There is so little “new” to write about anything the conciliar revolutionaries do or say at this point that has not been written on this site alone hundreds upon hundreds of times.
Indeed, it was just about two years ago that No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth was published. Although a second volume could be published in light of events that took place after its publication, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s journeys in the past two years and, of course, the issuance and the aftermath of Amoris Laetitia on March 19, 2016, the book’s basic thrust is pretty timeless, especially pertaining to the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s constant warfare on the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than a direct attack on the nature of God Himself, and on the very existence of any kind of objective moral truth knowable by reason alone unaided by Divine Revelation.
As I am well aware that the sheer plethora of material extant about the conciliar revolution is mind-numbing and can be difficult for many people to remember, I want to use this reasonably brief commentary to provide a concise review of conciliarism’s warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth that is nothing other than Modernism’s “evolution of dogma” no matter how many times the conciliar revolutionaries relabel and repackage it. Such a review is necessary in light of the false "pontiff's" disparagement of what he termed as "decadent Scholasticism" in one of his seemingly endless series of interviews that appear now and again in La Civilta Cattolica (see Francis Denounces Decadent Scholasticism.)
Perhaps the best way to begin to give a summary of what the conciliarists believe about the nature of dogmatic truth. There are several sources that can be brought to bear to provide such a summary, starting with Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, which condemned propositions to which the conciliar revolutionaries adhere with exacting fidelity. Here is one of those propositions, among others, to which the conciliar revolutionaries adhere concerning the nature of Divine Revelation and dogmatic truth:
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. -- Ibid. (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)
In other words, it is impossible to know with certitude the truths of the Holy Faith because human language is inadequate to express the infinite variety of aspects which they contain. The expression of dogmatic truths thus is contingent on the historical circumstances and the particular biases of those who formulate it.
Who has told us this?
Well, there are numerous conciliar revolutionaries who have told us this over the past fifty-four years, three months, twenty-five days since the start of the “Second” Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. One of them who did so was Albert "Cardinal Meyer," the Archbishop of Chicago from September 18, 1958, to the time of his death on April 9, 1965, in two interventions he made at that illicit council on September 30, 1964, the Feast of Saint Jerome, and October 8, 1964 the Feast of Saint Brigid, as the council fathers considered the conciliar church's Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, which was issued on November 18, 1965, the Feast of the Dedication of the Basilicas of Saints Peter and Paul:
What I have to say in this brief intervention has to do specially with chapter 2, paragraph 8, of our schema. The whole of chapter 2 pleases me very much, and in particular the way in which paragraph 8 shows that tradition is living, is dynamic, is total, is dynamic, that is, it consists not only in doctrinal propositions, but also of the worship and practice of the whole Church. . . . However, this paragraph, if I have understood it correctly. . . . presents the life and the worship of the Church only in its positive aspect. As I understand it, tradition, in this paragraph, extends beyond the limits of infallible magisterium. If this interpretation is correct, then this tradition is subject to the limits and the failings of the pilgrim Church, which is a Church of sinners, that knows divine things “indistinctly, as in a mirror.” The history of the Church offers multiple proofs of such failings, for example, the fact that the theological doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ was for a long time obscured, that piety was non-liturgical, that Sacred Scripture was neglected, and other like things. Consequently, this paragraph needs to be completed by adding words about these failings that are always possible in this life, and by proposing remedies for them. I therefore suggestion to the Fathers the following formula. . . . “However, that living progress does not make progress always and in every respect. For when the Church ponders divine things in its pilgrim state, in some respects it can fail, and it does in fact fail. For this reason it carries Sacred Scripture in itself as a perpetual norm, so that it can unceasingly correct and perfect itself by conforming its life to this norm.” (As found in an article by Father Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., “Catholic Tradition and Traditions. Michael J. Lacey and Francis Oakley, editors, The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 114. (See The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity.)
