Impide Vampirestat

lunes, 26 de septiembre de 2016

Some Observations on the Major Heretics 

who Created Protestantism

(First in a series being published on Judeo-Protestant Imperialism)


By Horacio Bonfiglio

Taken from: http://lascadenasdeobligado.blogspot.mx/2016/08/algunas-observacionessobre-los.html
Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope

[Translator´s note: book page numbers quoted refer to those in the Spanish editions cited]

It happened in a certain historical time, which Belloc called the “Dark age” because it was the preparation for the luminous splendor of the Middle Ages ― so maliciously denigrated by the enemies of Catholicism ― in which God Our Lord, maybe to test the religious integrity of men, allowed certain hurtful words to be cast to the wind, which offended human reason, mumbled by spurious philosophers and Talmudic theologians, affirming the pretension of 'deifying' man; uttered in almost unnoticed conventicles, against Aristotle's and Saint Thomas' philosophy based on the reality and the truth of beings and on human nature, in order to desacralize theology.

Luther, the friar who separated man from God:

Many years later, Luther, standing on the stump of an enormous fallen tree, in the clearing of a forest surrounding Wittenberg, casting his habit to the wind, was anointed by the furies of pride, as all around him a coven of the cursed of all times, his inspirers and servers: heretics, satanic, Talmudic, gnostics and Manichaeans, and the reneged nun, exalted with lust, gamboled at the cry of Master and lord! Then Luther, the new prophet which embodied the resentment and pride accumulated throughout the centuries, in the middle of the rabble, looking at the distance, in the valley, the towers of the Wittenberg Cathedral, began bellowing his imprecation: I am the one who is predestined to demolish them! I will put an end to the prostitute of Rome!

(This is the way I imagined this scene, as close to reality as if I had contemplated it with my own eyes, and even though, as it is to be assumed, there are no historical records to testify to that, it could have happened in no other way.)

In Si Si No No of the Summer of 2015, 'Speculator' described perfectly and definitively Luther's true personality, commenting on Professor Georg May's excellent book, “The Trap of Ecumenism”, written when 'progressive' Vaticanists began aggrandizing Luther to satisfy their ecumenical infatuation: “First of all, the initiative that the ecumenists have been pushing for a long time already, to re-evaluate Luther as though he had not been properly understood or interpreted, should be rejected. There are pious and exemplary men in Lutheranism, but its founder is not among them.” His moral and intellectual defects are very well known: a friar who broke his vows, who yielded to sensuality, to pride, to rage, and to hatred. He idolized himself (he had an astute and aggressive personality, he was a violent and very skilled polemizer and at the same time, subtle and self-confident in his hermeneutical sophistry). He would incite hatred against the Pope on the masses, making use of a mean lampoonery. It is unjust to treat him as a 'reformer'. He was a destroyer of the faith, of the Church, a sower of discord, a true Attila. He made use of the mischiefs that afflicted the militant Church of his time, as an excuse to reject the sane doctrine and substitute it with a personal interpretation of Scripture (interpretation which tried to achieve the squaring of the circle; that is, to reconcile salvation with the liberty of an individual who wishes to go on following the impulses of the flesh and of pride)”

Free examination', the foundation of the heretic Lutheran theology, in addition to being the wellspring of all kinds of philosophical nonsense, has very grave political implications. I consider it necessary to reproduce a few paragraphs of an enlightening conference titled: “Free examination and Communism” [which we will reproduce separately in its entirety] delivered in the Hall of the Huemul Bookstore [in Buenos Aires] on April 2, 1960. in which professor Jordán Bruno Genta, with his metaphysical profundity, related the political consequences of Protestant free examination:

“What does Luther's rebellion consist of? ― Professor Genta would ask ― The true sense of the rebellion is to disintegrate Christ in the conviction of thought, it is to divide Christ, because that is the secret, the key to every heresy.  Luther says: “Only faith justifies, without works, ... The only agent of salvation is God... Man is absolutely not free to do good... whatever you do in life, if you are among the called and justified, you will be saved, if you are among the damned, you will be lost.

“The eternal has been severed from the temporal; this temporal life has nothing to do with the eternal. Man's world has nothing to do with the world of God; God will have to do with Man after this life but not in this life; what is going to happen in eternity has already been resolved. Man's liberty is divided from Grace. Christ has been split, it has been divided in Luther's thought and this is the true origin of communism because communism is pure nihilism.

“Communism is the confusion of everything with everything, it is the confusion of all hierarchies and of all distinctions, it is the levelling at the insubstantial in the indeterminate and formless matter. All of these consequences are entailed at the moment we reject Christ, we reject Him the same way as Luther began rejecting him, letting what is human entirely freed to itself.

“This division was reflected afterwards in the philosophical realm with Descartes, the father of modern philosophy. Descartes separates the truths of Faith, that is, the truths revealed about the mysteries of God, from the truths of reason. But the purpose of Faith is to understand. Faith is a grace given by God to enhance human intelligence on things that are essential ― professor Genta continues his dissertation ― which are fundamental, which are the thngs about God, the things about the soul and the things about the destiny of man. Faith is something to make the mind more powerful for the end to which he was created. And, logically, once human intelligence has been severed from faith, under the pretext that reason had been the servant of the Faith and of Religion ― as though being subordinated to what comes from God Himself were not its proper place ― the contemplative life of intelligence had to become extinguished little by little, and the intelligence had to be promoted ever more exclusively in the handling of temporal things... [and thus] the sense of the question of man and his destiny has been lost, that which even pagans had had.

“And so, what happened after this division of the truths of faith and the truths of reason? It happened that theology and metaphysics were eliminated from civil life ... and man, freed to himself began to disown ― already by the Eighteenth Century ― the existence of original sin, when the idea of the  Natural Goodness of Man emerges, and selfishness is made the law of nature.

“It is in this manner that such a monstrous thing as is the true revolution against Christ and against the natural order which reflects Him, is proposed; in place of the sense of natural societies, of societies which meet the demands of human nature, confirmed by divine law, as is the family, and the state itself; the political society, the perfect society in the temporal realm is reduced to such a contrived, conventional and histrionic thing which is what it means to convert it into a free association, in the product of a contract and of a convention.”

“Little by little, everything has been subordinated to the human will; little by little, man has set himself up as the starting point, as the absolute beginning, even in the order of the religious, thus the infinite variations of Protestantism; in the philosophical order, the infinite variations of subjectivism, of idealism, of immanentism in all of its forms; and, in the political order, everything is to be subjected to that liberty, to that absolute principle which man has proclaimed himself to be. The family is to become a contract, social classes to become conventions of interests, of coincidences, of group interests, of parties, and so on. Little by little, all things which refer to God, which signify the Divine Word, Creator, and Redeemer, are being torn down, all distinctions, all hierarchies, are being suppressed. And then comes the confusion of all creeds, all creeds become equally and relatively valid, all thoughts and all opinions become equally valid or invalid, and the societies where man has to conduct his life and develop his personality are also conventions and arbitrarinesses...”

Then Professor Genta quotes the famous tract “On the Community of Goods”, written in 1535 by the great Spanish humanist, Juan Luis Vives: “In other times, in Germany, matters of piety were constituted in such a manner that they maintained themselves stable in the most agreeable quietude. But someone turned up who dared to discuss some of those matters, moderately and timidly at first, but very soon openly, not only to dispute about them but to deny them, suppress them or reject them, displaying so much security with respect to many of them as though the objector had descended from heaven knowing God's secret designs or as though it was just a matter of sewing a shoe or a dress.... From the discrepancy of opinions, discord of life arose, and then, those who had  aroused the war in the false name of liberty and most unjust equality of inferiors with superiors were succeeded by those that requested and demanded no longer such equality but the community of all goods”

When the barbarous notion of the Bible's free examination, and this began to apply to all orders of life ― in accordance with Vives' words quoted by Professor Genta ― many bloody popular mutinies arose among the sectarians, with most cruelty on both sides, which terrified Luther,  since even though he had first incited the common people with his free examination, he then retracted himself, inciting the Princes to impose a very violent bloody repression.

