The Great Mercy of Hell Proves Absolutely the Infinite Love of God

The Great Mercy of Hell Proves Absolutely the Infinite Love of God

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

 

“Hell is ruled by time, not by true eternity.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica¹

 

For many sophisticated people, Hades (or the Dark Place) is only a state of mind, perhaps just a mere cognitive construct, though it be a mere parody. But, if Heaven (in various ways) can be believed in by millions of folks, why not belief in its direct opposite? In any event, how can anyone seriously discuss the proposition that the place of Perdition is integrally emblematic of something such as mercy?

Secularism, of course, simply abhors this kind of unenlightened notion as being as nonsensical, as is religion itself, in the mind of a truly dedicated advocate of societal and cultural laicism, especially for its own sake.  But, the spiritual and religious lethargy and pietistic illusions of this misconceived age must be both piously and forcefully shocked back into requisite reality.  Enlightenment is the road to Hell.

New Age “religions” (being, at bottom, narcissistic cults) would commonly see the assumed incongruity between Hell and mercy, especially more so in ever seeing God’s love manifested infinitely by the actual existence of the Infernal Regions. But, if one posits that the Lord of All is absolutely perfect in being, by definition, the Almighty Being of Perfection itself, then the holy mercy of the Lord must, by definition, be absolutely equal to His sacred justice, to the Eternal Truth; otherwise, there could be, in fact, no God truly worthy of such a supreme designation expecting awe and worship from His human creatures.

For it has been well said, many times, that the real polar opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. The Christian God is not indifferent.   Unlike, e. g., the nihilistic Hindu nirvana that preaches the total extinction of the individual soul on the supposed road to perfection, the both Jewish and Christian understanding of the Divinity and its related soteriology does not include the total (Hindu) annihilation of the human spirit at any point in time. And, this critical point is more, much more, significant than is usually realized or comprehended.  How so?

In Christian, especially Roman Catholic, theology, the love of God for His creation means that even evil souls are not to be exterminated or eradicated, either deliberately or through indifference; there is a now eternally existing place for them because of the great abundance of the Lord’s blessed mercy, yes, a truly quite bountiful divine mercy at that.

A Supreme Divinity, however, having no such mercy would be theologically impossible in both Jewish and Christian thinking; this is, fundamentally, since such a supposed Absolute Being would thereby lack the requisite Godlike perfection of absolute love as well. These highly essential points will be further elucidated and logically extrapolated concerning a horrible place filled with condemned souls who have a tremendously spiteful ingratitude, thanklessness, toward their Almighty Creator.

And, yes, the many seeming paradoxes or conundrums involved will be here resolved both theologically and religiously, philosophically and intellectually.

God’s Love Overtly Manifested in Hell

In Catholic theology, therefore, the creation of Hell was not an act of hate; it was, however, an act of the fullest love for those of God’s human creatures who so decided to obey their own sinful wills, meaning instead of adhering to the always holy will of God. While the Lord hates evil and all evildoing, He cannot hate the creaturely reality of His own creation, since creation by God is always an act of love, not hate.  The merciful reality of Hell, therefore, absolutely proves the infinite love of God for all human creatures, including those who willfully abused their free will and chose to commit unrepented mortal sins.

However, modern minds or, in addition, today’s postmodern minds do see only a complete paradox, a dilemma, or total contradiction between the asseveration of a good God and, on the other hand, a Being who could freely create and lovingly sanction the surely horrible existence of Hell.   The primary reason, for this much unneeded confusion of thought, is the unfortunate existence of nominalism in thinking that celebrates many perverse degrees relativism, subjectivism, and, in the penultimate, nihilism before the final arrival of insanity, the last “refuge” of truly dedicated nominalists.

Thus, e. g., there are now growing numbers of delusional people who demand that they be actually seen as being dogs, cats, birds, etc. because – why? – they do imperiously say so. It is of the same mentality as those who posit that an all-loving Deity, according to their subjective reasoning, simply couldn’t ever really permit anyone or, perhaps, maybe only a very few (extremely bad) souls to go to the Fiery Region; this ignores the fact that, as (orthodox) Catholics are supposed to be taught, Hell is a necessary part of God’s holy plan for salvation, not something created as a kind of thoughtless whim or, worse still, just an empty gesture; damnation, thus, is not a meaningless function of mere existentialist symbolism.

Millions stubbornly refuse to see Hell as a place of divine justice (and love) and prefer, instead, a rather grandfatherly Santa Claus of a God who forgives all and love all unconditionally always and to the nth degree; this is, however, a certainly much worse fantasy than Santa Claus ever could be. They do prefer to cognitively divide God’s justice from the Lord’s mercy, as the nominalist’s divide faith from reason, which, in turn, points directly back to the integral heart of the false problem absurdly created by the nominalists themselves, not by the Supreme Being.

For God, by definition, is not schizophrenic; therefore, all those foolish people who do stridently deny and vociferously reject Aristotelean-Thomistic realism are, in fact, mentally schizophrenic, though, of course, they are inherently unable to either recognize or diagnose their truly unfortunate condition.

Instead of rejecting their contradictory, unreasonable, and illogical nominalism, they perceive a God divided against Himself; this usually produces forms or types of a weird Manicheanism under various euphemisms, more so, as one could guess, in blatant terms of secularism these days. How may this assertion, in effect, of a schizophrenic God be illustrated to easily prove its inherent falsity?

A theoretically “plainly merciless” Supreme Deity (though an impossibility) would both imperially and imperiously annihilate any and all souls that did not measure up to His standards of haughty acceptance to better “prove” that there is, in fact, a real limit, not an abundance, to His love.   Thus, there would be a category of human souls, thought so tremendously unworthy of the supreme concerns of the Divinity, such that their instant and contemptuous evisceration unto a meaningless nothingness, a total oblivion, would be so infinitely pleasing to such a rather spiteful Godhead.  This thought would be, however, a rather vicious and venomous conception of the nature of the metaphysical order that actually exists.

But, really now, any Supreme Being of such a coldhearted and malicious nature would be seen as not being worth worshipping but, rather, only worthy of being held in deserved contempt for so studiously reviling and denigrating His own creation through their despised and utter annihilation. One sees, now, clearly that Hell is not at all a contradictory place, but it is abundantly a genuine manifestation of the great love of God for His creation; this is because of the pronounced respect given to man’s free will, his own beingness, to choose between good and evil, for the astounding existence of the rational soul, possessing a human conscience, exalts in eternity mere mortal flesh and blood, the physical body.

Only a nihilistic Deity (filled with self-hate) would hate the beingness of the being, the ontology of the existence, of its own creation, though God is free to hate evil and love that which is good; for Creation, inclusive of the rational sensate beings qua creatures, is good; all of Creation, therefore, testifies to a loving Lord who honors being and its cognate beingness as an ontological extension of the total reality, which has emanated from the supernatural, metaphysical, reality created by the Creator-God Himself, the very Ultimate Being of all being whatsoever and wherever considered.

The forever overwhelming profundity of all this vital cognition as to the meta-epistemology operating, consequently, ought not to be ignored or dismissed as having no value for human beings, the creatures of Creation exercising their innate, though entirely always contingent, beingness.

The amazing situation of how an almighty Supreme Being, condescended excessively to allow for the actual existence of rational souls in mortal creatures, is too often not considered as to the absolutely profound metaphysical issues involved to the nth degree; and yet, this is all an understatement of an enormous magnitude concerning the always incredible realty that was literally created from nothing by the mere (loving) will of supernatural power alone, the ultimate Mystery of Being.   What is morally, philosophically, and spiritually meant as to the tremendous implications and incredible ramifications?

Serious contemplation and deliberate cogitation of a very high order easily seems much, much more than just simply requisite, consequently, to how human gratitude, even multiplied a billion fold, would necessarily be entirely inadequate as a rational and needed response; this consideration concerns the meaning involved as to such an act of pure charity toward totally subsidiary, imperfect, and contingent creatures.

How can one gain, therefore, some better and proper perspective as to the truly fantastic metaphysical magnitude of what was done by Divine fiat?   From outer space, people look no bigger than seemingly insignificant microbes circulating or merely existing upon the planet.

And yet, a loving, ever-caring God is ever mindful of all the beings within and beyond the entire universe simultaneously, including all the insane atheists who can absurdly look at the unadulterated night sky, in all its incredibly bountiful magnificence, and yet boldly say that there is no visible or empirical proof of God’s existence; the factually ignored contingency of all being, and its necessarily cognate beingness, so absolutely evades their too cramped, perverted, limited minds.   So, Divine Providence is real.

Thus, even a bad soul gets the respect of never being dismissively erased from metaphysical reality, as if it were only so much just discardable, futile, meaningless trash, having then no real significance or true import whatsoever.   Such is never the case, however, with the Supreme Lord Almighty, the true Divinity existing from everlasting to everlasting, meaning before and after (the merely earthly concept of) time.

Hell affirmatively acknowledges that the irretrievably damned souls still do possess value and are not (idiosyncratically or otherwise) regarded by an indifferent God as, thus, being inconsiderable creatures of utter worthlessness, of neglectable insignificance as so much trivial rubbish or just useless detritus.

Moreover, the vital importance of the Infernal Regions is due to its inhabitants and because, in fact, it too shares in being a definitive part of all of God’s blessed creation; thus, an informed Christian will suitably praise the existence of such a place as a genuine manifestation of the Lord’s love and deep devotion toward His creation. Both Good and Evil are truly observed parts of the good Lord’s plan of blessed salvation.

