“Who is GOD?”
The
Loss of Christ to Ecumenism
and the Growing Pantheon
of the Post-Catholic-conciliar-church
C
hrist
will one day return
— yes, imagine, even in this cesspool of human and
diabolical misery that we proudly, even defiantly, call
the “post-Modern World” where the only ethic is the
abolition of every ethic — that is to say, the
calculated repudiation of truth as the vertex of all
moral authority.
Of
course, we can stand as Pilate did and ask with feigned
ignorance, “What is truth?”
1
even as
Pilate stood before Truth itself (Christ) — and then go
on to crucify it. In fact, ... we have!
But why?
Why this renunciation of Christ as absolutely singular
and indispensable to salvation, such that St. Paul
unequivocally declares:
“Neither is there
salvation in any other. For there is no other Name
under Heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.”
2
We must note that St. Paul does not say “can be saved” — but
“must be saved.”
The answer is quite pedestrian; in fact, it is strikingly
simple: the centrality and indispensability of Christ is
an impediment to something deemed greater than Truth
itself which, since Vatican II, has been the ecumenical
project, perhaps best understood as religious
neutrality.
In Ecumenism, all religions (however absurd, illogical, and in
manifest contradiction to every other religion) are not
just “correct” — but are, in a way that defies reason
and logic (to say nothing of Divine Revelation), equally
true expressions of the “One, True, Religion” — which
becomes understandable when we realize that Ecumenism is
the unreserved affirmation of all religions. No one
religion is correct or true; all are true, all are
correct. Such a statement, of course, is logically
absurd. It is a statement in violation of the Law of the
Excluded Middle in Logic: p_¬p To wit: one and the same
thing cannot both be and not-be at one and the same time
in a univocal sense without resulting in irreconcilable
contradiction. It is a necessary and inviolable function
of human understanding.
We hasten to add that this is not Catholicism, but a
different religion altogether — which had been
mistakenly conflated with Catholicism for 60 years — but
which has emerged as a phenomenon of itself and in its
own right, having no distinct creed and in need of no
doxological credentials — the very phenomenon which we
have come to know as Ecumenism. Consider the following
which Francis proclaimed to the Plenary Session of
the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
on May 5, 2022:
“I would like to emphasize that: today, for
a Christian, it is not possible or
practicable to go alone with one’s own
denomination.
Either we go together, all the fraternal
denominations, or we do not go ahead at all.
… Alone, never. We cannot do it. … Today,
either we all walk together or we do not
walk”
This is Francis. This is also madness. It is heresy, and
possibly apostasy. It is unquestionably contrary to the
Catholic Faith as it has been known, understood, and
practiced for the two millennia preceding that
calamitous Council we call Vatican II, and the
disastrous “oracle” of Francis within the Church.
The preceding citation is an affront, not only to Traditional
Catholics, but to the universal human capacity to reason
and understand in coherent and consistent terms. In
Ecumenism we confront the illogical, the emotive, the
intractable unwillingness to engage in anything
construed as possibly inimical to its own peculiar
agendum. Any attempt to invoke the canons of reason are
understood as a threat to the Ecumenical Project.
For this reason, we insist that Francis is not simply the
culmination, but the personification of the failed logic
of that malignant enterprise — a pantheistic project,
really — benignly dubbed “Ecumenism.” Since Vatican II,
reason, logic, and revelation have been effectively
abolished. Ecumenism — not Christ — is the ne plus
ultra, the summit of every religious aspiration and
impulse.
Who is the True God?
We see this clearly in the three
“Inter-Faith-Assemblies” initiated by three successive
popes in Assisi: John Paul II on Oct. 26, 1986, “To
be together to pray.” Then on January 2002 his next
pan-religious prayer meeting in the same venue. This was
to be followed by Benedict XVI’s “Meeting for peace”
on October 27, 2011, and then Francis’s “Day of
prayer for peace” in Assisi, Italy, Sept. 20, 2016).
On these occasions, the absence of certainty concerning The
One, True, God was the sine qua non of the merest
possibility of Ecumenism.