On November 24, 1959, in one of his private philosophy classes, Professor Genta said: “There is a perfect continuity between Luther, Descartes, and Kant, the philosopher of secularism, of the secularization of life... Luther begins by saying that “reason does not truly grasp the spiritual”, proposition continued one century later by Descartes, who was a Catholic but molded in the Suarist spirit, reaching the conclusion of the total uselessness of speculative reason; to reconcile his catholicism with Lutheranism, he would say that he was not so bold as to think about God....and that it was necessary to substitute scholastic speculation with a practice that makes it possible to know the functions of the soul through the body ... in other words, that everything has sprung forth from mathematical physics... In consequence, in the realm of science and of praxis we have the progression of secularism and modernism both derived from Protestantism. This idea, that everything ends in the use of things, this exaltation of the praxis is nothing but the ultimate consequence of the religious rebellion against the fixedness and unity of Truth. Shattered this unity of the Truth, from which all other truths derive, we would arrive at materialism.

“Luther severed reason from faith, radically denigrating human reason (that thing which makes us be in the likeness of our Creator). He then despised Church authority...but  “The  doctrine of Truth requires the Cathedra of Unity”, said Saint Augustine. Disregarding this Cathedra, Luther did away with the unity of reason, of interpretation. Luther is an opinion giver and behind him are a multitude of opinion givers... throwing himself into the multiplicity. Dionysius said that multiplicity always participates in unity for being to occur. Where that multiplicity cannot refer itself to the unity of being, chaos results.  The character of the multiple is participating of the one... Free examination applied to divine matters is communism ... Luther put himself above Peter´s Cathedra. What equality is not to be reclaimed after this one? What is interesting is the levelling of judgment in the interpretation of God´s Word; the latter disappears amidst the opinions.

This is how the learned English historian, R. H. Tawney, (Religion in the Origin of Capitalism) commented: “Above all,the peasant war, with its emotive appeal to the Gospel and its tremendous catastrophe, not only terrified Luther, moving him to declare: 'To him one who can in this way attack, bite, strangle or stab, in secret or in public... so marvellous are these times, that a prince can make himself worthy of heaven, better by shedding blood than by elevating his prayers to God...' and in one of his public writings, inciting the mob: 'it is licit to use all kinds of arms against the Pope and the Cardinals, and wash our hands in their blood' (cited by Father Hartmann Grisar in a book which is indispensable to understand Protestantism; 'Martín Lutero, su vida y su obra' ed. Victoriano Suárez, Madrid.― English edition: 'Martin Luther, his life and work'  Arthur Preuss, editor,

Luther's hate of the Pope broke out like a plague when his pride rejected the just condemnatory sentence of his work and his polemics. In one of his writings he says “(Catholic) hierarchy should be suppressed, and civil power (the Protestant German princes) has power over her... such secular authority power should be exercised against the priests, the bishops, and the Pope”... in that way instituting the right of the State to act against the Church... So much is this so, that “in reality, the Prince Elector, John of Saxony, has been the true patron of Lutheranism,and the true promoter of the progress of Protestantism...” (page 235)

It happened then that Luther could only rest on the power of the princes, the State church becoming a necessity.

“Ín the early Sixteenth Century”, wrote Father Castellani in a tremendous book, Cristo y los Fariseos (Jauja ed. page 20) [Christ and the Pharisees] “If half of Europe ended up following and embracing the religious rebellion it was because all Europe was sunk in the greatest religious crisis in world's history ― the one before last. Phariseeism was about to drown religion. Externalities devoured the faith... But Protestantism did not remedy the wrong but made it worse.” Protestantism took on popular indignation against 'indugences´, protested, handed the sects over to the public power, kept on protesting, and left it at that; “to live protesting is not a religious ideal”. It is a negative way of trying to survive. Handing the sects over to the princes became graver to such a degree, that Protestantism is nowadays a religion manipulated by the State.

Despite that, Protestants and ´progressive´ Catholics hypocritically criticize these days what they call the ´Constantinian' Church since they argue that it was subjected to the State. This was not so, it is simply another lie with which they think they can satisfy their 'Jehova'; to lie for a 'lofty' cause as Luther asserted. What is fundamental of this attitude is that they intend to separate the State from the Church in a Catholic country, which is the same as to degrade the State to atheism, to atheistic humanism, leaving it defenseless, with no soul, a field propitious for them to appropriate it and to sow their discord... . This political manoeuvre to separate the Church from Catholic states, repudiating their religious traditions, is used by them to better introduce themselves in equal terms, by means of the promoted freedom of conscience and freedom of worship, creating spiritual chaos, and even, waiting for a propitious opportunity to assault the State and convert the country into a Protestant colony.

Paradoxically, it has been demonstrated historically that these Protestants without moral scruples, lacking seriousness, maintain their sects under the sponsorship of their respective governments; in the same way as Luther survived turning himself over to the ambitious and irreligious hands of John of Saxony, They rejected the spiritual power of the Pope, to surrender to the political power of the princes and of the oligarchy. Denying Christ´s reign over the souls, they promote the totalitarian, secular State, Marxist, or masonic, with the churches subjected, the same way as they are in the Protestant States.

The Corrupt Henry VIII, wielding greater religious powers than the Pope; 

and Archbishop Cranmer´s hatred.

The immorality into which Henry VIII fell is so well known, we think it is not necessary to repeat it here, but I must highlight some political and religious consequences of his reign, to refute some of the falsities which Protestants argue against the Church. Exactly the same thing happened in England as in Germany and in Geneva; Protestantism, separated from Rome, was converted into the State's religion;  new, secular law was imposed, thanks to which Henry VIII (the king) was, without qualification, immediately designated Head of the Church of England, as later were all the succeeding kings, both in spiritual as well as temporal matters, and was the last resort to appeal on all ecclesiastical matters. In another article, we shall see the consequences of the airs of infallibility, on all orders of life, of the Yankee protestant pastors and theologians. The English Parliament, as is to be supposed, recorded this stunning innovation (in 1534) turning it into law within England. A sworn oath of loyalty to the royal supremacy was exacted from the bishops and members of monasteries. It was almost unanimously accepted” (H. Belloc, 'How the Reformation Happened')

Tawney in his quoted book denounces that Protestantism in England was saturated of an almost servile dependence on secular authorities, and that “in the Sixteenth Century the Church turned into an ecclesiastical department of the State (i.e. of the Crown), and religion was used to give moral sanction to secular policy... clerics were at the same time public officials, and the Parish was also subordinated to the King... canon law was nationalized, leaving it in the hands of citizens who acted under the Crown's authority”... and so on and so forth,

Despite the fact that Henry VIII “in his character and in his faith was deeply Catholic”, at least until defecting in front of skirts; Belloc affirms that he “broke with Rome influenced by Thomas Cromwell, a man indifferent to the national consequences as long as he could fill his pockets (Belloc 'Cómo Aconteció la Reforma” pág. 88  'How the Reformation Happened') He was a usurer and usurped a fortune which gave origin to his family´s predominance in politics until a century later emerged his descendant, the nefarious Oliver Cromwell.

Pillage, primordial characteristic of English policy, culminated, as is well known, stealing the property of the Church to enrich the noblemen and keep them under political power. W. Sombart, in “Lujo y Capitalismo” (ed. G. Dávalos ― in English: “Luxury and Capitalism”) narrates: “At the end of the War of the Two Roses, all but 29 of the houses of the ancient nobility had disappeared, and those that remained were impoverished and in a pitiful situation. The first thing that Henry VIII did was to reintegrate the power and the fortune to these stately houses, subjecting them in that way to the Crown, who from that moment on maintained its undisputed predominance over them.

Confiscation of the property of the Church gave the King the means to carry out this restoration of the nobility.” But to attain better political control, Henry VIII creates numerous new titles; better said, he sells dignities; hundreds of titles were sold during the XVII and XVIII centuries. That is how from behind the counters of the bourgeois merchants emerged the English haughty nobility which considered itself predestined to govern the world. “It is at this time, then, that the power of money begins to make its influence be felt in a notorious way, influence which becomes decisive in the XVIII century”, Defoe says “Commerce is so far from being incompatible with the gentleman, that without circumventions commerce in England makes gentlemen: because after one or two generations the sons of merchants, or at least their grandsons, become as perfect gentlemen as those of the highest cradle or those of the most ancient families.” (page 28)

But in addition to subjecting Protestantism as State religion, which from then on it would be the characteristic relationship between the two, the substitution of the Holy Mass by the Protestant Meal was consummated by Archbishop Cramner. In Si Si No No of March 2014 I read an interesting article commenting Michael Davies' book “The Anglican Liturgical Reformation”, an important work because it makes us understand that the creation of the Anglican Meal was introduced in England in a stealthy way, with ambiguous texts and implicit heresies, so as not to frighten the faithful which passed inadvertently to the educated few. To achieve this end, Anglicanism imposed a book, insignificant in appearance, the Book of Common Prayer, the character of which was so prodigiously ambiguous that the 'conservatives' would accept it without the 'progressives' rejecting it.