Nonetheless, the chief characteristic of the Underworld is that which is lacking, namely, the presence of the Supreme Being and, moreover, the ever eternal glory and paramountcy of Heaven. The endlessly deplorable and wretched place without hope, without God, is defined best by that which does not and cannot ever be there, including such things as endless joy, happiness, and bliss unto the nth degree.

Heaven, the ever highest realm of the holy Godhead Eternal, is the always appropriate place for the absolute, the total, demonstration of permanent supernatural love beyond all mere human imagination, afar demonstrably from just forever inadequate mortal, earthly, conjectures.

Christians, and especially Roman Catholics, therefore, ought to always highly praise the Holy Name for the existence of the Infernal Regions, since it is a love-filled proof of the Lord’s deliberate mindfulness and concern for human beings and, thus, their ever God-given dignity.² Only a loving and caring God, furthermore, would allow for the Netherworld as a needed affirmation of Being, the creative assertion of a divine ontological understanding of true metaphysical reality, of supernatural order, to exist as an imperishable location for the ever damned souls.

After all, the actually worst part of being in the cursed Underworld is not the physical pain, suffering and torment fully guaranteed to exist there for the enemies of the Supreme Being; that’s, so to speak, just “the icing on the cake,” or, rather, much better to say it is just the mere tip of the Devil’s pitchfork. The condemned spirit will, forever, be completely denied the ultimate meeting with the Absolute Deity, which includes seeing the face of God Himself.  The condemned are in their hate-filled prison of deepest ingratitude.

Contact with the highest pinnacle of the Alpha and Omega of all things visible and invisible (on earth) as to the fullest entirety of all of ontological and metaphysical reality can never ever occur, therefore, to any of those necessarily hated and hate-filled beings angrily held in the hopeless Fiery Pit for an eternity.

The degrading misery and tempestuous travail, supreme sadness and utter desolation, involved is the least painful aspect, meaning when the human soul is there completely bereft forever of what a good, blessed soul easily recognizes as the greatest meaning of salvation imaginable; there is not to be that damned soul’s presence in the grand and blessed, magnificent and exalted, company of the Holy Trinity, the saints, and the angels forever.

Being eternally cast out to the outermost darkness of metaphysical reality, through committing even a single unrepented mortal sin, is the very least form of such positively requisite punishment that is so justifiably inflicted without question. The ever greatest and most profound form of chastisement, of thoroughly severe rebuke, is the total inability to be at true peace with God, the foundation of all truth, justice, beauty, goodness, and righteousness to the nth degree.

On the other hand, this extremely post-Christian society and culture of the Western world with its vilely rampant secularism, undergirded increasingly by a contradictory neopaganism, has no thoughts of an afterlife filled with punishments for those, according to (orthodox) Catholicism, who have, in fact, merited damnation.

Atheists think there is nothing to worry about because their pragmatic materialism axiomatically blinds them to the truth; plain secularists live for themselves and their pleasures; the neo-heathens assume they have their own post-death futures set in various dreamy locations; thus, fewer and fewer people, especially in the West, are really concerned about such an archaic, folklorish destination, as it would be to them, the seemingly incomprehensible Netherworld.

The pain and suffering, with disease and loss, in this earthly realm, oddly offers to them no discernable hint, apparently, that any observable metaphysics could possibly be at work; while, perhaps, blinded atheists could be thought of as simply naïve as they do hurtle toward Perdition, the others cannot be so easily “pardoned” because both the secular world and the neopagan one do still have (and are prideful about) their own various, morally-warped concepts of sin, by whatever euphemisms.

And, any transgressions between or among them are not easily tolerated, for the most intolerant people to be found are any profoundly (or, even sometimes, slightly) offended secularists and neo-heathens. To twist a saying, Hell hath no fury, e. g., as a Liberal who’s been mugged.  Gone, then, are thoughts of sweetness and light.

While the masses may seem fairly content in their worldly paradise, some keen observers of the human scene do yet know better; there is a restlessness and a longing, often unexpressed, but felt in the human heart long before it reaches the slower-responding brain that seeks to just rationalize everything somehow found to be inconvenient to the lustful defense of mortal hubris.

Today’s true counterculture seeks to find a solace, therefore, not truly encountered in the plaintive nostrums of the variegated cults, or the secularist centers of peculiar worship and devotion, or the so-called New Atheism offering absolutely nothing of substance, by definition, because disbelief says there’s nothing there out there. Q. E. D.

Whether the often disguised worship of self (by whatever euphemism or means) or the lust for seeking evil, both lead to dead ends on earth, though there is an entrance into the Infernal Regions for those who do not deeply repent and seek Jesus Christ. Spiritual voids and vacuums get filled, sooner or later, for as G. K. Chesterton so sagaciously remarked, those who cease believing in God almost never become real atheists, they then become susceptible of believing in anything; this includes any superstition, cult, or whatever belief that offers an opportunity to somehow or other believe in something rather than only nothing, as with the dead end atheism and its literally vacuous cognition.

This easily explains why the terrene fascinations of fornication, sodomy, pornography, adultery, drug addiction, etc. grow exponentially as religion ceases its hold upon people in being geometrically held to be less and less important, in proportion, within the scale of human values. Most so-called enlightened opinion praises any sexual perversion, inclusive of homosexuality, pederasty, bestiality, and even incest.

Fear of Hell is greatly disvalued, especially by those who supposedly claim to pridefully have advanced, sophisticated intellects far above the vulgar herd, most of the latter who yet share the subjective kind of moral vulgarity of the intellectuals, if not their wits.

All this is very exemplary of the increasing descent into evil, perceived in the post-Christian societal and cultural norms of the modern world; this is where most people now have regrets about the sins they did not or may not get a chance to commit. Few people, these days, wish to publicly admit that they are unsuccessful sinners; it is like “shamefully” admitting, e. g., to being a virgin before marriage.  In their so perverted minds: How awful!  Perish the thought! [ … though they do not care if their souls perish.]

Few, if any, expect to be logically “rewarded” after death by being deposited into the Burning Pit to suffer forever the consequences of willingly and deliberately choosing evil over good. They will never see the face of God, the true meaning of all that is, was or can be within and beyond the mere universe.  The definitional purity and truth of the Absolute Supreme Being can never become in contact with that which is forever totally impure and untruthful as is any unrepented mortal sin, which is of the essence of the torment, pain, and suffering involved eternally.

Deprivation that is everlasting, no chance whatsoever of viewing the Holy Beatific Vision, exists as the absolute horror of horrors, as to its unfortunate occurrence, that thereby enormously torments the cursed spirit-body to an indescribable degree set forever beyond mere human imagination; it is the very definition of vilely despicable wretchedness, for it is what it is known to be: Hell.

But, Rev. M.P. Hill, S. J, in his The Catholic’s Ready Answer (1915), supplies the still classical and true understanding that, “There is, it is true, a rigorous side to God’s dealings with men, even during their mortal lives, that fills us with terror; but of the rigor we can, in some measure, divine the reasons.  The pains and inflictions meted out both to individual men and to nations have often been the temporal punishment of crimes that have made the earth groan with the weight of the iniquities that have oppressed it; and the temporal punishment, in many cases, may have brought men to their senses and saved them from eternal punishment.”

Hill, in the book’s section on Hell, wisely adds: “The thought of hell necessarily awakens deep reflection: let not such reflection issue in an impeachment of the divine mercy. …“   In any event, he, also, there correctly writes “but one thing we know, that no one was ever lost who was not lost in spite of God’s merciful designs in his behalf.”   The Lord’s abundant and pure mercy is, by definition, completely perfect; man’s typical questionable response, however, has usually been very far from flawless; the fault, so obviously, resides entirely in the latter, not ever in the former reality posited.

In Praise of the Infernal Regions

The true righteousness of Hell, moreover, is an enormous tribute to the foresight of the loving Lord in provisioning properly for those who have sought to willingly hate Him so extremely or intensely.  And, when examined more closely, it is not really the mere existence of such a place that confounds many of Perdition’s critics, actually, it is its genuine righteousness that so offends substantially and hurts the most, and with the least qualification.

One may, thus, logically note that the sheer hellishness of such permanent suffering, torment, and absolute deprivation of the Beatific Vision proves the theological rightness of the glory of God forever, which thought ought to send (thoughtless) atheists into a tailspin.

To the damned, meaning to all those permanent reprobates cut off forever from the Mystical Body of Christ, it is not the horror nor the torments nor the misery that really offends the most; all that and more is just so ancillary and ought to be simply expected as merely being axiomatic; for as Chesterton would have concurred, it is, as has been above so correctly noted, the very rightness and righteousness of the Netherworld, meaning the total and everlasting absence of God, that truly affronts the most. Why may this be easily said?

No rational being who loves the Lord, no good Christian worthy of the name, would ever want so to be even one second or a fractional millionth of a microsecond out of the celestial, magnificent, and glorious presence of the Almighty Supreme Being Himself. That absence would be Hell, the containment center for all ungrateful souls.

It is positive proof, moreover, that what human beings, God’s creatures having immortal souls, do in their lifetimes is not at all morally insignificant. The human soul, whether going to Heaven or not, is held to be important and does not lack value, even in the blazing Inferno.  That is obviously why Satan is busy all the time trying to send millions to want to go there, meaning as a vicious means of hating, despising, tormenting, and torturing God’s creation; it is a horrible means of deliberately and eternally offending God.