Praying to Islam’s Allah, Shinto’s Kami, Hindu’s Trimurti, the
Zoroastrian Ahura Mazdā, the African animist’s snake god
Dan, or the Buddhist’s Dali Lama (who possesses no fewer
than 108 “avatars”), was — in a quite uncertain way —
praying to the same god in a kind of iridescent cope.
Each iteration of “god” was respectively acclaimed the
certain god, even while it was impossible to reconcile
all the alternating perceptions and contradictions
inherent in those claims.
The Catholics were the only faction in the pantheon of
contradictory gods who, through their pontifex
Maximus Francis, conceded that they, at least, were
uncertain; in fact, quite uncertain about the identity
of the true “god,” and held the least tenable position
of all: that the contradictions were only, and
ultimately, illusory in the ecumenical schema. Those
brazen enough to insinuate the faculty of reason into
the ecumenical paradox and who raised the objection that
the contradictions were real— both baffled and
infuriated the “progressive” Catholic ecumenist who
could, of course, resolve these otherwise insuperable
issues in the snap of a chat. It is a strange, recursive
world completely apart from the world of men. And its
epicenter is the Vatican.
It is a world that expropriates madness from the narrow halls
of the insane asylum, not only as emblematic of, but
necessary to, the absurdity encountered at every level
of “higher authority” and “higher learning” within the
Church — and most especially the Vatican and
Francis-as-pope.
This mantra — “the certainty of uncertainty (except the
irrational notion of the uncertainty of certainty …)”
— appears to verge on something intelligible … until
one examines it more closely:
“Of this
alone are we certain: the certainty of uncertain
(except the certainty of uncertainty …)”
The religious epicenter of
this mental illness, as we have said, is the
post-Catholic Vatican — and its primary sponsor — and
vector — Francis, who infects with faux Jesuitical
casuistry, everyone in proximity to him. As such,
Francis is indeed the pathogen of this devastating
disease that manifests itself in “certain uncertainty.”
Ambiguity, we must understand, is the first symptom:
state nothing with unimpeachable certainty, and never in
unambiguous terms that possess the insolence of
exactitude, that is to say, apodictic (or absolute)
certainty is the first organ infected. It then advances
through meaningless neologisms which sound meaningful to
the dull-witted — until they are rationally examined by
uninfected minds and reveal themselves as so much
drivel, or unembellished nonsense. But let us allow
Francis, a heretic, a Modernist, and the apex of evil in
the Vatican, to prove our point:
·
“A first principle for progress in building a people:
time is greater than space.”
·
“Space hardens processes”
·
“Spaces and power are preferred to time and processes”
3
Unless you are the keeper
of, or an inhabitant within, an insane asylum, such
“Analects from Chairman Francis” would be impossible to
parse in rational terms, let alone attain to something
meaningful, or, for that matter, coherent.
Once this ambitious policy of ambiguity and uncertainty
infests the offices and bookshelves of every seminary
rector, pseudo-scholar, and all the “carefully groomed”
future priests in virtually every Catholic seminary — it
entirely suppresses and then ruthlessly supersedes (but
can never abolish) the 2000-year-patrimony and the
indefeasible competency of the quite certain Magisterium
of 2000 years. Together with the equally certain Sacred
Deposit of Faith, and Holy Tradition, which it
contemptuously disdains, it strives to replace all three
with both spurious and meretricious parodies — none of
which possess “certainty.”
“Pink Palaces”
There is a desperate,
decisive, and crucial need to return to sanity — and
with sanity, certainty — through a complete reversion of
all things to what is and ever was genuinely and
unapologetically Catholic. This entails everything that
has been blighted or obliterated since Vatican II, most
especially a specifically numinous and universal
language crafted for divine worship — Latin — which is
unchanging and unchangeable and hence in no need of
meaningless improvisations, no geographic or cultural
inflections; it is a language that — for two millennia
— was not confined to time and place; it transcended all
geographical borders, all cultures and every age,
attaining to universality in a way that no other
language ever accomplished.
The return to sanity must embrace all that has been
corrupted: everything religious, liturgical,
intellectual, devotional, musical, every rubric, every
response, enunciated without ambiguity — everything must
be restored to the 2000-year-old form preceding the
sacrilege of Vatican II. Apart from this total return,
we remain a Church without reason in both its meanings:
irrational and without purpose.