The arguments adduced by Davies are impressing [...] Cramner was a crypto-Lutheran and already had been married under the reign of Henry VIII; the King named him Archbishop of Canterbury; the Pope excommunicated him for having declared Henry VIII´s marriage with Ann Boleyn valid [...] But as Henry VIII would not have permitted entry of heresy in his kingdom, Cramner waited until the reign of Eduard VI, “and began to protestantize the nation, transforming the cult in a Lutheran way” [...]; Cramner “conceived the audacious purpose of modifying the faith of the English people radically, resorting only to the transformation of the liturgy, In accordance with the lex orandi, lex credendi axiom, liturgy is, in effect, the faith prayed. If the way of praying is changed, the faith also mutates. In England the unforeseen and en masse change of an entire people had not as its principal cause the preaching of a reformer, as was the case of Luther in Germany or Calvin in Switzerland, because Cramner judged that through liturgy he would change mentalities with greater effectiveness than by means of any sermon [...]; but little by little he eliminated sixteen prayers from the Catholic Missal to erase the idea of satisfactory and propitiatory sacrifice [These omissions are perfectly described in Hugh Ross Williamson´s Historical Summary of the Introduction of Protestantism in England” “Resumen Histórico de la Introducción del Protestantismo en Inglaterra” published in Spanish in www.statveritas,com.ar] Cramner was successful, eliminated Catholicism in England in an inconceivable way, achieving an almost general apostasy, affirmed definitively during Elizabeth's reign: Catholics who perceived the heretical change and resisted were savagely martyred and murdered by the protestant Inquisition. Without the Church, without the Holy Mass, England was left in the impious hands of the 'predestined Jehova's saints', which went on building the imperialism that devastated the world.

A parenthesis: Davies article also demonstrates that the creation of the Novus Ordo Mass by Paul VI, the crypto Lutheran mass of 1969 was a masterful move, since it is similar to Cramner's Protestant Meal in a scandalous way, as was denounced by so many priests. Then the anti-modernist environment's erosion was secured with the indult given by John Paul II in 1984, and lastly, with Benedict XVI the Roman Apostolic Rite is intended to be bastardized by mixing it with the Novus Ordo, to attain a third most novel mass.”  The method employed by Vatican II was similar: write ambiguous texts which may be interpreted in one way or another, creating confusion, bewilderment, and perplexity, which is how modernism enters.

Concluding this rough sketch I quote this paragraph from Vicente Sierra´s “Historia de la Argentina”, demonstrating that Anglicanism appealed to blood and fire against those who did not accept its heresy: “England's Henry VIII, in the space of thirty-eight years, sent to death two queens, two cardinals, two archbishops, eighteen bishops, thirteen abbots, five hundred priors and monks, thirty-eight doctors, twelve dukes and counts, hundred and sixty-four gentlemen, hundred and twenty-four plain citizens and hundred and ten plain women”


(To be continued)

domingo, 11 de septiembre de 2016

Malos Teólogos de la Moral (MTM)


por Kevin Aldrich


  Tmoado de: http://www.catholicstand.com/bad-moral-theologians-bmts/
4 de agosto AD2016

Traducido del inglés por Roberto Hope

Hay cosas malas que alguna gente de veras, de veras quiere hacer. Hay alguna gente que no sólo quiere hacer cosas malas, sino que también quiere estar justificado de hacerlas. Quieren que otros digan que sus obras malas son buenas-

Entonces ¿qué hacer si uno es uno de ésos? Llamar a un Mal Teólogo de la Moral, Lo llamaré MTM para abreviar.

Repasemos algunos de los fundamentos:

En la auténtica teología moral católica, para decidir si un acto es bueno o malo, lo examinamos desde tres ángulos. Primero consideramos el objeto, luego la intención, y por último las circunstancias.

El objeto es el acto en sí mismo: cosas como hacer un donativo, decir una oración, hacer una tarea, tomar un bien ajeno, hacer trabajo por un salario, o un billón de cosas más.

Según el Catecismo,”El objeto que se elige especifica moralmente el acto de la voluntad, en la medida en que la razón reconoce y juzga si está en conformidad con el verdadero bien. Las normas objetivas de moral expresan el orden racional del bien y del mal, atestiguadas por la conciencia,” (CIC 1751). Usando nuestra razón, entonces, juzgamos si el acto será objetivamente bueno o malo en sí mismo.

La intención es el motivo para qué se hace el acto, por ejemplo, atenuar el sufrimiento de alguien, evangelizar, poner a alguien en aprietos, saciar el hambre física, lograr un pago, o experimentar placer.

Las circunstancias son las cosas que rodean el acto y que lo afectan. Por ejemplo, robar es malo, pero tomar una libra de arroz de una tienda Whole Foods en San Francisco no es tan malo como tomarlo de una viuda y sus hijos hambrientos en Calcuta. Decir la verdad es bueno, pero decir la verdad aun teniéndose el temor de que eso lo meta a uno en problemas porque uno hizo algo malo, podría ser todavía mejor.

Aquí van dos verdades básicas importantes de la moral:

La primera es una que la mayoría de la gente entiende: un acto cuyo objeto es bueno en sí mismo puede hacerse aun mejor por la intención o las circunstancias, pero también las circunstancias pueden hacer el acto peor o de plano malo.

Por ejemplo, cuando alguien te ha prestado un bien de su propiedad, es bueno devolvérselo, Sin embargo ¿qué pasa si el bien es una escopeta y cuando el propietario te la pide está borracho y furioso? Si se lo devolvieras en esas circunstancias, tu acto sería malo. O si le devolvieras el arma porque crees que el amigo que te la prestó atacará con ella a tu enemigo, tu mala intención haría malo el acto. De hecho para que un acto sea bueno, el objeto, la intención y las circunstancias deben también ser buenas.

Así pues, cuando evaluamos un acto cuyo objeto es bueno en sí mismo, no podremos saber completamente si el acto es moralmente bueno o malo hasta que tomemos en consideración la intención y las circunstancias.

La segunda verdad básica de la moralidad de un acto es algo muy confundido hoy en día y mucha gente lo entiende mal:

Un acto cuyo objeto es malo en sí mismo, no puede volverse bueno por más que se tenga una buena intención o lo rodee cualquier tipo de circunstancias. La intención y las circunstancias pueden hacer el acto menos malo, pero no pueden hacerlo bueno. Esta es la razón por la que matar directamente a una persona inocente, que es el objeto de actos tales como el aborto, el asesinato o la eutanasia, es intrínsecamente inmoral. Ninguna multitud de buenas intenciones o de circunstancias extenuantes pueden excusar el acto, y mucho menos hacerlo bueno.

Entran los MTMs


La razón por la que mucha gente está confundida acerca de esta última verdad es porque muchos sacerdotes y laicos fueron enseñados por los MTMs. en sistemas erróneos de teología moral

Estos MTMs dicen: “Sí, hay normas objetivas de moral que se expresan en los diez mandamientos o en la ley moral natural. Pero esas son recomendaciones, puntos de partida, principios abstractos. Deben ubicarse en las experiencias concretas vividas por la gente.”

Estos MTMs arguyen que las motivaciones y las circunstancias podrían invalidar los principios y hacer que algo malo se convierta en bueno.

Juan Pablo II criticó y condenó estos sistemas en su encíclica Veritatis Splendor (1993)

Crítica de Juan Pablo II

Esto es lo que escribió Juan Pablo II:

Algunos han propuesto una especie de doble estatuto de la verdad moral.  Además del nivel doctrinal y abstracto, sería necesario reconocer la prioridad de una cierta consideración existencial concreta. (VS 56).

Los MTMs dicen que cuando la ley moral objetiva y la situación real de una persona están en conflicto, la situación de la persona tiene “prioridad” sobre la ley moral objetiva.

El Papa pasa a decir, refiriéndose a la situación del individuo:

Ésta, teniendo en cuenta las circunstancias y la situación, podría establecer legítimamente unas excepciones a la regla general y permitir así la realización práctica, con buena conciencia, de lo que está calificado por la ley moral como intrínsecamente malo.

