Posted on 05/22/2003 2:59:36 PM PDT by jt8d
PART II: Media Hypocrisy and Religious Liberty—the Cult of Man
The convergence of scandals that plague the Catholic Church has its source in the errors of liberalism, and specifically the heterodoxy of Religious Liberty. Deviant priests are not a process of Catholic tradition; but rather, they are a product synthesized through the intentional grafting of this progressively unorthodox vine, whose growth has flourished within the zeitgeist that is radical pluralism. Corrupt clergy are symptomatic of this liberal spirit that has pervaded the Body of Christ for more than four decades. Media disregard that the demons of their progressive culture, which they so often defend, have invaded the Church. The press should scrutinize its contribution to the scandals of liberalism; but such objectivity demands a willingness to reveal the whole truth in context, and that is something the elitist press will always be abhorrent to do.
The first responsibility of a free press is the objective search for fact; however the integrity of journalism is mostly determined by whether such findings are published in their full context. But in their attempt to advance a pluralistic society the press has made hypocrisy a virtue; because while telling the world a tale of “Catholic” debauchery the media have chosen to ignore their culpability in creating an atmosphere that encourages and sustains perversion. They, being the chief advocates of political correctness, aggressively advance the homosexual agenda; moreover, the liberal press has kowtowed to this culture of deviance for several decades. The “moralists” of the entertainment industry, aided by their accomplices within the press, slavishly sowed corruption throughout western society; and now these guileful charlatans of virtue pontificate against an evil of their own making? Today, truth requires not the objective search for fact illuminated by divine law, but merely the pretense of objectivity elevated upon the altar of cultural diversity: ergo, in the politically correct universe, “intolerance” is the only criminal act that the individual can perpetrate against society—the capital crime of adhering to moral principles in defiance of relativism.
The relativists of the elitist and morally bankrupt liberal culture descend to the bowels of hollowness, for while having the audacity to attack ecclesiastical perverts they simultaneously defend the secular variety. The reader need only recall these media hypocrites incessantly celebrate the “sexual revolution,” inclusive of all manner of immorality, but regularly impugn the Church for her refusal accept “alternative lifestyles.” And within the Church the liberal spirit has produced a collective of zealots who have worked insidiously to foster similar rebellion under the banner of Religious Liberty. There is little surprise of the scandalous outcome; but it is instructive that the press should selectively target outrageous behavior, for their goal is not about protecting children—rather it is much about their ongoing battle to destroy the Catholic Church.
The battle to destroy the Church did not begin with the liberal press, but they have willingly been the most recent group of useful idiots dispatched for such affect by our ancient foe. However, that same malevolent spirit, which impels the press to joyfully report any scandal, also animates their progressive ilk within the Catholic hierarchy: those whom excuse or attempt to cover-up outrageous behavior—and those whom propagate heresy. These clergy think themselves beyond the precepts of the Catholic faith. Ignoring the Syllabus of Errors, and their vows to defend the Church against the liberalism that defines the secular world, they rather prefer to peacefully coexist with the world, and therefore seek to be enlightened by modern man's philosophical and psychological insights. The new clergy claim to uphold tradition, yet they embrace every novelty. The new clergy call themselves guardians of the faith, yet their deeds undermine the faith. The new clergy pretend to be in union with the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, but they cause millions to leave that Church. The new clergy are the Modernists—the ecclesiastical liberals, whom nurture and continue to protect the evil seed they planted forty years ago. We now reap the harvest of this “enlightened” heterodoxy that was sown by the heresiarchs of the new theology—and their new religion.
A new religion invaded the Church in 1962, and continues to advance its plethora of lies, unchecked. Heresy has become institutionalized within the Church, and the awful contradiction being propagated is one by which the Catholic faith is compromised, while the faithful are led to believe they are more closely united with that faith. Having corrupted The Mass the heresiarchs triumphed where all previous had failed. Their heresy is the philosophy of Modernism, their vehicle was and continues to be Vatican II, and their goal remains the subordination of the Catholic Faith to a world religion—a new order: the Cult of Man.