For as the Catholic Faith in truth teaches, this is against the ever bountiful blessedness of Heaven versus the unending wretchedness of the Fiery Underworld; it logically and perfectly reflects the Mystery of Good as opposed forever to the Mystery of Evil.   If Lucifer finds any devilish “joy,” this is the closest he might possibly get to it in vilely tormenting the condemned spirits and their then extremely ugly bodies.   Furthermore, in that (cruel) sense, the necessarily supernatural ontology of such a hellish place must be so very mighty impressive, if nothing else.³

Against forever the soulless contemporary world and its overt nihilistic beliefs, there should truly be, as Chesterton’s own paradoxical thinking would suggest, a veritable celebration by Roman Catholics of the reality of Hell as an inspiration for all Christians.  Thus, “celebrating” the wondrous glories of Hell would clearly add a Chestertonian aura to this quite insightful cognition reflecting, as it certainly does, upon the ever eternal greatness of the Lord God Almighty.

All sincere Christians, therefore, should really be grateful and thank God for the loving existence of the Fiery Pit, a tribute to the Lord and His eternal and blessed glory; this is because the adamant upholding of the ever holy righteousness of metaphysical order is necessarily quite primary, not the subjective opinions of any mere human beings thought to be contrary.

There should be, moreover, a strange or certainly peculiar “bliss” among the damned. The only critic of this might be Hillaire Belloc who, in his To Dives, wrote that, “They order things so damnably in hell.”  Amen.

For those reprobate sinners deserving of their personal perdition, mere mortal death is not indicative of an extinction of the self qua soul, rather, the incredible immorality of the soul is glorified by that fact concerning its continuance forever more.  Supernatural existence and order guarantees this immortality, though, of course, in a hellish place not ever to be congenial to happiness, glee, joy, bliss, or any such positive things in any way whatsoever.  In short, it’s really Hell.

Yet, this matter greatly needs proper elucidation in a world increasingly filled with varieties of hedonists, humanists, secularists, positivists, pragmatists, relativists, and nihilists. Unfortunately, the too harsh realities involved with everlasting damnation get rarely, if ever, preached from the typical pulpits; the vast majority of pastors do a grave disservice, thus, to their terribly deprived flocks by stressing a treacly, slimy goodness and light, a supposed easy sweetness for all, kind of relaxed path to an expected sort of axiomatic salvation by hoping, piously or otherwise, for it.  This is surely unreal, a debased metaphysics, a desire for a broad or very wide way toward Heaven, which simply does not exist.

But, Christ overtly said, as an extremely clear warning, “Many are called, few are chosen,” which ought to be a proverbial word to the wise, if nothing else. Those who think so lightly about damnation had better learn to embrace the mighty baleful consequences of such an absurdly fallacious belief ever set (wrongly) contrary to the Gospels, teachings of the Patristic Fathers, Scholastics, Doctors of the Church, etc.

One can, therefore, appropriately say of damnation: Know about it, believe in it, and seek, most of all, to greatly avoid it at all costs. The pathway toward Heaven, as ought to be know, is always so narrow and difficult for a good and moral reason; this is since people, human souls, are being deliberately tested to see if they are truly worthy to achieve their salvation.  Only the best of the best called will be able to get to a destination that bespeaks the opposite of Hell, though not in terms of simply being eternal.

Further examination of this intriguing topic may help to manifestly expatiate the things that do need to be said in support of such important considerations. St Cyprian, in his To Demetrianus the Proconsul of Africa, had there wisely noted, “Too late they will believe in eternal punishment who would not believe in eternal life.”   Experiencing it will certainly be believing in the most immediate way.

All the various distractions of this sorry fallen world of fallen creatures are as nothing compared to the everlasting reward given to the minority, to the genuinely faithful souls, who are found very worthy of supernatural beatitude; and, this is, of course, why the Netherworld, the perpetually dark region of the cursed souls, rages so horrifically against it forever.

St. Augustine, in his Enchiridion, did not doubt, “The perpetual death of the damned …” having there no “mitigation or interruption of their torments.”    In the Dialogues of Pope Saint Gregory the Great, one there easily reads that,” Everyone there, according to the quantity of his sin, has the measure of his pain.”  The contempt for metaphysical order, for God’s goodness, seen in the desire to commit mortal sin, to shut off the divine light to one’s soul, creates the logical consequence that the damned freely chose to be in Hell by their thoughts, words, and/or deeds.  Heaven, therefore, has been then forever lost to all the damned souls, to the ungrateful wretches, who must suffer all their justified torments eternally.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Compendium theologiae, had there so well noted that, “Therefore man’s extreme unhappiness will consist in the fact that his intellect is completely shut off from the divine light, and his affections are stubbornly turned against God’s goodness. And this is the chief suffering of the damned.  It is known as the punishment of loss.” And, that loss is the metaphysical, the Particular Judgment, added eventually to the physical damnation at the General Judgment where body and soul are both condemned to an eternity of experiencing the greatly horrifying torments of that divine loss.

And yet, strangely enough, an unusual sort of point was noted by the Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 8: “If anyone says that the fear of Hell, whereby by grieving for our sins we flee unto the mercy of God or refrain from sinning, is a sin, or makes sinners worse; let him be anathema.” What may be inferred?  For Hell is the plainest realization that the dark side of human dignity does have an eternally horrid place for its most damnable expression, as surely as is all of Hollywood a most willing playground for the Devil, for the knowing existential celebration of evil.

Thus, the perennial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church affirms the fundamental and definitive idea that there are ultimately only two categories of souls: the saved and the damned.   In support of this very important point, there have been three General Councils of the Church, meaning Lyons I, 1245; Lyons II, 1274; and Florence, 1439; and, in reiterative addition, Pope Benedict XII’s bull Benedictus Deus (1336) that have all so invariably taught, de fide, that anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to suffer the earned eternal punishments of Hell and its awful indefeasibility.

This strongly enduring and settled belief has, verifiably and unquestionably, persisted in the Church to the present time. One may suitably add, moreover, that it is logically repeated, almost precisely, in the still current Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC §1022, 1035).   Furthermore, one may note that there have been a number of local councils, found back in the Middle Ages, and without seemingly meaning to openly define the point, declare in passing that some people have, in fact, actually died in a state of mortal sin and been, thus, necessarily punished by their then merited eternal damnation.  For as the Common Doctor, Aquinas, considers the matter in his Compendium theologiae, “But those who are found evil at that moment [of death] will be forever obstinate in evil.”   Q. E. D.

For any sincere and dedicated Christians, especially for (traditionalist, orthodox) Roman Catholics, none of the above statements ought to seem strange or absurd, including the defense of the existence of Hell itself; however, admittedly, the nominalist thrust of rampant modernity and, more so, postmodernity stands directly to the contrary in existent thinking, which problem, needless to say, quite bedevils the world constantly. Existentialism, phenomenology, pragmatism, positivism, relativism, Gestalt, and nihilism all cloud men’s minds toward ever increasing degrees of absurdity, vanity, and/or morbidity.

In contrast, all sincere Christians ought to thank God for His supreme graciousness and kindness in making sure that Hell lovingly exists. How may this be better understood?   Plato, millenniums ago, wrote that a murderer, if possessed by the needed knowledge in his rational soul, would expect and want to receive capital punishment for his crime; thus, the faithful can and should, analogously, praise the Lord God for the unendingly enormous and blessed mercy of the provided place of Perdition.

Gratitude to God in this matter, created as a genuine sign of His great love, is highly and unquestionably deserved, for mortal man’s ways and thoughts are not those of the Deity.

Those who willingly would not seek their much needed redemption on earth will, consequently, get their absolutely deserved punishment in Hell for eternity. It is, thus, so eminently fair, logical, and reasonable.  Because, for instance, modernism in cognition tends to be so dominant these days, the rightness of metaphysical order and its justice gets ignored or, worse yet, simply disparaged outright; thus, the manifold benefits of the Eternal Damnation Destination, the Great Unquenchable Fire as it is often called, get wrongfully neglected by (indifferent) secularists and, yes, many of the religious/clerics as well.  How might this be properly understood?

The important benefits notably include: everlasting knowledge, within the metaphysical order, of the certainty of the General Judgment and, later, the Particular Judgment upon a human soul; the fixity of the reality for giving a location wherein the damned soul knows that it will never be destroyed as a worthless discarded thing; a way indicated as to what needs to be totally avoided by strident moral resolve, prayers, fasting, charitable acts, and true piety.

And, furthermore, a definitive means exists for the total and righteous vindication, actual proof, of the true will of the Lord God Almighty; this is so regarding all those who have too grievously offended Him without truly seeking needed forgiveness, which comes with no phenomenological qualifications of fact.

In addition, as Aquinas had written, the righteous in Heaven are greatly comforted knowing that the evilly unrighteous in Gehenna are deservedly experiencing God’s both perfect justice and holy wrath.   The worst of all places is, indeed, the ideally best location for all damned souls to be, without question.

Offenses against the Supreme Being are supremely evil because His perfect and infinite majesty, honor, and glory has been terribly and deliberately besmirched, an act of the unquestionably vilest ingratitude had occurred; it was, thus, horribly done, moreover, in a willful manner, as if one were to be slapping the face of God in utter contempt.

As Dr. Ludwig Ott concisely expresses it, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, “St. Augustine defends the endless duration of hell-punishment against the Origenists and against” those who advocate mercy.  But, man’s subjective concept of mercy cannot, by definition, be ever greater than God’s objective and everlasting mercy. He instructively further adds: “On the ground of the teaching of Revelation it is to be inferred, that the will of the damned is immovably hardened in evil and is, therefore, inaccessible to any true repentance.  The reason is that God refuses all further grace to the damned.” Thus, it simply has to be perceived as a quintessential fact.

