Tuesday, 15 November 2016

Mini-Antichrist Forerunners, Modernists, Communists, and Pope Videos

"Now the first aim of Catholic modernists, as forerunners of the Antichrist, is to convert the Church of Rome to modernism and then the universal Church.  They insist that "the Roman Pontiff can and ought to conform with contemporary progress, liberalism and civilization."  Really, like the Antichrist when he comes, they seek to create a Church in their own image and likeness-a small, Gnostic, elite Church of worldly-wise intellectuals who will dominate the religious thinking and practice of the whole human race.  Scandalized that Christ found His Church for all men, especially for outcasts, it is small wonder that these shadows of the Antichrist exhibit an indifference to official Catholic teaching and express an irreconcilable animosity to the custodian of this truth, the Magisterium."

This is a quote from Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, S.J. in his book The Antichrist in the chapter called "The Antichrists Within" which discusses how the spirit of Antichrist operates within the Church.  It was published in 1981 and he saw the obvious signs of infiltration then.  He continues to describe the "New Christianity" desired by modernists in France in 1973 summarized in these five characteristics:

1) Anthropocentrism: Man not God is the center of religion, God is found solely in the face, functions, fortunes and future of man.  The primacy of man is identified with the primacy of God.
2) Immanence in the World: The kingdom of God is here not hereafter.  Salvation means liberation from social sin, i.e., from ignorance, hunger, underdevelopment, political oppression, economic exploitation.  Personal sin is no longer relevant in today's historical context.  The new Catholics, enlisting under Socialism's banner, must achieve the kingdom of God by destroying Capitalism.
3) The New Evangelism: The true meaning of the Gospels is economic not spiritual, arising from service to the poor; only the poor and their socialistic champions can understand the Gospels.  The magisterium has misinterpreted the meaning of the Gospels these two thousand years, using them to exploit the poor and remain in power with the might of this world.
4) The New Ecclesiology: The Church is part of the world; she does not exist for herself, but to serve the world.  hence, members may function as priests.  In her jurisdictional life, local churches must be autonomous, for all authority comes from the faithful who share co-responsibility.
5)The New Passion for Christ: But this love is not for Christ the God-Man.  Rather it is for Christ who is only a great man - the Man-for-others, the friend, the defender, the liberator of the poor, indeed, the revolutionary and Grand Subverter, aiding the poor to overthrow all corrupt institutions, the traditional Church included.

"Here we have mini-Antichrists within the Church sowing the seeds of heresy, dissension, suspicion and violence.  Their resentful apostasy from the teaching of the Church must be answered and they must be unmasked as shadows of the Antichrist within the Church."
In Miceli's continued examination of the modernist/communist infiltration of the Church, he says:

"The National Jesuit News produced a document entitled, "National Planning and the Need for a Revolutionary Social Strategy: A Christian-Maoist Perspective."  Therein we read that "the Society of Jesus must purge itself of its bourgeois social consciousness and identify with the proletariat," i.e. develop a social communist consciousness.  Moreover, according to Father Dennis Willigan, S.J. of the University of North Carolina, this "document has been circulated among Jesuits in a number of provinces and has received a generally favorable reaction in as much as it represents a step toward the construction of a revolutionary social strategy for the Society (of Jesus) which is explicitly neo-Marxist and Maoist.""
If this wasn't alarming enough, Miceli tells us that "Jesuit Father Juan Alfaro, who teaches at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, told the October 1976 meeting of the International Theological Commission that "Christ was a kind of Palestinian Che Guevara."  I knew there was a problem among the Jesuits, but I mean....come on!!!  Has Fr. Alfaro even read the New Testament?  I wonder if anyone else would think that Jesus would be friendly with communists like Che?

But even Teilhard de Chardin, (yes the Teilhard who is mentioned in a footnote to Laudato Si who was involved in several evolutionary hoaxes and attempting to replace Catholicism with his evolutionary "Cosmic Christ") is not exempt from mention in Miceli's description of the communist infiltration:

"[...]Teilhard de Chardin said that Christians and Marxists were 'traveling on the same road' and would eventually 'finish up finding each other on the same mountain peak.' Today, Christians in France and Italy are boldly advocating a 'strategic alliance' with communism.  In many other parts of the world, Christian thinkers are advocating a 'theology of liberation.'"
This political Christianity did not arrive by accident.  Miceli tells us:

"In 1965 a communist document, printed in Red China in Spanish for Latin American use, outlined plans to take over the Catholic Church not by making war on the Church, but by capturing it through subversion, infiltration and propaganda.  The document claimed that it would be necessary "to progressively replace the religious element" in Church teaching "by the Marxist element; we shall gradually transform the false conscience of the Catholics to the true conscience, so that they will eventually come around to destroying, by themselves and for themselves, the divine images which they had themselves created.  This is our line of struggle for the victory against the counter-revolutionary Catholic Church."  how well this tactic has succeeded [HOW WELL INDEED!] is demonstrated in another new book published by the Paulist Press entitled The New China : A Catholic Response.  Here is a news story distributed by Religious News Service on April 6, 1978 concerning this book: "Four Jesuit theologians - two of them Americans - have indicated in a new book that the Communism of Mao Tse-tung is more akin to Christianity than the religions of the East and that the Holy Spirit may be using Communism to lead the Chinese people to Christ.  According to the book, some Christian virtues are being practiced by followers of Mao and Mao's version of Communism may well prepare China to accept Christianity.  the moral teachings of Mao Tse-tung have produced a generation of Chinese who really put the good of the people above their own advantage (according to one of the Jesuit authors).  I would not hesitate to say that the Holy Spirt may be using the Little Red Book of Mao's thoughts as an instrument in leading many Chinese to a love of their neighbour.  Communism is preparing the way for the Gospel...Mao's ideology can speak to the Christian need for personal development, for the evolution of the total Christian community, and for more productive Christian action and thought."  Is it possible that these Jesuit forerunners of the Antichrist, using Satan's tactics of the big lie in writing this book, this atrocious apology for Mao, the mass murderer of millions in China, never read in the Guinness Book of World Records that mao is the world's all-time mass executioner?  At least 94 million, and more probably up to 130 million Chinese, have been ruthlessly slaughtered since 1949 by Mao's Communist regime, and God alone knows how many he slaughtered before coming to total power.
"Here then is updated, Red Modernism eating out and fragmenting the Church.  It is the new-styled cradle of religious revolution - militant, socialistic, terroristic, Marxist.  It advocates a theology of violence, a morality of total, especially sexual, permissiveness."

Could Father Vincent Miceli see a Communist infiltration of the Church?  What would he see today?  Now watch the Pope videos (a couple down below, and the Youtube channel linked here) wherein each month Pope Francis requests prayers for certain things.  Keep in mind the "New Christianity" outlined above.

