeffrey Andrew Barash, as found in the Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem.

In addition, the still provocative writings of Georges Sorel ⁷, manifesting his hubris, ought not to be that neglected as to the proper study of modern political myth.  What should become indicatively apparent is how, century by century with the further absorption of nominalism in cognition, Rationalism exists as the corruptive parody of rationality, never a true or valid substitute for it.

By so many strong degrees, irrationality, irrationalism, illogicality, and clearly irrational thought in general do increasingly come, more and more, into the epistemological service of Godless Rationalism; this was during the existential course of the intellectual, cultural, and aesthetic progression of modernity, along with, of course, the Nietzschean will to power. It may yet fairly be asked, nevertheless, how so?

Modernity, with its ingrained pragmatism, positivism, materialism, secularism, and, ultimately, nihilism had pushed its aggressive ideology of Rationalism so far as to progressively encourage irrationalism and the distrust of mere human reason, which then reintroduced “higher” or more sophisticated superstitions into the world, such as, e. g., deconstructionism.

This was, again, the rather bastardized metaphysics that got somehow smuggled in through the somewhat ignominious back door, as the, thus, old or traditionalist metaphysics was then so rudely and crudely pushed out the front entrance.  Along with, e. g. the irrational, Lutheran-Protestant theological denial of free will, that larger overall process was felicitously called, by that so much celebrated modern god-term, Progress.   Interesting reading would revealingly include Robert A. Nisbet’s History of the Idea of Progress.

There had been, therefore, quite baleful and usually very malevolent consequences, suffered by real human beings, in this most unpleasant process celebrating modernity and its superstitions, myths, and its assorted and sundry efforts at modernist sorcery.  One can benefit by reading such surely illuminating volumes as Jacob Leib Talmon’s The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, Political Messianism – The Romantic Phase, Romanticism and Revolt, and his The Myth of the Nation and Vision of Revolution – The Origins of Ideological Polarization in the 20th Century.

Only a dead mind or a quite dedicated nominalist, a modernist supreme, could read such books and not come to the obvious conclusion that something is so radically wrong with the clearly evil premises of modernity and its defense.  Furthermore, the many noted failures of modernity have not been ever truly corrected but, rather, have been definitely much more aggravated and excessively exacerbated by the main currents of most, not all, postmodernist thought.

Only an irrational misanthrope would cite World War I, World War II, nuclear weapons, and the 20^th and 21^st genocides as all simply unqualified successes of true progress and joyous enlightenment, of mankind’s categorical and praiseworthy advance.

The overt point being made here ought, therefore, to be absolutely crystal clear to any fairly cognizant and sensate mind, by citing a work by a past and renowned, enthusiastic champion of rationalism, materialism, secularism, pragmatism, and positivism: H. G. Wells, who wrote his pessimistic but highly self-indicative little volume sadly entitled, Mind at the End of Its Tether, with the “best” thoughts he could lamely come up with then, in 1945, at the age of 78.

Modernists do have much to answer for, but they never really do; they just, as is their want, casually step over the dead bodies and other assorted debris of carnage and calmly continue forward toward their next efforts at trying to irrationally construct the New Eden on earth, aka Utopia, almost always, once again, in the both mythical and magical name of some kind or other of idealized collectivism, of course.  James Burnham, in his Suicide of the West, foresaw and predicted accurately the destruction and devastation that is simply today accepted as being a normal part of reality.

Learning really nothing that substantive and, moreover, ideologically, (read: superstitiously), forgetting whatever is inconvenient to their unreasonable purpose, to their vain pursuit of a terrene paradise on this large orb occupying space in the exosphere. In contrast, the so wildly fictional Baron von Munchausen sounds like a hardened realist making rational calculations of success.  Chesterton, in the early 20^th century, had presciently noticed how abnormality wished to replace normality as to the new moral, social, and cultural norms for progressive societies in the Western world.

In the myth-filled realm of modernity, one sees, as to an economic example, the quite fantastic irrationality of the applied thaumaturgy set behind all minimum wage laws truly adverse to all economic laws, history, empirical evidence, scholarship, and just plain reality itself qua basic commonsense, meaning in strong defiance of reason.

The, e. g., wild, blood-drenched 18^th century French revolutionaries, willingly sending at least 500,000 victims to their needless slaughter, thought that they too were setting about creating a wondrous, brave new world of limitless liberty, fraternity, and, of course, equality.  A world to be drained of hopes for holiness and the sanctification of peoples in the insane rush toward the nihilism created by the aggressive and sinful demand for a completely secularized Progress at all costs.  What has been one of the logical and, thus, terrible consequences seen in today’s era?

A Clash of Two Rival Fundamentalisms: Secular-Humanist Ideology v. Islamic Ideology

Meanwhile, postmodern, PC, multiculturalist Europe, filled lavishly with such contemporary superstitions, is acting out its Death Wish by absurdly adopting a sociopolitical version of the “Battered Wife Syndrome” in dealing with the intolerant and contemptuous, so envious and spiteful, Muslim invaders.  A most peculiar love-hate relationship has been established; neither side can really resist each other in this death grasp, as if a drowning man cannot resist trying to strangle the person attempting to save him.

Enamored of their ideologically-based myth and magic to a perceived suicidal degree of strange proficiency to behold, progressive Europeans are quite busy actually subsidizing, sponsoring, their own extermination aided greatly by an irrationalism, by PC multiculturalism, knowing no limits.  Feminists, revealing the final decadence of their nihilistic ideology, refuse to denounce these Islamists who do brutalize and mutilate girls and women in the name of their Allah and the Koran.

Thus, they can’t easily see the forest because of the trees.  Their known decadence and degeneracy, moral disintegration and decline, furthermore, axiomatically prevents them from ever surely perceiving evident matters reasonably and objectively.  Their overtly PC pro-Islamic ideology, moreover, simply prevents them from seeing the actual nature of the Moslem enemies among them as a force intent on bringing enslavement and supremacy.  Realistically speaking, since terrorism is sanctioned by Islam, it could not be otherwise as to the intentions of such radicals.

Though it is anti-PC to speak this obvious truth, Sharia, being the fundamental antithesis of Western law, as was so wisely noted, by no less an authority than Justice Robert Jackson, in his Law in the Middle East, will certainly ensure that slavery can never be truly eradicated from the Islamic world until Islam is, in turn, itself fully eradicated.   Anyone who doubts this so logical assertion is, however, too naïve for words, for he is essentially ignorant of Islam as to its nature that integrally provokes aggression against any opposition.

An adopted irrational, talismanic mindset prevents them, the progressivists, from acknowledging the harsh reality that ought to be confronted; instead, the irrationality of their mythological and magical cognizance inherently blinds them to the overt truth of their fundamentally dangerous situation having, literally, many life-threatening dire consequences for the too often hubristic European peoples.

Post-Enlightenment, postmodern Europe has today left itself no other way out of this secular-humanist prison, turning now into an active death camp, which it has so very willingly created.  As for America, its own greatly debauched political, intellectual, and cultural elites wish the people of this country to get Europeanized increasingly, in the very same way, and so accommodate, through a much similar suicidal appeasement, our very own imported Moslem invaders.  It is a Death Wish, fueled by excessive affluence and its many known corruptive powers, and exercised on the part of the jaded and degraded elites in the entire Western world.⁸

Parenthetically, the too remarkable insanity of all this goes unnoticed by the bulk of the mass media, as it is, also, most integrally enthralled by contemporary magical and mythical notions, regarding various utopian ways of oddly perceiving the world and its doings.  Appropriate reading, concerning this deadly demonic debacle, would include Alice in Wonderland, besides Jean Raspail’s highly prophetic novel of a Europe heavily drowning in worshipped irrationality: The Camp of the Saints.

The certainly amazing form of circular reasoning observed in existence, meaning the greatest superstition of them all, reinforces daily each and every ideological decision to just supinely capitulate to the Islamic subjugation and conquest; this is done, with all the extant irrationality that can be sufficiently mustered, in the vain hope that Utopia will, sooner or later, arrive and all peoples will then join hands and, thus, mindlessly sing a rousing chorus of kumbaya forever and ever.

One sees manifestly here that the genuine final end of the line for sincere Rationalism must, therefore, only be an unmitigated nihilism, an overtly Nietzschean invitation to look into the boundless dark abyss indicative of (meaningless) death.

After each and every terrorist bombing, moreover, this bizarre belief, embalmed in witless adherence to the perverse kinds of myth and magic generated necessarily by ideological superstitions and mystical notions, becomes even more ingrained and powerful, which is, admittedly, frightening to behold. How may this be noticed amidst the blatant insanity too often observed in the contemporary world?

One needs to critically see that the nihilistic decay of modernity definitely helped to give rise to ISIS. The vast majority of the Islamic State’s followers have a schizophrenic and radical regard for the Western world; they are not, in fact, the purportedly impoverished peasants and small-town slum children who have joined this revolt to supposedly escape poverty, as often as is falsely alleged, both so nauseatingly and absurdly.

Though these ISIS adherents have benefited from the material and technological plenty of the West and its many affiliated, assorted realities in the world, they still so rejected this tendered cornucopia because of its obvious spiritual poverty and blindly turned, instead, toward a reified yet highly retrogressive version of Islam paralleling, in many wars, the 6^th century.  It is, in its most peculiar way, a rather bizarre kind of vile parody of a weird version of the Society for Creative Anachronism, a steampunk variety no less, and this needs to be correctly recognized.

Important reading would surely include Dr. Peter Hammond’s Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.  Also, Robert Spencer’s many volumes, including: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS, and his The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran.

One should also read: The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims, a collection of 63 essays edited by Robert Spencer, covering the horrific history of non-Muslim populations during and after the bloody conquest of their lands by hate-filled Muslims.

They seek, thus, to so dramatically conjure into being a version of a lost (and now seemingly magical) world devoted to absolute and unquestioned Moslem supremacy and primacy, as is to be savagely done through ISIS and its bloody evil victory, while at the same time ironically utilizing, in full contradiction, the West’s technological and computer-driven culture to fight against the denounced Occident with its, of course, terribly filthy, (imperfect), and detestable infidels. They too do seek a Western-style perfectionism on earth, by whatever euphemism.

The latter consideration, actually, being quite a genuinely great tribute supremely indicating their overt Westernization, of course, which they, so blithely, seek not to acknowledge; this is because it would then fundamentally, in fact, refute and undermine their hypocritical denial of a (Western-style) angst and, thus, cognate existentialist frustrations. How may this be easily known?