"Cardinal Meyer" was attacking the very foundation of the nature of Divine Revelation, and he believed that the Church could fail in her proclamation of doctrine. He also repeated the old lie of Martin Luther and his followers that the Catholic Church had neglected Sacred Scripture and that the piety of the faithful was non-liturgical, beliefs constituted nothing other than an attack upon Holy Mother Church's Divine Constitution. It was thus necessary for Meyer to attack the nature of Divine Revelation in order to make the proposal that Sacred Scripture can "correct" itself.
Taken together, of course, one can see that “Cardinal” Meyer was advancing a view of a “living tradition” that was nothing other than Modernism’s “evolution of dogma.” It is this condemned Modernist precept that is at the foundation of the process of theological, liturgical, moral and pastoral degeneration that has accelerated apace during the past twenty months since the “election” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Even though Meyer’s proposal was not adopted at the “Second” Vatican Council, his intervention nevertheless carried the day theologically just as it is the case that the dissenting justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America can become the basis of jurisprudence accepted as legitimate by law school professors and even by future Supreme Court justices themselves.
The book that contained the combined excerpts of Albert “Cardinal” Meyer’s two inventions on the text of chapter two, paragraph eight, of the schema on Divine Revelation at the “Second” Vatican Council also included a comment made on Meyer’s remarks made by a theology professor in the late-1960s:
Article 8. . . . is an attempt to a widely expressed need for a clear and positive account of what is meant by tradition. The first section points out the total nature of tradition: primarily it means the many-layered yet one presence of the mystery of Christ throughout all the ages; it means the totality of the presence of Christ in this world. . . . Teaching, life and worship are named as the three ways in which tradition is handed on. It has a place not only in the explicitly traditional statements of Church doctrine, but in the unstated—and often unstatable—elements of the whole service of the Christian worship of God and the life of the Church. This is the basis of the final comprehensive formulation of tradition as the “perpetuation,” the constant continuation and making present of everything that the Church is, of everything that it believes. Tradition is identified, and is thus defined, with the being the life of the Church. The danger that lurks in this statement . . . had been point out by Cardinal Meyer in an important speech on 30 September 1964: not everything that exists in the Church must for that reason be a legitimate tradition: in other words, not every tradition that arises in the Church, is a true celebration and keeping of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as a legitimate, tradition. . . . Consequently, tradition must not only be considered affirmatively, but also critically; we have Scripture as criterion for this indispensable criticism of tradition, and tradition must therefore always be related back to it and measured by it. . . . It is to be regretted that the suggestion made by the American Cardinal was not, in fact, taken up. . . . On this point Vatican II has unfortunately not make any progress, but has more or less ignored the whole question of the criticism of tradition. There is, in fact, no explicit mention of the possibility of distorting tradition . . . which means that a most important side of the problem of tradition, as shown by the history of the Church—has been overlooked. (As found in an article by Father Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., “Catholic Tradition and Traditions. Michael J. Lacey and Francis Oakley, editors, The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 114-115. (See The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity.)
Yes, according to the likes of apologists for the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium of the conciliar “popes” tradition is “historically conditioned” and “still developing” in order to determine “what is doctrine to be preserved and what is “historically conditioned.”
As one can probably guess, the theology professor who was favorably impressed with "Cardinal" Meyer's interventions was none other than Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who has spent the entirety of his sixty-five years, six months, seven days of his priestly life disparaging what he thinks is “past” teaching by claiming that it was “conditioned” by the historical circumstances in which it was formulated:
1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.
The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes." (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)
1990: "The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.
In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time."
(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)
It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)
What was that Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis about how the "new theologians" deny that the true meaning of doctrines may be known and understood with metaphysical certitude?
Let me remind you:
34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been "discovered" as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical.
Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council condemned such views on April 24, 1870 (see the Appendix below). a condemnation that was taken up anew by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907. See the Appendices below for another recitation of the Vatican Council's condemnations of everything that the conciliar "popes," including Karol Josef Wotyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio)
Behold a false religion, conciliarism, that is built on an edifice of sophisms that have indeed ruined and wrecked the average Catholic’s understanding of the Holy Faith. This edifice of sophisms has produced such instability and uncertainty in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that Joseph Ratziner/Benedict XVI’s interpretation of the “Second” Vatican Council can be swept away by the next by using the exact same “hermeneutic” that he been used to sweep away the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church in order to justify the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, condemned interpretations of Sacred Scripture according to an unfettered use of the historical-critical method of modern Scriptural exegesis and, of course, ever-changing liturgical rites and pastoral practice.
As descendants of the original Modernists by way of the "New Theology," the conciliar revolutionaries have been able to build their false religion by overcoming three difficulties that had been identified by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, that stood in their way of all Modernists to advance their errors and heresies:
42. Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''
The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived. Finally, the Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself by sacrilegiously falsifying its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries. To the entire band of Modernists may be applied those words which Our predecessor sorrowfully wrote: "To bring contempt and odium on the mystic Spouse of Christ, who is the true light, the children of darkness have been wont to cast in her face before the world a stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and words, to depict her as the friend of darkness and ignorance, and the enemy of light, science, and progress.''This being so, Venerable Brethren, there is little reason to wonder that the Modernists vent all their bitterness and hatred on Catholics who zealously fight the battles of the Church. There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but their usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obstinacy. When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack. This policy towards Catholics is the more invidious in that they belaud with admiration which knows no bounds the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus of applause. For them the scholarship of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium. When one of their number falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the disgust of good Catholics, gather round him, loudly and publicly applaud him, and hold him up in veneration as almost a martyr for truth. The young, excited and confused by all this clamor of praise and abuse, some of them afraid of being branded as ignorant, others ambitious to rank among the learned, and both classes goaded internally by curiosity and pride, not infrequently surrender and give themselves up to Modernism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 2007.)
These two paragraphs describe the modus operandi of each of the conciliar "popes" even though they have used different terms to describe their truly rigid adherence to the "evolution of dogma" that is the foundation of their entire false belief system. Indeed, these two paragraphs are really all one needs to know when reading anything written by the conciliar "popes," especially the three who have been the most prolific: Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio. Each has disparaged Scholasticism and Tradition, although they have done so in different ways, and they have done so in direct defiance of Catholic teaching, including the following proposition that was condemned by Pope Pius XI in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:
13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. -- Ibid. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)
Go tell that to the likes of Antipope Benedict and "Pope" Francis!
For his part, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II liked to present himself as a "Thomistic Personalist" even though Personalism, which was condemned personally by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944 (a condemnation he himself cited and reiterated forcefully in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951), and even though it had nothing to do with Scholasticism. "Saint John Paul II" used his abilities as actor to mask the fact that he was no Thomist at all and that his concept of "living tradition" was nothing other than Modernism's evolution of dogma by another name.
Consider Mrs. Cornelia Ferreira's documention of how Wojtyla/John Paul II lost the Catholic Faith in his teenaged years:
Like Focolare, other syncretic sects have received, or are in the process of receiving, canonical status, allowing them to masquerade as Catholic religious orders, complete with Statutes, community life, vows and even seminaries. The Neocatechumenate alone, founded by a lay man and ex-nun, has produced 196 priests from its Redemptoris Mater diocesan seminar in Rome and more than 1,000 from its 50 seminaries across the world. Besides the priests being developed by this and other sects, many other clergy live their spirituality. Bishops have already come from their heretical ranks, ordained by John Paul II and favoured with privileged positions, some within the Roman Curia and on Pontifical Councils. It is only logical to assume that they could produce a pope, loyal only to his particular "church" or movement. The ecclesial movements comprises priests, religious, single and married laity--each movement a parallel or an anti-Church within the bosom of the Catholic Church
But we don't have to look to the future for a pope produced by a lay movement. Pope John Paul himself was the "product" and progenitor of dynamic lay groups." In 1940, Karol Wojtyla, aged 19, fell under the sway of a Polish rationalist and self-taught psychologist, Jan Tyranowski, who had "developed his own spirituality" and had the reputation of a "mystic." Quite in line with Deweyite and Jungian adult church principles, Tyranowski preached a gnostic experiential religion; "inner liberation from the faith," i.e., from Catholicism; and "transformation of personality from within," i.e., spiritual growth, through the "friendship" of a community. He also preached a life of service, especially to those of one's community, as the fruit of the "practice and the presence of God." "To bring young people into this same faith"--not Catholicism--he led weekly discussion meetings for young men he recruited, "in which theological questions were argued." (Questioning the Faith is called "critical thinking" today.)