The Cult of Man did not originate with the Second Vatican Council; but the agenda of this cult was greatly advanced through the efforts of those who cooperated in the implementation of the post-counciliar decrees. These “orders” were the result of deceit. Purposefully ambiguous language was written throughout the Council documents, with the intent being to exploit these ambiguities after the Council. Interpretation of that language was then made by those whom had been responsible for the ambiguities. Thus the confusion generated under the pretext of reform would serve as a camouflage, while specious theological concepts were gradually introduced into the Church in order to foment a false ecumenism, and stealthily permit heresy to take hold within the Body of Christ. These ecumenical concepts were unequivocally and infallibly denounced, as being heretical, by previous popes. But this heterodoxy is now the guiding principle being used in the genesis of the New Church. The first priority of the Ecumenists was the destruction of the Sacred Liturgy, and the implementation of the New Mass—the Novus Ordo. This event marked the beginning of the end for the orthodox faith, as it had been preserved at Nicaea, codified at Trent, and practiced with fidelity for more than 1500 years. Catholics were being made ready to accept a counterfeit religion—one that would evolve with the times, and reflect the Cult of man.
The Catholic Revolution had begun, the storming of the altars was at hand, and a theological guillotine was being made ready to spiritually decapitate the faith. The Cult of Man struck the Church, everywhere and at once, with the battle cry of 1789: Liberty! Equality! Fraternity! In drafting his 16-part blueprint for dismantling the faith, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, chief architect and interpreter of the counciliar text, enlisted the periti, and these “experts” descended upon the Council with a vengeance. Their ranks included: six Protestant ministers; two communist observers; and a legion of novel theologians—some of the more notorious being Hans Küng, Karl Rahner, John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Edward Schillebeeckx and Gregory Baum—all of whom were under suspicion, by the Holy See, for promulgating heretical writings; but these same theological novelties are now prescribed in the name of the Council.
PART III: Ecumenism—the Handmaid of Freemasonry
Archbishop Bugnini was, on two occasions and by two different popes, summarily dismissed from his duties as Council Secretary. The reasons for his abrupt dismissals remain hidden; but, the accusation of Freemasonry was prevalent, and although he staunchly denied the charge, there is compelling evidence that Bugnini was a Freemason. However, by 1969 the enlightened ones had dispatched Bugnini’s battalion of Modernist clerics on their mission to proselytize the Catholic faithful from within. But, desiring that the subversion appear innocuous, these charlatans cloaked their invader with a clever pageantry: Ecumenism.
Ecumenism is the ecclesiastical version of pluralism: the idea that every belief is legitimate, every faith valid. There is no one truth. But logically if all beliefs are valid, then none are valid. To assert that all faiths contain “pieces of the truth” is to muddy the waters. Something cannot be partially correct and therefore acceptable. What parent would knowingly permit a partially correct surgical procedure to be performed on their child? What benefit does a man gain in adhering to some heresy for its “partial” truth, if the fullness of truth is given through the Catholic faith? Christ stated unequivocally: “I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except by me.” Christ did not say He was one of many ways, many truths and many lights. Christ gave us one faith—the Holy Catholic faith. He instituted one church for the propagation of that faith—the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Ecumenism would have us believe that there exist many truths, many faiths and many churches—all of equal value and merit. Is that not what Jesus warned about when He stated narrow is the gate to everlasting life, but wide the path to perdition? Ecumenism parallels the Humanist Manifesto: Both are based in a rationalistic belief system; both consider all beliefs to be equally valid; both envision a utopia on earth; both promote the Cult of Man; and both exclude or otherwise obfuscate absolutes. Where the Manifesto operates in the shadows of UN corridors, Ecumenism operates from behind Vatican walls. While the Manifesto and Ecumenism may appear to be dissimilar the difference is superficial, since the adherence to either philosophy produces similar results: a loss of faith and morals. But at least the Manifesto does not pretend to be anything more than secular—you know what you are getting. Ecumenism, on the other hand, is disingenuous because it pretends to be inspired of God. However, if Ecumenism represents the harmonious coexistence of all beliefs, then it cannot be so inspired: A house divided against it self cannot stand. A rose is always a rose; a rose cannot be a tulip. If we profess to be Catholic, then we must be completely and irrevocably Catholic—or else, we will be something less. Ecumenical polemicists have a difficult time grasping this germane concept because such teaching is too black and white. That is too bad. Catholics ought to be unsympathetic of compromise.