They are, for the most part, highly educated, urbanized, middle-class plus, pampered young adults who have variously tasted of the delights of the West and yet their very radicalization, ironically, forces them to yet abhor the abundant lifestyles that they have obviously so greatly benefited from in their own lives; they are, therefore, living, breathing human contradictions of a mesmerizing modernist civilization, wallowing ever in its magical Godless notions, now rapidly heading toward its much deserved moral bankruptcy and, thus, so predictable dead end.

Their noted nihilism, Islamic radicalism, and surely evident, fanatical Death Cult attitudes show them the vile way through modernity into the postmodernity of a utopian order, by definition, which can never really exist, meaning their mythical ersatz caliphate, their own chosen never-never land in which to excitedly worship death. There is no room here for having a classical mindset in any way whatsoever, as with the progressivist Westerners worshipping the Open Society that they, in turn, hate as radicalized, envy-filled Moslems.

Modernist or postmodernist Europeans are, therefore, morally and intellectually disarmed because, though unrecognized by them as if by a mental block, they do share similar notions; and, familiarity breeds contempt, in that both sides profoundly disrespect the older classical mentality, the normative mindset, by feeling an extreme or militant aversion to it.

Thus, the too often proffered set idea that either modernists or postmodernists are really too sophisticated or advanced thinkers of the Brave New World is no more than a very bad joke; this is because their fetid brains are so consumed with way too many irrational elements of magical and mythical suppositions, liberal-mystical notions, and miscellaneous odd factoids; it is a militant, secular-progressivist superstition, held dogmatically, that any anti-modernist or anti-postmodernist thought could actually, really, ever be universally valid as being compelling objective truth.

Only a fellow fool, an ideological boob, takes any of those people seriously as being profound cognoscenti of quite a rare breed.  Their denial of there being a metaphysical order, by their superstitious preferences for myth and magic, to a commonsense reality creates a form of pragmatic circular reasoning; this is by which they are then forever regressively trapped in an equally pragmatic maze of their own positivist, materialist, and secularist making, with no seeming way out of it.

Secular-humanism, though it is often denied vehemently, possesses the quality of a modernist religion; the high priests have among them many scientists, technocrats, and academicians; there do exist, in fact, Humanist Manifesto creeds, listing their dogmas of belief ⁹, that have been published; creedal violations of which end up meriting intellectualist scorn and contempt from the cognoscenti, illuminati, and their fellow adherents.  Such failures of belief or, perhaps, the skeptical lack thereof are held as if equivalent to the omission or commission of sins.

Most of these people are, definitely, within the sad category of what the confirmed atheist Eric Hoffer had called the True Believers.  They are, at least, as fanatical as true religious zealots dogmatically thinking that they really do have perfect doctrines demanding “rational” assent, though they may claim otherwise and, further, insist upon their reasonableness.

Think tanks, colleges, and universities act as their places of worship; these academic and many associated institutions are where the mystical worship of anti-free speech “speech codes” prohibitions of certain non-progressive ideas are, thus, enforced much more strictly than were indexes of prohibited books.

College and university campuses are then genuine PC hotbeds of Marxism, neo-Marxism, and rigid speech and thought control that do frighteningly parallel George Orwell’s 1984 and his Animal Farm.  Equally, Environmentalism is, for instance, just another useful propaganda front for helping to spread Communism by whatever rewording of terms.  In the way that Leftists are openly intolerant and bigoted against anti-progressive ideas, ISIS members are as overtly intolerant and bigoted against anti-Muslim ideas; in short, it takes one to know one.

What has happened to Western civilization and culture?  The vast majority of Intellectuals, by whatever euphemism, and other such people, who willingly do construct fictive or synthetic worlds out of their own often fervid imaginations, had rebelled increasingly against the past’s traditional metaphysical order of reality, meaning, in essence, the belief in God.  Their usually hidden goal, century by century, was the progressive, fundamental(ist), intolerant, bigoted, and, for most, absolute secularization without question of the civilization and its culture.

Both followers of ISIS and their anti-normative opponents are, in their own ways, dedicated fundamentalists; the former chose religion as to their preferred ideology, the latter prefers progressivism or collectivism as to their ideology.  Unlike Liberalism, Conservatism, and, in fact, all the ideologies of modernity and postmodernity, the profound thinking of the nonideological traditionalist right, being that it is never enthralled by myth or magic, sees this reality so clearly enough.

Fanatical adherents of the Islamic State and their progressivist adversaries are, thus, all more like mirror images, ironically, than they would ever suspect or, certainly, comprehend. As two magnets of the same polarity naturally repel each other, the same goes for what is happening in Europe.  How may this philosophical assertion be, however, much better understood?

Hobbes, for instance, could barely hide his militant atheism; Locke and Kant, through much neatly refined verbiage, were manifestly more successful.¹⁰   Through the cognitive, emotional (aka irrational) and other such powerful forces of modernity, the once traditional metaphysical order, and its sanctifying predilections, was gradually and, sometimes, through revolutions, quickly, meaning radically, replaced by the political order of reality as being ultimate in nature.

Further and further abstractionization and cognate alienation of man had, thus, logically continued through the eras, regarding this fundamentalist belief set against the Lord God Almighty.

By the mid-19^th century, Herman Melville, e. g., easily saw the conflict and depicted it as Moby Dick; both he and his friend Nathaniel Hawthorne, as known through their correspondence, knew that the story was an allegory, filled with religious symbolism, in which the Great White Whale stood for God; and, Captain Ahab sought by killing the beast to do an act of atheism by vilely attacking God Himself.  As ought to be appreciated, the rather quite startling substance of this novel, as to its so high metaphysical antagonism, makes, by definition, for great literature.

For as Ahab so revealingly says: “ ‘Tis the thing behind the mask I chiefly hate; the malignant thing that has plagued mankind since time began; the thing that maws and mutilates our race, not killing us outright but letting us live on, with half a heart and half a lung!”  The ardent plea and hatred of militant atheism has, therefore, rarely been seen more clearly, as the history of the modern age’s modernity can attest in its baleful legacy to the Western world.  But, what had happened to Western civilization?

In Europe, the offered universality and theocentrism, e. g., of the Roman Catholic Church, its openly doctrinal Christocentrism, was later replaced by an increasingly sectarian Protestantism, nationalism, modern imperialism, advancing secularism, and other modernist ideologies extant throughout the entire continent.  One can, both readily and insightfully, get a true and fairly comprehensive sense of this reality by reading Millar’s Unpopular Essays in the Philosophy of History.  It is evident how Protestantism helped further an increasing secularization of intellect, society, and culture.

Modernity with its noted, ever invasive anthropocentrism (aka atheism), the quite secularly functional and pragmatic point of view, reigned supremely triumphant at last, as obviously was seen in World Wars I & II, nuclear weapons, many genocides, and much else.

And yet, postmodernism in cognition, the neologism here of “ideologicocentricism,” thought that this was not really enough change or radicalization needed; ideological order now seeks to replace all the previous forms of mere political order, simple statism, or tyranny.  The 20^th century immanentist failures of Nazism, Communism, and Fascism, meaning efforts to finally achieve the apotheosis of the State among men as was desired by Hegel, to help establish Utopia on earth, taught the “lesson” to the postmodernists that the political order must now be replaced by a truly ideological one.

Past failures, producing tens upon tens of millions of dead bodies, need not ever stop Progress, for the Great White Whale must still be killed at all costs.  Malcolm Muggeridge, for instance, had sagaciously perceived that 20^th century civilization (or, what had passed for it), was fully different from all previous civilizations, because it so actually wished to assume that God does not exist.  How may this critical asseveration be more insightfully understood?

Admittedly, this above and accurate rendition of history is not to be found in any textbooks, which are, typically, written either by nominalist-inspired intellectuals or those who wish to do obeisance to the intellectualist, radical-bourgeois point of view.  Totalitarianism at the political level, seen in the cited mass movements of the 20^th century, was still found to be not enough as to a both requisitely sufficient and proficient coercive power.  More intensification was needed to perfect totalitarianism beyond any mere authoritarian efforts at mind control and population control.

People, now, must be so forced through all emotional, social, cultural, aesthetic, semantic, legislative, judicial, executive, and any other means to absolutely conform to the crescively pervasive dictates of the ideological order, as currently being all inclusive and, in addition, made to seem just completely normal. It’s a scary kind of crude Pavlovian behaviorism gone mad, abnormality is, thence, worshipped as being so acceptably normative, so truly PC,  for the 21^st century.

Thus, as an example, the ideological order will see to it that homosexuality and any other deviant behavior is not simply tolerated as in a mere political order; raw deviance is to be highly promoted, protected, and enforced, if necessary, against all those who may so oppose such “once” vile and aberrant behavior; sodomy of any kind or all kinds is to become ever officially institutionalized, established, as a set foundational and societal, cultural, and political mandate, a clear categorical imperative of progressive governmental policy and its related programs.  The once normal or normative life must, therefore, be all legally and otherwise denounced as being totally abnormal, against all now universalized “human rights.”

Its evil enforcement is, therefore, to become irredeemably absolute.  Sodomy practiced upon children and babies is to be made into a legally sanctified civil right, backed both substantially and substantively by the law and a PC society and culture, and dedicated to the liberal Open Society concept.  Bestiality is to be legalized as well, for nothing must impede the corrupting dictates of the Open Society and its worship.

Parents who may wish to save or prevent their children from being sodomized will soon have to be arrested and very severely fined; if found to be recalcitrant in this regard, imprisonment, logically, then awaits them.  The perfection of tyranny is now to be the highest goal pursued by the contemporary State due to its total ideologization, as is so quite routinely demanded by the Left.

The ever aggressive ideological order must, as noted, be supremely absolute to be effective and, moreover, made increasingly irresistible and not just on a yearly basis as to compulsions, which are to be multiplied and reinforced whenever and wherever required.  Is such a future conceivable given the both current and ongoing radicalization and defilement of contemporary reality?

To tens of millions of people, not being PC is the equivalent to committing a mortal sin, as to its quite incredible magnitude and significance; for Catholics, even a single unrepented mortal sin denies the soul both beatitude and Heaven for eternity.  The ever value-neutral Open Society, furthermore, demands obedience of its controlled subjects set well beyond what had been the mere severe dictates of a totalitarian political order or oppressive regime of power; the Good Society of normative values must be crushed; the Free Society of traditional-classical constitutional liberty must be fully suppressed.

There is to be, therefore, an inner reflexive consent desired by which every postmodern person then becomes an ideological robot attuned axiomatically to the needs of what is assumed to be an amoral order in postmodern society and its attendant decadent culture.  People, ideally, are to force themselves to be PC all of the time and urge others on as well, for Rousseau “knew” that, e. g., men must be forced to be free.