Tyranowski formed the Living Rosary, which shared many of the characteristics of modern lay movements. Its weekly meetings were run by lay people in homes, not by priests in parish halls. By 1943, there were 60 "animates" who reported to Tyranowski. One of these group leaders was Karol Wojtyla.
It is strange that Chiara Lubich also termed her group "the living Rosary." Did she get the idea from Bishop Wojtyla, whom Focolare got to know in Poland? "The Living Rosary as created by Jan Tyranowski consisted of groups of fifteen young men, each of which was led by a more mature youngster who received personal spiritual direction ... from the mystically gifted tailor." The difference between the two "living" Rosaries is that Tyranowoski's groups represented the decades of the Rosary, whilst Lubitch's members were Hail Marys.
The inner transformation taught by Tyranowski is what New Agers today call a change in consciousness or paradigm shift, in which one synthesizes two opposing ideas, such as believing one is a good Catholic even if holding superstitious or occult beliefs. It is similar to [John] Dewey's merger of nature and grace or Jung's "wholeness." It is an occult, gnostic, kabbalistic method of producing a personal shift in values that engenders social transformation. Inner transformation led to religious orders abandoning the supernatural focus of Catholicism for naturalistic and social activism after Vatican II.
Pope John Paul II's acceptance of the gnostic philosophy of the sects is also the product of the theatrical experiences of his youth. Theatre for Karol was "an experience of community"; but more than that, it was a serious training in gnostic transformation by Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk, director of the Rhapsodic Theatre, which he co-founded with Karol. This Theatre, with its "theme of consciousness," provided Wojtyla's "initiation to phenomenology." Kotlarczyk, who lived for some time in the Wojtyla home, tutored Karol in his method from the time Karol was sixteen until he joined the seminary six years later. He created a "theater of the inner world" to present "universal truths and universal moral values, which . . . offered the world the possibility of authentic transformation." Plot, costumes and props were not important. Instead, speech--the "word"--was his focus, the goal being to use it to transform the consciousness of the audience (and actor). Hence Kotlarczyk, insisted on every word being pronounced just so.
That this was a training in the kabbalistic, occult use of words became clear when Kotlarczyk's book, The Art of the Living Word: Diction, Expression, Magic, was published in 1975 by the Papal Gregorian University in Rome. Cardinal Wojtyla penned the preface to this book in which Kotlarczyk listed the sources of his ideas. The included the writings of several occultists and theosophists, amongst them some of the foremost kabbalists and occultists of modern times: Russian Mason Helena Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society and the New Age Movement; French occultist Eliphas Levi (who influenced Blavatsky, Albert Pike, Grand Commander of Scottish Rite Masonry, and sorcerer Aleister Crowley, long-time head of the high Masonic Ordo Templi Orientis or OTO); and Rudolph Steiner. Illuminatus, Rosicrucian, theosophist, OTO member, Communist and founder of the Anthroposophical Society and Waldorf Schools. Theosophy had been condemned by the Church in 1919, the Holy Office stating one could not "read [theosophists'] books, daily papers, journals and writings.
Kotlarczyk believed he was an "archpriest of drama," his living word method being a religion and "vocation," with the actor as priest. As with theosophists who use the title "Master" for highly evolved humans who guide humanist, he called himself "Master of the Word." He saw theater "as ritual" and "understood the liturgical character of theatrical action, . .. offering the possibility of entering into a new dimension. . . ." Theater could be "a way of perfection" if "the word" had absolute priority" over "externals and spectacles."