Now, read the following from a recent interview with Pope Francis quated at 1P5 where he says:
“It has been said many times and my response has always been that, if anything, it is the communists who think like Christians. Christ spoke of a society where the poor, the weak and the marginalized have the right to decide. Not demagogues, not Barabbas, but the people, the poor, whether they have faith in a transcendent God or not. It is they who must help to achieve equality and freedom”.

Is it just me, or is Pope Francis not a continuation of the "New Christianity" rejected by the Bishops in France in 1973 and by every Pope in very clear encyclicals from Pope Gregory XVI to Pope Pius XII?  I don't enjoy writing things like this.  But the errors of Russia the world, the operation of error has fooled many, and the world has no peace.  A human solution will not work, especially an atheistic one.  Communism is NOT compatible with Christianity for it proposes that we work for heaven on earth without God.  Christianity teaches us to seek heaven above with God!  The solution has been given to us: Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested almost 100 years ago.

What happened to the Jesuits?

Monday, 14 November 2016

Conservatism and Trump

Trump is not a conservative. That should be obvious to all. What isn't so obvious is what a conservative is. Even Google doesn't know what a conservative is:

adjective: conservative
  1. 1.
    holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Although the Google definition is often the way the word conservative is used, it is not what it means. You might think that I am moving the goal posts by offering a new definition, but, in fact, the current definition can not help but move the goal posts. What I mean is, anything can become a traditional attitude or value after a time. There are no stable goal posts for conservatives using that definition. Further, conservatism under that definition is entirely relative preserving things for the sake of preserving them relative to your culture and time.

So, relative conservatism isn't very helpful for uniting conservatives. How can a group of people unite over traditional values that each person decides are traditional. How can conservatives claim legitimacy by claiming that their beliefs are old? After all, everything was new at some point was it not?

And that is where we get to the crux of the issue. We have to look at the way things were in the beginning and your understanding of the way things are in the beginning must be true to be a good conservative. To be a conservative means that you must want to conserve that which God originally created and intended for all of humanity. To be a conservative means, therefore, that you must look at the world with the eyes of God and understand the mind of God as He has revealed it to us. Jesus Himself, when challenged on marriage by the Pharisees points to the beginning for a proper understanding of the created natural order.

Conservatism is the answer to what is wrong with the world: sin. Disobedience of God. Ignoring God's intended order as revealed in the Ten Commandments and most especially in the person of Jesus Christ. Until sin and its unfortunate and damnable consequences are recognized as the true threat and until Jesus Christ, the salvation He offers through His Church, and His teachings are seen as the solution, we will continue to collapse as a civilization. Plainly said, we must conserve and live out what God has revealed and willed to be conservatives. A great read I can't recommend highly enough in regards to this topic is 10 Books Every Conservative Must Read.

Based on that basic understanding, on which an unending library of books could be and have been written, we can immediately see that Trump is no conservative. Trump supports gay marriage, he doesn't seem to have a problem with socialist policies in regards to health care, and he appears to have a socialist mentality in regards to top down leadership as opposed to subsidiarity. That said, if I lived in the States I would have voted for him and have been vocal in Canada in support of some of what he is doing. At the same time, however, we must be very cautious about Trump.

There is a huge problem in the world today and unfortunately very few people understand what it is. In their desperation for some solution or other, coupled with the poisonous political doctrines promising an earthly utopia, political candidates and systems are often looked at like paths to salvation. Consider this well intentioned yet deeply flawed talk by Russell Brand.

I think Brand reveals and articulates what everyone realizes: that there is a problem and they want change. What kind of change do people want? I don't think that most people know exactly.  Brand seems to suggest another popular and tired doomed Marxist Utopia championed once again by Bernie.

When you look at speeches by Obama (in his campaign slogans) and Trump (especially his convention speech), they tried to tap into this in very vague ways. Overall successful, Obama and Trump talk and act as if they are saviours, as if they could change all the things that are wrong.  Populism, lack of logical thought, misplaced trust in biased propagandist media, training as socialists, and rampant secularism have all brought about this idea that a *place your political affiliation here* man or woman can fix our problems.

Although, if I could vote in the American election, I would have voted for Trump, a man who is a strangely perfect symbol of what America is, I have no illusions that he is a saviour of some sort or that he will cause earth shattering change. In many ways, my support for him and political movements like his is based in the hope that he will slow the destruction, avoid some disasters, and possibly even reverse some of the more destructive laws in the States.  In particular, the three most important issues for the US, and by extension for Canada, are the end of abortion, peace with Russia to avoid a nuclear war, and protection of borders from those who intend harm to the United States.  On all three, Trump seems to be on board, shirking off the yolk of the globalist elite, while Clinton is diametrically opposed to all three!  If Clinton actually got into power, the evil and corruption of the globalists would have been given free reign.

All that said, along with the fact that Trump is not a conservative, there are many forces on the right that are not conservative surrounding Trump. In fact, I would say that most on the right are actually against conservatism and don't realize it. As I argued above, true conservatism has within it a turn to God to cautiously conserve what God created and intended for man. Until that is the change in the hearts and minds of people, society will continue to crumble.  How fast that happens though is based on how far we move from the God given ideal.  Trump has identified the desire for change, but he hasn't diagnosed the root of the problem or found a correct solution. The scary thing is, although Trump is closer to the solution than Clinton, he is at the beginning of the journey using a false map. That said, thank God it is not Clinton who won!  She is a woman who wants to block the way to the solution while travelling in the opposite direction!

At the beginning of the election I thought Trump was very likely a Democratic plant that would bring about the destruction of the Republican party.  His tactics seem to be borrowed from Saul Alinsky, a man heavily responsible for the cultural Marxist revolution happening in North America and a devotee to Lucifer who was idolized by both Clinton and Obama.  I am still not entirely convinced Trump is unwittingly a plant who will ultimately make any restoration of the Constitutional Republicans impossible. He very likely has been part of the establishment and know exactly how to play the game, yet, like Putin, Trump seems to want to drain the swamp, chase out the oligarchs, the elites, and the Soros' of the world, and get America back to its original constitution (or at least a modified modern version of it because it really does seem like very few people actually understand what it was trying to accomplish).  However, Trump will wield concentrated executive power thanks to Obama and support from a nationalist surge rising among the normally silent majority.  If he doesn't use that power to limit Federal power ending up being a type of Caesar, this is a possible recipe for an American Fascism and isolationism that could be harmful to the balance of power in the world.  It is still better in my mind to the regime replacement policies of the past administrations of the Clintons, Bushes, etc. all the way back to Iran in the 50's.  If Americans are not careful and focused on what good they actually want to achieve through the election of this man, there is a whole new danger developing as the silent majority begins to realize the power they actually have, a power that could be harnessed in a manifold of directions.....

But I do have a bit of hope.  Americans voted for Trump because they value the life of the unborn, peace in the world, their nation, and the original values of the constitution (which, on a natural level, are better than most other nation's constitutions throughout history, yet doomed to fail until the social Kingship of Christ is fully recognized....but that is another post).  That makes me slightly optimistic, and I think Trump might actually be in tune with those things.  You know why I think Trump might be going the right way? In one candid moment before he was elected he said something along the lines of: "pray for me, doing a good job at this may be my only way into heaven." If this is him revealing what is in his heart, he is facing the right way even if he doesn't have the right map.