Elsewhere, Ott properly so notes the Catholic epistemological understanding as to what is meant as to the metaphysical ontology involved: “Suffrages are of no profit to the damned in Hell as they do not belong to the Mystical Body of Christ.” And, this is certainly a most important point to remember.  The damned, ever logically, are forever excluded from the exalted Beatific Vision; otherwise, for instance, God’s holy justice and mercy could not be both, by definition, always and everywhere so absolutely perfect and, axiomatically, unquestionable as such.  Q. E. D.

Unrepented mortal sins, in accordance with metaphysical order, do merit the severest punishment of an often unimaginable extent beyond all description because of the enormous magnitude of the sins, as to their extreme importance; they have, in fact, directly offended and insulted the Lord God Almighty by also reviling and rejecting the love of the Lord by refusing to seek a much needed penitence with a very profound remorse. And, this understanding of truth is as certain as Jesus being the Christ and that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Holy Mediatrix of Grace.

Why is this, meaning the commission of mortal sin, so evilly and malevolently perverse? The damned soul always demonstrably prefers Hell, the vile realm of moral darkness, to Heaven, the joyous abode of the blessed.  And, there are many interrelated implications and ramifications attendant thereto related to the positive and requisite condemnation of all human hubris and arrogance.  Sin, especially the most grievous sort thereof, is a serious matter not without baleful, unfortunate, supernatural consequences.

For in the Compendium theologiae, one clearly reads that: “But we should understand that those who are condemned to final misery cannot have after death what they craved as the best.  Libertines in Hell will have no opportunity to gratify their passions; the wrathful and the envious will have no victims to offend or obstruct; and so of all the vices in turn.”

The above is, of course, thoughtfully rendered as being morally and theologically opposed to mere modernist or postmodernist prejudices set adamantly against such thinking, as to the propriety and appropriateness of the requisite existence and suitable reasonableness of the Infernal Regions. Why?  For seriously offending God, without any profound repentance, obviously ought to and does, in fact, have certain truly dire consequences of a most terrible, shocking, and, in fact, everlasting kind: Hell.⁴

Of course, admittedly, many people passionately question the whole idea of a loving God or even the existence of such a Divine Being when disasters (natural or manmade), acts of terrorism, the deaths of children, etc. occur. They reason from secondary or tertiary principles, not from first principles as to the rightness, reasonableness, and logic of metaphysical order; also, they make their terribly misinformed judgments based upon considerations of social order, political order, cultural order, etc., not from the point of view of metaphysical order, the first principle of all or any order to be correctly considered.

The atheistic existentialist Albert Camus, for instance, infamously judged God and found the deficient Deity to be wanting because he could not really tolerate the thought of seeing little children suffer or die. The “imperfections” of God (by definition, an impossibility if one posits a God) had provoked him because he could not see the real imperfections, the sins of people, that have existed since Adam and Eve were banished out of the Garden of Eden.

If he had properly reasoned by the first principle, he would have perceived correctly that the natural or physical order is obviously always imperfect; there are fallen creatures, including human beings, living in a decidedly fallen world; many very unpleasant and other consequences logically do then result from this extremely important truth of this ever rather harsh reality, including all human suffering and death, not just that of innocent children.

Sinning, being done on a grand scale covering hundreds of millions of people, is yet another logical result of being imperfect creatures existing in an imperfect world. God gets mightily offended by all this sinning, especially by all mortal sins, since He is always, in fact, the principal party who is offended, of course.  Every act of sin, moreover, is defiantly directed against metaphysical order

There must be a suitable and appropriate place of eternal punishment and allied retribution considering, e. g., the hundreds of millions of abortions in the world, past, present and to come; ditto for acts of fornication, sodomy, artificial contraception, divorce, etc. For instance, the blood of those murdered babies cries out to high Heaven and low Hell for severe chastisement, especially when there is no truly profound repentance and genuine seeking of forgiveness from the Lord.

As Frank Sheed in Theology and Sanity, clearly states, “Given that man can, [italics in the original] freely, choose love of self and hatred of God, the rest follows.  In all reverence we can say that God, respecting the will’s freedom, can do nothing about it.  He does not thrust devils or men into hell: they go there, because that is their place.”

Sheed, interestingly, continues the noted thought in the same paragraph, moreover, by also citing Holy Scripture that Judas went, in fact, to the place where he (logically) had to go; it was not because of any supposed ignorance; for the irretrievably damned, by their inherent natures, do remain eternally defiant and decidedly oriented, by evil act(s) of free will, to then be forever recalcitrant, by knowingly rejecting the Lord because they would not sincerely repent.  The Supreme Being, thus, is merciful but not stupid.

Conclusion

The permanence of Hell is a justifiable rebuke to extreme sinners and a comfort for those who have sought to honor God, in pursuing a humble righteousness unto their holy salvation, by being in future among the glorified saints in Heaven.⁵

Verily, the terribly burning realm of devilish Perdition is a mirror to Satan, reflecting both his supreme vileness and hopelessness on a grand scale unto eternity, ⁶ while Heaven is, so rightfully, the blessed abode of those who have arduously sought out a narrow path toward God, the Eternal Truth.  It is the source of faith, hope, and charity and the wisdom found in the Trinitarian Dogma as well.  The fever-pitch raging hate forever seething there, filled with beings having been once both freely and lovingly granted the divine gift of immortal souls, justifies the both true and holy goodness of the good God who created it.

For the glorious meaning of salvation is necessarily magnified many, many fold by the shocking and justified existence of such an extremely terrible place fit for those who have wantonly, deliberately, defied the Lord Almighty by so knowingly abusing their free will. No one ever gets there, of course, against their own will.  The Lord’s abundant mercy is always the same and equal to His justice everywhere (including the Netherworld, of course) and at all times, which is why the unfortunately damned souls are mercifully and considerately retained in Hell and never callously or thoughtlessly obliterated.

Verily, God’s Holy Name ought, therefore, to be always gratefully praised for the everlasting great mercy of Hell. The Lord of Hosts is, thus, rightfully seen to be truly a God of enormous and righteous mercy, even by its very existence.  In any event and contrary to experiential subjectivity, one can asseverate that as informed Christians ought to know, all things, visible and invisible, in the universe and beyond, including both Heaven and Hell, axiomatically exists Pro Gloria Magnum Dei.

Athanasius contra mundum!

 

NOTES

1.)   Strictly speaking, the point correctly noted, (as is expected) by Aquinas, is that Hell was created after the fall of Lucifer and about a third of the angels that had willingly followed him.  There was simply no prior need for it.   Creation is (merely) contingent being.  God, therefore, is always infinitely much more important that any single part of or all of Creation put together and even multiplied a billion times because, after all, the Lord Almighty is the very Author of Creation.

 

2.)   God’s great respect for the dignity of man, made, after all, in the image and likeness of God, means that those extremely reprobate human beings, who commit any unrepented mortal sins, get their then irretrievable and everlasting sinfulness acknowledged authoritatively.   Nevertheless, as this short article explains, truly one ought to logically see that Hell is the mercy of God manifested eternally.

Beings having the image of the Lord Almighty and possessing an immortal soul cannot, therefore, be just vilely obliterated into mere nothingness as if they have no real value as creatures. Hell is, therefore, the logical repository for all those who do hate the Supreme Being because they freely chose to not repent; this is because, moreover, they earnestly wish to remain in permanent enmity toward their Creator to the nth degree.  And, all this is properly related, of course, to sound, orthodox Roman Catholic theology.

 

3.)   It ought to be easily seen now why, therefore, the truly blasphemous and anti-Christian notion of a “Universal Salvation” mightily offends the Lord God Almighty and His wisdom.  This obviously heretical notion spits upon the Divinity by denying that Hell’s creation is an act of true love, not hate or contempt for God’s own creation, meaning Lucifer, the other fallen angels, and the damned souls of human beings who deserve to be there with all the cursed spirits.

Neither cruel nor vicious annihilation nor obliteration, eradication nor extermination, will ever so befall those suffering and tormented souls that the Lord is so forever mindful of unto eternity. In short, only an insane or crazed Deity would have made Hell as a place that would never be actually needed.  It would be, therefore, so thoroughly and certainly irrational, illogical, absurd, and just too downright preposterous.

Thus, only theological idiots or heretics (same difference) could believe in the blatant idiocy of there being a supposed Universal Salvation. In short, Hell’s creation was not whimsical or frivolous.  It is not an empty threat; the Netherworld is, in fact, literally filled with many, many ardent and knowledgeable believers in it through experience.   St. Padre Pio (1887-1968) was once asked what he thought of people who did not believe in Hell. He wisely replied: “They will very well believe in Hell when they get there.”

Interestingly, the most radical, the most theologically nominalist, cults that claim to be Christian, in one way or another, have sought to either substantially minimize Hell into its just perceived as a meaningless symbolic sort of thing or, on the other hand, thoroughly eviscerate it by draining away all meaning as to its being an actual place of eternal punishment. Either way, the Fiery Furnace, for them, does not exist as a fundamentally perennial and definitely Holy Scripture-based fact of Christian belief.  One does see this significantly confirmed, e. g., in the faith tenets of the Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and, of course, Mormons.

 

4.)   Roman Catholic doxology, soteriology, and eschatology all cover various parts of what is intended to be conveyed in this article, as aligned with the orthodox sensus fidei or sensus fidelium. For as Aquinas clearly had stated, in his Summa Theologica, “The magnitude of the punishment matches the magnitude of the sin.  Now a sin that is against God is infinite; the higher the person against whom it is committed, the graver the sin—it is more criminal to strike a head of state than a private citizen—and God is of infinite greatness.  Therefore an infinite punishment is deserved for a sin committed against Him.”  Q. E. D.