En otras palabras, una persona que se guíe por el consejo de los MTMs podría hacer algo que la ley moral determina ser intrínsicamente malo, como robar, engañar, o utilizar drogas, cuando en realidad esa especie de teología moral errónea usualmente no se aplica para aquellos tipos de pecados. Con frecuencia se usa para acciones que tienen que ver con el sexo, como fornicación, adulterio, sodomía, contraconcepción, aborto, fertilización in vitro, y cosas parecidas.

Siguiendo esa línea de razonamiento engañoso, el papa explica:

De ese modo se establece una separación, o aun una oposición en algunos casos, entre la enseñanza del precepto, que es válida en lo general, y la norma de la conciencia individual, que es la que tomaría la decisión final acerca de lo que es bueno y lo que es malo. (VS 56)

En otras palabras, el MTM diría, “Sí, el adulterio en general es malo, pero no en tu caso” o “Tú eres el único que puede decidir si lo que estás haciendo es bueno o malo”.

¿Qué hay detrás de la línea de pensamiento del MTM? Juan Pablo II lo explica de esta manera:

Sobre esta base se hace un intento de legitimizar las llamadas soluciones 'pastorales' que son contrarias a las enseñanzas del Magisterio, y justificar una hermenéutica 'creativa' según la cual la conciencia moral no está de manera alguna obligada, en todos los casos, a cumplir un precepto negativo particular. (VS 56)

En otras palabras, aun cuando el Sexto Mandamiento (“un precepto negativo particular”) diga “No habrás de cometer adulterio,” el MTM tendrá una manera de interpretarlo en tu caso, que te dejará cometerlo de todos modos.

Es complicado – o no

En realidad, el proceso de razonamiento moral es muy claro y directo en lo que concierne a las cosas que la ley moral no permite.

Digamos que yo quiero hacer el acto sexual con una determinada persona. Primero, traigo a mi mente la ley moral, que es también la Ley de Dios, “de conformidad con el bien verdadero.” Ésta dice que yo puedo hacer el acto sexual sólo con mi legítima esposa. Luego, utilizando mi capacidad de razonar, me hago la pregunta “¿Es esta persona, con la que deseo hacer el acto sexual, mi legítima esposa?”. Finalmente, utilizo mi razón para llegar a una conclusión. Si la respuesta es no, entonces la conclusión será “no debo hacerlo”.

Cuando se trata de preceptos morales negativos ¿por qué se ponen complicadas las cosas? Una razón son los MTMs. Otra es que a la gente le gusta que se le mienta si eso les deja hacer lo que quieren.

Con frecuencia, a la gente le gusta engañarse a sí misma por esa misma razón.
Hay cosa malas que algunas personas de veras, de veras quieren hacer. Hay alguna gente que no sólo quiere hacer malas cosas sino también tener justificación para hacerlas. Quieren que los demás digan que están haciendo bien. Los MTMs son los facilitadores.


lunes, 5 de septiembre de 2016

El Mártir que obsesionaba a Isabel I

 

Reseña del libro: Edmund Campion, escrito por Gerard Kilroy, publicado por Ashgate.

 
Por Simon Caldwell

CatholicHerald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/03/03/the-martyr-who-haunted-elizabeth-i/

Tomado de: http://angelqueen.org/2016/03/04/the-martyr-who-haunted-elizabeth-i/


De todos los mártires isabelinos, sin duda el más ilustre fue Sir Edmundo Campion. Un académico profundamente santo y respetado internacionalmente, que en otra época habría alcanzado la santidad por la erudita contribución que habría hecho a la vida de la Iglesia y a la sociedad en general. Pero en la turbulencia sangrienta de la Reforma Protestante, “la mayor gloria de Dios” sería hallada por él en un via crucis en el que participaba la cámara de tortura de la Torre de Londres y el cadalzo de Tyburn.

Es extraño que un hombre de tan ejemplar virtud y vastos  conocimientos hubiera sido sujeto a más sentencias de tortura que ninguna otra persona en la historia de Inglaterra. Su tortura, junto con su ejecución pública, en diciembre de 1581, escandalizaron a Europa y fue objeto de controversia por décadas, obsesionando a Isabel hasta su muerte en 1603.

Se han escrito varias grandes biografías sobre “El Diamante de Inglaterra”; más notablemente aquéllas escritas por Evelyn Waugh y Richard Simpson. Esta nueva biografía es una valiosa adición al canon. Kilroy nos da un soberbio retrato del carácter y las cualidades que hicieron de Campion un hombre tan grandemente respetado, y nos ofrece una vívida percepción de su vida espiritual.

A todo lo largo, Kilroy llega a extremos para enfatizar el desagrado del santo de meterse en la política y las luchas de poder de su época. Esto parece incluir algunas intervenciones papales, dado que Campion estaba en desacuerdo con Regnans in excelsis, la extralimitada bula de San Pio V, que excomulgó a Isabel e hizo a su régimen tan criminalmente paranóico acerca de la agitación católica que se suscitó por aquéllo que ahora llamamos “cambio de régimen”. Es aquí donde Kilroy va más allá de una hagiografía y nos conduce a través de las motivaciones, tanto de los católicos ingleses que tomaban enormes riesgos para aferrarse a su fe, como de las autoridades, desesperadas por suprimirla.

Quizás más que en cualquier biografía anterior. Kilroy conecta el destino de Campion con la rebelión católica de Irlanda, del Dr. Nicholas Sander, y el temor de que se extendiera a otras partes del reino, así como con la hostil reacción protestante inglesa al cortejo de Isabel por el Duque de Anjou, un católico francés.

Kilroy desecha algunos gastados prejuicios históricos, como aquéllos expresados más recientemente en God's Traitors (Traidores de Dios) de Jesse Childs, de que Campion era algo así como un maniático que sembraba el caos en las vidas de los católicos comunes, al insistir en que debían rehusarse totalmente a asistir a los servicios religiosos de la Iglesia de Inglaterra.

Ciertamente, Campion sostenía esa política pero, ni era suya ni era de los Jesuitas, habiendo ya sido acordada mediante una convocación de destacados seglares y sacerdotes diocesanos. Mas bien, por obediencia religiosa, regresó a Inglaterra a administrar sacramentos y predicar el Evangelio entre los católicos pero fue atrapado por los acontecimientos, con frecuencia más allá de su conocimiento y, no se diga, fuera de su control.

Para Kilroy, Campion jamás fue un traidor, punto que se enfatiza en su conclusión de que Campion se reunió con Isabel en secreto y la reconoció como su verdadera soberana. Kilroy piensa que ella le ofreció un arzobispado si él aceptaba prestar sus servicios en la iglesia establecida de ella. Días después, fue condenado como traidor por un régimen que no tenía manera de responder a sus argumentos. Isabel, por su parte, repudió su juicio y su ejecución, culpando de ellos a su Consejo de Asesores.

También dijo ella que no creía que los sacerdotes que vinieran a Inglaterra fueran traidores, pero de todos modos los veía como servidores de sus enemigos; el estado, por lo tanto, no haría distinción entre el ministerio pastoral y la rebelión. El martirio de Campion, mientras tanto, vigorizó la causa católica, y el temor que esto infundió en el régimen condujo al reino de terror que duró décadas.

domingo, 4 de septiembre de 2016

Revisitando “Personajes de la Reforma”, de Hilaire Belloc


Por K. V. Turley
Tomado de: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4927/revisiting_bellocs_characters_of_the_reformation.aspx July 16, 2016 12:00 EST

Traducido del inglés por Roberto Hope

Este estudio, publicado hace 80 años, demuestra cómo la historia toma forma y es marcada por el carácter de hombres y mujeres.

En estos días de confusión, cuando el bien es atacado y el mal es elogiado, se está re-escribiendo el pasado. En ningún lugar se nota más que en la inversión reciente de la historia de la Reforma en Inglaterra, ahora con Tomás Moro como villano y Tomas Cromwell como héroe.

Confrontados con esto, y cumpliéndose el año próximo el quinto centenario de las Noventaycinco Tésis de Lutero, nos parece oportuno tomar y leer Personajes de la Reforma de Hilaire Belloc.

Belloc pudiera requerir poco de presentación para nuestros lectores. Sólo la amplitud de los temas que abarcó puede equipararse con su prodigiosa producción. Al igual que su contemporáneo y amigo, G.K. Chesterton, Belloc produjo,  año tras año, poesía, prosa, novelas, ensayos, biografías, historias, polémicas; con temas que van de política a teoría económica; de viajes a pie a cruceros en alta mar; de historia de la Iglesia a detalladas historias militares. Éste fue un escritor católico tan activo creativamente como involucrado en los debates y controversias de su época.