Thursday, 13 October 2016

Catholics: Why Are Catholics Failing at Being Catholic?

To be Catholic, you need to believe everything that God has revealed and live under the authority of the Church.  If you want to be Catholic, that is, practice the one true faith, ask yourself, do you believe that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth?  Do you believe what Scripture says?  Do you have a caveat to explain away the faith any time popular science contradicts Scripture?  Do you believe modern man, modern science, and the modern version of Catholicism over and above the way Catholicism was practiced and believed for over 1900 years?

Just a few years ago, I would explain away parts of Scripture and explain why the Novus Ordo liturgy was no problem.  I would explain how "development of doctrine" allowed us to see defined Dogmas of the Church in entirely new (and contradictory...although I would never admit it at the time) ways.  But all of that changed when I realized that all of the changes over the past fifty years were the problem, and by buying into them, I was failing at being Catholic.

It wasn't easy, but I learned about what I was doing wrong. It took a few years of research, hours upon hours of reading and listening to talks.  Even more important was the daily Rosary, frequent confession and communion, and reading Scripture as it was written.  What I discovered was that the wisdom that Jesus imparted is foolishness to the world and that the more I learned of history, the more it became apparent that the modern institutional Church was way off course.  This was not a judgement made on my authority based on preferences.  This is an observation made by looking at and comparing the modern Church with the traditional way of practicing the faith.  It is easy to discover how they are diametrically opposed.

So, to get back to fundamentals, I had to realize one thing:  God knows all of history.  I mean duh!  Right?!  God is omniscient after all.  But I didn't really have faith in that fact a few years ago.  So, when God inspires authors He can address every age as He sees fit.

God has answered all the heresies, all the doubts, all the cosmologies, all the philosophies, and all the other religions of every single age that ever was or will be in Scripture!

He has answered our age very clearly in Scripture.

The thing is, Adam and Eve didn't believe God when He told them not to eat the fruit.  They believed the serpent and his version of the facts.  We know how that turned out.  So, when God gives us His version of the facts in Scripture it would be wise not to make the same mistake.

Realizing this, I have chosen to believe God, to take Him at His word, and I have not been disappointed in the least.  If I can recommend anything to Catholics, it is to take the risk of looking like a fool for Christ and believe everything God has said.  What and How God has inspired Scripture was done for a reason: to help us to have true faith in him after our first parents did not even if we do not fully understand.  In other words, we are to have faith in God first before we have faith in our ability to understand.  As St. Augustine said, "I believe in order to understand."

Simply put, the answer to the question in the title of this post:  Catholics just don't believe that stuff anymore.  And this is how it has all happened:

  1. God reveals how He created everything in Scripture.
  2. Jesus doubles down: "For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" - John 5:46-47
  3. Some people don't believe God.
  4. The doubters find ways to explain things differently and without God.
  5. Catholics take the new explanation and tack God onto it while abandoning how God revealed how He created everything.
  6. Why stop there?  Catholics place modern man's understanding of the world over God's revelation of the world in everything.
  7. Modern principles of naturalism, scientism, atheism, secularism, and modernism are used to replace traditional Catholic practice with an almost empty shell of Catholicism.
  8. Catholics lose their faith and apostatize.

Friday, 5 August 2016

Governments Will Never Fix Anything For You Properly

Talking with a friend of mine, he told me about a picture of a bread line during the Great Depression.  He was amazed at the line up of hungry down-on-their-luck Americans waiting for food not too dissimilar from the image below.

Why is a picture like this something to be amazed at?  These people are hungry, possibly starving, and they are lined up.  Contrast that to a Black Friday mob.

What is the difference in each picture, or rather, WHY are the pictures different?  Virtue.  The people in the first picture have enough virtue and self-denial to remain orderly for the common good of all.  There is one bored policeman with nothing to do.  For a "losing faith in humanity moment" just Google something like "worst things that happened during Black Friday".  People are risking injuring and trampling others while putting themselves at risk for a good deal on something they don't even need to survive.

How should we fix this problem?

Rules?  Stores could work with governments to establish rules, fines, and jail terms for people who cause havoc during Black Friday sales.  Stores could limit entry to only a few people at a time, although that would come with some interesting crowd control requirements outside of the store....

End the sales? Stores could no longer promote sales that would attract massive crowds.

Nothing?  Stores could continue on hopping that some future group of people acts as civilly as demonstrated in the first photograph.

First of all, to battle the problem of a vicious society (vice - vicious, virtue - virtuous) you will look at it differently depending on what skills you bring to the table and how much power you have to implement your solutions.

A psychiatrist may look at methods of calming the crowd or guiding them in such a manner that they are not a risk to themselves.  They may look at offering counselling for shoppers with uncontrollable urges to push others out of the way for a sale.  Psychiatrists and psychologists could invent some sort of disorder to explain what is happening and the after-effects of a traumatic shopping experience.  They could team up with stores to offer their services and even have court-mandated sessions for those who are particularly out of control.

An engineer or architect may look at how they build stores and implement better crowd control measures in the design of isles and product displays.  They could design ways of slowing people down and stream-lining crowds rushing throughout the store.  I am sure there are lots of creative ways that they could help these crowds not hurt themselves.

An elected official could look at implementing by-laws, fines, jail terms, and other measures to legislate exactly how people should act in crowds as mentioned above.  This would require additional powers and numbers among security and police forces to enforce these laws, but, most people would probably think twice about rushing into a store if the punishment was severe enough.

We could go on and on with other professions and how they would look at the problem, but no matter what you think, no matter what you try, all of these solutions are insufficient to turn the Black Friday mob into the Great Depression breadline.  All of these methods are external barriers to a person.  They may help a person act as they should, but the person is not freely choosing to act as they should.  If there were some way of getting away with poor behaviour to get what they want, the viscous person will do just that.  You can not force someone to act virtuously, you can only make it difficult to act viciously.

And that is exactly what is happening today.  We, as the people of democratic nations, are expecting our leaders, our elected officials, to be able to fix everything by means of legislation.  More and more legalities, more and more by-laws, more and more punishments, more and more government controlled programs.  All this leads to is legal positivism (thinking that something is moral because it is legal), less and less freedom (for occasions when the by-laws act as hindrances because they don't take prudence into account), and resentful fear based obedience rather than virtuous living (externally motivated action rather than internally).

The really scary thing about this situation are the times when SHTF.  If that fragile sense of law and order that has been deterring so many from acting viciously suddenly disappears because people realize there will be no legal consequences to their actions, look out!  It is time to riot and pillage!

On the other hand, if there is a situation where law and order are gone, virtuous people don't need laws, threats of punishment, or enforcers to be virtuous.  They do it on their own.  This is exactly what St. Paul meant when he wrote in Galatians chapter 5 that the law no longer applies, that the Christian who follows Jesus sins no more and therefore has no need of the law!