Compare Kotlarczyk's ideas with Anthroposophy or "Christian Illuminism," which is a Luciferian initiation" that forms the enlightened or "deified" man with occult abilities. Anthroposophy teaches that occult knowledge, or the "inner meaning" of realities can be obtained through a "disciplined use of the arts, words, colour, music and eurhythmic ("universal harmony"), a way of dance that Steiner (1861-1925) created to express the inner meanings of sound. The explosion in the Church today of theatrics, "creative liturgy," and eurhthmic-style"liturgical dance" (even at Papal Masses) as an experiential means of teaching the Faith, denotes both a Jungian and Steinerian influence. (Steiner's techniques are actually a "subversive" form of hypnosis applied to religious, political and educational groups to make them tools for effecting the Masonic Universal Republic. Destroying rational thought, they produce the "false idealist" and "soft peacemonger" who lives by feelings, finds goodness and beauty in ugliness and evil, does not criticized error, gives up his personality, and blends with another. He is then easily controlled and even obsessed.)
Karol and his friends committed themselves to "the dramatic exploration of the interior life" under Kotlarczyk. Amongst his man roles, Karol was the "Seer John" in Steiner's arrangement of the Apocalypse. Other esoteric works in which he acted or which had "significance in his spiritual formation" included productions by Juliusz Slowacki (1809-49) and Adam Mickiewicz (1789-1855). Slowacki was an evolutionist and reincarnationalist who believed Poland's political sufferings were "karma." Mickiewicz was a kabbalist and Martinist (a form of occultism). Both men subscribed to Polish Messianism, which was intertwined with Jewish Messianism and occultism. Their ideas were incorporated into other plays. To "rebuke" Pius IX, who did not support Polish nationalism and the Masonic revolution in Italy, Slowacki also composed a poem about a future "Slavic Pope" who would head a "reformed papacy," and would be tough, but "a brother of the people." As Pope John Paul II, Karol would later apply this poem to himself.
The following comment by Father Wojtyla (under a pseudonym) in 1958 shows how the Rhapsodic Theatre solidified his rejection of individualism in favour of the one mind enforced in the new ecclesial sects:
This theater ... defends the young actors against developing a destructive individualism, because it will not let them impose on the text anything of their own; it gives them inner discipline. A group of people, collectively, somehow unanimously, subordinated to the great poetic word, evoke ethical associations; this solidarity of people in the word reveals particularly strongly and accentuates the reverence that is the point of departure of the rhapsodists' word and the secret of their style.
After his ordination, Father Wojtyla created his own youth group, "Little Family," whose members called him "Uncle." Little Family became the core of a larger community known as Srodowisko or "milieu," which he led until elected Pope. The seeds for World Youth Day lay in the co-ed hiking across Poland, sleeping in barns, discussing anything, singing, praying, and attending his outdoor Masses. His good friend, Fr. Mieczyslaw Malinski, another Tyranowski graduate, admiringly referred to him as "Wojtyla the revolutionary," who shocked "the entire Cracow diocese." He was also the type of priest Focolare likes, "wholly devoid of clericalism." Tyranowski's training taught him to highly value the laity, and he tested his philosophical ideas on Srodowisko friends and his Lublin University doctoral students, encouraging a "mutual exchange" of ideas, happy to learn from them.
Having gone from lay leader to Pope, it is no surprise that John Paul became the greatest promoter and protector of the lay movements, starting with gaining them official recognition at Vatican II. Furthermore, Focolare, Neocatechumenal Way, Communion and Liberation and Light-Life (for Oasis) were well-established in Communist Poland, where Karol Wojtyla got to know them; and he championed them since his days as Archbishop of Cracow. He saw the movements as crucial "for achieving his vision": they are "privileged channels for the formation and promotion of an active laity ..." The following statement he made to Communion and Liberation in 1979 encapsulates the continuity of thought between his Tyranowski days and the modern sects: "the true liberation of man comes about, therefore, in the experience of ecclesial communion. . . ."