According to the Angelic Doctor, moreover, there are four distinct parts to Hell: Gehenna, Purgatory, the Limbo of the Children, and the Limbo of the Fathers. He, of course, carefully elaborates the parts and renders many expository details.  As (orthodox) Catholicism considers such matters, neither faith nor reason are divided against themselves, nor can a loving good God be said to be incapable of creating Hell. So, while still on earth, people can repent and do and say acts of contrition for their sins.

 

Actus Contritionis

Deus meus, ex toto corde pænitet me omnium meorum peccatorum,

eaque detestor, quia peccando,

non solum pœnas a te iuste statutas promeritus sum,

sed præsertim quia offendi te,

summum bonum, ac dignum qui super omnia diligaris.

Ideo firmiter propono,

adiuvante gratia tua,

de cetero me non peccaturum peccandique occasiones proximas fugiturum.

Amen.

 

5.)   The Communist “eschatology” entirely mocks and inverts this by seeking its New Eden on earth, as the Communist Utopia, whereby the collectivist “saints” will be glorified; however, the path to Hell is paved with (SUPPOSEDLY) good intentions, as every and all efforts at attaining the perfectly terrene paradise do necessarily fail, prompting the true believers to always say, next time, it will then surely succeed; this, however, only makes Satan laugh in contempt.  He has a certainly good reason to do so: over 100,000,000 lives, so far, have been devilishly sacrificed to Moloch (aka Communism) already, which well testifies to the Devil’s quite easy confidence, in this very bloody and malevolent matter.

Islam, in its bloodthirstiness, seeks to satanically compete with Communism, as its jihadi are supposed to be guaranteed upon death their sensuous, extremely erotic paradise with its 72 perpetual virgins lusting for each blood-stained soul-body to embrace, for its hellish ability to devilishly massacre infidels.

 

6.)   Satan is forced to remain exactly where he is and, while he greatly enjoys the tormenting of God’s lesser creatures, he is simultaneously always mocked by their contemptuous presence, which offends him unto a towering and obnoxious degree of devilish rage; this unceasingly accursed and titanic wrath set beyond all human comprehension feeds, in turn, unendingly back into the ever unmitigated, ever unadulterated, hellishness of Hell, for it could not, by definition, be otherwise.

While there may be “many” saved souls, the chosen spiritual elite/saints, in Heaven, this number is relatively very small when correctly compared to the billions burning in the nasty Netherworld, for as Jesus Himself said, “Many are called but few are chosen.”

On the other hand, one can, e. g., read the liberal National Catholic Reporter that so heretically prints articles debunking the supposedly silly and dumbly reactionary, unenlightened, archaic “myth” of Hell: https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/eco-catholic/debunking-myth-hell

 

Bibliography

St. Robert Bellarmine [Doctor of the Church], Hell and Its Torments

Catechism of the Council of Trent

Fr. Martin von Cochem, The Four Last Things

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and Patrick Cummins, Life Everlasting and the Immensity of the Soul: A Theological Treatise on the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori

Bob Lord, Visions of the Saints (Visions of Heaven, Hell and Purgatory)

Fr. Wade Menezes, The Four Last Things: A Catechetical Guide to Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell

Fr. F. X. Schouppe, SJ , The Dogma of Hell

Jerry L. Walls, Hell: The Logic Of Damnation

Fr. X and Robert C. Hilkert, The Hell Catholic

 

References

http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2013/03/stories-of-hell-in-lives-of-saints.html

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-hell-there-is

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4275

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM

http://painsufferingandsalvation.blogspot.com/

http://discernmentoffaithandtherealityofhell.blogspot.com/

http://www.catholic-saints.net/hell/

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!

Pope Francis: Another Cultic Papacy Arises

Pope Francis: Another Cultic Papacy Arises
By  Joseph Andrew Settanni

 

“There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.” – Lord Acton

Commentators and assorted sycophants who increasingly praise Pope Francis are becoming believers in the ever growing papal cult surrounding his exalted personage. But, is this really a good thing?   Cultic papacies, as had been also true of John Paul II, ought to always be thought of as just highly anomalous, distinctly abnormal, in that a pope is to direct requisite attention to the living Christ, not himself, as to the true focus of needed worship at all times.   Otherwise, something is ever profoundly wrong. What is meant by such an assertion?

They, those who rather excessively adulate him, do adore his loving stress upon what is said to be a heightened concern for pastoral, not doctrinal, efforts to then deal with how Christian religion can openly show its human side to the poor, the suffering, the downtrodden, the underprivileged, the forgotten. etc.

He so seeks to quite deliberately, one does easily suspect, renew the Spirit of Vatican II by dramatically pursuing an ever expansive and, of course, decidedly humanistic engagement with the world, with the home of primarily earthly people. An affectational religiousness, intent upon hiding its ugly hubris, is proclaimed for the seeking after of a community of Man, but, as always, nemesis awaits.

And, this modern terrene engagement will surely expand, his troubled traditionalist/orthodox critics do contend, until that which is of the vital essence of what is (or what was?) firmly Catholic will, eventually, be mostly taken out of a then redefined understanding and cognate redefinition of Roman Catholicism.  This thought is heartbreaking to many people, who feel scandalized, in a time when exigency is not balanced with the need for maintaining an enduring standard matched to an expectation of the cardinal virtue of prudence that ought to be practiced.

The plainly nominalist cognition of Pope Francis, due to his very considerable devotion to the Spirit of Vatican II (VCII) totally reverses and, in effect, holds in cold contempt the classical notion that doctrinal integrity ought to correctly govern all spiritually valid pastoral work; this had been of the basic essence of proper Catholicism within, of course, the preconciliar Church, which is sadly scorned by the aggressive modernists as an antediluvian absurdity best left to the unwanted past.

His manner, one suspects, overtly suggests his mode as to a modus operandi that, in turn, reflects so surely upon the mode of his odd existentialist manner, which then bodes ill for doctrinal certainty, in a postmodern world, given to much phenomenological speculation and existentialist angst.   A spiritual immiseration, logically, should be expected as a direct consequence of this then dispiriting experiential vacuum where faith, troubled by needless ambiguity, gets a short shrift; he is, as was said, at ease with himself.   At first, admittedly, it all seem paradoxical and, perhaps, simply inexplicable on the plain surface of events.   But, what is really indicative of the truth concerning what is going on with this papacy?

Pope Francis: Idolater and Revolutionary

Thus, it is seen, by critically astute and intelligently informed observers, that Francis is a revolutionary 1  [See: Notes]  zealot really determined to viciously undermine the traditional underpinnings of Catholic orthodoxy by such (aforementioned) deliberate theologico-epistemological corruption.   Many and, perhaps, most of the hierarchy is quite ready, willing, and able to join him in this demonic effort to wreck the very foundations of Holy Mother Church, though, of course, it will finally fail.   Subversion is being attempted deliberately that is usually quite subtle, not an outright activist toppling of structures; but, the effect, by and large, is still a type of revolution  done from the top down to the laity.

Moral and religious neoterism guided by extreme apriorism, however disguised, offends God, though it warmly pleases Satan, of course.   However, the Holy Father, as to attitudinal expression, does not care to be horribly inconvenienced when he prays, as was publicly expressed recently, and prefers to sit it out, with a version of—what—noblesse oblige no doubt.   It is an oh-so-better natured insouciance that gently, tepidly, inspires lesser souls toward an enervating aspiration, not thoughts of a severe sainthood certainly.   Nor exactly, for that matter, the heavy sacrificial spirit of suffering Christian martyrs in the second and third centuries of the Church.

What is actually going on is the often covert replacement of what had been the spiritual sense of proper Catholicism with a form of theological primitivism disguised as a supposed merely postmodern and sophisticated type of Christianity quite suitable for the dawning postmodern age. Prime elements of authority, prescription, veneration, and tradition, the guideposts for sagacious Christian men aware that contemporaneousness possesses no inherent virtue, tend to get rather pervasively and, thus, perversely ignored under such odd circumstances.

The largely surreptitious effort involved, because kept necessarily hidden from the bulk of Catholics, is the morally harmful suggestion that the Church, through this current Holy Father, can do the humanism of secularism better than the secular humanists themselves can do it. The shallow dispute, with the laicists, only concerns the particular source and not the ultimate goal of a spiritualized humanism that clearly flirts with elements of the demonic concerning its here revealed primitivism.

One can read, e. g., the by now quite classic volume entitled: The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith after Freud by Philip Rieff for the deeper gaining of knowledge of the true horror involved.

It is, therefore, the taking of the “Catholic” doctrinal sense out of Catholicism that must, also, have the effect of perverting pastoral concern toward mainly anthropocentric values centering upon emotions or feelings. This should now be fairly expected, therefore, to have religiously and spiritually deleterious consequences for the faithful, for the pontiff manifestly has, e. g., a soft spot in his heart for liberation theology, as ought to be better known; in short, he should stop this terrible scandalizing of too many of the faithful, regardless of his personal ideological preferences.

More and more, the proverbial tail is to wag the dog: Pastoral involvement, efforts, attitudes, concerns, programs, policies, missions, etc. are now to control and govern redefined doctrinal matters. This is surely a form of idolatry, the proverbial cart before the horse, as the worship is made greater than God.

Thus, the current pontiff, imbued with his postconciliar emotionalism, is so revealed to be an idolater, which is, of course, entirely unfitting in terms of what ought to be the religious and spiritual attitude of the Vicar of Christ on earth. No pope is ever to be or act as an idolater, as ought to be obvious in the pious and informed minds of sincerely religious believers.