This cannot be achieved by schism from — but reversion
to the One, True, Holy, Catholic Church of our forebears
for two millennia — and apart from which (as the Church
had constantly and tenaciously held until Vatican II)
there is no salvation. She is the Body of Christ of
which He is the head, and “there is no other Name [or
god, or goddess, or pagan idol] by which we are saved”
(Acts 4.12) except Christ Jesus.
Our hot-bed-homosexual seminaries, rectors, liberal and
disaffected “teachers”; our “carefully groomed”
pederast, pedophile, and predatory priests must first be
immediately and unceremoniously thrown out, and the
buildings they partied in and “co-occupied” must be
thoroughly fumigated from the sexual filth that has
found fertile ground there, much as a bacterium in a
petri dish. They must be reassessed and reformed in
stringently Catholic terms that tolerate no aberration.
The spectacle of feminist ideologues (both female and
male) instructing Catholic MEN on how to become priests
must be put to an end and never allowed to
experimentally emerge again. That is madness! Imagine
laymen instructing women Religious postulants on how to
become contemplative, cloistered nuns! In what venue
would that occur? In a papally enclosed monastery? A
Convent? Impossible! “Steel sharpens steel,” as it is
said, and manly men should be examples in the classrooms
and elsewhere to forge men for a manly task. The
priesthood is nothing less.
“Certain” ... “feelings”?
The notion of certainty is both epistemological and
invariable. The notion of feelings is both emotional and
variable. The two are entirely separate. “Certainties”
pertain to universally accepted definitions that cannot
be contravened without contradiction. Anything less
would be mere opinion. “Emotion” and “feelings, on the
other hand, can consistently be contradictory. They are
not confined by reason or any other objective
constraint.
My emotional “feelings”
are different from your “feelings” but my cognitive
understanding, say, of a triangle must correspond to,
and be in agreement with, your understanding of a
triangle: there is absolutely no latitude, or
alternative definition: “The sum of the three interior
angles comprising a triangle will always — without
exception — equal 180 degrees.” That absolute certainty
may not please you, but you cannot possibly make it
otherwise. You can state that it has 120 degrees, but
simply stating it will not make it so.
What we have Lost
Everything — everything we
held dear and precious to us, everything distinguishable
as uniquely Catholic — everything held sacred to us as
Catholics has been has been torn from us by those who
deem themselves “intellectually superior,” “aligned with
the social issues of our times,” “more “enlightened,”
“progressive,” “liberal,” and fashionably “dissident.”
Understand that these are both subjective and subversive
credentials.
Virtually every aspect of genuine, historical, Catholicism has
been thrown under the feet of Modernists: the
avant-garde (that is to say, the increasingly
Protestant) cardinals, bishops, theologians, and
“liturgists” — together with the “ever-experimental”
priests incardinated by apex homosexual predators with
an impenetrable network of homosexual advocates both
inside and outside the Church. We absolutely must
remember Christ’s admonition: “Do
not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls
before swine, lest they trample them under their feet,
and turn and tear you in pieces.” (Mat.7.6)
Every
traditional Catholic understands the force behind this
admonition. It is not simply marginalization, exclusion,
and ridicule — but open hostility. Calvinists,
Lutherans, animists, atheists, or pagans are much more
likely to encounter a warm and welcoming reception from
“progressives” in the Church than a traditional
Catholic. Why? Because a traditional Catholics are in
possession of a certainty foreign to their “progressive”
counterparts — and central to that certainty is Jesus
Christ Who is largely ignored in “ecumenical gatherings”
as an impediment to Francis’s program of “Accompaniment”
with all men, and all gods, and under all conditions.
Christ sometimes spoke analogically, but for the greater
part of His (that is to say, God’s) discourses or simple
utterances, He spoke with forceful clarity, unmitigated
austerity, and absolute unambiguity. There was no
misunderstanding Christ — or St. Peter, St. Paul, St.
John, or any of the Apostles. No effort was made to
accommodate the “sensitivities” of men, or the
antagonism of the world. As St. Peter succinctly stated,
regardless of consequence, “We ought to obey God, rather
than men.” (Acts 5.29)
Judge for yourself: if the absence of certainty is not
ineluctably the absence of Christ — and of what He
taught, what He commanded, and what He mandated for all
who presume to follow in His footsteps — we have no
warrant, no reason whatever, to appeal to what is
uncertain — and being uncertain, inconsequential.
