Anathema or Not?

 Anathema or Not?

The choice between:
"Anathema to modernist impostors: preachers of a strange gospel"
and "No anathema! Not impostors but legitimate! Not strange, but updated gospel!"
 is an easy one for one with an informed Catholic Common Sense... 

Preamble:

St. Paul, writing to the Galatians says "... though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema". (Rom. 1:8). 

In the Old Testament, to be "anathematized" often entails death and total destruction. And this severity has its explanation in the necessity that there was to preserve the Jewish people and to protect them against the idolatry professed by the neighboring pagans. However, In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful; pronounced chiefly against heretics and innovators in doctrine. Thus, all the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: "If anyone says . . . let him be anathema".

Came Vatican II

In his opening speech for the so-called Second Vatican Council, the first in the series of Modernist papal impostors since 1958, Apostate Cardinal Roncalli, had everyone believe that though the Church had opposed errors with severity in the past, she now prefers to use the "medicine of mercy". It must be quickly noted that Pope St. Pius X had already instructed us that to “the Modernist as reformer”, “Ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic parts” [Pascendi, n. 38]. 

Commenting on this purported change of approach, the lecturer taking us in "Introduction to Vatican II" when I was a student of theology as a Religious seminarian in a Modernist-dressed as Catholic-Major Seminary; would affirm with an air of pride that since Vatican II the relationship between the Church and modernism is no longer that of rivalry but of dialogue. Looking up modernism, and discovering it to be the "synthesis of all heresies" it was evident to me that such a dialogue is impossible: a dialogue between "the pillar and ground of the Truth" and the "synthesis of all heresies"?! The Church turning around to dialogue with those she had solemnly condemned as "the most pernicious of her adversaries"? Only in the wishful thought of such adversaries could such a dialogue take place… 

The "church" which had apostate cardinal Roncalli for its first authoritative voice was/is intent on making provisions for a "new order of human relations" in the "present order of things", as his opening speech states. Also, its efforts are geared toward corresponding to "the modern expectations and needs of the various peoples of the world". 

The Modernist Blueprint: a strange gospel.

To an informed Catholic common sense, it is easy to see how the blueprint of the endeavors of "the most pernicious" of the adversaries of the Church, cannot but be a strange gospel, a strange doctrine. This Blueprint lies outlined in the opening speech given by papal impostor Roncalli at the kickoff of his robber council, and subsequently developed during the council and promulgated by his successor in the apostate apostolicity, Apostate Montini whose stage name was 'Paul VI'.

• Though it is of faith that unity (unity of faith, worship, and government) is one of the distinctive characteristics which render the Church easily recognizable to all, and clearly distinguish it from every other religious society falsely so called, especially from those which claim to be Christian in doctrine and origin; Apostate cardinal Roncalli, then as papal impostor pushing the Modernist agenda, makes all believe the unity Christ wished for His Church is far from being realized: thus the chief aim of his council was to be Christian unity, so-called.

• He identifies  "a triple ray of beneficent supernal light" in which the unity which Christ implored for his Church shines out: unity among Catholics; unity of Protestants in desiring union with Catholics -on their own terms of course, and the unity among non-christian religions in their esteem and respect for the Catholic Church. He multiplies Catholic unity, thereby distorting it, setting the stage for ecumenism, collegiality, false religious Liberty, inter-religious dialogue, etc. all tied tail-to-tail by indifferentism, and solemnly promulgated by his successor in the plot.

• Though the Catholic gospel teaches that "... there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts. 4:12); the Modernist robber council, through it's doctrine of religious Liberty by which it grants equal rights to all religions, would have everyone believe that there is some other name by which men may have salvation, and that men must be free to choose whatever name from which they think their salvation derives.

• Premised on these equal rights, the need for inter-religious dialogue is affirmed: since the "new order of human relations" demands it. 

• Since the unity among protestants in their aspirations to be united with the Catholics is a "ray of  beneficent supernatural light", and since this, according to their reckoning, is indicative of the absence of the unity willed by Christ, the need for an ‘ecumenical dialogue’ on ‘equal footing’ is affirmed; and this ecumenical need becomes the touchstone for every other endeavors - liturgical, pastoral, catechetical, etc… 

Responses to the Modernists and their blueprint.

One would think that the points thus outlined suffice for each making a claim to the Catholic name to recognize the modernist blueprint as a strange gospel. Surprisingly, such a unanimous recognition does not exist, not yet. The following are the array of feedbacks vis a vis the Modernist blueprint thus briefly outlined: 

• The likes of the faculty members of the  Modernist-dressed as Catholic-Major Seminary; being themselves products of Vatican II and enamored of its spirit, with their mind fixed on ‘evolution of dogma’; intransigently insists on a ‘hermeneutics of continuity’ between the blueprint of the pre-Vatican II Church and that of the Vatican II church, admitting only a rupture of ‘enmity’ between the ‘Church and modernism: now the ‘Church and Modernism are partners in dialogue’, they say, and this, in order to make the Church relevant to the modern man in the present order of things. In their ranks are numbered those both of a rather conservative bent, and those rather liberal: united in the blueprint for aggiornamento, but not agreed on the pace… 

• The ultra-conservative, while they also admit a ‘hermeneutics of continuity’ in doctrine and praxis, admits rupture only in matters liturgical, and are content with having their nostalgia -for the smells of incense, the sounds of the bells, and the beautiful scenery of the Traditional liturgical ceremonies- satisfied. They are unable to see that a rupture in matters liturgical is presupposed by the rupture in doctrine to the extent the "law of Faith is the law of worship and vise versa".