There is to be no way out offered, for the secular-humanist, perfectionist quest for Utopia, which is always denying the effects of Original Sin, must thence logically end in Hell; first on earth, then in the hereafter, which will, posthumously, shock many, many hundreds of millions of people.

Conclusion

However, the only genuine solution to the endlessly multiplying ethical and moral dilemmas, paradoxes, and enigmas of either modernity or postmodernity remains, as ever, the Roman Catholic faith, when received, believed, and practiced in the true fullness of its orthodoxy.  The truth shall make men free, not ideology.

Furthermore, Thomistic scholasticism, not just any variety of scholasticism, should be properly utilized to teach Roman Catholicism, religion and theology, to all inquiring minds seeking to be liberated from both modernist and postmodernist myth and magic.   It is an enlightening and liberating experience and a normal sustainable way of life freely offered and properly consistent with Natural Law and right reason, with theocentrism and moral order.

Nothing less will do, nothing more is needed.  Alternatively, it needs to be recognized that the continual and base confusing and confounding of proper and needed rationality with the surely absurd ideology of Rationalism offers only a dead end, with corpses resulting every time it is tried and so found wanting.  Additionally, neither myth nor magic, as has been discussed in this article, can adequately fill the human spirit and fully answer life’s ultimate questions, especially when faced with the finality of death.

For as the wise G. K. Chesterton correctly put the matter, Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.  All of this, as could be guessed, is then certainly much more than getting well beyond mere myth or magic, besides so wisely rejecting postmodern, nominalist reprimitivization, rebarbarization, in its ugly entirety.

And, in brief, that so monumental difference says it all.  Once again, what is found to be so urgently needed is the both intelligent and spiritual removal of the dark magic, through the demythologization of a much damaged temporal order, for its then requisite sacralization and sanctification in, by, and through Jesus Christ.

Athanasius contra mundum!

Notes:

1. This was not really a small achievement on the part of the Catholic Church. By removing layer upon layer of mythological beliefs, century by century, from formerly primitive or near-primitive peoples during a civilizing process, there came into being the rational (not rationalist) mind of a Christian.  A subject or citizen was able to better face the world objectively, in a way that could be rationally understood, without irrational or superstitious regard for any supernatural nature spirits, assorted demons, or many spectral phantasms that could paralyze a human mind and spirit.

2.  There is a distinct Roman Catholic doctrine pertaining to the notion of free will.  It is involved with religious and theological implications and ramifications that have created this assertion of distinctiveness. This means that it is not ever really the same as Protestant or other ideas pertaining to free will or the lack thereof, as was taught by Luther. How serious is any attempt, asinine as such, to refute free will?

The denial of free will is simultaneously the irresponsible and God-defiant denial of man’s own precious humanity, which did not occur to Luther because of his nominalist reductionism, and of man’s being created in the image of God, the, thus, created beingness of one who, also, possesses an immortal soul.  Catholicism, therefore, has righteous contempt for Luther’s quite arrogant blasphemy because it is nothing else but.

3.  Some readers may question the inclusion of the minimum wage.  Yet, it is a superstitious fallacy and a species of mythical and magical thinking nonetheless.  California Gov. Jerry Brown, in April 2016, publicly acknowledged that it, in fact, makes no economic sense, but he said he still supports it for moral reasons. The contention is that it is for helping poor and working class people but, in fact, does just the opposite.

Entry-level jobs are destroyed, potential employment gets replaced too often by dead-end welfare checks, small businesses can never start up in such a clearly dis-economic environment, businesses then feel forced to leave such states further eliminating employment opportunities, the cost of business increases as owners subject to such unfair laws must logically increase their prices, etc.  The baleful chain reaction is limitless, the real and lasting harm done is endless.  But, progressive politicians and their supporters learn nothing!

No rational economists, knowing the truly vast bulk of studies, books, documentation, facts, realities, etc. concerning its well-proven negative results, would now support having a minimum wage. Brown’s decision, therefore, makes about as much “rational” sense as performing an annual rain dance, in Sacramento, at government expense.  Integral moral schizophrenia is, therefore, the ever true hallmark of the progressive mind.  How may this be so easily known?

One small illustrative example: Paypal’s simultaneous expansion of services into Communist Cuba, in April of 2016, while it had protested vigorously against North Carolina’s religious freedom law in, of course, the supposed name of “human rights” with a boycott no less.  Q. E. D.

A “baptized” version of the minimum wage is, unfortunately, the equivalent “just wage doctrine” of the Catholic Church, possessing the same difference, as to all such predictive ill effects.

4.  How else can one explain the bizarre phenomena of progressivist Europeans actually paying Moslems to degrade, humiliate, and subdue them, while attempting to simultaneously deny that such savage, rude, and brutal behavior is abhorrent to plain commonsense, when any people have retained at least the rudiments of self-respect and rational cognizance?

This is common “life” in the bold age of poststructuralism, sensitivity training (aka thought police), the self-esteem (read: self-worship) movement, radical individualism, egalitarianism, the politics of meaning, race-class-gender analysis, New Age religions, racial or ethnic tribalism, resentment theory, and irrational denunciations of logocentrism, meaning the rabid anti-intellectualism of the Left!

5.  The highly important Catholic doctrine of Original Sin is pregnant with overwhelming and heuristic axiological, epistemological, and, especially, ontological implications and ramifications galore.  It explains, e. g., why collectivism, Utopianism, humanitarianism, altruism, perfectionism, etc. must always fail.  Every attempt, filled with mankind’s so unctuous vanity, to create a supposed New Eden on earth must lead without any exception, sooner or later, to the then necessary death camps.  Nihilism = death.

For instance, Rousseau’s integral fallacy of supposedly “forcing men to be free” produces only bloody horrors and terrors due to the ever imperfect (read: sinful) human condition.

6.  It helps to understand that he is not some “humble” priest raised to the papacy; this man of darkness is a committed religious revolutionary dedicated to destroying Catholic orthodoxy by instituting a pseudo-Catholic version of the 18^th century Enlightenment.  He is a retrogressive thinker who surely wishes to incorporate both modernist and postmodernist myth and magic into Holy Mother Church, based upon his vile understanding of progressivism and Liberation Theology, who then deliberately blurs, darkens, and distorts the Light of Christ.

Pope Francis, therefore, needs to be honestly recognized as a man of true evil, for he is horribly assisting millions of souls to be condemned to Hell for all eternity.  Thus, there is a debate of whether or not he is actually a Catholic; perhaps, he may be either an agnostic or simply a crypto-atheist.

7.  See his Reflections on Violence as to violence being a very needed political weapon. He was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His idea of the power of myth in people’s lives stimulated related thinking among both Marxists and Fascists. It is, together with his enthusiastic defense of violence, the chief intriguing contribution for which he is most often recollected.

8.  It might have seemed too terribly superfluous to again note, within the main body of this article, the many true parallels with the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, as to its causes that look like today’s routine headlines; after a while, the basic rendition of the reasons for decadence gets tedious because, in truth, it has all been said before by many writers.

The ancient poet Decimus Junius Juvenalis or Juvenal was a Roman poet of the Silver Age of Latin literature, the last and truly most powerful of all the Roman satirical poets, who had excoriated homosexuality and its both vilely destructive effects and affects on upon society, culture, and the debased level of civilization itself.

9.  The Humanist Manifesto I was, in fact, promulgated and written in 1933, the second Humanist Manifesto was written in 1973; the third one came out in 2003.  Thus, humanism or the humanist-secularist religion demands respect as a serious proposition; it is definitely not meant as a joke, for it presents itself publicly as being creedal.  And, there may be a rather superstitious fixation on the number 3, though it’s probably not Trinitarian in nature, one could, so reasonably, guess.

10.  Leo Strauss, through his intense study and advocacy of what he called secret writing, was able to put together a convincing form of philosophical argumentation detecting how such writers as Kant were, in fact, crypto-atheists who merely pretended to be Christians or Christian enough to get their publications into print.  Strauss offered and extrapolated upon such an idea in his book Persecution and the Art of Writing.

Kant surely knew that, in an age of censorship where much societal conformity could, also, be even more strenuously demanding than just a mere political propriety, he had to carefully write, so as not to openly provoke criticism of him as being an avowed atheist.  It would have, otherwise, made his life difficult, at the least.

He realized full well that his bold attempt to more successfully and subtly propagate certain ideas tending really toward promoting strong disbelief would, however, be much better received, more easily condoned, and read by a wider public if he, at least, seemed, on the broad surface of appearances, to be a believer.  Of course, the odd notion of such “esoteric writing” goes fully against the grain of all Liberalism in thought with its explicitness, which is, also, true for how the simplistic Anglo-Saxon Liberal mind rejects all notions of conspiracy theories as being from the hothouse brains of kooks and crackpots only.

Among many others, the historically, famously, and notably documented Bolshevik and Nazi conspiracies notwithstanding, of course.  Also, e. g., David Horowitz and others, decades later, admitted that they were once active conspirators, in that none of the late 1960s and early 1970s antiwar riots were ever actually spontaneous affairs.  And, again, conspiracies, e. g., in ancient Rome with its civil wars, were simply part of the very air being breathed.

Question: Could “enlightened” people be, therefore, mainly wrong also about esoteric writing, as they so evidently are about many conspiracies?

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hadley Arkes, Natural Rights and the Right to Choose.

____. Beyond the Constitution.

____. The Philosopher in the City.

____. First Things: An Inquiry into the First Principles of Morals and Justice.

____. The Return of George Sutherland: Restoring a Jurisprudence of Natural Rights.

____. Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law.

Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline.

M. E. Bradford, A Better Guide Than Reason: Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

____. Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution.

____. The Reactionary Imperative: Essays Literary and Political.

Budziszewki, Nearest Coast of Darkness: A Vindication of the Politics of Virtues.

____. The Resurrection of Nature: Political Theory and Human Character.

____. The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man.

____. True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment.

____. What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide.

____. Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law.

Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy (multivolume source).

Rauol E. Desvernine, Democratic Despotism.

Anthony Esolin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization.

Étienne Gilson, God and Philosophy.

____. From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution.

____. The Unity of Philosophical Experience.

____. The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy.

____. The History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages.

____. Three Quests of Philosophy.

____. The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.

____. Methodical Realism.

____. Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge.

Kevin R. C. Gutzman, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

John H. Hallowell, The Decline of Liberalism as an Ideology.

____. Main Currents in Modern Political Thought.

____. The Moral Foundation of Democracy.

Russell Hittinger, The First Grace: Rediscovering The Natural Law In A Post-Christian World

James Kalb, The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command.