Innecesario es decirlo, Belloc fue un escritor dotado, algo que sus críticos tuvieron que admitir. Tenía un modo de escribir que parecía tan natural como convincente. En lo mejor  escrito uno encuentra una mente y una personalidad; en el caso de Belloc, uno encuentra inteligencia y fuerza, ritmo y mordacidad.

Personajes de la Reforma fue publicado hace 80 años, en 1936 (también, el pasado 16 de julio fue el aniversario de la muerte de Belloc, y el 27 de julio fue el 146° aniversario de su nacimiento [y, casualmente, el 80° de mi nacimiento – nota de éste su poco discreto traductor]) La obra consiste en 23 retratos y un ensayo introductorio. De Enrique VIII a Luis XIV, los personajes abarcan desde el ocaso del siglo XV hasta la cruda nueva realidad del XVIII. Al principio del libro, Europa — excepto partes del Este, ortodoxas o bajo la cimitarra del Turco — estaba unida en una sola fe, a su cabeza el Obispo de Roma. Como sabemos demasiado bien, esta unidad habría de fracturarse. Para cuando murió Luis XIV en 1715, Europa todavía era predominantemente católica, pero estaba dividida, con una cierta estabilidad luego de casi doscientos años de derramamientos de sangre a lo largo y ancho de las tierras cristianas.

De entonces en adelante, la que había sido más débil —política, militar y numéricamente — Europa protestante, habría de expanderse de una manera que no podía haberse previsto: principalmente mediante el poderío marítimo de algunas de las naciones, y los imperios y riquezas subsiguientes que fluían de y hacia ellas. Belloc fue muy hábil para hacer referencia a esos grandes movimientos de la historia y, al hacerlo, deja al lector sintiendo que esos mismos movimientos siguen siendo muy relevantes para el siglo XX.

El genio de este libro no radica, sin embargo, en ese análisis. Más bien en el uso que hace de la historia personal de estos 23 hombres y mujeres — vidas que, para bien o para mal, fueron arrastradas a la vorágine de los tiempos en que vivieron. De manera significativa, Belloc ve la historia como algo que fluye del carácter. Es de esta fuente que se hacen decisiones que, dados los tiempos y la prominencia de los caracteres de este libro, resultan en consecuencias profundas. Si a Usted le gusta la historia contada a través de los personajes que la moldearon, entonces no busque más. No simplemente historiador, Belloc es también un juez experto del carácter. Ve derecho a través de las diversas maquinaciones para alcanzar al autoengaño que yace detrás de ellas. A las vidas de estos 23 personajes de la Reforma, él une muchas otras vidas y formas de vivir, antes de abrir la narrativa entera a la gran corriente de la historia. En este proceso, ve uno cómo las cosas pequeñas, algunas con frecuencia intensamente personales, tienen repercusiones que siguen afectándonos en nuestros días.

En este libro están los usuales personajes que uno esperaría encontrar: Tudores y Estuardos, reyes y reinas, la Reina Catalina de Aragón y Ana Bolena, Cromwell, y más, pero hay otros menos conocidos para el lector general. Y algunos de ellos son los verdaderos arquitectos de la Reforma en Inglaterra, Cecil, el más notable, así como Cramner y Laud, en tanto que otros son los manipuladores del poder que utilizaron la Reforma como excusa para moldear a Europa para fines tanto políticos como religiosos. En este aspecto, Richelieu sale mal librado, poniendo a Francia por encima de la fe; Jaime I, sorprendentemente, un poco menos, Hay otras sorpresas. Descartes y Pascal aparecen también. No son tanto personajes de la Reforma, sin embargo, aparecen como figuras que representan lo que surgió de ella. El lienzo de Belloc es vasto. Comenzando con los Tudor, acabamos con la llegada de Guillermo de Orange — alguien a quien Belloc particularmente aborrecía, casi tanto como a Oliverio Cromwell.

Esto nos lleva al antepasado de ese personaje, Tomás Cromwell, Dado que recientemente se ha estado re-escribiendo quién y qué fue el primer Cromwell, uno se preguntaría ¿qué escribió Belloc de él? Es interesante observar que él concordaría con los revisionistas en una conclusión importante: específicamente que Cromwell era un hombre de genio. Belloc lo pinta como un hombre sin pasado pero determinado a arrebatar el futuro, movido únicamente por una sagacidad nativa, aguzada con la lectura de Maquiavelo. Belloc le toma la medida. Él piensa que el papel de Cromwell está subestimado en los libros de historia de entonces, Uno se preguntaría ¿qué pensaría Belloc de la moda actual de ensalzar a Tomás Cromwell?

Esa búsqueda de la verdad histórica exige simplificación. Belloc tiene un modo de desenmarañar hasta las historias más complicadas, las dinásticas en particular, y, de esa manera las hace no solamente narrativas comprensibles sino convincentemente diferentes de aquéllas que sus contemporámeos habían sido hechos creer.

Tomen, por ejemplo, la casa de Orange y su tan cacareado “protestantismo”. De hecho, su religión tenía más que ver con los piratas ingleses que abordaban los navíos españoles cargados de tesoros que venían del Nuevo Mundo y, haciéndolo, precipitaron una crisis económica dentro del Imperio Español. Esto tuvo como resultado que se impusieran tributos en el Flandes español, lo que, a su vez, dio combustible, y resguardo, a la guerra que se llevaba entre los Reformadores nativos y sus gobernantes católicos, alterando el curso de la nación holandesa y, con el tiempo, también de las Islas Británicas.  Ésta es una versión más miserable de la historia, admito yo,  una basada en la economía y el poder — o dicho más sencillamente, de avaricia y orgullo — más que de teología. Belloc no tiene tiempo para versión alguna de lo que entonces era la 'historia recibida': la versión político-liberal de la historia. Ésta era la historia nacional inventada por la oligarquía inglesa que había triunfado. En vez de ella, narra los hechos, y son éstos por sí solos los que exoneran o condenan.

El asociar la revolución protestante del siglo XVI con la acumulación de riqueza personal es una de las más notables características del libro. Belloc pone de cabeza el mito entonces aceptado de un distanciamiento popular de Roma. La Reforma en Inglaterra para muchos, si no para todos, no fue una disputa teológica con principios. En lugar de ello, fue para los poderosos y los ya ennoblecidos un medio de volverse todavía más poderosos, tanto política como económicamente. Esto se hizo a costa de la mayoría del populacho y de su fe de siglos, que ya se habia vuelto una inconveniencia que tenía que desecharse mediante mentiras patrocinadas por el Estado y por la fuerza de ser necesario.

En la Inglaterra de 1930, el pensamiento de Belloc sobre los hechos del siglo XVI estaba lejos de ser la opinión aceptada. Si no una 'herejía' formal para la clase dirigente de entonces, por lo menos la de Belloc era una interpretación que hubieran preferido no ver propagada. No obstante, a lo largo del texto, Belloc es como un hábil cazador que constantemente tiene a la historia político-liberal en la mira.

En su campaña de 1906 para ser elegido Miembro del Parlamento, representando a Salford South, Belloc fue abucheado por ser 'papista'. Sacando su rosario del bolsillo respondió: “Señor, tanto como me es posible, oigo misa todos los días y cada noche me pongo de rodillas y rezo con estas cuentas. Si eso le ofende, entonces ruego a Dios que me libre de la indignidad de representarlo a Usted en el Parlamento.” Fue elegido. Su desilusión posterior con la política — habría de abandonar el Parlamento luego de un único período — habría de dejar por lo menos un resultado positivo: le dió más tiempo para su carrera literaria.

