A Serious And Sincere Question On All Saints Day
Preamble:
While on a 'commercial break' on All Saints Day, I chanced upon a notification: it was a comment, a reply on a previously published article. My initial impression was "oops... a trap?! on All Saints Day"... However, the respondent insisted it was "a serious and sincere question". This is a feeble attempt to propose a reply, hopefully serious, but certainly sincere.
 |
| "It is a fact that they have the premises─but you [WE] have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true faith..." -St. Athanasius. |
Background to the Question
In an earlier article, I wrote that
...The primordial war strategy of the "heathens", the Modernists, was usurpation of the Papal seat for Roncalli whom they knew was capable of calling a council and canonizing ecumenism; this, of course, has everything to do with the plan of the synagogue of Satan, whose ready agents Modernists are, to use the structure of the Catholic Church and carry out a "revolution in tiara and cope" with the "little finger" of a 'pope' involved in the plot...
Now the question is what this "structure of the Catholic Church" (which the Modernists used, to carry out their revolution in tiara and cope, and use still, to continue their revolution in permeance), consist of.
Before delving into what "the structure of the Catholic Church" is, it will be necessary to first understand what a "structure" is per se.
"Structure": What It Is
Below is the screenshot of a quick search for "structure" on the net.
And for it's synonyms, thesaurus.com has the following:
The Structure of the Catholic Church
Now, I have heard it said, and it is true, that every institution has a body and soul. The "body", it is said, refers to the people, management and institutions of management, and by extension, the buildings. On the other hand, the "soul" refers to the authority; what gives validity, direction, identity to the institution. Thus, while two corporate institutions may have similar or even the same "body", the "soul" makes one distinct from the other as separate corporate entities.
Here, the Catholic Church, as an institution is thus said to have a "body" -people, hierarchy, institutions of management, buildings; and a "soul" - the authority of God.
In the same way, using the term "religions" loosely, it is said, and truly so, that all religions have members, hierarchy, institutions and buildings. Also, it is said correctly that not all religions (taken singly or together), including the Protestant religion, are the true Church of God, because they lack the authority of God.
Keeping in mind what "structure" is and it's handy synonyms, it is easy to glean the answer to the question as to what constitutes the "structure of the Catholic Church" which the Modernists use.
In the same article from which the question at hand was derived, I had stated in an earlier paragraph that the Modernists were:
Bent on transforming modern Catholicism "into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism" (the 65th condemned proposition of the Modernists), and [they used] their choicest strategy -duplicity- to infiltrate Catholic sacristies, seminaries, chanceries, etc
So? Sacristies, seminaries, chanceries, Catholic universities, -as Catholic institutions of management; and other Catholic buildings, all constitute "the structure of the Catholic Church". And, what is the primordial intention - objective primordial intention! of the Modernists for infiltrating these "structures"? Precisely this: to use those same institutions of management and buildings as instruments for the very undermining of Traditional Catholic religion which they hate with a passion that can be nothing but diabolical.
Their intention, in Pope St. Pius X's words is "to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself" (Pascendi, n.1). The Modernists, the Pope tells us:
lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. (Pascendi, n. 3)
These are fulfilled, word for word, before our eyes in our days, are they not?
It would seem that what is said thus far suffices as a reply to the question asked. However, some further considerations in relation to the question of the "structure of the Catholic Church" which the Modernists use may be helpful.
A Material-legal Carcass; Material-legal Frankenstein?
Now, some, by a way of analogy, affirm correctly that if you were to take the authority of God from the "body" of the Catholic Church you have nothing but the corpse of the Catholic Church. However, keeping in mind the divine institution and indefectibility of the Church, we must note that such is absolutely impossible, however, relatively, Catholic buildings can be unjustly usurped and occupied by heathens and the enemies of the Cross and thus have the authority of God removed from them, and the said buildings becoming a "corpse" of the Catholic Church - here examples that come to mind are the basilicas and Churches overtaken by Mohammedan impiety, Lutherans and Anglicans during the so-called"reformation", and the Judeo-Freemasonic revolutionaries since the French revolution...
Also it is affirmed correctly that, just like the corpse at the funeral home looks very much like the living person so the corpse of the Catholic Church looks like what was -the same buildings, in many cases the same people, and the same structures of hierarchy. A "carcass" of the Catholic Church, infused by the Modernist "life" of heresy, thus having a new identity though retaining the appearance of the Catholic Church, they accurately call "Frankenstein", a "monster Church".
The irony is that this same post Vatican II Church which they call a monster Church, a Frankenstein, they turn around and insist that it is "not a new Church"! Their reason is that it is the continuation of the material-legal structure of the Catholic Church. But did not Pope Pius IX say that "that Church which truly is, and is called Catholic, should at the same time shine with the prerogatives of unity, sanctity, and apostolic succession"? (Denz. 1686). These prerogatives, do they shine out in the Modernist monster Church? How the indefectibility of Holy Mother Church is besieged! A "body" animated by the "life" of Modernist heresy, is not a new one with an identity different from that body animated by the life and power of God? How quickly the principle identity is here forgotten...
Here we must recall one of the condemned propositions in the "Syllabus" of Poor Pius IX; it reads thus: "Protestantism is nothing else than a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is possible to serve God as well as in the Catholic Church" (Denz. 1718). In condemning this proposition, we see that in the mind of the Church, Christian religion cannot exist outside the Catholic Church so much so that to speak of a Christian religion is to speak of the Catholic Church. Thus, if a "religion" is a "new" one other than the Catholic religion, it must be of a new "church" - an assembly of innovators. But! They concede that the Modernist post Vatican II Church is a new religion and insist it is not a new church, oops...