Willmoore Kendall, The Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition.

____. The Conservative Affirmation.

____. Willmoore Kendall Contra Mundum.

Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot.

____. Liberty or Equality.

Forrest McDonald, A Constitutional History of the United States.

____. Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution

____. States’ Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876.

____. E Pluribus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic, 1776-1790.

Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.

____. Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

____. Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry.

____. The Tasks of Philosophy.

____. Ethics and Politics.

Fr. C. N. R. McCoy, On the Intelligibility of Political Philosophy.

____. The Structure of Political Thought.

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

____. The Ideology of Max Weber.

Thomas Molnar, Return to Philosophy.

____. Archetypes of Thought.

____. The Pagan Temptation.

____. Politics and the State: the Catholic View.

____. God and The Knowledge of Reality.

Thomas P. Neill, The Rise and Decline of Liberalism.

____. Makers of the Modern Mind.

____. Religion and Culture.

Gerhart Niemeyer, The Communist Ideology, Between Nothingness and Paradise.

____. Aftersight and Foresight.

Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays.

____. On Human Conduct.

____. The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Scepticism.

____. Hobbes on Civil Association.

____. What Is History?

____. The Vocabulary of a Modern European State.

Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language Abuse of Power.

____. For the Love of Wisdom.

____. In Defense of Philosophy.

____. The Four Cardinal Virtues.

Paul A. Rahe’s Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect.

Heinrich A. Rommen, The State in Catholic Thought.

____. The Natural Law.

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

____. Christianity and Politics.

____. The Politics of Heaven and Hell: Christian Themes from Classical, Medieval, and Modern Political Philosophy.

____. Reason, Revelation, and the Foundations of Political Philosophy.

____. At the Limits of Political Philosophy: From the “Brilliant Errors” to the Things of Uncommon Importance.

____. The Mind That Is Catholic: Philosophical and Political Essays.

Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History.

____. On Tyranny.

____. Persecution and the Art of Writing.

____. Liberalism, Ancient and Modern.

____. Thoughts on Machiavelli.

____. What Is Political Philosophy?

____. The City and Man.

____. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes.

J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy.

____. The Myth of the Nation and the Vision of Revolution: The Origins of Ideological Polarisation in the Twentieth Century.

____. Political Messianism – the Romantic Phase.

Stephen Tonsor, Equality, Decadence, and Modernity.

Robert C. Tucker, The Marxian Revolution.

Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Christianity and Political Philosophy.

____. Being and Knowing.

____. Man’s Knowledge of Reality.

Bertram D. Wolfe, Marxism.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

____. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.

 

References

http://www.michael-oakeshott-association.com/

http://www.morec.com/schall/

http://www.leostrausscenter.uchicago.edu/

 

October 2015, Vatican Bishops Synod’s Urgent Embrace of Nihilism

October 2015, Vatican Bishops Synod’s Urgent Embrace of Nihilism:

Theorization of Roman Catholic Theology and Historical Inevitability

By Joseph Andrew Settanni

Anyone who truly understands Roman Catholic theology realizes that there must logically and reasonably be great reasons for hope, meaning especially that orthodox belief, orthodoxy, will definitely survive.  But, not just sacred theology or mere belief proves the truth of this assertion, contrary to Satan and the forever embittered forces of Hell.

Starting, at the very least, with the Manicheans then the Arians, Albigensians, Protestants, French Revolutionaries, Communists, New Agers, etc., each successive historical wave of assault, either supinely or aggressively, had assumed its own historical inevitability without question. But, is the Great Apostasy, as many do fear, achieving its evil fulfillment now?

If the Roman Catholic Church were, of course, merely, only, a religious institution, then such a judgment that the tide of history must run only in one direction, in an inevitable manner, would have then seemed fairly logical and reasonable. This would have appeared to be the case both to the engaged and committed participants of the quite vigorous challenges made as well as to many outside observers with (at least) presumed impartiality. Or, so the broad presumption usually goes.

However, regardless of the people, the human beings involved, who have often been sinful, imperfect, disreputable, or just otherwise not quite the best of mortal specimens, the Church is also, by definition, a supernatural institution, or else it would be a meaningless nothing. The perniciousness of what is projected to occur at the October Synod exists because the nihilism involved is directed toward the very heart of affected dogmas and doctrines, the basis of the Faith of the Church, though many rosaries said to the Blessed Mother of God, the Queen of Salvation, may prevent such a triumph of evil.

The Holy Ghost is, for instance, assured to always exist and to protect it from the very gates of Hell, according to the known theological understanding proclaimed as being the actual truth. There is, in truth, no real middle position, no via media, to this critical point that could be held to be theologically acceptable for Catholicism, for the one Church founded by Christ. It then possesses indefectibility, indissolubility, and authority. This is, equally, as the Sign of the Cross is the outward visual expression of what ought to be an interior faith, not just a religious institution.

What, therefore, is so adamantly asseverated here?  No real need exists, furthermore, for the illegitimate importation of yet more secularist ideology into the ecclesiastical realm, for the aims of this future gathering seem directed athwart sacredness, set against proper holiness.  Yet, no surprise ought to exist if offense may be given to the Trinitarian Dogma itself at that meeting. Are such matters to be put into semantic jeopardy?

For brief illustration of what is easily meant, St Paul proclaimed that if Jesus the Christ had not, in fact, truly risen from the dead, as is to be absolutely believed without any question, then the whole Christian faith is entirely in vain, held then to no useful purpose whatsoever. For the valid goal of humanity, its truly highest achievement and purpose, is then the worship and glorification of God, not of human beings, (however much this may be heatedly questioned today, of course).

Any proper theory concerning effective and substantive Catholic theology, meaning genuine orthodoxy, must axiomatically accept this without any questioning as dogmatic veracity, as factual truth, not just, perhaps, as a peculiar Christian suggestion or, again perhaps, merely opinionated afterthought.  As Jesus is said to be the Christ, the Messiah, there are, in fact, cognate implications and ramifications.

Religious Theorization of Roman Catholicism

A radical supernatural break in all of human history, a literal theophany, had forever occurred by the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the Corpus Christi Himself, which eternally defined the past and future from the time of that most glorious birth. And, this is no small matter.  It is literally a cosmic event, not a simple anamnesis, as so many Christian “reformers” allege.

The monumental historicity of the only Christ, the true Messiah, rises above all other beliefs that are then axiomatically relegated to mere fables if put into contradiction. Why is this confidently said?   Supernatural reality forever trumps human or natural reality, the latter is subject to mythology and superstition, not the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus was supremely needed to come to deal with the truly terrible consequences of Original Sin by, through his Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension, providing the then totally requisite means of actual salvation, as afforded through His sacrifice and the belief in Him as the only Way, the Truth, and the Life. Mere Christianity is never enough, however, whenever compared with the theological fullness of Catholicism, Apostolic succession, and the sacred hierarchy of truths, with the very basis of all ontological truth fully included.

This relates to the historicity of that which has been known, through the ages, as being Catholic. In the 3^rd century AD, there is St. Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Catholic Church.  One could cite, in the 4^th century, the Letters of St. Pacianus who had explicitly declared himself a Catholic, not just a Christian; in the following century, St. Vincent of Lerins, in his Commonitoria, noted the meaning of Catholic. Such actually used terminology was not a supposed fictional creation of the Catholic Reformation made many centuries later; it was, simply, coterminous, coexistent, with both the existence and growth of the early ecclesiastical reality itself, not artificial at all.

And, of course, there quite abundantly is St. Augustine’s Contra Epistolam Manicaei, De Fide et Symbolo, De Vera Religione, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, and his The City of God; also, there is Boethius’ De Fide Catholica and his De Trinitate, Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Discourses, St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans, and Lactantius’ Divine Institutes.  More need not be said.

The above, just being a very small sampling, still greatly illustrates what now ought to be seen, contrary to the endless fallacies of Protestantism, as to the theologically important reality of there being a very known, well defined, and understood Catholic Faith, meaning Catholicism, nothing less; the early Church, the Church Fathers, these preachers, and the Patristic Tradition in general, explicitly and continually, all proclaim this obvious truth without any question. Q. E. D.

There are many critically important matters, however, that do mark out Roman Catholicism as the most radically different belief that distinguishes it forever from anything else as a faith, especially Protestantism in any and all of it various forms. Ontologically speaking, it is definitely an incarnational faith made forever absolutely explicit with the truly remarkable dogma of transubstantiation; in contrast, any Protestant (read: deficient) thoughts of consubstantiation are just a mere mockery or jest at most that evilly detracts from the supernatural righteousness of the Holy God, the Supreme Being Himself.

Against the amassed forces of Hell, the metaphysical order had both powerfully infused and illuminated the ontological order of reality, and, thus, was made manifest the New Creation, the Christ, for all time, past and future. The supernatural order of reality, greater than any “religious” symbolizations, stands forever above and beyond the mere natural order of reality; further than that, anthropocentricism, secular humanism, is always strongly refuted by the Christocentric appreciation of the meaning of all life on earth, which purpose is to give glory to the Creator. And, one sure means of rendering glory, for instance, is certainly the traditional Latin Mass with its concern for reverence and orthodoxy of belief.

A symbolic “Christ” is, therefore, an abstraction not worth either believing in or dying for, at a minimum. How is this to be here known?  Transubstantiation, thus, makes the Catholic faith inherently Christocentric, radically so, in both ontological substance and orientation without any question whatsoever. And, if nothing else, this ought to be perceived as the truth for all of valid Christianity, for all of heresy, in contrast, is demonic in nature.

The, for instance, simply symbolic Christianity of all of Protestantism, moreover, is doubly seen to be simply unworthy of martyrdom and casts imperious contempt, furthermore, upon religious belief itself; this is because it, furthermore, acts so strangely as the vile attempted rationalization of epistemological meaning and axiological truth simultaneously, which is so cognitively quite obnoxious. One sees here how the alleged Reformed Religion is necessarily the attempted theonomic (thelogico-normative) diminishment of Christ and His eternal glory that must be held, in truth, as being just axiomatically anathema to all genuine Christians.  But, this could be only if the supportive logic is well understood.

It is known that innumerable former Protestants, such as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, G. K. Chesterton, Monsignor Ronald Knox, etc., had correctly figured out that most salient fact quite long ago. Why? The Truth is indivisible, though there are three Persons in the Holy Trinity, yet, the Godhead is forever One, which remains a mystery not subject to any gnosis, just a belief of the true Faith. All are to be united in Christ, not divided into (increasing numbers of) sectarian bodies, which is ever a tremendous and invidious scandal that no committed Christian should tolerate, though it is very pleasing to Satan, of course.