Ecumenism is the handmaid of Freemasonry, the wench who flaunted “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!” while her great knife fell upon 40,000 Catholic heads in 1791-94. The ecumenical robe cleverly designed by Archbishop Bugnini and his Masonic cohorts is the garb of The Revolution. The more things change, the more they remain the same—and ecumenical dressing is but a pretense to legitimize what, heretofore, had been condemned by the Church. Novel garments serve only as a new camouflage for the old heresy of Rationalism. Unfortunately, many Catholics accept Bugnini's Novus Ordo and his ecumenical theology, either forgetting or else never having knowledge of Saint Pope Pius V, Saint Pope Pius X, or Pope Pius IX and his Syllabus of Errors. But a remnant recalls well their Catholic history, and, keeping faithful to tradition, they lament for the present state of affairs within the Church. While orthodox Catholics are least surprised by the secular attacks against the Body of Christ, they are most offended by those who continue to betray the Faith from within. Traditionalists are the rock upon which Christ continues to build His Holy Church, and they courageously defend her against The Revolution and its anthem of Religious Liberty—just as the orthodox men of the French Vendee courageously defended their Catholic faith long ago.
The poisonous doctrine of Religious Liberty is a deadly old hymn that now rings from the mouths of modern ecumenical deceivers; but this creed has, from its inception, wrought only manifold misery upon the world. Orthodox Catholics understood that by dressing the Church in the ecumenical vestments of Religious Liberty the Modernists would bring her to ruin. Traditionalists protested the absurd reforms of Vatican II, but to their chagrin the liberals in Rome persistently imposed novel fashions upon the faithful. Continuously bathed in the wash of secular liberalism, young Catholics were receptive to the ecumenical variety. They enjoyed wearing the new attire. Being unprincipled, or else undisciplined in their faith, seasoned Catholics also began the long march into the Modernist error. These souls welcomed having their ears tickled with “non-judgmental” pabulum. But however appealing ecumenical fashions may be, the secular philosophy concealed beneath the alluring garments has proven itself seditious to the Catholic faith, and has worked to the detriment of the Church.
The “reforms” of Vatican II passed barely beneath the shadow of dissent that is proper to the Episcopate. Blind obedience overpowered prudence, and so a majority of bishops accepted the litany of post-conciliar orders without protest. Clergy whom dared oppose were promptly dealt with for having the impudence to question liberal bureaucrats in Rome. Progressive clerics had waited patiently for the opportunity to act out their vision of liturgical utopia, and, as Jesus Christ had lamented 2000 years ago: This was their moment. Nothing, least of all a few holdouts to the orthodox faith would stand in the way. Traditional bishops stood alone, outnumbered by liberal activists within the laity and feminized poltroons within the clergy. This was especially prevalent in the United States, where, with the spread of the Great Society, socialism was realizing its own great awakening, and the hedonistic liberal culture was beginning its ascent to power.
The progressive elite who now ruled the Church held traditional Catholics with contempt, and incredibly, these Vatican bureaucrats accused traditionalists of being schismatic for keeping the orthodox faith! Here is the prophetic irony: shepherds of the Church—those responsible for protecting the flock from heresy, those charged with oversight of the clergy—were themselves promoting grave errors. With presumptuous zeal these bishops implemented changes that adulterated The Holy Mass, and then forced their quasi-Protestant novelty upon the unsuspecting Catholic world. In the revolutionary spirit of the Second Vatican Council these men unleashed an avalanche of radicalism that turned the sacred liturgy on its head: man became the focus of the New Mass; Jesus Christ became a King in exile.
