"Who is GOD?"

THE LOSS OF CHRIST TO ECUMENISM

and the Pantheon of the Post-Catholic “conciliar church”

Christ 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 (Jesus Christ) — and then go on to crucify it. In fact ... we have!

But why?

Why this renunciation of Christ as absolutely singular and indispensible to salvation, such that Saint 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

Note that Saint Paul does not say “can be saved”  — but “must be saved.”

We see this clearly in the three “Inter-Faith-Assemblies” initiated by three popes in Assisi (John Paul II on Oct. 26, 1986, “to be together to pray” and then on January 2002 his next pan-religious prayer meeting in the same venue — to be followed by Benedict XVI’s  prayer “Meeting for peace” on October 27, 2011, and Francis’s “Day of prayer for peace”, in Assisi, Italy, Sept. 20, 2016).

On these occasions, when the absence of certainty concerning THE One, True, God was the sine qua non of the merest possibility of Ecumenism, and when praying to Islam's Allah, the Shinto 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 which each acclaimed as the certain god, although they could not reconcile all the alternating perceptions and contradictions of which  they were certain that they were quite uncertain; a situation in which a stunned world — and the faculty of reason — 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, confiscating insanity, not only as emblematic of, but necessary to, the psychopathy encountered at every level of “higher authority” and “higher learning.”  —  religious and secular — but most especially the Vatican and Francis-as-pope.

The religious epicenter of this mental illness is, of course, the post-Catholic Vatican — and its primary sponsor — and vector — Francis, who infects   — with typical Jesuitical casuistry — everyone with whom he is in collusion — that is to say, the over 5000 Cardinals and Bishops (with a few courageous and notable exceptions) throughout the world. Francis is indeed the vector of this devastating disease that manifests itself in “certain uncertainty”.

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, unquestionably, and unapologetically Catholic.  Everything: a specifically numinous and universal language crafted for divine and eternal worship — Latin — unchanging and unchangeable (hence no meaningless improvisations, no geographic or cultural inflections; only complete and formal universality). 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.

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 few seminaries that remain — and no Feminist (or female) should be instructing Catholic MEN on how to be priests. That is madness! Imagine lay-MEN instructing women on how to become contemplative cloistered nuns! In what venue would that occur? In a papally enclosed monastery? A Convent?

The notion of certainty is both epistemological and invariable. The notion of feelings is both emotional and variable. The two are completely 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 geometric Triangle must correspond, be in agreement with,  your understanding (if you have one) of a Triangle: there is absolutely no latitude, or alternative definition. The sum of the three 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.

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 secular times”, “more “enlightened”, “progressive”, “liberal”, and fashionably “dissident”. These, of course, are  both subjective and subversive credentials.

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 Saint Peter, Saint Paul, and Saint John. No effort was made to accommodate the “sensitivities” of men, or the utter repugnance of the world. As Saint Peter succinctly stated, regardless of the 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 — 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 repudiation of Catholicism by Vatican II must be recognized, confronted, and not simply “resisted” — but actively abolished by a refusal to legitimize it by participating in it.