"For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty: only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if you bite and devour one another; take heed you be not consumed one of another."I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity,Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences."  Galatians 5:13-25
By living according to the supernatural virtue of charity, we can, as St. Augustine recommends to us, "Love, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good."

There are reasons to vote for a certain candidate like, being pro-life, or limiting evil in a society, or wanting to protect citizens from certain threats such as fractional reserve banking and private lending of the nation's money supply.  After all, the job of government is to establish a level of order on the natural level that is conducive to people working out their salvation.  Ultimately, that means submitting the nation to the Kingship of Christ.  Arguably, this is only possible with a virtuous monarchy acting only when necessary and as a last resort to decide the correct and prudent course of action when there are conflicts between the oligarchs and the rest of the people of the nation or when some outside threat is great enough to require a united resistance. But....that is another topic entirely!

So, if you are voting for someone because you think that they will fix something for you by legislating it outside the very limited scope of what governments are actually good at doing (previous paragraph), I have to say, you are voting for the wrong reason.  What we need is less legislation and more virtue.  So work on your own virtue.  Study what virtue is, especially as conceived by St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.  Teach others to do the same.  Only then will our communities need less and less enforcement, by-laws, legislation, red-tape, bureaucracy and all the other things our tax dollars are going towards.  Think about it, if you want to pay less in tax, be virtuous!  Now that is a platform I could support!  ;-)

Thursday, 21 July 2016

The Reform of the Reform, Unfortunately, Will Never Succeed

If, perhaps, a person were to disagree with you about the solution to a mathematical equation, you would have to examine the method by which both of you arrived at your solutions.  Say that you prefer to solve things as they have always been solved using traditional mathematics.  They, on the other hand, want to incorporate a more "subjective element" to their problem solving.  Basically, they notice that many people struggle with some of the most basic mathematics.  Their solution is to incorporate guessing and "more personalized" interpretations of the math making it easier for them to gradually get comfortable.

However, you quickly notice that the new method almost always comes up with the wrong answer.  Any time a person gets the correct answer it is because they were originally trained in the traditional methods!  When you point this out to the person advocating the new math they suggest a type of compromise.  They tell you that their new method has opened the door to people who normally wouldn't be interested in learning about math.  Although there are many people who want nothing to do with the traditional maths, they tell you, how about bringing back some of the traditional math and introducing it into the new math for those who feel that they are more comfortable with the traditional ways.  This type of easing, they suggest, is exactly what will recognize the subjective aspects of performing mathematical equations that are only as rigorous as people want them to be while allowing others the freedom to continue using the new math.  Everyone wins!  Right?

Well, you see the problem.  The new math is designed in such a way that it is of no use in discovering the correct answer.  The "compromise" solution only subjugates traditional math to the new method. As far as math goes, this is obviously doomed to failure.  But, in regards to the Roman Catholic Liturgy since Vatican II, that is exactly what the "reform of the reform" suggests.

To understand why, we need to examine what Hegelian dialectic is (Vatican II, heavily influenced by modern philosophy was very dialectical).  The Hegelian dialectic is how many people think and solve problems today.  Basically, you have a thesis or proposition, you have an antithesis, and you have a conflict between the two that brings about a synthesis.  This synthesis is, according to some, the goal of conflict because it results in a "higher" level of truth.  However, when the Hegelian Dialectic is critically examined, what we find actually happens is this:

(Thesis + Antithesis) x Conflict = Synthesis

Thesis - True if it corresponds to reality, false if it does not
Antithesis - False if the thesis is true, true if it corresponds to reality
Conflict - If the thesis and antithesis are both true, there is no conflict, if there is no conflict or synthesis, we are no longer dealing with the Hegelian Dialectic.  Otherwise, the thesis and antithesis fight it out until a compromise is reached.
Synthesis - Since, for conflict to arise, the thesis and antithesis must disagree, at least one must be false, and therefore, any synthesis of a true and false proposition will result in falsehood being introduced.

So, in regards to true and false propositions, the Hegelian Dialectic can either be (P=proposition):

1. (True P + False P) x Conflict = False P
2. (False P + Conflicting False P) x Conflict = False P
3. (True P + True P) = True

Any way you use the Hegelian Dialectic it either results in a false synthesis or is not required!  Yet, the Dialectic is the method by which modern political, religious, and social change is initiated.  During Vatican II, the intention of the more progressive Bishops was to enter into a dialogue with the world, and in particular, with the world as conceived by the Enlightenment which is basically the modernist position (in a previous post, I examined why the Enlightenment is incompatible with the Catholic faith).  This dialogue was actually the conflict portion of the dialectic, but the word dialogue is generally more acceptable to people because it is non threatening.  However, there has been definite conflict over the 50+ years since Vatican II!

At first glance, and on human terms, this experiment seems like a good idea.  After all, when people get together to talk peaceably, mutual understanding and trust often result.  However, that is only if both sides are interested in searching for truth without ulterior motivations....  The main problem with a dialogue with the world using the Hegelian Dialectic is that the world has nothing it can offer to the Church that the Church doesn't already have from God.  In other words, because the Church was Divinely instituted and has Divine Revelation and Guidance, she is over and above anything secular.  The world, on the other hand, has human wisdom, opinions, and perspectives that are not Divinely revealed. The world is fallible and is so to a tragic degree.  Further, the Enlightenment denies the supernatural, looks to science for all knowledge, and results in secular humanism which makes everything about man apart from God (I examined some speeches around Vatican II that show this is exactly what happened, i.e. that God was no longer the focus as man became the new centre).

When we plug the propositions from Vatican II into the Hegelian Dialectic, we get:

(Divine Revelation + Enlightenment) x Dialogue/Conflict = Faithless Enlightenment Church

Since the Enlightenment denies the possibility of Divine Revelation, Divine Revelation is cancelled out of the equation.  It is as simple as that.  The modern version of Catholicism does not take Scripture seriously, preferring to interpret it through historical criticical methods that strip it of anything supernatural rendering it a mere fable with some practical advice.  Otherwise, you are free to believe whatever new thing comes out of the mouth of Catholic clerics whether or not it contradicts with Divine Revelation.

But what of the Reform of the Reform?  Instead of the Enlightenment in the above equation, just place the faithless Enlightenment Infected Church.  Otherwise, it is the same thing.  All the reform of the reform is attempting to do is to have Hegelian Dialectic try and resolve the conflict between those who have held onto the Catholic Faith as it has always been and those who see Vatican II as the new Pentecost.  It is doomed to fail.

(Traditional Faith + Faithless Enlightenment Church) x Dialogue/Conflict =
Faithless Enlightenment Church (that appears on the surface to be more traditional)

For those of us Catholics who are trying as best as they can to hold onto the Traditional Catholic Faith as it was delivered by Our Lord to the Apostles, we need to continue purifying our beliefs by purging anything not given by God and hold onto the faith as tightly as possible during this crisis of faith, this silent apostasy.