One sees this, quite empirically, in how the Holy Father, e. g., wants to publicly deemphasize various Catholic doctrines/dogmas through the greater public effort to supposedly stress the predomination of pastoral concerns. It can only, in the end, lead to the debatable creation of the triumph of a kind of feel-good religiosity, not a holy religious attitude prefaced upon sound theological structures, for instance, as to dogmatic faith with its then own proper doxological and doctrinal orientations as such.

Appeals to proper doctrines, especially as they may entail integral adherence to the three main pillars of the Catholic teachings, namely, Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, may “unfortunately” seem much too harsh to many non-Catholics, liberal Catholics, apostate Catholics, and so-called reform-minded (read: radical) Catholics. And, this unfortunate fact is known.

They do then quite fervently look toward him in the hope that he can act as an accommodationist and mediate and ameliorate quite significantly what are thought to be the harsher aspects of all so-called extremist dogmas and doctrines that, (from their truly demonic point of view), do not fit in with the postmodern dictates of the “new morality,” of the postmodern era and its cognate sweeping dictates; these do, of course, completely include triumphal and militant homosexuality, as is, e. g., covered in Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior by E. Michael Jones and, much more recently, in Robert R. Reilly’s Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything.

Thus, Pope Francis seeks to (wrongly) revolutionize his version of Catholicism in a vainglorious attempt to exercise his massing cultic powers toward a reformed style of syncretistic secularism turned inside out and into a paralleling Church-based form of neo-Catholic humanism aligned firmly with the Spirit of Vatican II. But, this overt thaumaturgic nonsense can only have a bad end to it, since it is so lavishly steeped in heavily erroneous cognition and radicalized pseudo-theology strictly foreign to the ancient and everlasting Faith, to the perennial fundamentals of Catholicism itself.

It is all part, one suspects, of a last gasp effort to somehow perversely revive and revivify what he thinks was most relevant in that Vatican Spirit matched to the postmodern era’s blatant neopaganism, which has, in fact, resulted from the utter failure of a pandemic secularism to so fully capture the mind of the (often depraved) masses. Good reading would include Robert P. George’s Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Our Age that satisfies the moral need for gaining truly useful and explicatory insights and comprehension.

This vainly primitive religious and theological fiasco qua effort can only ultimately fail, however, once enough people are no longer that enthralled by the influences of the tendentious papal cult and its once, one may hope, seductive powers.   Phenomenology, however disguised, is not theology, certainly not Catholic theology that ought to rigorously confirm the requisite sensus Catholicus; this is versus the various rationalizations of evil pandemic to most of contemporary society and culture.

Millions of people, as could be here guessed, will finally come to so realize that they cannot, in fact, viably sustain their deepest beliefs merely based upon a feel-good religiosity, which, in the end, is no real substitute for genuine religion, for deep faith in Christ.   But, since Pope Francis will have by then stripped away, in the minds of most Catholics, the Church’s vital ontological essence of everlasting dogmas, the damage would have then been already done and the ecclesial establishment, consequently, would justly be turned into a grand sociocultural mess unworthy of true belief, much less respect.

This must, as an adjunct consequence, fully accelerate the predictable downward slide of the main postconciliar Church, though it will not have such an affect, harsh influence, on the traditional Latin Mass Community that still rightly rejects the Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) of Pope Paul VI.   But, what’s the indicative point commanding attention here?   The sacred teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are increasingly set to nought.  And, what has happened?

The theologico-epistemology of the New Mass “rapes” the orthodox ontology put forth by the Holy Faith as it was properly understood, of course, by the preconciliar Church and its consistant teachings.   However, traditionalist Catholics, concerning the larger reality involved, have not been fooled, which shows, once again, how the Mystery of Good battles against the Mystery of Evil.

Within that growing and vibrant religious community, orthodoxy will not merely survive but, moreover, continuously thrive onward with the sense of the Church Militant that this current Pope does not have much use for in his own calculations; this militant remnant, now no more than about 5% of the Church, will survive and thrive, which partly, at least, suggests that it is a true miracle brought forth by the Holy Ghost.

The absurd effort at one last try to finally and fully effectuate the intra-attitudinizing Spirit of VC II can, therefore, only result in an unmitigated disaster, along with all and every idiotic attempt to reform the reform; this is manifestly because, among other reasons, true Catholicism is always opposed to any merely ersatz version of it, even when aided by the ever questionable powers of a seemingly triumphal and prevailing papal cult. And, historically speaking, it has, in fact, totally failed before to achieve an expected success.

John Paul II, during a papacy that seemed, at times, on the verge of a triumphalism of a sort, had utterly failed to achieve this assumed theologico-humanist revolution carried out in the (dark) light of VCII; it is, thus, rather highly doubtful that the amazing adulatory prestige of this now current Sovereign Pontiff can really pull it off any better even with most of the Leftist media readily and forcefully on his side.

In full contrast, orthodox Roman Catholicism, the integral truth of the Faith, possesses always the both substantive and substantial energy and vitality for picking up the pieces of the aberrant postconciliar Church by so infusing it, as could be then rightly expected, with the ever true strength and sure integrity of religious and theological orthodoxy in the true spirit of St. Athanasius, a good guide for truth.

Papal cults, in reiteration, are truly a bad thing. They do improperly confuse a particular pope with the entire ecclesiastical meaning and Sacred Office of the Papacy. For instance, Alexander VI (Borgia) was personally a very evil man, as had been documented, e. g., by Warren Carroll and many other Catholic historians; however, regardless of all his sad faults, Alexander VI was, nonetheless, an orthodox pontiff; nothing he ever publicly said as to, pertaining directly to, any Church teachings could be interpreted or misinterpreted as heretical.  Reading, on this general subject, can include Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction.

Although in all matters of faith and morals the Holy Ghost always guards every pope from heresy as to ex cathedra matters, however, the personal opinions or private conduct of any pope can still involve sinfulness and heretical opinions; the problem is, of course, that a papal cult obnoxiously wraps up the Vicar of Christ into a kind of protective cocoon, which then ends up wrongly exempting/protecting him from what ought, in fact, to be valid and profitable criticism.   This has had too many baleful consequences as can be empirically below perceived.

Michael Voris, S.T.B., the Catholic President and Founder of St. Michael’s Media and Senior Executive Producer of ChurchMilitant.TV, thus, exemplifies supremely this kind of terribly improper adherence to Pope Francis’ papal cult. Having a degree in sacred theology, he ought to know better.  Papal infallibility only covers faith and morals (inclusive of ethics); a pope cannot, e.g., declare that all Roman Catholics should stop believing in the existence of gravity; he cannot violate any Natural Law teachings nor can he impose, e. g., his particular aesthetic beliefs upon the faithful.   Neither reasoning nor rationality gets suspended.

The very narrow spiritual power that is papal infallibility, equally, does not mean that a pope, thereby, becomes a sinless creature, exempt fully from criticism, due to his papal office, which ought to better clarify matters here.

Voris forgets, conveniently, that St. Paul had publicly rebuked St. Peter concerning the vital question of whether the Gentiles had to be, first, Judaized before becoming Christians, that St. Catherine of Siena and St. Teresa of Ávila both criticized popes, and, moreover, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Common Doctor, wrote that it was, in fact, the true moral duty of Catholics to admonish, respectfully, of course, any pope in defense of the need to guard or uphold Catholicism.   He does not know better, in short, than the Angelic Doctor of the Faith, which ought to be obvious.

The requisite freedom to rightly defend holy orthodoxy, as well as the always inherent justice of it, is certainly coterminous with true faith; such freedom and faith are reciprocating hemispheres that thematically do form a coherent, never disparate, whole in an obligatory furtherance of Catholicism for the salvation of souls; it should never be a question, for instance, of possibly hurting the feelings of a particular pontiff through some appopriate manifestations of public disapproval.

As is so typical of most conservative Catholics or neo-Catholics (as they have been better denominated), he addresses only secondary or tertiary principles and does not epistemologically ground his theological argumentation in first principles, namely, the hearty promotion and adamant defense of orthodoxy.   As an educated man, with a religious degree no less, he definitely ought to then know better.   Mr. Voris improperly commits the vulgar cognitive reductionism of saying that it all, meaning the real controversy surrounding Francis, gets subject only to a simplistic Right v. Left series of interpretations.   This is false.

The truly paramount issue and definitely substantive crux of religious and theological argumentation and disputation, ever most certainly, revolves significantly around the highly contested matter of Roman Catholic orthodoxy, not lesser concerns, and certainly not any political disputations.   Therefore, Voris, whether ignorantly or not, commits a distinct disservice to the Catholic faithful; this is by so deliberately confusing the issue and diverting wanted attention from what ought to be of central concern, of focused thought, and not the various alleged or observed peccadillos produced by this papacy.

Furthermore, it is how the forces of the Left pick up or abuse the words of the Holy Father that ends up provoking an agitated response from those who disagree with the supposedly erroneous interpretations or ideologically-inspired misinterpretations.   If the Sovereign Pontiff would be much more careful and circumspect, suitably sober and judicious with his often imprecise or poorly worded verbiage, in serious terms of the interviews given, then there would be a great difficulty whenever the radicals may attempt to utilize such words for their own nefarious ends.

The many worried and troubled Catholic traditionalists, therefore, are only reacting in response to what these secularists are writing about that, therefore, causes the questionable cultic aura to be created; this is by which the Pope’s words can be then manipulated or operated upon successfully and easily, as has been, too often, the unfortunate case.