De esa salida tan pronta, debemos estar agradecidos, no en menor grado por sus libros tales como Personajes de la Reforma. En éste y sus otros escritos, Belloc empuñó la espada de la verdad, abriéndose paso entre un breñal de mentiras que en los siglos que pasaron  habían sido eregidas alrededor de esos hechos históricos tempranos. De esa manera, ayudó a que se diera una auténtica revisión de todo ese período. Los revisionistas de hoy en día harían bien en recordar que, no importando qué tan ampliamente se hayan dicho mentiras, al final solamente conjuran la irrealidad. Con Hilaire Belloc, tenemos no sólo un compañero valiente, sino a un hombre honesto.

lunes, 29 de agosto de 2016

Reverend Father Leonardo Castellani
 

A prophet of the end of times


By Father Juan Carlos Ceriani

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope


Part VI and Conclusion



The preceding text implies a whole spirituality. Nothing better than to express it poetically as did Father Leonardo Castellani in his poem No hago nada (I do nothing), published in Los Papeles de Benjainín Benavides, page 399, and in El Libro de las Oraciones, page 385:
Heart, stand there firm and without budging
to the iniquitous oppresion and effrontery
although I am crazed, I my art do posses
for anger often turns into injured patience
Fighting unarmed but for my saddened heart
against the worst of evils that there are
I fight and bleed but do not hit the dust
I do not much, but more than I can do.
A hardened sentry
I do not let suspect that I am wounded,
nor do I let them know that I'm afraid,
injured and frozen, hold the flag erect
and the inhospitable foxhole not desert.
Although I know that death has overcome me
I´m still on foot and, facing her, keep upright
transmitting the SOS signal of the fight
to some reinforcements that will never come
but a moment too late, if they do at all
and that dead on my feet is how they'll find me...
The other half 'll be done over my grave
by some other poor wretch after I am dead.
Heart, your half 's already been completed!

D) Two combats,.. Two tactics

As a synthesis of our reflection on all of these texts, it is only left for us to say that it is more evident every time that the counterrevolutionary struggle comprises two combats which are to be conducted at two different times: a conservation combat of resistance and a combat to re-establish the Kingdom of Christ the King.

In the first place, we must combat to hold the last bastions that still remain. It is necessary, by all means, to keep our Seminaries, our Novitiates, our Priories, our Chapels, our Mass Centers, our Retreats and Retreat Houses, our Catholic Families, our Schools and Associations, our Publications...

Over these innumerable conservation commitments, the combat for the re-establishement of the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ will be waged.

These two struggles have their times and will have, at some moment, the same combatants. It is very important not to confuse both combats; it is necessary to distinguish them, because they have different objectives, and for the same reason, they have different tactics.

Very often, the erroneous behaviors of the traditionalist chiefs and soldiers are due to an incomprehension that exists with respect to these two combats and their objectives. That is to say, it is thought very often that there is only one combat and the objectives of the conservation battle are confused with the ends of the subsequent struggle; the part that corresponds to men is mixed with the actions that have to be done by Christ the King and his Most Holy Mother. Therefore, it is of the greatest importance to consider the tactics of these two superimposed confrontations.

How should the defensive, conservation combat be fought? Before all, it is necessary to make two clarifications: this battle points to secondary objectives only, and no extraordinary divine assistance is given to it.

Additionally, this battle possesses peculiarities which depend on its historical roots and impose three limits on the combatants, which should be respected:

1) The mission of the counterrevolutionary forces is not one of rupture, but of resistance, to conserve the remains. The spontaneous tendency of our ranks is toward restoration, but the battle we should wage is not a scuffle of rupture, of assault. The means at our disposal are not supplied to try to break the siege. Our mission is to watch, conserving the remains which will perish. If we were to attempt the rupture, we would get the tactic wrong.

2) The counterrevolutionary forces are humanly impotent. The battle of conservation is carried out by a minority, vigorous and courageous certainly, but humanly impotent. The revolutionary forces are impregnable. The enemy has built up a close siege which, though artificial, is imposed in an absolute way. The counterrevolutionary forces are incessantly neutralized, mutilated and annihilated.

3) The counterrevolutionary forces are constrained by means of the revolutionary «legality» which, additionally, will be more rigorous every day, reducing our means of defense more every time. The counterrevolutionaries are conscious of defending God's rights against the power of the Beast. It is from that source that they extract their zeal and their confidence. But they too easily imagine that this position of principle gives them a juridical preeminence over the secular State. It is now too late to demand recognition of the rights of the Church from the secular State, to pretend the recognition of Jesus Christ's rights from the apostate State, to expect recognition of the rights of God from the godless State. In the combat we carry out, we are constrained to the means of revolutionary «legality»
The ulterior battle, the one which will have as an objective to tear off the power from the Beast and restore it to Christ the King, will be a personal act of God. Nevertheless, the Divine Teacher expects that the small number take part by means of prayer and penitence, to remove the obstacle which opposes the Divine action, and to a certain extent, to unleash it.

The situation is such, that we take part in a conservation combat and in a preparatory combat by means of prayer at the same time. It is necessary to be men of action to assume the custody of the remnants, and to be men of prayer to take part in the battle of supplication.

These two attitudes are difficult to reconcile; this explains the divergencies in the appreciation of priorities. What should be privileged, action or prayer? This problem, of the cohabitation of the man of action and the man of prayer is resolved, knowing that there is time for prayer that must precede action, and a time for action that should follow prayer. Moreover, we have to be very active in contemplation and very contemplative in action; to stay and at the same time leave, leave and at the same time stay.

While we combat keeping our posts of resistance, by prayer and penitence we shall obtain the divine decision of doing mercy, we will advance the triumph of the immaculate Heart of Mary and the definitive re-establishment of the Kingdom of Christ the King.

Conclusion

We want to conclude this work with the ending words of the quoted text of Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre:

There would be two congresses, the universal political one which will rule the world and the congress of religions which would go in aid of this world government . We run the risk of seeing these two events coming. It is necessary to prepare ourselves. But then, facing these things, what ought we do?

In his Encyclical on Freemasonry, Pope Leo XIII said: They want to destroy the Christian institutions from end to end. That is their objective. Well, they are accomplishing it.

We have to rebuild them. Facing this destruction we have to rise. We have to re-construct the Social Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ in this Christian world about to disappear.

You will say: «But Monsignor, it is the fight of David against Goliath» Yes, I know, but David came out the victor. How did he gain such victory? With a small rock he went to look for in the torrent. What is the rock we have? Jesus Christ our Lord.

We will say like our Vendeean ancestors, who shed their blood for their faith: «We have no other honor than the honor of Jesus Christ, we have not more than one fear in this world, and it is that of offending Jesus Christ» This is what they sung when they marched to their death in defense of their God.

We will also sing with ardor, with all our heart «We have not but one love, and this is Jesus Christ our Lord, and we have not more than one fear, which is that of offending Him»

viernes, 26 de agosto de 2016

Reverend Father Leonardo Castellani

  

A prophet of the end of times


By Father Juan Carlos Ceriani

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope


Part V




C) The strategy outlined by Father Castellani

We cannot follow the Utopia of the «Civilization of Love». We cannot make illusions about a supposed temporary re-establishment of «Medieval Christendom»... What is it that we ought to do?

We now complete the strategy outlined by the prophet of the end of times.

Let's see what he said in March 1954; the first thing he does is present us the reality of the facts.

“It is unpleasant to be a prophet of doom; being a prophet of joy is a lot more profitable, and I pray to God that He make me a bad prophet of doom. But the destruction of tradition in the West is something that is right ahead of us, and to close our eyes in the face of it is like closing our eyes while walking in the street. To open our eyes may be a remedy at any rate, because of that which says that «the first medicine is to know the disease» (...) Humankind advances towards the resolution of the great drama of History, a drama which has one protagonist and many antagonists (...) The current world situation, that which is called the «contemporary crisis», is one of a progressive destruction of Western tradition and of a defense thereof”. (San Agustín y Nosotros, pages 91, 93 and 94).

He then describes the strategies of the contenders:
“The Catholic Church, which is traditionalist par excellence, does nothing new since the Council of Trent: it restricts itself to defend what exists:  «confirma cetera, quae moritura erant»; but the successive ruptures, of religious tradition (Luther), of philosophical tradition (Descartes), of political tradition (Rousseau), and consequently of social tradition and even of artistic tradition, are produced from different sectors and with different motives. A house is a house: the burglars who break into it may come from different places, but those who defend it respond from the center.” (San Agustín y Nosotros, pages 91, 93 and 94).

And we reach the culminating point of the question posed:
“What can we do, if all this depends on a series of successive destructions, and forms part of a destruction which advances? «Keep the things that have remained, which are perishable» commands Jesus Christ to the Angel of the Church of Sardis, the fifth Church of the Apocalypse; which means «abide by tradition», which is what the Catholic Church has done since the Council of Trent. But the greek text expresses it somewhat differently and more forcefully «strengthen that which has remained, which shall perish anyway» (San Agustín y nosotros, page 106).