Pope John Paul's Apostolic Letter for the Year of the Eucharist (October 2004-October 2005) shows that Vatican II was a bridge for this continuity. Citing Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, Pope John Paul says the Eucharist is a sign and instrument of "the unity of the whole human race"--i.e., it is meant to bring about the pantheistic Masonic one-world community! It should inspire Christians to "become promoters [sic] of dialogue and communion," and communities to "building a more just and fraternal society." (Cornelia Ferreira and John Vennari, World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Canisius Books, 2005, pp. 126-133. One has to ignore the references to "Pope John Paul II." Readers of this site who put adherence to truth all else understood that no one can disparage a true pope or to put into question anything that he inserts into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. See Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton Calls Out Tricks of Shoddy Minimism.)
There is a purpose to all of this, and it is to demonstrate that Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger Benedict and Bergoglio have been as one in rejecting Scholastiscism, differing only in their approaches to doing so.
Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, a student of the Lubin School of Personalism that would give rise to the hideous "theology of the body," believed himself to be a Thomist, but he was no such thing. As a Modernist by way of the "new theology," Wojtyla/John Paul II believed that he was "rediscovering" the "true" meaning of the writing and the Scholastic Method of Saint Thomas Aquins that had been "corrupted" by others who followed him. Although his two successors in the current line of antipopes each have expressed a visceral disapproval of Saint Thomas Aquinas "clarity" and of any kind of Scholasticism, they are united with "Saint John Paul II" in believing that any discussion of Scholasticism is separate from that of Saint Thomas Aquinas even though our true popes have told us otherwise:
Innocent VI: "The teaching of this Doctor above all others, with the exception of Canon Law, has precision in terminology, propriety of expression, truth of judgment: so that never is one who has held it been found to have deviated from the path of truth."
Pius V: "It was wrought by the providence of Almighty God that by the force and truth of the Angelic Doctor's teaching, by which he illumined the Apostolic Church with the refutation of innumerable errors, that the many heresies which have arisen after his canonization have been confounded, overthrown and dispersed. This has been made evident both earlier and recently in the sacred decrees of the Council of Trent."
Clement VIII to the Neapolitans: "Devoutly and wisely are you thinking of adopting a new patron of your city, your fellow citizen, the Angelic interpreter of the Divine Will, splendid in the sanctity of his life and by his miracles, Thomas Aquinas, since indeed is this honor owed with the greatest justification to his virtues joined to his admirable doctrine. Indeed, witness to his doctrine is the great number of books which he composed, in a very brief time, in almost every class of learning, with a matchless arrangement and wondrous clearness, without any error whatsoever."
Paul V: "We greatly rejoice in the Lord that honor and veneration are increasing daily for the most splendid champion of the Catholic Faith, blessed Thomas Aquinas, by the shield of whose writings the Church Militant successfully parries the spears of the heretics.
And Leo XIII, at once embracing hand surpassing all of the praises of his predecessors, says of him: "Distinguishing reason from Faith, as is proper, but nevertheless combining the two in a friendly alliance, he both preserved the rights of each and had regard for the dignity of both., in such a way too that reason, carried on the wings of Thomas to the highest human limit, now almost cannot rise any higher, and faith almost cannot expect more or stronger helps from reason than it has already obtained through Thomas."
--And again, presenting St. Thomas to Catholics as a model and patron in various sciences, he says: "In him are all the illustrious ornaments of mind and character by which he rightly calls others to the imitation of himself: the richest doctrine, incorrupt, fittingly arranged; obedience to the Faith, and a marvelous consonance with the truths divinely handed down; integrity of life with the splendor of the greatest virtues." (Readings from the Dominican Breviary (II Nocturn) for the feast of the Patronage of Saint Thomas Aquinas, November 13.)