That aside, if the Post Vatican II Church not a new church and is thus that same Church that "God, through His begotten Son, has instituted...and provided...with clear signs of His institution, so that it can be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word" [Vatican Council, Denz. 1793], why do they enjoin everyone to "cut off" from it? By whose authority do they insist it must be abandoned? It must be an authority contrary to God's...
Now, if what makes an institution the corpse, carcass of the Catholic Church, is it's loss of the authority of God; i.e. its loss of legality, validity, Catholic direction and Catholic identity; how can the same legality, validity, Catholic direction and identity continue to subsist in the said carcass? A Material-legal Carcass? A Material-legal Frankenstein? What a misnomer!!!
The "Continuity Theory" To The Rescue?
In a previous article, we noted, and decried the fact that:
They are some who hold firmly that "the post Vatican II church is not a new church", but the same people insist that "the post Vatican II church must be absolutely rejected".
By arguing that "Post Vatican II is not a new Church", they, perhaps unbeknownst to them, repeat the very proscribed "Continuity Theory" of certain Anglicans back in the days, which is an extension of another proscribed theory: the "Branch Theory".
This "Continuity Theory" has it that the Anglican Church is a continuation of the Catholic Church that existed in England before the so called "Reformation", and is therefore an integral part, a branch, of the universal Church and truly apostolic in it's succession (see BERRY, The Church of Christ, p.180). Does not the proposition that the post Vatican II Church is not a new Church because of material continuation smells of this "Continuity Theory"?
Now, underlining the point that even if validity of orders were to be conceded to the Anglican Church, she would have nothing more than a material succession since her whole line is derived from an intruder who obtained his position contrary to the canons of the Church and therefore did not receive jurisdiction and authority at the beginning of the office, Fr. Sylvester Berry concludes that "a usurper may found a new dynasty, he cannot continue the old". (BERRY, The Church Of Christ, pp. 182-183)
From here it is easy to see that merely "material succession" is by definition illegal: thus a subsisting merely Material-legality, and merely material ordinary jurisdiction of a merely material Pope, cannot but be a classic model of innovation at best offensive to pious ears. It is an invention of an alternate universe distinct from, and contrary to, the Catholic universe of legality.
Obviously, any leaning, scandalous to say the least, towards the "Continuity Theory" cannot but end in a woeful failure, who says nay?
Summing Up
The Arians, Mohammedans, Lutheran and Anglican protestants and Judeo-Freemasonic revolutionaries took over a number of Catholic buildings and those buildings lost the authority of God and became desecrated (though they remain properties of the Catholic Church under unjust occupation)
To-day, Modernists, the most pernicious of the adversaries of the Church, having infiltrated Catholic buildings, have carried out a wholesale usurpation of them all over the world. Just like Catholic buildings taken over by Arians, Mohammedans, Lutheran and Anglican protestants and Judeo-Freemasonic revolutionaries, could be referred to as "carcass" of the Catholic Church, on account of the loss of the authority of God in them, those taken over by the Modernists share in the same description.
Think on this: St. Augustine is quoted by Fr. Berry to have said
In the Catholic Church there are many things which justly me hold me; ...among this the very name itself which this Church alone among all heresies has obtained. even those heretics who wish to be known as Catholics, when asked by a stranger where the Catholics meet to worship, will never point to their own basilica or places of worship " (BERRY, The Church of Christ, p.166)
In our own day, the Modernists, having usurped not only Catholic buildings and institutions but the very Catholic name point to the same buildings under their unjust occupation when asked by a stranger "where Catholics meet to worship" and would NEVER point to where Catholics actually meet to worship -the present-day catacombs: rented halls, private sitting rooms, bed rooms -turned-Mass rooms, hotel rooms etc.
Now,
- granted that these once Catholic buildings, retaining all the "material appearance" of the Catholic Church and the Catholic name, have fallen into the unjust occupation of Modernist usurpers; and that they have lost the authority of God, i.e. legality, Catholic identity, etc;
- but are "enlivened" by the Modernist "life" of heresy and thus branches of the Modernist "Frankenstein, Monster, Church";
- and given that merely material (structural) succession is by its definition illegal,
Catholic Common sense forbids us to affirm the subsistence of some (impossible) Catholic material-legality in them; does it not?
True, as I have heard it said, the Modernist impostors rule, not the body, (the living body), but the dead body of the Catholic Church i.e. institutions and buildings sunk in the synthesis of all heresies suffering the total dearth of Catholic legality and identity which derives from the very authority of God.
 |
| St. Athanasius, the champion of Catholic Orthodoxy: from whom we learn that the Modernist occupation of Catholic buildings by no means lend them any legality, not even material-legality... They have the premises, but WE have the apostolic Faith...which is more important! Blessed be God 🙏 |
We must here listen to St. Athanasius, the champion of Catholic Orthodoxy during the apparent triumph of Arianism :
It is a fact that they have the premises─but you [WE] have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true faith. ...What is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle-the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?... True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Yes, Catholic buildings can be usurped and unjustly occupied here and there: but the Catholic Church cannot defect. The kingdom of Christ on earth, His Holy Church, cannot be overthrown even if all her de facto structures are usurped and unjustly occupied with the aid of the synagogue of Satan.
Should it be that this reply which I have feebly attempted to compose fails to have airs of seriousness, let the reader rest assured that it is a sincere reply.
Comments
Post a Comment