And he forestalls the objection put forward by human weakness and by the timorous, too earthly posture:

“Bur this is inhuman; we are commanded to fight for something which will perish, to fight without hope of victory. This is impossible for the man who stands on the ethical plane, whose sign is the fight for victory; but not for the man who stands on the religious plane, who fights for God, and knows that God's victory is assured, and that he has been born to be used, perhaps to be defeated, but what does it matter? We have been born to be used! By whom? Not by the State, but by the Father who is in heaven! «Because you know you will never get there, that is why you are great» a poet said, who, by the way, never put himself in such a plane; he never was great.” (San Agustín y nosotros, page 106).

He ends pointing to the strategy wished by God:
“We have to fight to the last redoubt for all the good things which have remained, disregarding whether those things will all be «integrated anew in Christ», as Saint Pius X used to say, by our own efforts or by the irresistible force of the Second Coming of Christ. «Truth is eternal, and will prevail, whether I make it prevail or not». That is why we should oppose the law of divorce, we should oppose the new slavery and the social war, and we should oppose the idealist philosophy, and this without knowing if we will gain victory or not. «God does not ask us to triumph. God asks us not to be defeated.» The Church is eternal! say the Christian Democrats. The Church is eternal in the sense that Jesus Christ spoke: but the external organization of the Church, let's say the Vatican, is not eternal, that organization has been broken and reformed many times. And the Church will be broken at the end of the world. What is eternal is man's soul united to God...United to God to be utilized” (San Agustín y Nosotros, pages 106-107).

Let us highlight in the quoted text that, according to Father Castellani, the «Omnia instaurare in Christo» not necessarily has to be accomplished by our own strength and before the Parousia, but that all things can be integrated anew in Christ by the irressistible force of His Second Coming.

There is plenty to discuss and to reflect upon for philosophers and theologians. But, if you have much to comment on Father Castellani, please reflect on what he has written.

For all of this, on our part, to be more in conformity with revelation and with the reality of the circumstances, we embrace the teachings of Father Castellani. We add these precious indications to what was quoted above:

1a) Abide by the essential message of Christianity.

“My friends, as long as there remains something to be saved; calmly, peacefully, prudently, firmly, imploring the divine light, we have to do as much as possible to save it. When nothing remains to be saved, we will still have to save our souls (,,,) It is quite possible that, under the pressure of the plagues which are befalling the world, and of this new falsification of Catholicism to which I alluded above, the makeup of Western Christianity will keep on crumbling down in a form such that, very soon, there will be very little or nothing for the true Christian to do in the public sphere. Now our bounden duty is to abide by the essential message of Christianity: flee from the world, believe in Christ, do all the good we can, detach ourselves from temporal things, keep away from the false prophets, keep death in mind. In a word, bear witness to the truth with our life, and yearn for Christ's return. In the midst of this tumult, we have to work out our salvation carefully (...) The first Christians did not dream of reforming the judicial system of the Roman Empire but, with all their strength, of being capable of facing the beasts; and, in contemplating with horror, in Emperor Nero, the monstrous power of the devil over man.”  (A Modo de Prólogo. Decíamos Ayer, pages 31-32).

2a) A constructive pessimism:

«It is necessary to toil as though the world would last forever; but it is necessary to keep in mind that the world will not last forever». This attitude, apparently contradictory or impossible, has always been the guiding principle of religious spirits in all the great crises in history. The two terms seem to be irreconcilable, and they would be so if it were not for the mysterious catalyst which is the faith. But, the pragmatic value of the apocalyptic attitude can be perceived even outside of the faith, by a talented positivist, for example. That is why we have not hesitated to publish, and that, with no little effort or risks, in the middle of the uncertainty and pain of this time, an essay on the Apocalypse, which the superficiality of someone will, without doubt, characterize as «pessimist». It is a constructive pessimism.” (Visión Religiosa de la Crisis Actual. Cristo, ¿vuelve o no vuelve? Page 284).

There is much for a philosopher to chew in this phrase of the Angel: “The time is over”. The end of God's creation is atemporal, although Time moves towards that end. The terminus and the end of the world do not coincide in all aspects; as it is known that a movement may reach its terminus without reaching its end; it simply can fail as so many other great human undertakings have failed, beginning with the Tower of Babel and ending with the Society of Nations.

The terminus of History will be a catastrophe, but the divine objective of History will be attained in a metahistory, which will not be a new creation but a transposition, since “new heavens and new earth” means all things renewed in accordance with their pristine divine pattern.

Just as the Providence and the action ― even miraculous ― of God's free will accompanies the History of man's free will, the same way in its resolution and end, both agents will participate, and that is why the End of the World will be twofold. Humankind will commit suicide but God will resurrect it; not making it over again, but transposing it to the plane of the eternal. (...,)

The attitude of Christianity is not Pessimism, much less the goody Optimism of illuministic philosophy, the notorious “indefinite Progress”. Christian Prophecy gives us a position which is above those two simplistic extremes, into which fall all “those that do not have the seal of God on their foreheads“. The world runs toward an intra-historical catastrophe which conditions an extra-historical triumph; that is, a transposition of the life of the world into an afterworld; and of Time into a Supertime; in which our new lives will not be annihilated and then created again, but ― as it fits God, all transfigured in their entirety, without losing even one of their elements. (El Apocalipsis de San Juan, pages 124-126).

3a) Christ will return

Religious spirits, like good doctors, smell death, but they go on medicating. It is the paradoxical attitude of the faith. The faith assures Christians that this eon, this cycle of creation has its end, which will be preceded by a tremendous agony followed by a splendid reconstruction, or, in religious terms, «Christ comes back one day to put his enemies as footstool for his feet and to take effective possession of the Kingdom of Heaven transferred to earth...» That is how the text says, I am not responsible for this enormity (...) Due to a paradox of profound psychology, this pessimist literature has sustained the constructive optimism of Christianity.  (Visión Religiosa de la Crisis Actual. Cristo, ¿vuelve o no vuelve?, page 285).

Also here, we call the reader's attention so that, what our author understands by «splendid reconstruction» be not read too hastily.

4a) All this and much more has been foreseen

When the immense vicissitudes of the drama of History, which are above man and his meager rationalism, reach a point which exceeds his power of medication and even his power of understanding ― as is the case in our days ― only the believer possesses the lucky charm to keep calm and go on working (...)  When it seems that the world's foundations yield and the entire structure gets all messed up ― as it happened, for instance, in the fourteenth century ― then the wise man reads the Apokalypse and says: «All this and much more has been foreseen. Attention!  But, after this, comes the final victory. The world has to die. Although it has been cured of many infirmities, this illness will be the last. But the soul of the world, as that of man, is not a mortal thing» (...) The consideration of the religious vision of the current crisis is one of the most powerful engines (even the first engine) of the political and economic movement. If man has no idea of where he is going, he does not move; or if he goes on moving, a moment comes when the movement ceases to be human and it turns into a convulsion. (Visión Religiosa de la Crisis Actual. Cristo, ¿vuelve o no vuelve?, page 286).

5a) The true aim

The union of nations into great groups, first, and then under a single World Empire (powerful dream and great movement of today's world) cannot be accomplished but with Christ or against Christ. What only God can do (and He will do at the end, as we believe, in accordance with what has been promised), the modern world feverishly tries to construct without God, abominating the old arrangement of unity which was called Christendom and oppressing fiercely even human nature, with the intended suppression of the family and of the fatherlands. But we will defend these natural parcellings, these primal nuclei of humanity to the end, with the aim, not to gain victory, but not to be defeated. That is, knowing that if we are defeated in this struggle, that will be our major triumph, because if the world ends, then Christ told the truth. And then the ending is a guarantee of resurrection. (Visión Religiosa de la Crisis Actual. Cristo, ¿vuelve o no vuelve?, pág. 289-290).


(To be continued)

domingo, 21 de agosto de 2016

Reverend Father Leonardo Castellani

  

A prophet of the end of times


By Father Juan Carlos Ceriani

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope

Part IV



But the preceding does not fully satisfy those Catholics who are more knowledgeable or more committed, especially because around us other projects are wavered and other alternatives are presented. Among them, two stand out: the creation of the so called «Civilization of Love» and the expectation of a re-flourishing of Medieval Christendom.

a)The «Civilization of Love»

For the “irreductible idealists who have their own social doctrine and their own philosophical and religious principles to reorganize society under a new plan”, the destruction of the old framework of unity which was known as Christendom amounts to little or nothing. “Their dream consists of changing the natural and traditional foundations of Society and of promising a future city built on different principles” and they propose to us the creation of a «Civilization of Love».