But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull "In Ordine;" Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull "Pretiosus," and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull "Mirabilis" that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull "Verbo Dei," affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: "It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same."[35] Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: "His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error."[36]
22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the "Summa" of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.
23. A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man -- namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church.[37] A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony. (Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879.)
It is precisely because Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II sought to "reinterpret" the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas in accordance with the Personalism taught at Lublin University even after it had been condemned by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944, that he became a chief apologist in defense of the inversion of the ends proper to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that had been advanced by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sickest before him, thus making it more possible for the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to become an apologist for fornicators, adulterers and sodomites in the name of of "accompanying them." One embarks upon an irreversible course of constant "revisions" of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals once the moral certitude provided by Saint Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism is removed. It has been and remains essential for the conciliar revolutionaries to "reinterpret" and/or dismiss and disparage the certitude of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism in order to justify their own "search for truth" as it is said to "spring up" from the inner wellsprings of human consciousness. Moral norms must be "adjusted" in accord with the "real life" situations and not some supposedly "sterile formalism" that does not reach into the hearts of men and is thus said to be opposed to "mercy."
Noting that Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio have employed different methods and have used different language to disparage Scholasticism, each can trace their love of the "new theology's" "search for truth" according to the circumstances of the moment to several common sources, one of the chief being the work of the late Father Hans Urs von Balthsar, who co-founded the "lay movement" called Communion and Liberation with none other than such notable heretics as Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger, Henri du Lubac and Karl Lehman.
As has been noted in many other articles, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar was a Hegelian, meaning that he adapted the ue of the Eighteenth Century German "philospher" named Georg Hegel for use in "discovering" truth. Like Hegel, von Balthasar believed every proposition, including dogmas proclaimed solemnly by the infallible authority of Holy Mother Church, contained within itself the seeds of its own contradiction.
Contradicting both Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas, Hegel believed that contraries could be true. In other words, he did not believe in the principle of non-contradiction (that two contrary statements cannot be true simultaneously; to wit, the statement that is raining now can be as true as it is not raining now), believing that "truth" evolves as a result of a "synthesis" arising from one proposition and its inherent contradictions. Hegel thus used the same methodology to study theology as Karl Marx had used to assert that the ultimate end of man was the stage of "ideal communism" wherein all class struggle would end once all men had an equitable share of the world's goods, thus making it possibe for the state would wither away and die and for history to end and for "man" to begin.
Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II thought so highly of von Balthasar, whom he considered to be one of his mentors, that he named him to the conciliar "college of cardinals" on May 29, 1988, four weeks to the day before his death on June 26, 1988, which came four days before he woud have recevied the conciliar red hat, and Ratzinger/Benedict told us that his mentor, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, spent his entire life in a "search" for truth:
“Hans Urs von Balthasar, the Pope writes, ‘was a theologian who put his work at the service of the Church,’ because he was convinced that theology is useful only within the context of Catholic practice. ‘I can testify that his life was an authentic search for truth," the Pope adds. Pope Benedict says that he hopes the 100th-anniversary observance will stimulate a revival of interest in the work of von Balthasar, recalling Henri de Lubac's claim that the Swiss theologian was "the most cultured man of our century.’ The Lateran University seminar is co-sponsored by Communio, the international theological journal that was founded by von Balthasar in cooperation with theologians such as Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) and Angelo Scola (now the Patriarch of Venice). Participants in the weekend's discussions include Cardinal Scola, Cardinal James Stafford, and Cardinal Marc Ouellet.” (Catholic World News.com, October 7, 2005.)
There is frequently the need to search for the truth of various historical facts. There is no need to "search" for the truths of the Catholic Faith, truths that indeed were put into question by Father Hans Urs von Balthasar by his belief that the words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ contained "paradoxes" and "contradictions" that had to be re-examined in light of the "changing circumstances" in which "modern man" finds himself. Von Balthasar believed that "only love is