And, the movement ever further toward Christian orthodoxy demands the good realization in belief of the compulsive desire to obtain the fullness of Christ, not any partial attribute(s) seen in, e. g., an ever increasing multiplicity of diverse and necessarily divergent Protestant sects, offshoots, and cults. The subdivisions of variegated, motley, beliefs are potentially endless and should, at the least provoke, tortured Protestant consciences, if not tormented bodies.

Each man, whether consciously admitted to or not, ends up being his own pope; the choice of alleged “orthodoxies” becomes a subjective preference justified, no less, by imperiously citing Scripture, a practice that can and usually becomes spiritually abusive. It has been well said, moreover, that the Devil can cleverly quote Scripture too.  But, fortunately, Satan can never pray the rosary.  Q. E. D.

A rather simple formula here explains the contrary proclaimed indesinent truth: The more Christian, the more orthodox, the more Catholic, for Catholicism and Christ are held to be indivisible. Who says one says the other, simultaneously, as to the indicative theorization of the perennial Faith with its defense of the Trinitarian Dogma as being absolutely essential.

Those informed converts and many others rather perspicaciously saw, therefore, how all of Protestantism is inherently incommensurate and, ultimately, ontologically incompatible with the definitive integral nature of Christianity itself. Catholicism, opposed to dogmatic inversions unrecognized as such by many divergent doctrinal Protestantisms, seeks the mysterious peace of superbly Christian unity. True faith, as opposed to all the theological differences of the so-called Reformers, is indivisible.

In contrast, rationalization of belief for supposed explicitness peels the philosophical onion to get at the real onion that disappears through an odd religious sort of devotion to secularism, for atheism, also, too often goes unrecognized as a faith. Heterodoxy logically results.  And yet, e. g., the opposite extreme of (Protestant) Evangelism produces its own errors, inclusive of so wrongly pitting faith against reason, in effect, God against man.

Most of what goes by the name of “Christian” today is a horrid partial “Christianity” not worthy of the name, for these worthless fantasies will not at all suffice regarding the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, or Hell.   Equally, the desire of the “reformed religion” to absurdly derogate the Blessed Virgin Mary into being either a minor or obscure functionary of their larger speculative creations speaks ill of the truth of the Immaculate Conception, the Queen of Heaven, the Mediatrix of all Graces.

The title “Mediatrix” refers to Roman Catholic Mariology’s denotation concerning the important intercessory role of the Holy Virgin Mary as a facilitator in the Salvific Redemption by her Son, Jesus Christ, and He, thus, bestows graces through her. Mediatrix, however, is not any new “papist” invention but, rather, an ancient title that has been actually expressed by a number of saints since at least the 5th century AD, for Blessed Mary is venerated, not worshipped, contrary to the ever perpetuated lies of the alleged Reformers.

The so-called Reformers, being hypocrites, who claimed that they just wanted to get back to the early/primitive Christian Church conveniently ignored, as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman had observed, most of the history of the early Christian Church in their highly skewed exegetical process (what today would be more simply called deconstructionism) seen by their alleged “reform.”   The baleful consequence was the ugly shredding of Christendom by their assumed Reformation, a massive epistemological attack set evilly against the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which every Christian ought to have recognized as such.

Also, in their hotly supposed desire to eliminate any intermediaries between man and God, they ironically kept the intermediate institution of then necessarily intermediary ministers of the Gospel. Any real Christian, with half a brain, however, would logically prefer the Mediatrix of all Graces to the various, questionable blessings of a quite variegated hodgepodge of less than perfect presbyters and others.  So much for Protestantism, with it Sola Scriptura.  Such crudely assumed Christian “primitivism” deserves, so rightly, the historical and theological scorn that has been heaped upon it.

On the contrary, both faith and reason must spiritually unite for the then betterment of the perspicacious perception of the ontological order made significant intensely by the noetic realization of metaphysical order for achieving its end of offering salvation for humanity. For Catholics, the end of ontological order, both its correct teleology and theological entelechy, is God, which means that doctrinally such matters as the sacred filioque is not a mere semantic joke.

It is a requisitely positive sign and insight of true Catholicity itself, as is Apostolic succession and the eternally proclaimed hypostatic union of the Christ, all that and more to compose the ever necessary sensus fidei of orthodox Christian belief, not its necessarily heterodox opposite as was preferred by the so-called Reformers with their quite practiced scriptural legerdemain; thus, e. g, when Martin Luther wanted to so cleverly excise the Epistles of St. James, the uproar was such that he had recanted; otherwise, his massive “Stalinist” redaction efforts, demonic in conception, would have then succeeded.

This quite vile attempt at such unholy deliberate adulteration was not just primitive but rather positively imbecilic, not primitive Christianity certainly. The truly earliest Lutheran, Luther himself, thought he, committing the sin of presumption, could really hubristically do much better than Holy Writ itself.  Yet, Catholicism did not disappear, of course, nor has the  traditional Latin Mass.

There is far more involved, as can be understood, than the asserted theological primitivism, the reification, of just saying that one has a personal relationship with a personal Jesus or Savior, guaranteeing salvation by faith.  How so?  Any such true personal relationship is obviously equivalent to an earthly beatification, though unrecognized by all Protestants due to their ever predisposed soteriological myopia. Christian beatification in Heaven is utterly unlike, e. g., the assumed, highly erotic satisfaction of carnal lusts, as in the Muslim Paradise with its 72 eternally pulchritudinous virgins awaiting each crazy martyr, roughly equivalent to the Norse warrior’s entrance to Valhalla.

Anything less than puissant Catholicism, furthermore, is representative of degrees of paganism, as is, in such a sense, the too often disguised paganism of Protestantism. Also, monotheism or Judaism is not enough; paganism, therefore, is not just adhering to a multiplicity of gods, which needs to be critically understood; being thoroughly Christocentric is theologically essential at all times for avoiding being less than properly Christian.

Anything less than the fullness of Christ results in forms of paganism, though much too often not recognized as such, for Saul, a devout Jew, had to be literally knocked off his high horse before becoming St. Paul. The absolute holiness of God, thus, takes necessary precedence first, last, and always, not Sola Scriptura. The true essence of Protestantism (aka nominalism), thus, is not the proffered purification of faith; it is, however, its actual contemptible corruption, whether intentional or not.

For Catholics, as an example, Purgatory exists for the purification of those souls not yet ready for the true sanctification, beatification, of the life of the world to come, for attempted holiness on this planet, no matter how seemingly great, is not enough; it must be transferred into Heaven as the object of salvation, the Kingdom of Christ, set beyond any mere purgatorial minimum because that ever exalted realm is logically everlasting, not further transitional to any other place. And, Heaven is an actual location because, among many other reasons, the physical bodies of Lord Jesus, High Priest and Eternal Judge, and the Blessed Virgin Mary are there.

In context, one then perceives how extremely anemic Protestantism and any other belief is with necessarily attenuated or greatly emaciated concepts, if any, of soteriology, doxology, Christology, eschatology, dogmatics, apologetics, etc. The rejection of Catholicism is then the rejection of the Truth; no middle way exists whatsoever because, sooner or later, that leads the way toward the degenerative path of relativism.

However, the continuing existence of Protestantism, New Age, and other beliefs testifies vividly to how nominalism in cognition has almost totally turned anti-classical, modern, and what usually goes as postmodern thinking upside down and inside out by its poisonous subjectivism; the refutation and confounding of heretics and other enemies of God is righteously needed, not dialogue or ecumenism. For in truth, the demonic opponents of Christ have a pure hatred for “sweet reason” and never seek supplication, much less atonement. Q. E. D.

In this cantankerous and too often defiant upside down and inside out mental world, an effort to start with the ontological arguments of, e. g., St. Thomas Aquinas are no longer adequate to the task. Granted that there can be isolated successes as to making some people agree with reason and logic in a traditional manner, but this is not, in truth, compelling evidence as to what is needed for a majority. Most contemporary intellects are inherently insensate to the requisite noetic characteristics and hard cognitive demands of classical reasoning and logic.  Nominalism, thus, severely flattens the human  intellect.

Today, for better or worse, one must start with axiology, with all its deficiencies, to go up to epistemology and then, rising still much higher, toward ontology. Why?  Because nominalism has become so incredibly pandemic as to be, seemingly, fully coequal with the very air that people breathe. The world, e. g., greatly despises the notion of the mortification of the flesh, thinking it barbaric, brutal, and insane, done for the love of God, while still praising all bloody murderous abortions, surely quite barbaric, brutal, and insane, as a moral, social, cultural, and political good of the highest order. Good is boldly said to be evil, evil is loudly said to be good, with a bold contempt for classical Natural Law, as, e. g., with “married” sodomites.

Any simple or uncritical appeal to Thomism/neo-Thomism will not work, especially, e. g., as Pope Francis has so, increasingly, provoked much frightening speculation as to if these are apocalyptic times. Many wonder if he is, in fact, the prophesied anti-Christ or not. It has been well said, moreover, that someone can smile and smile and smile and still be a villain.

One can learn much of his overt apostasy, for instance, from his truly Teilhardian jesuitical monograph: Laudato Si.  One can see, of course, that he is in great need of fraternal correction, an act of spiritual mercy, since he is not the anti-Christ, for Francis has not manifested the required “signs and wonders” necessarily requisite for this preposterous accusation to hold. Scholastic theology, for the adept, can easily guard some people against simply accepting such wild allegations or various animadversions, but the masses themselves, however, are not so mentally equipped and fall prey, as ever, to much nonsense and popular superstition.

As can be perceived above, the principles of what may be properly denominated as classical Thomism have to be critically exercised within the context of a fundamental cognitive disaster of truly gargantuan portions. For instance, it is absurd to profoundly discuss, e. g., the basics of collegiate Catholic theology if the prospective students have no fair preparative understanding of even Natural Theology; they would lack the requisite mental tools for rational and informed thinking. Without that, even attempted critical theological exegesis would, in fact, be meaningless.

Catholicism, therefore, must be properly understood and comprehended as an exoteric, not an esoteric, faith as is, e. g., Gnosticism. This vividly means that the simplest peasant or workman imaginable, as well as the most sophisticated and educated prelate or pope, can know all the basics of the Faith, as surely as it ought to be known that the Church can never accept the immorality of artificial contraception, homosexuality, or the possibility of ordaining women as priests, all are, by definition, forever inherently anti-Catholic in nature.

There is, in fact, absolutely no requirement at all for gaining any amount of (assumed) esoteric or supposedly hidden knowledge whatsoever. And, moreover, this is an extremely important, critical, and highly significant point to suitably grasp at the very beginning of this discussion, in spite of the aforementioned prevalence and inroads of nominalism.