This is how Paul VI, on more than one occasion (for instance December 25, 1975, during the closing of the Holy Year, as well as in his “Teachings to the People of God” pointed to the  «Civilization of Love» as “the end to which all efforts in the social and cultural realm should be directed, as well as in the economic and political one”

On his part, John Paul II, in his Address to the Youth at the Esseneto Stadium in Agrigento on May 19, 1993, said:

“We are here to make this great project of the civilization of love a reality, initial but objective. This is the civilization of Jesus, this is the civilization of the Church, this is the true Christian civilization.”

This Utopia has not been a matter forgotten or put aside. On September 10, 2000, the meeting called the Millenial Summit came to a close; it had gathered more than 150 heads of state and of government at the Crystal Palace in New York, and had become the largest gathering of top rulers in history, Cardinal Sodano, then Vatican´s Secretary of State, as bearer of the words of John Paul II, said in his intervention on Friday the 8th:

“The Holy See fervently wishes that, at the dawn of the third millenium, the UN contribute, for the sake of  humanity, to the creation of a new civilization, the one which has been called the civilization of love”.

And John Paul II began his message to the World Day of Peace of January 1, 2001, titled “Dialogue among cultures for a civilization of love and peace”, in this significant manner:

“At the beginning of a new millenium, the hope that relations among men be ever more inspired on the ideal of a truly universal fraternity, becomes more enlivened. Without sharing this ideal, peace cannot be ensured in a stable manner. Many indications make one think that this conviction is emerging with greater force in humankind's conscience. The value of fraternity is proclaimed by the great «charters» of human rights; it has been made manifest concretely by great international institutions, particularly by the United Nations Organization; and it is required, now more than ever, by the globalization process which unites in an ever growing way, the destinies of the economy, of the culture, and of society. The same reflection, of believers in the various religions, tends to underline how the relationship with the one God, common Father of all men, favors the feeling and the living as brothers.” (1)

To express then later:

“The dialogue among cultures, theme of the present Message for the World Peace Day, rises like an intrinsic demand of the very nature of man and of culture (...) The dialogue leads to recognizing the richness of diversity and disposes the spirits to reciprocal acceptance, in the perspective of an authentic collaboration, which responds to the primal vocation to the unity of all the human family. As such, dialogue is an eminent instrument to materialize the civilization of love and of peace, which my venerated predecessor, Pope Paul VI, pointed to as the ideal on which the cultural, social, political and economic life in our time ought to be inspired.” (10)

He finally closed his message with a call to the youth:

“I wish to conclude this Message of Peace with a special invitation to you, young people of the entire world, who are the future of humankind and the living blocks with which to build the civilization of love (...) Dear youths of any language or culture, an arduous and passionate task awaits you: to be men and women capable of solidarity, of peace and of love of life, with respect for everyone. Become artificers of a new humanity in which brothers and sisters, members all of the same family, will finally be able to leave in peace.” (22)

He who has read the works of Felicité Robert de Lamennais, founder of Catholic Liberalism, and of Jacques Maritain, creator of the idea of the Christian inspiration of modern civilization, will recognize in them the bases of this New Christendom proposed by the Second Vatican Council, the mentors of which have been Maurice Blondel, Henri de Lubac, Marie Dominique Chenu, Yves Congat, Hans Urs von Balthasar, to whom both Paul VI and John Paul II are indebted.

In the Lammennaisian-Maritainian thinking it is necessary to accept, under penalty of “historical suicide”, the forward march of humankind; and since modern civilization walks on the line of the Revolution, it is necessary to accept the path of the Revolution, which is the road of Progress.

Once the necessarily progressive character of history has been accepted, it is necessary to agree that the modern world, with its naturalism, liberalism, and communism, would be more human than the Medieval Catholic City, and which, consequently, the new Catholic City, the Montinian-Wojtylian «Civilization of Love», should not renounce to these three plagues of the Anti-Christian revolution.

b) A reflourishing of Christendom?

There is no shortage of those who, among the alternatives or possibilities of the end of times, expect a re-flourishing of the Medieval Christendom.

Throughout the length and breadth of his fictionalized commentary on the Apocalypse, Father Castellani already warned us about the illusion of that period of triumph of the Church.

To learn about his thinking regarding this supposed re-establishment of Christendom we have to read carefully pages 15, 29-30, 38, 85, 135-136, 139-140, 159-160, 227-228, 287-288, 292-296, 307-309, 312, 387-389, 393, 398, 415. of Los Papeles de Benjamín Benavides.

Summarizing his teaching, we extract these paragraphs, which we do no always quote verbatim.

“The modern world was born under a sign of mortal illness. The world thought it was coming out from an agony but its magnificent rebirth was nothing but a fever. It had a mortal wound. It was given orders to confirm, strengthen matters which, at any rate, were agonizing. The Church centralizes itself resolutely, as an army on the defense which draws back upon itself” (page 160)

“The age of Sardis is over! We are not in it now, expecting the triumph of the Church and the restoration of Christendom to arrive with the Church of Philadelphia. The Counter-Reformation ended with the French Revolution. The Revolution was a capital event that changed the face of history; in this, its admirers are not mistaken. Don't they put it in history textbooks as a new era, the «hegira» of the new times, what they call contemporary history? With the Revolution, the Roman Empire, which patristic tradition puts as Saint Paul's mysterious Katejon, the Obstacle for the Anti-Christ, formally ends." (page 161)

“There will be no «New Christendom»: neither the one of Solovyov's and his disciples, Berdiaev and Rozanov, nor the one of Maritain, nor that of Pemán, nor that of Father Lombardi and don Sturzo. Those are the vain illusions of a world which is afraid to die, The Roman Empire is the last of the great empires, after which the Anti-Christ will follow” (page 296)

“However, Christendom will not disappear. It will be profaned. The visible Church will not remain intact: inside her will be a sanctuary and an atrium. There will be faithful, clergy, religious, doctors, prophets who will be trampled upon, who will yield to the pressure, which will take the sign of the Beast”

“Christendom will be taken advantage of: the rubble of European public law, the materials of cultural tradition, the political and juridical mechanisms and instruments, will be taken advantage of in the continuation of the new Babel, the great impious world confederation” (page 294)

Father Castellani, however, was not unaware of the existence of a different opinion, contrary to this interpretation: that of those who believe that a re-flourishing of the Church will take place and a new Christendom will emerge. In the same work quoted above he presented it as follows:

“There will be, in-between the Anti-Christ and the Great War, an entire period of peace and prosperity of the Church, as it has never been seen before, in which the Gospel will be preached all around the world and the Jewish people will convert. It will be the time of the Angelic Pope and of the Great King, of the medieval visions; innumerable private prophecies have announced it; a kind of brief golden age of the Church in between two furious tempests; a passing restoration (of one lifetime's duration) of the Christian Monarchy in Europe, which corresponds to the stretch between the finis and the initia dolorum of our Lord, that is, what we could call the Nondum Statim period. "(pages. 29-30 and 38. For the latin quotes, see Saint Matthew, XXIV: 6-8 and Saint Luke, XXI: 9, "This, in effect, has to happen, but it is still not the end... All this is the beginning of the sorrows").

“Blessed Holzhauser predicts an immense but brief triumph of the Church, lasting a man's lifetime, in which the forces of Satan will be shrunk and reduced, but not eliminated, and in which the pressure from both sides will be formidable. A tense, palpitating, noisy, exasperated period, in the rhithm of human history: a truce but not a peace.” (page 140).

And despite this, he confirmed his opinion on the subject:

“You can resort to that if you are too scared of the end of the world. But I fear that such hope might be a temporary Millennialism, a human escape from the fearful prediction: because the puerperal pains, once they begin, are no more interrupted by any long period of well-being”

“It is a bad Millennialism that which expects Christ's Kingdom on Earth before Christ's coming, and obtained by temporal means, and consisting of a splendor of the Church, also temporal” (page 287)

“Nowadays, very many Catholics, including writers, including preachers, including wise men dream of a kind of temporary triumph of the Church, neighboring our times and preceding the Parousia. And is this something other than an advanced Millennialism?” (page 387)

And in his commentary to the Apocalypse he ratifies his thought:

“It is the same carnal dream of the Jews, which made them deceive themselves with respect to Christ. These are the Millenialists upside down. They deny staunchly the meta-historical Millennium after the Parousia and place instead a millennium which is not in Holy Scripture, by work of the historical forces alone; in other words, an infra-historical solution of History, the same way as do the impious progressivists; which is tantamount to negating the supernatural intervention of God in History.” (El Apokalipsis de San Juan, page. 297).


(to becontinued)