Tuesday, 5 July 2016

The New Mercy

"The Church is the great family of God’s children. Of course, she also has human aspects. In those who make up the Church, pastors and faithful, there are shortcomings, imperfections and sins. The Pope has these too — and many of them; but what is beautiful is that when we realize we are sinners we encounter the mercy of God who always forgives. Never forget it: God always pardons and receives us into his love of forgiveness and mercy. Some people say that sin is an offence to God, but also an opportunity to humble oneself so as to realize that there is something else more beautiful: God’s mercy." (Pope Francis - General audience, May 29, 2013)

Something has bothered me about mercy for awhile.....not mercy Traditionally understood.....but the "new" mercy.  Don't get me wrong, MERCY IS AWESOME (as in causing awe).  Mercy is terrible and incomprehensible in the sense that God, who infinitely surpasses the greatest creature regardless of how great that creature is, who is so perfectly good that even the slightest evil can not be tolerated in His presence, condescends to offer us, the pitiful, weak, sinful and wavering creatures that we are, a way to be closer to Him that we could ever possibly imagine.

After all, evil deserves eternal punishment and banishment from God.  We are all sinners and therefore are all worthy of damnation and punishment.  Mercy makes absolutely no sense until we understand that first.  Hell is actually the default destination for all of us born with original sin.  It is only through God's great gift of mercy that we have the option open to us to pursue heaven and the beatific vision: of God seeing Him face to Face!  This mercy is a gratuitous gift on God's part and both unearned and undeserved on ours.  Although this mercy is freely given, it is not easily received in the sense that one can presume that God's mercy will be distributed to all.  Scripture is very clear about this.  Those who do not forgive others will not be forgiven.  "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

Consider, then, the following passage from Numbers chapter 14 after the 12 spies go into the Promised Land and discover it full of enemies:

"Wherefore the whole multitude crying wept that night. And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron, saying: Would God that we had died in Egypt and would God we may die in this vast wilderness, and that the Lord may not bring us into this land, lest we fall by the sword, and our wives and children be led away captives. Is it not better to return into Egypt? And they said one to another: Let us appoint a captain, and let us return into Egypt. And when Moses and Aaron heard this, they fell down flat upon the ground before the multitude of the children of Israel.
But Josue the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephone, who themselves also had viewed the land, rent their garments, And said to all the multitude of the children of Israel: The land which we have gone round is very good: If the Lord be favourable, he will bring us into it, and give us a land flowing with milk and honey. Be not rebellious against the Lord: and fear ye not the people of this land, for we are able to eat them up as bread. All aid is gone from them: the Lord is with us, fear ye not.  And when all the multitude cried out, and would have stoned them, the glory of the Lord appeared over the tabernacle of the covenant to all the children of Israel.
And the Lord said to Moses: How long will this people detract me? how long will they not believe me for all the signs that I have wrought before them? I will strike them therefore with pestilence, and will consume them: but thee I will make a ruler over a great nation, and a mightier than this is. And Moses said to the Lord: That the Egyptians, from the midst of whom thou hast brought forth this people, And the inhabitants of this land, (who have heard that thou, O Lord, art among this people, and art seen face to face, and thy cloud protecteth them, and thou goest before them in a pillar of a cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night,) May hear that thou hast killed so great a multitude as it were one man and may say:
He could not bring the people into the land for which he had sworn, therefore did he kill them in the wilderness.  Let their the strength of the Lord be magnified, as thou hast sworn, saying:  The Lord is patient and full of mercy, taking away iniquity and wickedness, and leaving no man clear, who visitest the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.  Forgive, I beseech thee, the sins of this people, according to the greatness of thy mercy, as thou hast been merciful to them from their going out of Egypt unto this place.  And the Lord said: I have forgiven according to thy word.
As I live: and the whole earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.  But yet all the men that have seen my majesty, and the signs that I have done in Egypt, and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now ten times, and have not obeyed my voice,  Shall not see the land for which I aware to their fathers, neither shall any one of them that hath detracted me behold it. My servant Caleb, who being full of another spirit hath followed me, I will bring into this land which he hath gone round: and his seed shall possess it.  For the Amalecite and the Chanaanite dwell in the valleys. Tomorrow remove the camp, and return into the wilderness by the way of the Red Sea.
And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying:  How long doth this wicked multitude murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel.  Say therefore to them: As I live, saith the Lord: According as you have spoken in my hearing, so will I do to you. In the wilderness shall your carcasses lie. All you that were numbered from twenty years old and upward, and have murmured against me,  Shall not enter into the land, over which I lifted up my bend to make you dwell therein, except Caleb the son of Jephone, and Josue the son of Nun.
But your children, of whom you said, that they should be a prey to the enemies, will I bring in: that they may see the land which you have despised.  Your carcasses shall lie in the wilderness. Your children shall wander in the desert forty years, and shall bear your fornication, until the carcasses of their fathers be consumed ill the desert,  According to the number of the forty days, wherein you viewed the land: year shall be counted for a day. And forty years you shall receive your iniquities, and shall know my revenge:  For as I have spoken, so will I do to all this wicked multitude, that hath risen up together against me: in this wilderness shall it faint away and die.
Therefore all the men, whom Moses had sent to view the land, and who at their return had made the whole multitude to murmur against him, speaking ill of the land that it was naught, Died and were struck in the sight of the Lord. But Josue. the son of Nun. and Caleb the son of Jephone lived, of all them that had gone to view the land.  And Moses spoke all these words to all the children of Israel, and the people mourned exceedingly.  And behold rising up very early in the morning, they went up to the top of the mountain, and said: We are ready to go up to the place, of which the Lord hath spoken: for we have sinned.
And Moses said to them: Why transgress you the word of the Lord, which shall not succeed prosperously with you? Go not up, for the Lord is not with you: lest you fall before your enemies.  The Amalecite and the Chanaanite are before you, and by their sword you shall fall, because you would not consent to the Lord, neither will the Lord be with you.  But they being blinded went up to the top of the mountain. But the ark of the testament of the Lord and Moses departed not from the camp.  And the Amalecite came down, and the Chanaanite that dwelt in the mountain: and smiting and slaying them pursued them as far as Horma." Numbers 14

Does this not show God's mercy, fairness, and justice?  What happens to those who ignore the words and warnings of God and of Moses and are presumptuous?  What happens to those who are faithful from the beginning?  This is a model of the Church and take it as no small warning how few make it to the Promised Land without long years wandering through the wilderness!

Mercy then, is only received by those who live worthy of inheriting it.  Mercy is for those who are faithful and repent.  Mercy doesn't always remove punishment.  Mercy may even appear severe when  viewed without the eyes of faith.  Mercy is for those who are disposed to receive it and see it in humility as a gift neither earned nor deserved.  We should not rashly presume, as some of the Israelites did in disobediently entering the Promised Land, that God will grant mercy whenever you want as if you yourself were lord over the mercy of God.