The corruption, estrangement, and ultimately the rescission of
central aspects of Catholicism by Vatican II to
accommodate non-Catholic “denominations” (Lutheranism in
particular, Protestantism at large, and increasingly
other “practices” it factitiously subsumes under the
concept of “religion”) must be recognized, confronted,
and not simply “resisted”
— but actively challenged in the tribunal of reason and
demonstrated to be wanting. Contradictions cannot be
politely put aside to simply accommodate consensus. The
very notion of contradiction denotes conflict and
disagreement. We must remember that the Church has
consistently taught and maintained that the relationship
between Faith and Reason is both mutual and reciprocal —
not contradictory. It is both doxastic and evidentiary,
and so understood, the one involves the other.
It is on these grounds that the documents and propositions —
however much subversively presented as “practical” in
nature — that issued from Vatican should be decided. If
they do not accord with reason (especially the Law of
non-Contradiction), then neither are they consistent
with Faith, specifically the Catholic Faith. We must
soberly ask, “Do they accord with the Mens Ecclesiae”
(the Mind of the Church”) distilled and meticulously
articulated through the two-thousand years preceding
“the Council” which has sought to mitigate the
stringency of those teachings (for example, Nostra
Aetate, otherwise known as the “Declaration on the
Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions”,
and Gaudium et Spes, the “Pastoral” Constitution
on the Church in the Modern World— which seeks the
engagement of the Church in “the world,” through a
pastoral “activism” much along the lines of the social
and political activism that became prominent in the
1960s and 1970s. No longer obsessed with issues eternal
(such as the salvation of souls), she was called away
from them by Gaudium et Spes to what it deemed
more immediate and practical issues, issues concerning
the social and political dimensions of man to the end of
improving the secular world — now firmly in her embrace.
Here we would do well to pause here and to remember that these
documents, among many more, are pastoral in nature, —
not dogmatic — and unlike dogmas which are divinely
revealed, infallible, and binding on all believers,
whatever the nature of their authority, they are still
open to being reformed, that is to say, revised and
changed. They are not dogma which, by definition, is
irreformable or unable to be changed. Since nothing
infallible accrues to these teachings (nor is held to),
then they are, indeed, subject to the criteria of reason
and competent to stand before the Tribunal of Reason. We
must then ask, do these pastoral documents accord with
the canons of reason such that no contradiction is
implied between these documents and the constant
teaching of the Church prior to Vatican II? If no
contradiction obtains, then the Council had done well.
If not — and contradictions exist — they must be
reconciled, or failing that, the teachings abandoned.
But where could such a forum be convened? Rome, of course. And
convoked by whom? A pope, of course — which means that
such a convocation will likely not occur within the
lifetime of any present cardinal created by Francis or
either of his two predecessors. They have been too
thoroughly indoctrinated with Ecumenism to make such a
leap into reason and logic.
For this reason, it is vital for us, in the meanwhile, to find
a Traditional Catholic Church where the Holy Sacrifice
of the Mass is celebrated in Latin and according to the
long-established rubrics prior to 1962 and the outrage
that the post-Catholic-Conciliar-church imposed upon us
and our children. Wherever the Latin Mass is celebrated,
it is an outpost of sanity in a wilderness of
ecclesiastical and liturgical madness.
In a very practical aside,
when we “support” your local Novus Ordo church or when
we donate to every diocesan plea for money, we must
recognize that we are paying, at least in part (perhaps
in large part), for the exorbitant fees of lawyers hired
by the diocese to settle lawsuits against
homosexual-predator-priests. Entire dioceses around the
country have been bankrupted as a result. What is more,
much of that (your) money is sent to the Vatican in
billions of dollars used for countless capital ventures
having absolutely nothing to do with alleviating the
condition of “the poor” or “evangelizing non-Catholics
in poor nations; rather, it is used to sponsor films
like “Rocket Man,” a bio of the openly homosexual Elton
John, to the tune of $4.5 million USD, in what the Daily
Beast describes as,
“Elton
John’s rather steamy biopic Rocketman, which portrays
the entertainer’s drug problems and is the first studio
movie to portray gay sex between men in an authentic
way.”