Public criticism is said to give scandal and aid to the enemies of the Church; the scandal, for instance, is said to negatively impact converts or would-be converts and severe critics of any papal censure point to the noted divisiveness that results, with this broadly in-your-face pontificate.

Although it is freely conceded without question that the papacy is an elective monarchy, however, it is not equivalent to (an oriental-style) despotism; converts, thus, are not ever required to simply check their brains in at the door of the Church.  Voris, one suspects, has forgotten this important fact, for there is no scandal in loving charitable rebuke; the contrary is, however, true.

But, Voris (in, perhaps, being naïve) stating that Catholics ought to be writing private letters of concern to the Pope brings up the pathetic fallacy, meaning “if only the Czar knew, if only the Pope knew,” etc. then he would not do or say certain things, or allow certain things to happen.   He, in fact, obviously knows.   How may this be, therefore, easily verified?

He, e. g., had swiftly and publicly replied to Rush Limbaugh’s accusation against him for seeming to side with Marxism, which does empirically, of course, prove that this informed “happy time” Holy Father is then most clearly cognizant and surely aware, not ignorant, meaning supposedly being in a state of genuinely not knowing that he can and does aggravate, dismay, annoy, or upset many faithful Catholics.   An increasing bunch of letters is not really at all needed, as should be logically guessed by now.

Instead, let there be a critical analysis through supplying an appropriate analogy. Are newly naturalized citizens of the USA (read: recent/potential converts) to be wholly freed from ever being “scandalized” by public criticism of the President (read: the Pope) such that any possible animadversions are then to be spoken of only in private? Good citizenship, on the contrary, would rather morally dictate otherwise, and the vile perversity of saying that this speech ought to be completely concealed from public hearing is best reserved to dictatorships, not free governments.  Though all analogies have their limitations, of course, however, the truth of the principle involved yet remains.

As ought to be properly said, Voris totally forgets that a pope’s personal religious, theological, moral, or ethical opinions are just that, they are (only) his personal opinions, not the true perennial teachings of the Faith.   They, therefore, hold no dogmatic or doctrinal sanction whatsoever because these opinions are not within the scope of faith, morals, or ethics needed for achieving holiness, for then affirming the economy of salvation.

More to be significantly noted, the (Leftist) Church dissidents agree with the neo-Catholics that the orthodox objectors are to be appropriately silent, which ought to give one pause.   The attempted faux censorship, favored by Voris, is so evidently seen here to be disproportionate, besides being, in effect, morally perverse as well.   Thus, both sociologically and psychologically speaking, the basic potency of popular impressions, within human thought and interaction thereof, generally so depends upon the existent valuation of preconceived ideas; in short, perception (often) defines reality.   And, humans, fallen creatures, are prone to sin in a fallen world.

An epoch strongly antagonistic to religion necessarily perceives events and meanings through (warping) secular lenses, which Voris, a neo-Catholic, may have forgotten to remember as a noted function of the massive de-Christianization of the West, which has vitiated a humble questing in the real world of being.   Both elements of neopaganism and secularism, the former provoked into existence by the latter, have come, more or less, to predominately define and vilely saturate societal and cultural reality in the present Western world.

The only adequate spiritual response to civilizational crisis, regardless of the advancing postmodernity, is an authentic revitalization of divine revelation in the soul of every man, for which an appeal to the Holy Ghost may be properly made.   As ever, Christ is the Truth, not public opinion surveys or democratic votes, especially in an anti-Christian age.

The traditionalist critics are, therefore, being merely reactive and not at all excessively “provocative” regarding many given responses just openly rendered; this is so because of the quite too deliberate or, perhaps, intentionally corrupted popularization of such (often carelessly expressed, as admitted by Voris himself) papal statements, as is freely done by the progressive intellectuals, degenerate cognoscenti, and their logically associated press outlets.

There is, nonetheless, an aforementioned suspicion and, yes, firm suggestion as to what may be really going on beyond the many creative apologies thought up for defending Pope Francis, for silence may help to damn many souls to Hell.   A papal precision and rectitude of behavior and seemliness seems too often lacking beyond intrasubjective communicational efforts, which disregard a holy dependence upon transcendent intention for the highest meaning of Christian life, not transactional analysis.

And, an extremely excessive defense of a pontiff, set beyond proper and appropriate religious respect for his office and naturally cognate theological status, may lead to a form of idolatry.   Objections to what is going on are being made by many sincere and devoted Catholics, not just supposed nutwings or sedevacantists or Radi-Tradies (aka Radical Traditionalists), as is too often alleged; bitter recriminations and the anti-Christian casting of aspersions, furthermore, will add much heat, not light.   Scurrility and perfidy, however, are not exactly subtle substitutes for applying properly calm discussion, informed valid criticism, and cogent analysis.

Once again, it is snobbishly assumed that if certain people get “labeled,” they do not have to be debated with nor are worthy of any genuine continued discourse or desired discussions.   Those who detest the modernization of dogmas and doctrines are, thus, casually dismissed as mere freaky Catholics filled with petulant aspirations, repugnant mental gestures, and sore loser attitudes; a bunch of supposed sour cranks and vile nonconformists proverbially “whistling Dixie in the dark.”

For the (orthodox) traditionalists, this fierce verbal combat, as should be here intelligently recognized, necessarily helps to so continue the intended vicious marginalization and, of course, cognate contempt; Voris mentioned the traditionalists in a rather snide context with Eastern Orthodoxy that suggests, by innuendo, that they are like these, in effect, first Protestants or, perhaps, proto-Protestants of the Greek or Russian Orthodox Church.   But, ever regardless, such mere nasty polemics or invectives are still no truly viable substitute for substantive and rational, considerable and objective, argumentation and disquisition.

Of course, many prayers for the Pope are needed in the hope that God may mightily dissuade him from committing grave moral errors founded upon his own idolatry and its attendant superstition in the odd endeavor to favor an ecclesiastical revolution similar, in many respects, to Protestantism; the faithful can, therefore, positively send up their many prayerful supplications to Heaven in attempting to help destroy such very ill-founded papal intentions that do quite necessarily conflict with the appropriate understanding of the nature of Catholicism, of the will of Jesus Christ for the Church He founded.

On the other hand, in fairness, one can note that some observers do think that he is still very much a mystery man or enigma, which then adds, of course, to his growing personal (read: cultic) aura. 2

But, much valid criticism yet exists.   Equally, there ought to be a definite end to the spiritually unhealthy modern phenomenon of papal cults, as has been said, that began with John Paul II whose more pedantic sycophants, e. g., do still publicly call him John Paul II the Great.   Moreover, the ugly heretical fads and fashions being put forth by this Bishop of Rome should be appropriately found simply intolerable in the proper theological and moral context of orthodox religious teachings concerned with the dogmas and doctrines of the Holy Faith.   His attempt at a papal revolution through internal subversion is, however, much more disturbing. 3

The fads and fashions, in thought, evidenced by the Holy Pontiff do not correctly fit in with the proper understanding of man as made in the image of God, rather, humans get reduced into just being seen as rather clever (though somewhat irrational) beasts from the anthropocentric point of view, as favored by the Spirit of VC II.   The spiritualization of advanced beasts, through an accommodationist Church, is not what the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension was about, though, unfortunately, this needs to be explicitly said today.  Why?

The secularization of Pelagianism, since about the late 15th century, was brought about by the ideologies of modernity, which, in turn, had created the neo-Pelagianism of a decadent and degenerate secular society and culture within modernity; this then favors the spread of neopaganism, 4 the broad apostasy of the West, as pure or unadulterated secularism gets rejected by the masses, though not by most of the cognoscenti, the intellectuals, within the now dawning postmodernity.   There are, moreover, certain rather definite implications.

Consequently, the still valuable Platonic critique of sophism must, thus, be revived for this unfortunate era.   This situation is, in essence, a moral problem in that a basic spiritual alienation has occurred that existentially separates morals from ontology due to intellectual hubris.   But, usually praised rationalist autonomy, as intelligo ut credam gets fully rejected, is simply a form of this (often unrecognized) alienation, as it needs to be understood. To all this, the resounding Catholic battle cry must, of course, logically be: Athanasius contra mundum!

The Revival of Catholicism Needed

An authentic Christian anthropology, as enunciated by, e. g., Pope Benedict XVI, starts first with the desire for maintaining an ever proper Christocentric attitude that ought consciously to fill all requisite discussions and considerations of human nature as being fixed, not plastic.   Why is this to be always adamantly said?

If human nature is not, by definition, a true nature, then it cannot be discussed as something innate to conscious, cognizant, sentient biped beings.   Any supposed protean or changeable nature is an oxymoron, which sheer logic demands recognition of as being true, though a fully false understanding of man’s humanity, for there must be a restoration of authority, prescription, tradition, order, value, purpose, and belief; these are all, moreover, to be rightly held as being intimately within and defined by the Catholic cosmos represented, in truth, by the Holy Faith.

But, the behaviorists, materialists, positivists, pragmatists, and others, all surely dedicated nominalists, absurdly insist that there is no truly fixed human reality pertaining to the human species, meaning no defined and knowable human nature as such.   Unsurprisingly, both the soulless cadres of modernist subjectivists and the postmodernist deconstructionists agree absolutely on that demonic point.

They share a truly grave contempt for the idea of the desired sanctification of human lives for the advancement of Christ’s Kingdom, not service toward those earthly ideals that aid the malicious efforts of the Prince of this world (aka Satan); man’s inherent humanity, moreover, becomes optional and oriented toward ideological preferences; the personal has become political and vice versa as with, e. g., cultic preferences that are denounced in this article.