With this in mind, Jesus extols us to be merciful as the Father is merciful.  Jesus has also told us, "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy" (Matt 5:7).  So, the Church, in her received wisdom, has given us the Seven Corporal and Seven Spiritual Acts of Mercy (from New Advent):

The traditional enumeration of the corporal works of mercy is as follows:
To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.

The spiritual works of mercy are:
To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

Yet it seems that the New Mercy is somewhat picky about which works of mercy are to be accomplished.  First of all, the corporal works of mercy are only as useful inasmuch as they are directed towards salvation. Charitable work that ignores the spiritual works of mercy and thereby condones or ignores sin only causes the suffocation of the conscience and makes the road to hell all the more comfortable.  Granted, charitable work for the sake of charitable work with no regard for salvation is a type of accompaniment....but an accompanying of others into hell.  How do we avoid this trap?  We unite the corporal and spiritual works of mercy as traditionally understood.  Do not be fooled by the New Mercy in its application of "accompaniment," "integration," gradualism, and situational ethics replaces the spiritual works of mercy with the following:

To abandon the ignorant to their own devices.
To confuse the doubtful.
To accompany sinners.
To be nice.
To whitewash offences that one's offences may be whitewashed.
To comfort the damned.
To pray that we all just get along regardless of truth.

That is the problem with the New Mercy.  It isn't mercy at all.  It is permissiveness and presumptuous with no regard for Truth and Revelation.  While true mercy means salvation from hell, the New Mercy ignores sin by inventing sophistry to permit it and ignores hell by presuming God wouldn't send anyone there.  Ultimately it makes the cross, the means by which came our salvation, seem completely superfluous.  The New Mercy claims to offer exemption from the difficult life of following Christ used by all Saints in the past.  All of the means of sanctification: the hours spent in prayer, the preparation for the sacraments, the strict morality, the examinations of conscience, the concern for what is objectively true, the careful transmission of tradition, the mortifications and penances, the concern for remaining in a state of grace.... these are all rendered unnecessary by the New Mercy because you are fine the way you are, even if you are in a state of mortal sin.  Is there anything more contrary to what is written in Scripture?

"I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.
For I say, by the grace that is given me, to all that are among you, not to be more wise than it behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety, and according as God hath divided to every one the measure of faith. For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office: So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us, either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith; Or ministry, in ministering; or he that teacheth, in doctrine; He that exhorteth, in exhorting; he that giveth, with simplicity; he that ruleth, with carefulness; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.
Let love be without dissimulation. Hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good. Loving one another with the charity of brotherhood, with honour preventing one another. In carefulness not slothful. In spirit fervent. Serving the Lord. Rejoicing in hope. Patient in tribulation. Instant in prayer. Communicating to the necessities of the saints. Pursuing hospitality.
Bless them that persecute you: bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that rejoice; weep with them that weep. Being of one mind one towards another. Not minding high things, but consenting to the humble. Be not wise in your own conceits. To no man rendering evil for evil. Providing good things, not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good." (Romans 12)

In reality, the New Mercy does not say, as Our Lord says, go and sin no more.  The New Mercy says sin and presume that God always forgives.  Do not trust in the New Mercy, it is a path to destruction and another iteration of the doctrine of Luther:

"Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day." - Martin Luther
"One can sin often, and always return to God seeking forgiveness, never doubting that it will be obtained. It is especially when one becomes corrupt – when one no longer sees the need to be forgiven – that problems begin." - Pope Francis

Instead, heed the Inspired words of St. John and notice the distinction between sin unto death (mortal sin) and sin not unto death (venial sin).  Pay attention to the fact that we, who are born of Jesus Christ sin no more.  If we do, we are separated from God as it says in Isaiah 59:2, "But your iniquities have divided between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you that he should not hear."  If we sin, God does not hear us!  If we sin unto death, we must go to confession with true repentance, a firm purpose of amendment and to sin no more!

"These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God. And this is the confidence which we have towards him: That, whatsoever we shall ask according to his will, he heareth us. And we know that he heareth us whatsoever we ask: we know that we have the petitions which we request of him.
He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.
We know that whosoever is born of God, sinneth not: but the generation of God preserveth him, and the wicked one toucheth him not. We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God is come: and he hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and life eternal.
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen." 1 John 5:13-21

Saturday, 4 June 2016

Catholicism A La Mode

Continuing from the previous post, I want to look at what has happened in the Church since many of the faithful have lost faith in the inspired Word of God.  How exactly have the faithful lost faith in the Word of God you may ask?  In comments made by Pope Francis, we see the general attitude towards Scripture: The Creation account in Scripture is unfaithful to science, therefore, we interpret Genesis according to science.  What happens when you let uninspired thinking override inspired Revelation?  To answer this question, we must first of all look at what counts as "uninspired thinking" and specifically what source of uninspired thinking has been applied within the Church over and above Sacred Scripture.  Second, we will look at what happens when the Inerrant Word of God is no longer taken seriously or literally.  In the previous post, I argued that Scripture itself does not bend to a non-literal interpretation.  In this post, I will argue that we are witnessing the fallout of not taking Scripture and Tradition seriously today.

Uninspired Thought (yes this is a jab)

When I say uninspired thought, I mean any thinking and resulting ideas which do not follow from or find their source and object in Divine Revelation.  This includes all sciences below theology.  What does that mean by below theology?  Well, traditionally it was held that there was a hierarchy of sciences.  This meant that those sciences at the top were more certain and had principles more universal then those at the bottom.  The hierarchy is as follows (from Paula Haigh whom I highly recommend you read more of from her blog!):

  • Theology - Queen of the Sciences - The Science of God based on Divine Revelation and Tradition
  • Metaphysics - (First Philosophy) - Handmaid of Theology - A Natural Science of Being as such
  • Mathematics - based on quantity - basic interior of material being
  • Cosmology and Astronomy - Days One and Two in Genesis!
  • Physics and Chemistry - The Inanimate Elements as accidental forms (atomic) of the substance: Body of the Universe
  • All the Life Sciences and Geology - Earth Sciences - must see the Flood
This hierarchy ensured that what was most certainly true at all times (eg. Revelation, first principles, logic) was never accidentally contradicted by the lower sciences in the hierarchy.  If a result from studying something in physics or a theory on the biological origins of life contradicted with the knowledge of a science above it in the hierarchy, then that result or theory either needed to be completely re-examined or could be rejected outright.  This may sound odd to you, but that is because uninspired thinking has usurped Divine Revelation in the modern sciences.  For example, the Evolution breaks several first principles: namely order can not arise out of chaos without an intelligent agent, the effect can not be greater than the cause, something can not come from nothing, and there are more.  So to understand what happens when Revelation is usurped by lower sciences, we must study the cause of the rejection of the traditional hierarchy of sciences: the revolution of reality we call The Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment: The Inversion of Reality

Although encyclopaedias could be written on the following topic, I am going to try and keep it as brief and workable as I can for a blog post.  The following is the most painful summary I have ever written because each topic deserves so much more written on it!  However, for the sake of keeping this post readable, I have to keep it short and sweet and hope I peak your interest so that you learn and research more for yourself.  Some resources and links on the Enlightenment and the Catholic Church will be linked at the bottom.  The Stanford link will be especially helpful if you are completely unfamiliar to any of the following.