Or, it may go to totally secular real-estate deals such
as the €350 million investment in a luxury London
real estate venture. Because of a blatant lack of
transparency or accountability, your donation may simply
be used in money-laundering for gangsters.
On the other hand, it may have gone to building the $2.2
million Tudor mansion by LBGT-friendly Atlanta
Archbishop Wilton Gregory (now the cardinal of
Washington, D.C.), or Newark New Jersey's Archbishop
John Myers whose archdiocese spent $500,000 “to expand
his retirement home, adding an indoor therapy pool,
fireplaces and an office library.
It is not only American
Catholics who are getting fleeced: German bishop
Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst spent $43 million on a new
residence and related renovations, including a
5-foot-deep fish tank, filled with Koi carpfish, at a
cost of $300,000.
Is this really where you want your very hard-earned
money to go? Of course not! — but it routinely does.
Refuse to legitimize this travesty. As we
encouraged you earlier, find a Traditional Catholic
Church not associated with the religious and financial
scam that the Vatican has become since that tragic
Council in 1962 — the year when the children sold their
Mother into shame.
A Lingering Question
Should we, then, dismiss
Novus Ordo Catholics? No! The great majority of them
do not know — for they were never taught — the most
basic concepts and tenets of genuine Catholicism, let
alone proper comportment and apparel at Mass (which, for
all appearances, is not a free-for-all for every
religious impulse and expression). The blame lays
squarely on the narrow shoulders of their “bishops” who
never exercised oversight or authority over their
priests — and their priests who never assured the proper
catechesis of their flocks.
Let us be frank, for the past 60 years Catechesis
essentially became crayons and insipid but expensive
glossy books with not so much as a crease in their
bindings. Most Catholic Masses remain effectively
Protestant in tenor, presentation, architecture,
statuary, stained-glass, Marty Haugen (not a Catholic)
music and “I’m okay, you’re okay” homilies geared to the
brainless.
This is not to impugn the piety of the aging
congregation who — in the absence of proper and
authentic Catechesis — never took the time to examine
the unimpeachable credentials of their own religion, or
even its differentiation from every other religion.
Despite the ignorance (understood in its actual
definition as “a lack of knowledge, an absence of
information”) of doctrine and dogma that we almost
universally encounter in the post-Vatican II church, it
is vital to us, as traditional Catholics, to understand
— and answer — two essential points of confusion:
Does this mean that the Eucharist confected by a Novus
Ordo priest at a Novus Ordo Mass is not Sacramentally
valid?
No. It is still the Holy Eucharist, providing that the
priest “does what the Church does.” This is a very real
and canonically explicit imperative:
“The
Council of Trent does not mention the
purpose of the sacrament
or say that the minister ought to intend
to do what the Church intends
but what the Church does. Moreover, what
the Church does refers to
the action, not the purpose. There is
required the intention with regard
to the action, not in so far as it is a
natural action, but in so far as it is
a sacred action or ceremony, which
Christ instituted or Christians’
practice. If one intends to perform the
ceremony which the Church
performs, that is enough.”
(St.
Robert Bellarmine,
de Sacramentis in
genere, chapter 27)
Traditional Catholics who
(justly) defy Vatican II should be paradigms of humility
and holiness, remembering the admonishments of the
Apostles:
·
“If any
man says, I love God, and hates his brother; he is a
liar. For he who loves not his brother, whom he sees,
how can he love God, whom he sees not? And this
commandment we have from God, that he who loves God,
love also his brother.” (1 John4.20-21)
“We are reviled, and we bless; we are persecuted, and we
suffer it. We are blasphemed, and we entreat;
we are made as the refuse of this
world, the offscouring of all even until now.” (1 Cor.
4.12-13)
But we must not and will
not call evil good, nor good evil; nor will we
compromise with deceit, crucifying Truth anew.
________________________
1
John18.38
2 Acts 4.12
3 See Quotations from Chairman Francis in this
book.
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Boston Catholic Journal
www.boston-catholic-journal.com
Printable PDF Version
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