Predictably the Council’s desire to placate secular critics of the Church proved disastrous. By the 1970's The Revolution fully enveloped the Church. The new theology had all but ended the celebration of the Holy Tridentine Mass, had compromised the faith of millions of once-devout Catholics, and had thoroughly emasculated the priesthood. With attendance dropping to unprecedented lows, Catholic Churches were being closed at a record pace. A true crisis was emerging, as Catholics were becoming more indifferent to minding the precepts of their faith. Understandably so, since the Church was provoking uncertainty not only of what differentiated Catholics from Protestants, but also in what separated the Catholic faith from the false teachings of the more obviously pagan religions. With the ascension of John Paul II to the papacy in 1978 the line of demarcation became obscured further still.
The ecumenical philosophy of Religious Liberty espoused by Pope John Paul II goes without equal. The Holy Father is undoubtedly an unswerving champion of the new theology. The Modernists see him as their own—the quintessential intellectual. John Paul II is looked upon as the ecumenical pope, the progressive pope; and, in 1986, he became the pope of Assisi, where representatives from the world's “other great religions” gathered together under the Holy Father’s big ecumenical tent to declare their own brand of Solidarity. With the advent of Assisi, Religious Liberty triumphed over Catholic unity, and apostasy was now being openly celebrated within the Church; and being done so without apology—excepting for Pope John Paul’s ongoing lamentations before the world for the historical “mistakes” of the Church Triumphant.
What ever happened to the Church Militant? We now prefer the impotent homiletics of an ambiguous theology, patronizing psychobabble, and other flowery liberal niceties. To illustrate this point, let us examine some of the more recent ecumenical developments:
1986 Prayer Meeting of Religions at Assisi: At this “celebration” in the presence of Pope John Paul II, a statue of Buddha sat smiling upon the holy tabernacle of a Catholic Basilica – the Church of Saint Peter. Perhaps the Holy Father thought rubbing elbows with this trinket would bring the Church good luck? All the world’s “other great religions” were given equal billing on the ecumenical marquee. We’re all one, big happy commune—Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jainist, Shintoist, Animalist, Pantheist, Spiritualist, etc.—it makes no difference in Pope John Paul’s grand ecumenical love-in.
1999 Vatican meeting with Christian and non-Christian Iraqi clerics: Pope John Paul II is presented a gift, the Muslim Qumran. As a sign of respect—and solidarity with Islam the Holy Father bows before, and then, kisses the holy book of Islam. Islam denies the Holy Trinity and the deity of Christ. Islam also denies the sacraments, the real presence, etc. Post September 11, 2001, we may also conclude that Islam denies the right to life for any human being, if that soul does not bow to Allah—a pagan moon god drummed up from Bedouin myth. But these trivial details do not dissuade our Holy Father from continuing to bestow his seal of approval upon the false religion of Islam and its little pieces of truth.
1999 Catechism given by The Holy Father: The Pope postulates that Heaven, Purgatory and Hell are not actual physical places where the reunited body and soul enjoys eternal glory with Christ, receives final purification from the effects of sin, or else suffers eternal punishment for willfully rejecting Christ. According to John Paul II, Heaven and Hell are metaphorical biblical language describing a state of mind and not a physical reality. Does anyone seriously believe these statements to be in keeping with the orthodox Catholic faith?
2001 Ecumenical Council of Bishops: Catholic bishops declare that no substantive difference exists between the Catholic dogma of salvation through sacramental grace, and the Lutheran heresy of salvation by faith alone. Should anyone be surprised by this natural progression of events? The Magisterium has always taught, as an infallible dogma of the faith, that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church—period. But perhaps the enlightened ecumenical Bishops skipped a few classes during their Catechism.
We've got our little armies all over Free Republic.
Whether they are of the Church is an entirely different matter.
The Church is not an "army'; it is the Body of Christ.
You goofballs who think the Church is some kind of front for the Masons are in the CFR-Bilderberger joy bus.
Sorry, friend, but you have me at a disadvantage here... please explain phrase.
>>>
Click on his homepage and you will find out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.