The Enlightenment started with the planting of the following revolutionary seeds that planted doubt in the traditional epistemology, cosmology/sciences, and societal hierarchies:

  • Descartes: Inversion of epistemological hierarchy - doubt in reality
  • Galileo: Inversion of the hierarchy of the sciences - doubt in theology
  • Luther: Inversion of social hierarchy- doubt in Divinely appointed authority

These seeds then grew into the fully formed Enlightenment which utterly rejects and attempts to replace anything traditional in whom we find exemplars in:

  • Kant: Rejection of objective teleology and ontology then replaced by subjective teleology and ontology
  • Darwin: Rejection of higher sciences which are then replaced with what the lower sciences tell us
  • Nietzsche: Rejection of all divine authority and replacement of a virtuous society with a viscous society

And the fruit of the fully formed Enlightenment is found in application of Hegel and Marx:

  • Hegel: Rejection of truth and replaced with dialectic which leads to subjectivism
  • Marx: Rejection of anything supernatural and replaced with a natural Utopia (Utopia literally means "No Place") and history has shown us how well that has gone!

In the full rejection of God and Truth, Man becomes God to himself and attempts to save himself.  When the Enlightenment is taken to its furthest conclusion, salvation is worked out through dialectical conflict, self-guided evolution (eugenics), and rejection of God which includes the rejection of God's image within us because God's existence, according to most atheistic and Enlightenment thinkers makes us slaves(this is where the most severe attacks on gender (male and female He made them) and the family (and two shall be one) come from).  In other words, the thrust of the Enlightenment is the "maturing" of Man out of superstition.  Man could not be free until he was free from God.

Traditionally, the Catholic Church placed faith above reason, theology above the natural sciences, and Apostolic authority over civil and individual authority.  The Enlightenment worked tirelessly over centuries to ensure that this was entirely reversed and then, once reversed, what was higher was thrown out as useless and trampled underfoot.  Instead of faith, the Enlightenment enshrined reason and mocked faith.  Instead of Divine Revelation, the Enlightenment held to naturalistic science and scoffed at Revelation.  Instead of authority, there was separation of Church and state, democracy, individualism, classes, self-government, nationalism, and the new world order all resulting in the state trying to rule over the Church.

Wherever the Enlightenment has spread its tentacles, it has revolutionized absolutely everything about how humanity sees itself and the rest of creation: and it is what we call modern.  With the application of the principles of the Enlightenment, that is, reason, naturalism, radical empiricism, skepticism, secularism, evolution, and relativism, other inverted sciences began to take shape.  These inverted sciences found their way into the study of Scripture in the Historical Critical method.  Generally speaking, the historical critical method would place certain rules (inspired by the Enlightenment principles) on Scripture.  These rules would then be used to determine whether something was actually true or only a myth.  For the modernist, Scripture was gutted of meaning, and then treated as an inspired book in the sense that it was written by means of the spiritual sentiment, or rather, vital immanence.  To understand this more fully, you have to read the great encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis by Pope Pius X where he describes Modernism fully.

Notice the first step in the descent of the Modernists.....

Catholic A La Mode

So, with all of this in mind, is it possible to translate the Traditional Catholic faith into modern modes of thought?  Keep in mind that the Catholic Church is intrinsically Traditional. Tradition is like the very genetic code of the Church by which the Church grows and spreads out as one organism, unchanged from generation to generation. Jesus compared the Church to a vine, one continuous vine where he is the vine and we are the branches.  Tradition is our link to Jesus Christ, because the very words of Christ, His very teaching, is being repeated to us by means of Tradition.  Tradition then, is Spirit and Life! As St. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." St. Paul also warns all Christians who don't hold to the original Gospel:

"I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.  For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."  Galatians 1:6-10

So, the very words, the very language of Jesus has been passed down to us through tradition and we are warned against believing anything contrary.

Pope John XXIII understood how important it was to preserve the faith.  Yet, he saw a need to bring the Church up to date to speak to the modern world after the revolutions of the past five centuries.   They called it Aggiornamento, that is, to bring the Church up to date.  For a Catholic at that time, and for a traditional Catholic now, that is a very revolutionary idea.  After all, if Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, if truth is unchanging, and if the deposit of faith was handed on once and for all, why would we need to change anything or bring it up to date?  Bringing things up to date is, after all, an ambiguous goal.  An ambiguous goal can bring about all sorts of unforeseen results.... What was meant by bringing the Church up to date?  The key, the hermeneutic if you will, to understanding this may be in the opening speech of the Second Vatican Council:

"The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. [Keep this in mind anyone who says that Vatican II is authoritative in the same way other councils are!]
"For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character."
We have considered what happened to bring about the methods of research and literary forms of modern thought, and we have considered how the Catholic Church Traditionally thought.  The Church was meant to be God centred, Scripture centred, Tradition centred, Authority centred, and unchanging.  Modern thought was Man centred, Science centred, Evolution centred, Reason centred, and constantly changing (evolving, converging, developing etc.).  Could the Church hope to come to a synthesis between its thought and that of the modern world as Pope John XXIII intended?

Never mind the fact that Pope Pius IX already shut the door to Pope John XXIII's directive in the Syllabus of Errors: "80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization."  Never mind that when Pope Benedict XVI was Cardinal Ratzinger said the council was an "anti-syllabus".  What happens when you create a synthesis of the Church and the world?  Well, if you take a truth and an error and then mix the two, what do you get?  You get error.  The Hegelian dialectic always produces error!  The thesis is the Church, the antithesis is the world, and the synthesis is a world infected Church.  Now, I do not pretend to know what was in Pope John XXIII's heart and mind, but I do think he was entirely naive to think that this experiment could work.  This post is not meant to proclaim a rejection of the Church or the papacy.  I have no such authority nor would I ever claim to.  As a faithful son of the Church, I will always work to protect her and her teaching as much as my state in life permits.  Now, keeping that in mind, what Pope John XXIII does next in the opening speech is critical to understand.  He removes all protections from the faithful by disarming the Church in its battle against error:

"At the outset of the Second Vatican Council, it is evident, as always, that the truth of the Lord will remain forever. We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against an dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them[The Church abandons her pastoral responsibilities to the individual?], particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life. They are ever more deeply convinced of the paramount dignity of the human person and of his perfection as well as of the duties which that implies. Even more important, experience has taught men that violence inflicted on others, the might of arms, and political domination, are of no help at all in finding a happy solution to the grave problems which afflict them."