Christianity and Catholicism, in particular, as its ever proper and highest expression of such religious and theological truth, consists of public, not private, knowledge. Almost all of what needs to be fundamentally known can be so readily made known by a reading of the Nicene Creed, along with admonitions to practice both corporal and spiritual acts of mercy.

No gnosis is ever needed or required. No private (or secret) understanding or assumed comprehension is ever demanded, which creates a tremendous dividing line of unimaginable proportions. The truth is free but often at the religious cost of humiliation and suffering, penitence and prayer, which the modernists, afflicted with accidie, reject as entirely anti-human and, thus, beneath the assumed dignity of exalted Man seeking entrance to the intramundane Utopia (by whatever name).

This is why it is also important to know that Gnosticism, favored by Satan, seeks always to be a rival of Christianity but necessarily fails in its perverse mission to then subsume or conquer Christianity. It is not, as often misinterpreted, a variation or subcategory of Christian thought, a companion system of belief just waiting in the wings, so to speak. Such a defective belief has absolutely nothing to say to Catholicism, for Gnosticism is no better than Manicheanism.

It is, by definition, heretical since, among other valid reasons, it is always inherently and deliberately esoteric in its assumed and much too vainglorious cognition. Thus, as such, this kind of warped thinking is, by definition, very anti-Christian in its fundamental orientation and purpose, logic, and reasoning.  Catholicism, moreover, refutes all such metaphysical errors.

This is why axiologically, epistemologically, and, especially, ontologically Gnosticism is opposed to Christianity, to the Catholic sensus fidei, without rational question.   Any true theorization, theologically considered, that does not clearly recognize such a basic, requisite fact, such an indicative truth, is unworthy of being taken seriously, regardless of how much contemporary religious literature now exists to the contrary. Error is not the truth, no matter how many times it gets repeated these days; repetition, therefore, is not proof, theological or otherwise.

In firm reiteration, Gnosticism is definitely not a synonym for Christianity nor, in fact, is it any assumed variant of it, in any way whatsoever; moreover, Roman Catholicism is ever the very opposite of such a belief system or orientation of thought because nominalism in philosophy is necessarily intolerant of all genuine orthodoxy, of the reality of true Catholicism itself, of the aforementioned sensus fidei.  If that is not obvious, however, nothing really is.

Once this greatly critical point is correctly understood and comprehended as to its complete theological and religious truth, then such odd matters as supposed same-sex “marriage,” communion for continuingly adulterous people, and other such manifestly heretical practices can be always reasonably seen as blasphemous triumphs of nominalism in cognition that do, logically, parallel Gnosticism in fundamental direction and much allied evil consequences.

Since Catholicism is, by definition, an exoteric belief, as has been irrefutably demonstrated, no such vile perversions are held to be ever properly compatible with or favorable toward the orthodox presentation and acknowledgement of the Faith. This is a self-evident truth of a high order, an indicative magnitude, set righteously beyond ecclesiastical machinations, clerical intrigues, which may be determined to the contrary. Further than that, Christ is King, not any pope or, perhaps, celebrated conclave or synod whatsoever; and, the traditional Latin Mass exists in rather splendid defiance of heresy.

Therefore, the history, theology, religion, and affirmative mental dynamics of all of Roman Catholicism, correctly perceived and practiced, stands adamantly with all of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, the Three Pillars of the Faith, united strongly against heresy, by definition; thus, this is, adamantly, set against any machinations attempted at the October Synod, which is not any supposed preparation for the Parousia itself.

What is going on, in terms of modernity lurching into postmodernity, is man’s odd search for intramundane salvation, not the salvation of souls, which is what the Church is to be interested in being involved with, as long as this world exists.   Most of the Western world, specifically, is seeking a New Eden on this globe spinning in time and space, rather than wanting to devoutly pray as much as possible to Venerated Holy Mary, the Mother of God.  All Christians are to take up the Cross every day of their lives, though this is not usually that easy to do; but, all are to live and die by the Sign of the Cross, which is hated by Satan and the evil demons in Hell.

Those who wish to introduce religious novelty are, thus, no better than aberrant Gnostics concerning a disregard for the exoteric nature of the Church’s teachings, as they have been publicly known for many generations, many centuries, contrary to the evil forces of error, of heresy itself. Catholicism, as to its essence, is forever radically set against the intramundane reading of human reality as is ever greatly desired by modernity and its assorted prophets.

The Incarnate God, Jesus as the Head of the Church, demands acceptance of the standard of absolute Truth, as is to be observed in the posited dogma of transubstantiation within the Holy Eucharist; it is surely defined at Holy Mass by both sacred anaphora and epiclesis; Catholicism, furthermore, is a fully Eucharistic faith, not a series of supposed (Protestant or neo-Protestant) symbolisms finally diverging out toward the useless abstractionization or, perhaps, too vapid rationalization of belief. The reality of the Christ is incarnational, not subjective speculation geared toward nominalism usually concealed under various and elaborate euphemisms resorted to by dialectical speech.  Catholic clarity should exist.

Creed of St Athanasius: Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. There can be no amount of supposedly reformulated theoretics that can transform the known theorization inherent to Catholic theology and its own rightful religious, social, cultural, and other expression on earth, besides, of course, always suitable consideration for supernatural reality and its truth.

Fidelity as to Catholic doctrine and practice is not merely owed to any current generation, contrary to the strange speculations of heretical clerics and their assorted sycophants, but must ever take into account the dogma, the doctrine, of the Communion of Saints; this is besides the demands for holiness and ascesis, from the believers, as to their own precious Catholicity, for Jesus is the Christ, of which there ought to be no doubt whatsoever. Ontology here is reality; there is to be no sophistic division of substance against symbol nor faith against reason.

The supernatural reality of the Church, often neglected or scorned today, goes well above and certainly far beyond mere men who may think that they can freely tinker with plastic notions of morality or mores. God cannot be fooled, and He cannot be mocked with impunity. The Holy Ghost, the Communion of Saints, the Tradition of the Patristic Fathers, and much else must be intimately involved in any and all questions and issues concerning the Faith, regardless of the proclaimed capacities or competencies of a (mere) Synod of [many God-defiant] Bishops. They seek, being overt to the truth here, to defame the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Catholic theological theory has had, e. g., champions of a sturdy Athanasian resolve such as St. Thomas Aquinas who, long ago, laid down certain orthodox fundamentals of religious teachings and cogent ascriptions that get so wrongfully neglected whenever petty or vainly disrespectful men, puffed up clerics and their lackeys, try to evilly second guess the Lord God Almighty. The essential core of the Faith was, in effect, basically codified by Aquinas, which has been added to by other orthodox teachers, writers, and others, for to be truly a Catholic is to willingly love God unreservedly, to entirely worship the Lord unconditionally. Nothing less is religiously valid.

Attempted errant reformulations by any heretical ecclesiastics are never, logically or otherwise, consistent with the faithful theorization created for Catholicism by the first Apostles, the early Church Fathers, any of the religiously orthodox synods held by the Church, the Council of Trent, and the First Vatican Council. Citing of the Second Vatican Council against all of that is to make the proverbial tail wag the whole dog; it is fully obnoxious to the wholeness of truth and Catholic teachings, dogmas, and doctrines covering over 2,000 years of the Church.

For it is here perceived most intensely that Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium all combined, meaning none held as being in any opposition to one or two of these pillars, uphold all the theoretics of an orthodox system of belief, not Gnosticism or even neo-Pelagianism for that matter. Most obviously, as can be above noted, the October Synod is not preaching into any supposed vacuum of spirituality or seemingly hollow doctrines lacking substance, thus, the fallaciousness of (often covert) heresy stands here exposed.

Catholicism does deal, of course, with true mysteries such as the Trinitarian Dogma, which no mortals can ever grasp as to the overt infinitudes so manifestly involved within the dogma. But, these assertions are not done for creating any sort of assumed gnosis so that some enlightened tiny minority of a minority may alone know the actual truths of the religion. Moreover, the predestination of souls, a free response to grace that can also include His passive Will, is for Almighty God to know, not for mere mortals to grasp at foolishly as with Calvinism’s many absurdities.

Mysteries enhance the divinity of the Supreme Being and give meaning to the love requisite toward needed worship of the Creator, not the false glorification of those who claim a “higher knowledge” only specially gained by the assumed “adepts” of a mere cult, which is not, in fact, equivalent to a religion, as with, e. g., Mormonism.

Not even the much too often flaunted Spirit of Vatican II can be cited successfully toward the radical overthrow of heuristic matters defining the Faith made quite sacred by immemorial tradition and practice known as being contributory to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith. Nor can, e. g., any supposed historical inevitability traduce orthodoxy where novelties are but old heresies in new disguises.

Nothing must be, in human affairs, until men will it or, at the least, when the passive Will of God allows situations or events to occur, for good or ill, knowing that the Lord can yet produce good out of an evil. If it were truly thought otherwise, then one would surely be dealing with confirmed fatalists or determinists, not Catholics.   All of this has both complex and simple elements, as to an explanation and deeper extrapolation philosophically and theologically speaking, meaning as to the posited specific Catholic theorization of theology qua theological theoretics.

But, what is and has been predominantly plaguing the intellectual or cognitive movement of the world is neo-Pelagianism, essentially, the denial of Original Sin put into religion, morals, ethics, politics, culture, society, etc. Thus, modern Christianity, in the desire to seem “hip,” has ceased long ago the eternally vital task of saving souls and seeks, instead, the accumulation of too sedulously tedious and vapid pieties toward no good end, thus, coldly creating a supposed “church” of the essentially faithless and/or indifferent.

But, it doesn’t even take a Catholic to perceive this rather open truth, e. g., the Rev. Franklin Graham himself sees through this grand farce of a faithless faith pretending to be Christian.

Contrary to Eric Voegelin’s very flawed thesis, neither Gnosticism nor neo-Gnosticism can adequately ever explain what has and is happening to a warped humanity’s thinking toward wrongly accepting degrees of utopianism, the desire for the intramundane New Eden, under various euphemisms. The humanistic or secularist disavowal of Original Sin, meaning neo-Pelagianism, has had many baleful consequences, inclusive of the sin of blatant secularism itself, for this is how sinning produces the convenient rationalizations for yet more sinning.

This has caused, e. g., serious problems for philosophical theorization and political theorization, not just for Catholic attempts to properly formulate certain efforts at the appropriate heuristic construction of useful theoretical ideas or concepts as propositions. A contemporary zymotic societal and cultural reality, in addition, easily facilitates confusion, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding, even in language used for attempted common communication. How so?