• The neo-trads reject any hermeneutics of continuity whatsoever, either in doctrine or in liturgical matters, only admitting a continuity of the legitimate exercise of authority while setting themselves and their heroes past, as the arbiter, as to when this legitimate exercise is favorable to Tradition or not.  Thus poised, their battle cry is "recognize and resist": recognize as legitimate, resist when against Tradition.

• The Sedeprivationists also reject any hermeneutics of continuity whosoever, either in doctrine or matters liturgical. However, they admit a continuity in a material-legal claim to authority while affirming a rupture in the formal-legal exercise of the same authority due to a rupture, they say, in the objective intention to will the good of the Church.

• The Theological Sedevacantists also reject any hermeneutics of continuity whatsoever, either in doctrine or matters liturgical. They also reject the continuity of any  so-called material-legal claim to authority in the modernists.  

• The opinionist Sedevacantists reject any hermeneutics of continuity in doctrine, liturgy, discipline, and also reject material-legal continuity. However, they grant that those who accept the authority of the Modernist claimants in places of authority rightfully do so as it all boils down to a matter of mere opinions contra opinions.   

Anathema or Not?

• For those enamored of Vatican II, conservative or liberal, Vatican II preaches no strange gospel: it simply preaches a more updated Gospel suited to the modern times. For this reason, any attempt to anathematize Vatican II and the authority responsible for its convocation, promulgation and execution, is schismatic, heretical, ludicrous and a waste of time.

• The ultra-conservative also mocks the idea of anathema in relation to Vatican II: they only cry foul when their attachment to the smells and bells bespeaking some vestige of tradition is slightly or sorely threatened.

• The neo-trads spurn the idea of anathema also, however, confusing the natural order and the order of Faith, they deem the modernists in the places of authority to be merely bad-dads who still remain dads anyway. They gladly offer their Masses ‘una cum’ [i.e. one with] their bad-dads whose authority they keenly resist.

• The Sedeprivationists swerve between anathema and no anathema: to the extent they admit an undeniable rupture in doctrine, liturgy, discipline; they cry ‘anathema’ both to Vatican II and the authority responsible for it; however, to the extent they admit a material-legal continuity of authority, thus granting the novel title of ‘Pope materially but not formally’ to modernist Papal claimants, they spurn the idea of anathema. Such anathema, they insist, deals a deadly stroke at the Apostolicity of the Church. With their anathema suite on, they set themselves as deadly foes to the Mass offered ‘una cum’ a modernist papal claimant, and justly so. Now, while consistency would demand that they concede Mass offered ‘una cum’ he who is their 'pope materially but not formally’, they seem to be altogether silent on that. 

• The Theological Sedevacantists, confirmed in the simple Catholic truth that the guarantors of Apostolic Apostolicity cannot be the purveyors of apostate apostolicity, and that Apostolicity is not saved by being set against Visibility and Indefectibility; totally anathemize the modernist claimants to places of authority in the Church and also consistently reject any Mass offered ‘una cum’ a modernist papal or bishopric claimant. 

• While the opinionist Sedevacantists also totally anathemize the modernists papal claimants, they, however, being inconsistent with their sedevacantist claims, allow that a Sedevacantist faithful could assist at a Mass offered  ‘una cum’ a Modernist Papal claimant who they anathemize. In effect, their anathema of a Modernist Papal claimant does not include a Mass offered ’una cum’ the same Modernist Papal claimant.    

Which way out?

What did St. Paul say? The following: "... though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema". And what has been the attitude of the Church towards heretics and innovators in doctrine if not to anathematize them?

The fundamental question is: did Vatican II, in its doctrines of ecumenism, collegiality, religious liberty, inter-religious dialogue, it ‘subsists in’ clause, etc; teach ‘a gospel besides that'' which the Church has consistently preached and guarded jealously against heretics and innovators in doctrine? 

As a matter of fact, those who cannot see in Vatican II the preaching of a new gospel, a gospel besides that which is Apostolic and Catholic, are either poor victims of the hypnosis-inducing modernist hypocrisy and are bedeviled by a lack of due knowledge, i.e. ignorance, which they have the obligation to removed; or they have their fingers in the Modernist pie, which pie is the resolute determination to transform the Catholic Church from within the walls into a one-world dogma-less church in line with liberal Protestantism while spouting ‘hermeneutics of continuity’ to hold gullible Catholics spell-bound to the pews, less they run out of business. This transformation, the modernists insist, is necessitated by the "new order of human relations" - relations, we must underline, based on indifference to God and His Rights! Relations based on impiety!

On the other hand, the many who recognize in Vatican II a new, strange gospel, why do they not all simply anathemize both the modernist innovators and their new, strange gospel without any reservations? Sadly, the reason is that most are stuck in the rut of a couple of slippery analogies and have some ‘baby’ to save and nurture i.e. a private opinion which they have defended for so long and are unwilling to let go despite the evidence in favor of consistency demanding nothing less. 

In the face of such a sad alliance with inconsistency; obstinacy; and sheer human respect, one with an informed Catholic Common Sense cannot but lament: 

How are the valiant fallen in battle

            And the weapons of war perished?!

How, pray, tell,

Even those who claim the title “the best”, prey, of such spell!