In the opening speech of Vatican II, Pope John XXIII revolutionizes how the Church teaches. Now, she no longer uses her own language, given to her through Tradition authentically developed by the Popes, Fathers of the Church, Doctors of the Church, and Saints.  Now she is to use that language of the modern world full of inverted definitions, methods, and hierarchies.  In essence, Pope John XXIII is asking the council to subject her doctrines to the inverted definitions of modernity.  Pope John XXIII continues to speak of the "medicine of mercy" rather than that of "severity" and reverses the order of what it means to be truly pastoral. Jesus calling us sheep wasn't a compliment! Sheep need to be treated roughly at times to bring them in line.  Those who listened to Jesus tell the parable of the sheep originally would have understood that the one sheep that was brought back most likely had its leg broken so that it couldn't run away again and would have to stick with the flock!  A pastor needs to use discipline to guide the flock.  When you read the history of the Popes it becomes immediately clear that any heresy not dealt with quickly and harshly becomes a bigger problem for the next Pope.

Whom Did the Council Serve?

Perhaps I am a "prophet of gloom" and the modern expression of the faith could go well......but, any sane look at what happened to the Church after the council shows that something went wront.  Perhaps it didn't go well because the reforms were not implemented correctly and all we need to do is look at the original intention of the council.  We should then consider the concluding speech of Pope Paul VI.  From it we can get a summary of what the hopes and intentions of the council were.  Pope Paul VI said in the closing address:

"But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, [again, to anyone claiming this council is on the same level as other ecumenical council is faced with a declaration that nothing extraordinary happened!] has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is."

Pope Paul VI says some apparently contradictory things here.  The most apparent contradiction is that the Church is to maintain her authority yet dialogue with the world.  Ultimately, and as is clear from the fallout from the Council over the past fifty years, he flattened the relationship between the Church and the world. Instead of the Church being the teacher entrusted with absolute Truth, she is a conversational friend in dialogue who no longer speaks her truths in their fullness but in words that modern man will find more cordial, vital, attractive, and persuasive. Unfortunately, modern man is only interested in the values of the Enlightenment which run entirely contrary to the Church and her teachings!  But he continues:

"Another point we must stress is this: all this rich teaching is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need.  The Church has, so to say, declared herself the servant of humanity, at the very time when her teaching role and her pastoral government have, by reason of the council's solemnity, assumed greater splendor and vigor: the idea of service has been central."
"It might be said that all this and everything else we might say about the human values of the council have diverted the attention of the Church in council to the trend of modern culture, centered on humanity. We would say not diverted but rather directed.  Any careful observer of the council's prevailing interest for human and temporal values cannot deny that it is from the pastoral character that the council has virtually made its program, and must recognize that the same interest is never divorced from the most genuine religious interest, whether by reason of charity, its sole inspiration (where charity is, God is!), or the council's constant, explicit attempts to link human and temporal values with those that are specifically spiritual, religious and everlasting; its concern is with man and with earth, but it rises to the kingdom of God."

Here, the role of the Church is reversed, instead of serving God to bring men to heaven by means of the graces given her by God, she serves men to lift them to heaven. The Church's mission is inverted by focussing on what modern man wants.  Pope Paul VI clearly states that the attention of the council was diverted, nay, directed to be centred on humanity.  Diverted from what?  Directed from Who?  How are the human and temporal values of modern men to be linked to the religious and everlasting ones if they are diametrically opposed to their core?  Yet, unfortunately, that is not the most troubling thing said by Pope Paul VI:

"Consequently, if we remember, venerable brothers and all of you, our children, gathered here, how in everyone we can and must recognize the countenance of Christ (cf. Matt. 25:40), the Son of Man, especially when tears and sorrows make it plain to see, and if we can and must recognize in Christ's countenance the countenance of our heavenly Father "He who sees me," Our Lord said, "sees also the Father" (John 14:9), our humanism becomes Christianity, our Christianity becomes centered on God; in such sort that we may say, to put it differently: a knowledge of man is a prerequisite for a knowledge of God ."

Is that not a complete revolution within the Church? In what way can we see Christ in everyone to bring humanism in AS Christianity, that makes Christianity become (as if it never were?) centred on God? Is Pope Paul declaring that knowledge of man, in the modern sense no less, is a prerequisite for knowing God? This is part of the Cartesian revolution, in centering our understanding on ourselves, apart from God and reality, and then looking out at the world and looking at ourselves as the key to understanding reality rather than God? This is making man the centre of revelation! Is it not?!  This is a complete inversion of creation, the Church, and Man's relationship with God!

Pope John Paul II echoed this sentiment in his encyclical Redemptor Hominis:

"In reality, the name for that deep amazement at man's worth and dignity is the Gospel, that is to say: the Good News. It is also called Christianity. This amazement determines the Church's mission in the world and, perhaps even more so, "in the modern world"."
Humanism, apparently, is the new Christianity.

"and you shall be as Gods"......

For this inversion of the Church to happen, the Church needed to replace her Thomistic realism with Descartes and Kant, she needed to replace her tradition with modern modes of thought (naturalism, secularism, etc.), she needed to replace her confidence in Scripture with a confidence in modern science, and ultimately she needed to place her focus on man instead of God. It is clearly stated by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, and there it is!

Essentially, what Pope John XXIII wanted to do, albeit unknowingly, is ask each Christian to place a candle, the light of faith, in the mouth of a volcano spewing sulphurous ash and billowing black smoke through which the light of day would never shine.  The candle was snuffed out and the glow of the molten rock was taken as its light.  Although the faint memory of what was Catholic was still in the minds of those trying to update the Church, everything ended up destroyed by modernity.  After all, what does a modernist do?  The modernists acknowledge orthodox belief while believing its contradiction.  They do so by accepting that everything changes/evolves including definitions.  Orthodox definitions then, are not eternal truths, they are expressions of a continuously developing convergent belief system.  Words then, are fluid and can have their meaning replaced to suit the "next step" in doctrinal development.  What guides this doctrinal development?  Praxis.  Democracy.  Popular opinion.  So, as practice changes, which is just another way of saying that people no longer practice what they should by following the commands of Our Lord, doctrine must be "reinterpreted", which is just another way of saying that doctrine must be emptied of its traditional meaning and replaced with a new more meaningful interpretation, in order to satisfy the people.  Truth never comes into this process of doctrinal development.  It is a bottom-up system of self-demolition.  What happens when you let uninspired thinking override inspired Revelation?

Everything effected becomes inverted, perverted, and iniquitous.  Is that not exactly what has been happening since Vatican II and the implementation of modernism in the Church?  Yet Vatican II would never have been possible if the successors to the Apostles never doubted Scripture.  It is the doubt they had in the Word of God and the wonders of the modern world that they were enticed by that allowed this humanistic council to happen.

The only way to get the faith of our fathers back is to fight for it.  My next post will be devoted to looking at what is necessary to reclaim the Catholic faith for yourself and help others to do the same.

Resources: Catholics and the Enlightenment