It gets rarely, if ever, recognized how the common occurrence, for instance, of sin ends up then creating stupidity in human cognition. The linkage here of religion and politics with compositive theoretics is not, as should be understood, either arbitrary or absurd as people seek to actively rush toward the obvious damnation of their souls.

The acceleration of sinning, in turns, further accelerates the decline of the ability of the human mind to escape from being progressively dumbed down, as with the evil dumbing down of the fundamental perception of deviance. Human beings, however, are still utterly dependent upon God, not themselves, as secular humanists, modernists, do suppose.

The more that sin, especially truly serious moral turpitude, gets accepted publicly, politically, as being normal, the more that it becomes extremely difficult to think logically, reasonably, and rationally. An Orwellian mindset takes over the then so much befuddled and reified brain, where what had been once accepted as rational, as common sense, is made to appear irrational and, thus, unacceptable as well. All manner of fornication gets rationalized into becoming normal.

For instance, what would have been once simply recognized, generations ago, as clearly forms of minority-aristocratic privilege are now routinely classified as modern democratic rights to use the force of law for imposing deviant social and cultural mores upon the many recalcitrant unbelievers. A surely privileged class of sodomites now exists.  It is not just an abuse of law, it is an abuse of truth and classical Natural Law itself in the name, oddly enough, of civil rights. Secularization is, therefore, the strange sanctification of idiocy, of indomitable stupidity, at large. What is, thus, critically meant?

It is the core essence of the contemporary zeitgeist when a “right” is nothing other than a mere sentimental imperative, as Alasdair MacIntyre has well noted it to be; the truly perverse contention is nothing more than an audacious and imprudent desire, which used to be called lust, incubated by an ever incestuous craving to promote selfishness. However, this is fixated pseudo-ethically with the tyrannical demand that others must now forever slavishly submit to such a necessarily pubescent insistence that the mere desire, the asserted feeling, be always thoroughly gratified, supposedly, at whim.

This so irredeemably meretricious, highly specious, notion of manufactured rights degrades them by inserting subjectivist individual desire ahead of all true objective value, an illegitimate interchange that axiomatically reduces to plain nonsense any and all very obstreperous claims to have such putative rights axiomatically respected as such. This is insanity writ large.

No conscientious objection whatsoever is allowed those who are subject now to involuntary servitude (aka slavery) to homosexual activists in manifest violation of the 13^th Amendment to the US Constitution.   All must now bow down to salacious Sodom and its so vile hellishness.

In America, this so clearly sex-obsessed form of insanity has ominously sanctioned the odd rationalization, through nominalist reductionism, of enshrining sodomy as a respected and protected civil right that is supposed to forever even trump the civil liberties once thought guaranteed forever by the aforesaid Constitution. As a truly cognate consequence of blatant secularism, e. g., the theorization of theological absolutes, of Roman Catholic dogmas, has itself become now greatly questioned by even many of the highest prelates of the Church, in the second decade of the 21^st century.

Gross sin has its important implications and added significant ramifications; nothing evil seeks to only exist in isolation, as misery loves company; its inherent reductionist, subjective, need is to become so crescively prolific and, moreover, to be accepted as normal, not really perverse; it is not a matter of mere tolerance, one must fully accept it under penalty of civil law, as a part of the contemporary mythology of secularism triumphant. Resistance is now depicted as unlawful behavior no less, not a needed and proper appeal to both sanity and morality.

This more than suggests, in hindsight, that the terribly insane tolerance of such grave evil, in civil society, has inexorably lead to its aggressive defense and strident legal promulgation as the now new minimum standard of the height of (sexual) justice itself crudely mandated without any question. Such surely perverse cognition in the debased Western world has reverberated, increasingly, into religious establishments to their sad detriment, not for their sanctification certainly.

Since the past Extraordinary Synod on the Family, the Church has seemingly entered a strange new period of much perceived heightened uncertainty and unneeded confusion over several highly controversial issues: communion for divorced and “remarried” couples, a change of views towards homosexual unions, and an assumed related relaxing of attitudes towards non-married couples. Sacramental understandings may get upended and distorted as a very dire consequence of bringing forth deliberately troublesome theological speculation of a reified nature at best, which will, then, give great offense to the metaphysical order of reality.

All of this surely bodes ill, while pastoral practice is said now to be made the enemy of doctrinal admonitions against heretical thoughts, since practice is supposed to match and complement doctrine, not to be wrongly divided against it. Whenever sacred faith is set against reason or vice versa, however, heresy then raises its ugly and unwanted head.

The only known cure for such impure fevers of speculation and subjective questioning has been always orthodoxy, not odd preferences and perversions lusted after, as might have been once said by Msgr. Ronald Knox, through much disguised whimsy, verbiage, and clerical frolic.

The theorization of Catholic theology and religion, since the time of at least the Scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas, supports proper orthodoxy toward, through, and in the Faith, which is, by definition, the opposite of heresy.   One sees that any use, for instance, of the Hegelian dialectic or, perhaps, Marxist exegesis would be illegitimate, by definition. No proper understanding of Catholicism should ever be made subject to modernist or postmodernist ideological dictates, no matter how seemingly fashionable in certain intellectual circles, inside or outside the Vatican.

Not even, for instance, St. Augustine, being among the early Church Fathers, was as thorough as Aquinas concerning the various appropriate ways and solid means of correctly securing theological knowledge amenable to and quite consistent with the perennial sacred teachings of the Holy Mother Church, ad majorem Dei gloriam, along with, e. g., the traditional Latin Mass.

Theory and the cogency of the demanded pastoral practice was, further to the point, united superbly, e. g., at the orthodox Council of Trent; this was then by which there was a surely true and careful clarification of many important doctrines, dogmas, and teachings, not obfuscation certainly. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi should, therefore, be every true Catholic’s personal motto. Only an uncompromising Catholicism, as one perceives, can come to last and, thus, give always righteous glory to God, not its opposite, not a Hegelian dialectic.

For valid Catholicism is, if it is anything, an exceedingly sacramental faith spiritually uniting the sacramental communities of all parishes and dioceses in the blessed ecclesiastical enterprise of directing attention toward the Christocentric life as being the only true life worth living for all of the faithful. This is, therefore, as it ought logically to be for all professed Christians without any dissent as to its intended holiness, as it is said that Jesus is the Christ. Anything less is merely a mockery of Christianity, far from the guidance of the Holy Ghost at a minimum.

Any innovations or alleged reforms, invoked ever in the dubious name of that haunting Spirit of Vatican II, that contradict this truly central fact of the universal nature of the Catholic Faith will, thus, fade away eventually, as being integrally repugnant, so clearly obnoxious, to the perennial axiological, epistemological, and ontological tests of obvious orthodoxy. All else is then, by sure definition, heresy by whatever name it may appear.

This is certainly why it can be validly perceived, especially after 50 years, that the Second Vatican Council and its horrid aftermath failed to complement the highly important reality of Catholicism, being truly a supremely Eucharistic religion, at odds with the supposed reforms that have vigorously sought its deformation. The both indicative and instructive point is being reached, with Pope Francis, to choose schism rather than to surrender orthodoxy in an effort to help him ideologically achieve ecological redemption, rather than requisite spiritual salvation, for the Church.

Its ever dwindling appeal, especially in the Western world since the end of Vatican II, has been matched empirically to the so-called reforms that have oddly tried to make the Church more “relevant” to the worship of humanity, seen as being so increasingly desirable by ecclesiastical progressivists and liberals, the permanent reformers. They will never, by definition, be satisfied since nihilism knows no pleasant rest from its insatiable demands.

This quite evident nominalist theory of reform, most recently perceived by bizarre efforts at papal ecological redemption, has so cracked severely, again and again, under the recalcitrant weight of sinful human reality; however, the age-old worship of Nature, in whatever guise, is still not Catholicism, for it really is, in the end, merely man worshipping himself, thus, bold neo-Pelagianism revealed at last.

In the upcoming October Synod’s theology: “God” is merely an anthropomorphic projection of human aspirations and feelings, nothing more than that, and so made entirely subject to the historical process (read: German-Hegelian idealism) as the then movement set within history. What is the secularist implication?

Man is to then evolve toward his (secularized) humanity as a means of escaping existential angst and phenomenological devaluation by, thus, negating the abstractionization of man qua being. With his coming of age, so to speak, man can needfully recapture, regain, his essence “stolen” by just a childish regard for Deity incapable of appreciating the greatness of humanity, for all things are subject to mutability, including God itself.

But, such nominalism is almost never recognized for what it is, for its much too often unconscious acceptance appears as natural as the air being breathed; it is, thus, that both insidiously and enervatingly pandemic as it infects and rots the human brain and spirit so contagiously.

The right cognizance of dogmatic theology, therefore, upholds firmly that level of profound theorization so requisite for the confirmation of the architectonic structuring of the three pillars of the Faith, meaning Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, united always for proclaiming the Roman Catholic unity of faith and reason.

As has been demonstrated, therefore, there is a distinctive theological theorization of what is Catholic, especially as the Apostolic Age of Revelation had ended with the death of the last apostle, St. John. No new revelations, contrary to the clearly heretical writings, e. g., of Scott Hahn, are possible as to the Faith, as to Roman Catholicism.

All this above superbly represents the vital integral essence, the inherent quintessence, of such a tremendously sacramental faith, the exposed nature of true Catholicism athwart its unholy and demonic degradation and repudiation by too many supposed innovators.

This distinctiveness of such religious metaphysics is ardently set against that often unspoken handmaiden of spiritual nominalism, known as immanentism (aka intramundane salvation), which internally fuels the ever greater and ongoing ecclesiological crisis as the true dynamism supporting neo-Pelagianism fixed into modernity and postmodernity, as if it is simply just inevitable, plainly inexorable, like a spreading plague.

Historical Inevitability or Determinism?

The Zeitgeist is said to (mindlessly) compel people to obey laws of historical determinism or inevitability, as if men were mere lemmings set blindly upon an absolutely fixed course of conduct nihilistic in its dreadful consequences.  But, it is Lutheran to deny the doctrine of free will, not Catholic. The Moslems, for instance, have their kismet, roughly translated as being fate, while many millions in the West do harbor within themselves variants of fatalism nearly indistinguishable from degrees of determinism under different euphemisms.

Where does this all mainly come from? The return, in the modern world, of what can be seen clearly being paganism qua neopaganism acting and prevailing under many guises. The secular religions, known as ideologies, have so contributed greatly to this quite baleful situation, along with the often unrecognized return of myth and magic to the modern political order, through the successful advance and pandemic spread of what exists as neo-Pelagianism.