By them, it is said to be mainly polymorphous, more or less, to greater or lesser degrees of definition; some would go so far as to say that it is unknown; thus, e. g., sodomites are, more and more, popularly said to be normal, not obvious perverts.   By being in needed defense of classical Natural Law teachings and what used to be called right reason, Catholicism, in its orthodox-traditionalist interpretation, openly understands and affirms the rational existence of there always being a definite human nature logically applicable to all human beings qua human beings. Oddly enough, this seems a most “radical” statement today.

This had normally been backed by what had been once just called common sense, which, as Aristotle recognized many centuries ago, is not really common and, thus, the need for philosophy.   Both Catholic theology and classical philosophy, unsurprisingly, adheres to the positively directed upholding of the humanity of mankind, which is, of course, always fully consist with right reason, with self-evident truth; this is contrary to the attempted demonic subversion of the Holy Faith, especially since VC II.

Moreover, there is no supposed division of faith versus reason as is falsely contended by modernity, inclusive, of course, of Protestantism as one of the chief (nominalist) products of modernity in cognition.   False reasoning and rationalism parading as a form of rationality must then both be condemned as harming rational cognizance for religious and theological ends, not just for purposes of determining appropriate social discourse; there is to be, moreover, a teleological affirmation of the Faith counter to any nihilistic immanentism, and a religious basis must properly exist for ever directing people toward theological truth, regardless of the often popular preferences of modernity or postmodernity in thought.

All of this easily explains and elucidates why orthodox Catholicism’s revival, as with the traditional Latin Mass Community being socially organic in nature, is clearly needed, meaning that it appears, in bizarre contradistinction, to be a mostly quite foreign entity to the vast bulk of the Church’s hierarchy and its prelates, including the general clergy, which is, indeed, a rather sad admission of fact.

It must be remarked upon, however, that any kind of cultic papacy, a contemporaneous media-induced phenomenon, harms greatly the valuable transmission of Catholic teachings and is a hindrance to the advancement of orthodoxy; this is because, as it has been covered, the colorful and dramatic personality of a current pontiff, as it needs to be here said, can come to improperly cloud men’s minds with all the variable foibles, eccentricities, or idiosyncrasies that may, in fact, characterize greatly the quite colorful person holding, currently, the highest ecclesiastical office in this world, unfortunately.

What is truly required for genuine spiritual renewal, contrary to all the absurd papal shenanigans going on, is a traditional return to Catholic consciousness that must be opposed to the continuing neo-Catholic (read: nominalist-inspired) defense of the ugly “regime of novelty,” as it has been called, spawned by VC II, which has little regard for a sense of freedom raised to indefectible obedience in the beatific vision that is to be the salvific goal of all sincere and believing Christians.   There is to be no supposedly amnesic regard for what had been the historic teachings, the fundamental theological framework, of the Church, which righteously includes the desired sanctification of souls, not fashionable or flashy showmanship.

A true and developed Catholic conscience is, therefore, authentic, fully aware and cogently conscious of the theological fact that new-fangled heresies are still, when all is said and done, heretical, not at all newly normative or special spiritual revelations for the faithful. The rightful interpretation and integral consideration of proper Catholicism, moreover, has never and will never actually begin or end with any particular papacy with attempts at creating a merely ersatz religiosity, not the proper sensus Catholicus. 

Affirmation of such includes the notions of lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi, as all these are valid aspects of integral authenticity and are to be within an integrated Catholic culture, for reason, against the vile heresies of Martin Luther, is not the enemy of faith.

Being a true papist Catholic does not mean having a myopic regard and affection for the quirkiness of any particular pontiff, ever ready with creative or elaborate argumentation on his behalf; profound respect given for the exalted Office of the Holy Father ought logically and theologically to mean and imply much more than that blatant and ludicrous kind of, in the end, reductio ad absurdum.

Any neo-Catholic apologia, done on the questionable behalf of the new orthodoxy stemming from VC II and its aftermath, and connected to continual reinterpreting of papal statements, puts verily into question the rationality, if not necessarily the sincerity, of the apologists.   Catholicism, furthermore, must never axiologically degenerate into becoming an adjunct feature of any cult, no matter how prestigious it may seem or be; in opposition, Christocentric orientation must stress genuinely holiness, sanctification, for it to ever be an authentic witness for the Christian life of living men, for the upholding of the usus antiquior of a still living spiritual tradition, meaning the nature of Catholicism.

No amount of publicity is to become a substitute for sincere religious devotion and studiously Christian behavior, for as long as the enemies of Christ and His Church so loudly praise Pope Francis, it will be morally and spiritually necessary to admonish, to denounce, him publicly; thus, he is not to be wrongly considered exempt from religious enlightenment, the pursuit of the light of Christ, not the fantasies of this fallen world.   Christianity is the true hope of this world, not any supposed humanism of the secular order of triumphant Man.

The Faith, moreover, is not to ever be an optional matter seemingly weighed against the variable dictates or subtle demands of cultic inspiration centered on the popularization of dramatic words or gestures; symbolism should not be confused with Catholic substance, regardless of the hip attitudes of pop culture and its odd devotees. Vital Catholic consciousness, instead, requires true devotion to the perennial dogmas and doctrines of Holy Mother Church, as they have been, appropriately, explicated and inculcated by the three main pillars of the Faith: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, with each always theologically and religiously reinforcing the other and none contradicting any of the three.

They adamantly, among other virtues, do support the Culture of Life.  This leads to a wanted orthodox renewal, contrary to the odd speculations of the neo-Catholics and their neo-orthodox supporters who insist on defending the dying regime of novelty, meaning as the Novus Ordo steadily depopulates the churches and parishes. A conscious Catholicism, known to orthodoxy, is so requisite to the glorious task of restoration and reaffirmation that cannot rest upon a simple piety, though in a profound sense there must be yet a proper piety toward the constitution of being and achieved truth found solemnly within the Church.

From all of this stems mightily, thus, the true origins or provenance of confirmed Papal Sovereignty, contrary to the too often post hoc, ergo propter hoc ratiocination found to be absurdly present in most neo-Catholic reasoning. It is the truth and dignity of the Faith, backed by an orthodox sensibility, that confers title and legitimacy, authority and power, to the papacy, not vice versa.

Conclusion

Therefore, no popular cult can, in truth, substitute for the legitimate authority, power, and prestige of the papacy, regardless of whom, in particular, holds the papal office itself; the exalted Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome, is always equally the Holy Sovereign Pontiff of the entire Roman Catholic Church and, by logical extension, he is also the Pastor for all the people of this world.

Thus, it is so religiously and morally best that Pope Francis cease acting in such an unseemly manner, entirely inappropriate to what ought to be the proper demeanor and decorum, that should be normally expected of the Servant of the Servants of Christ; he is not, for instance, to be a public pop star to be constantly seeking the fawning, flattering, adulation of many crowds or, for that matter, of popular opinion. A papal cult is, therefore, surely an execrable, simply appalling, idea, contrary to the tenor and substance of the Holy Faith, of its dogmas, doctrines and traditions validly defining true Catholicism. 5

So, here is a prayer for the Pope:

Almighty and everlasting God, have mercy upon Thy servant, Francis, our Supreme Pontiff, and direct him, according to Thy loving-kindness, in the ways of eternal salvation; that, of Thy gift, he may ever desire that which is pleasing unto Thee and may accomplish it with all his might. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Fortunately, the traditional Latin Mass Community and those allied to its cause, therefore, offers the best practical antidote to the neo-Catholic/neo-orthodox poison that wishes to truly prevent the orthodox reassertion and revivification of the substantive conscious sense of the vital preconciliar Church versus the ever troubling, modernist, postconciliar, ecclesiastical establishment.

Athanasius contra mundum!

 

Notes

1. For instance, it is well known that he is thoroughly adored by Hans Küng, the major heresiarch prominent in the world today, who publicly demands absolute radicalization of the Church. See: http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/23f9e2afa6d1af9209db15a20e801220-199.html
And, moreover, he is surely a great champion of the Left. Many Communists, e. g., were actively helped by him. He was/is a man that these avowed enemies of God trusted and confided in without worry. See: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Argentina-Pope-francis-Dirty-Wars/2014/03/13/id/559256/

Note: If any pope did for Nazis what he had done for Communists, it is extremely doubtful, however, that such a pontiff would expect to get effusively good press accounts, filled with enormous adulation, about that particular kind of activism.
Other open leftist support for Pope Francis: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/11/the-secret-pope-francis…

2. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pope-mystery-royal/2014/03/14/id/559572/

3. See: Pope Francis: has his revolution even started? | World … http://www.theguardian.com › News › World news › Pope Francis

 4. See: M. Stanton Evans, The Theme Is Freedom, Chapter 7 The Rise of Neopaganism.

5. Many of the apologists for the Holy Father, of course, say that those leftists and others who are too intensely praising him are just using him for their own purposes and are not at all truly sincere in the widely vocal plaudits given. If so, this makes the situation much worse.   Either Pope Francis is extremely incredibly naïve beyond belief or else, if true, he is complicit, to whatever degree, with the evil involved.   The only resolution that denies both these alternatives is, perhaps, the thought that their interpretation(s) of him are, in fact, as truly sincere as the applause rendered is not subtle but, rather, overt and, thus, intentional.   But, what could that mean?

Still, it would seem that the bottom line of prudential logic and sagacious reasoning is that he ought to cease and desist, for the sake of the Holy Faith, with any ambiguous conduct or provocative speech that might lend certain credence to the beliefs of the Left.  The Pope ought, then, not to be such a source of severe scandal, which is not too much to expect or demand.