The morally and mentally forceful combination, mixture, of a strident neopaganism and a very psychologically seductive neo-Pelagianism has captured not only what had existed as modernity but now threatens to absorb all factions of postmodernity in thought as well. The impulsion for this began, most forcefully, in the 20^th century. What is meant?

Malcolm Muggeridge, among others, had keenly noted that what was vastly different about that century versus all the past centuries was the effort to live as if God (or gods) did not exist, as if this is an ultimate measure, supreme touchstone, of all true and validated “Progress,” a god-term, ironically speaking, if there ever was one.

For the greatest superstition of them all is to piously believe that one’s own age is, supposedly, entirely free of superstition. The New Atheism, as it is usually called, is but one instance of such clearly superstitious nonsense on parade, of (assumed) autonomous man existentially trapped in a phenomenological vacuum, set ever incomprehensibly within an irrational cosmos, possessed of a meaningless meaning. But, as Muggeridge astutely knew, the real argument is actually always about something else, usually left unspoken. For instance?

Seeking to herald the alleged wave of the future, the “true believers” know that they cannot attack God (their real enemy), so they, thus, seek to attack His creation by supporting abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and, of course, population control in general to overtly spit in the face of the Creator. Though unmentioned by them, this is what is, in fact, going on in their many heated protestations, ideologically based or otherwise.

It is part and parcel, e. g., of progressivism or radicalism to claim that it is always the inevitable wave of the future, which illustrates its absolute affinity with historical inevitability or historical determinism. Karl Marx had asserted that there were inexorable laws of history, as discovered by him, which had then mandated a Communist future for the entire world; no one, however, was supposed to ever question what was so axiomatically declared as so inevitable.

The Islamic terrorists of today, of course, feel exactly the same way with their own version of explicit determinism, conducted with as much intended violence and bloodshed as is true for Communism. The many overt parallels, especially planned violence, exist for all to see.

Admittedly, before going into a demonstration of the necessary falsity of all such popular conceptions or general extant understandings of historical inevitability, there will be given examples of that which could only be described as clearly inexorable or predictable realities, seen historically.

Mark Antony had been sure to lose of the Battle of Actium because, among other reasons, he was a truly brilliant army leader with sure skills in handling strategy and tactics on land; but, he was no competent naval commander as was surely most needed for that famous sea battle. Only a series of major incompetent actions by Octavius could have helped Antony who so obviously lacked maritime, nautical, resourcefulness.

Napoleon was bound to lose, sooner or later, because his insatiable conquering urge was ever ceaseless, until so met by a surely resounding defeat, by the inevitable final challenge that he, inescapably, was simply not able to overcome. It just happened that defeat, in 1815, occurred at Waterloo, though it actually could have been elsewhere.

Those were/are easy examples of inevitability, though not determinism. The metaphysical order intrinsically mandates that those who do neglect the important matter of sin will be, eventually, dominated by that harsh reality that usually, in secular terms, is called human imperfection or failure.

But, fatalism ought not to be conflated with determinism, though often both do appear as supposed synonyms. Fatalism implies that nothing at all can stop what is perceived as being inevitable, which appears to then need no real cause as to its sufficient cause for being. The historical inevitability, not fatalistic necessity, of the now well observed fall of Western society, culture, and civilization is due to many real causes that have combined and gravitated toward a proclivity that cannot be reversed. How so?

A great boulder coming lose, e. g., will fall down a steep mountain, unless meeting with a halting structure sufficient along its path, and so normally continue downward, until it reaches the lowest point consistent with the end of gravitational pull and its observed proclivity to keep falling.

This does not mean, however, that a new Western civilization, etc. is incapable of rising. But, the present post-Christian order, starting with the Renaissance Era, is in the natural process of rapidly crumbling; error, finally, cannot sustain itself. The drift away from a proper religious concern for Divine Providence is the supposed sophisticated desire of modern man and his self-worship inevitably leading to nihilism, e. g., the secularist focus on world population control. So, what has noticeably occurred?

The very last vestiges of what was just the mere shell of a now former Christendom are no more; perhaps, as seems very possible, a New Christendom may yet arise as a proverbial phoenix coming up out of the ashes. With Christ, by definition, humanity is never bereft of true hope; without the Son of God, man begins to despair to the point of achieving his death wish because of the both hubristic and solipsistic rejection of the supremely important metaphysical order of reality. Once the Social Kingship of Jesus gets denied, as in America and elsewhere, then exactly, in a spiritual and moral sense, all Hell breaks loose.

What needs to be so critically recognized is that the amassed wills of, literally, tens of millions set into the hundreds of millions have, directly and indirectly, united to destroy the present society, culture, and civilization as a kind of death wish. This surely perverse willingness has created the inevitability perceived, not a vague source or kind of (assumed) determinism even against the human will as it were; what is then occurring is, moreover, neither fatalism nor a fatalistic determinism, which can, moreover, be here readily explicated.

Causes have effects; what is being witnessed is, therefore, the quite natural consequence of an accepted nihilism, the worship of death as the real price of sin, the harsh reality made manifest as the evil attempt to secularly deny the too baleful results of Original Sin; but, as always, the metaphysical order (aka God) will not be mocked with impunity. Such depravity, furthermore, necessarily impinges upon the course of reality seen in society, culture, politics, economics, etc.

As is well known, the wages of sin is death, thus, though those addicted to either modernity or postmodernity do wish to deny this fundamental truth of human reality and its many innate imperfections, yet, there are still the too numerous empirical consequences of the yet clear proclivity, the rather marked inclination, under examination.

In brief summation, historical inevitability, as has been qualified and elucidated above both historically and philosophically, is what is involved, not a supposed determinism operating against the free will of human beings.   What is actually happening is not some sort of kismet, happenstance, or, perhaps, mere fatalistic conundrum fixed beyond the real control of people existing within an existential or phenomenological vacuum in space and time.

This is but the abstract and too shallow excuse for wishing to remain either ignorant of or simply indirect to the empirical truth, to the strictly human reality of sin, as is ever denied by “enlightened” folk.

Nor is, e. g., simple heresy itself in the realm of historical inevitability since, too often, it recurs under a merely new semblance that soon supposes its odd possession of a sort of determinism, which is, in truth, just a tautology. No, the verified ugly reality of nihilism, and its supremely vile hellishness, is what is here truly involved, meaning as to the easily notable degradation and degeneration, decline and deterioration, overtly seen in the decaying Western world.

And so, the questionable October Synod, a product of the true Spirit of the Second Vatican Council as to its tawdry legacy, is then merely reflective and observantly symptomatic of the rather grave moral and spiritual mess that exists these days, with yet another bold step toward (a much wanted) secularization, through absurd “religious” means no less. Religion, the most fundamental matter pertaining to the final ultimates of all reality, is not meant to be hidden, secreted, from the public square; it is to be fully congruent with human life itself.

The modernist compartmentalization of life, the segregation of religion to the private sphere, is to be rejected without question; all things in Christ and for Christ, thus, living a thoroughly Catholic life is the truth of holy religion, the desire of the Holy Ghost for all the people of the world. Which can be obtained by men allowing for the twelve fruits of the Paraclete: charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, long-suffering, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, and chastity. But, what is the still false (read: secularist) dilemma needing proper cognitive exposure?

Real-world choices, substantially made in a free manner, have, in fact, come to have generated real-world consequences, which the bulk of the nihilists still do hate, nonetheless. That also, a sense of dissatisfaction with what someone ends up having, is a true part of defective human nature since misery loves company. Can this be truly verified, perhaps, sociopolitically as an example?   Secularism, ultimately, hates itself, for its fruits are always inherently evil and, thus, necessarily gaudy as well.

It can be easily empirically proved. Leftists, having helped to sociopolitically destroy New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, didn’t really like the results of their nihilistic work, so they set out for New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine to then repeat their many horrendous errors.  This, in turn, because Utopia was still not achieved as the New Eden on earth, necessarily had so produced dissatisfaction, for nihilism, by definition, can never provide true relief from itself in any way, shape, or form. Evil qua nihilism is always a lack, not a different chance at a lust for wholeness.

In its nature, it is purely a negating force that always is noted by its inherent lack as to any positive realization; nihilism, thus, exists by integral negation only, which explains why, of course, it is, also, the significantly central descriptive and denotative feature of Hell.  And, these same sorts of temporal-based lusts will be, judging by the public directions of things, abundantly seen at the too morally perverse October Bishops Synod.

Payers can be directed, nonetheless, to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, to help prevent the evils intended; her holy intercession is, most certainly, mightily needed now in the urgent defense of the true theological distinctiveness qua theorization of Catholicism, the Faith of Rome.

Conclusion

The worldly demands that the Roman Catholic Church, at the upcoming Synod, needs to bow down to a worshipped humanity come-of-age, through the absurd sanctification of secularism unbound, bespeaks not just a basic ignorance of Catholicism but a cold contempt for Christ the King.  Such morally debased thinking, moreover, could never find a place at the traditional Latin Mass.

Let there then be no sincerely genuine doubt about what will be there attempted at this hellish meeting. They are not just or merely attacking Catholicism; they are, thus, adamantly reviling all of basic Christianity itself in their endless and radical lust for many innovations; furthermore, these pompous prelates are both intensely rejecting and snidely scorning the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ!

One may easily add that the nihilistic degeneration of orthodox truth, aided often so subtly by immanentism and its variants, is not to be associated with any assumed historical inevitability, for man proposes and God disposes. And, bonum est diffusivum sui.

The faithful in the Catholic world ought, therefore, to utterly reject anything that goes against the three pillars of the Faith, not just some obvious heretical deviations from selected dogmas. It is a certainty that the Bishops Synod’s arrogant effort to, in effect, plunge a stake directly into the very heart of Holy Mother Church surely reveals the true nature of this tremendously grave crisis, which is not to be doubted.

This quite ardent, yet vulgar, neo-Pelagianism, a terrene ideology as it were, should, moreover, be firmly met with the truly righteous contempt it ever deserves; the Church Militant should be triumphant here in firm affirmation of the religious theorization of Roman Catholicism that was clearly presented, for extra Ecclesiam nulla salus because, by definition, salvation is the Church, which, thus, defends and honors the Body and Blood of Christ.

In short, the often seductive immanentist creed must, thus, be thoroughly denounced for what it really is. And, though probably no high prelate may today dare say so, if Pope Francis, in fact, sanctions the document(s) coming out of such a heretical gathering, this will then be positive evil done by him, not supposedly just accidental or, perhaps, coincidental in nature.

Give no sanction to nihilism, especially not in the sacred name of Catholicism. Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis.

Athanasius contra mundum!