The Argument from Coherence (4)

God defies definition. This is not to say that the concept GOD is incoherent (although humans are capable of misunderstanding, mischaracterising, and misrepresenting God). God is other; He is distinct from His creation, and yet – so Christianity teaches – God invites mankind to interact with Him. Such interaction requires some element of commonality; without it, there can be no communication. Christians understand God’s interaction with us to be through condescension; to understand Him fully is beyond us. The greatest act of condescension, as taught by the Gospel, is that God took on human flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

If God exists, the Incarnation is paradoxically both surprising and logical. God is by definition supremely benevolent. If this characteristic is removed, the concept of God becomes incoherent and God cannot exist: for anything that is incoherent is not real. (Note, incoherence itself has categories: humans can hold incoherent views in the realm of imagination; but this does not entail that such views correspond to anything in reality).

Such benevolence would lead to creation of a world. When that world went wrong (through free will), benevolence would lead to its redemption. The nature of human sin and is such that the path of redemption leads through the Incarnation of God Himself (although mankind did not clearly foresee or understand this; wisdom on this matter has come through revelation and hindsight).

Benevolence is a personal characteristic. Benevolence apart from personhood is incoherent. Feuerbach, an atheist, posited the idea that the concept GOD was a projection. He held that mankind, troubled by the hostility of the physical world and their own capacity for evil, created the concept GOD and chose to believe in God’s existence as a coping mechanism. It is more comforting to believe that the universe was created and created by a supreme Benevolence, than to accept that it simply exists and that there is no objective meaning to our existence.

Have we followed the route that Feuerbach described? Or have we believed in God because there is a God and because His nature and existence can – and must be – inferred from reality?

Can an eternal being exist without personhood? Is that a coherent concept? What is the substrate of existence? What is the ultimate Reality? It cannot be less than the glory of mankind – indeed it must be more.

The philosophy of emergent properties is a complex sub-discipline, much of which must lie beyond the scope of this post. However, it is sufficient to observe that our contingent minds cannot come from something that is not mind at all. Therefore, there must be a necessary Mind and that Mind must be co-extensive with Ultimate Reality.

(Intermediate great minds between humanity and God are also possible – thus thrones, principalities, powers, angels, demons, etc. However, God is logically necessary, which is why Greco-Roman paganism cannot be true, since its pantheon does not conform with the coherent definition of GOD.)

This post has served to introduce the main part of the argument. A following post will round off the series by unpacking that part in more detail.

The Spirit of Vatican II: a council to obfuscate, diminish and eventually destroy our Catholic Culture and thereby the Church Herself

Fog of Vatican II
Spiritual Fog of Vatican II

“Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.” __ Citation: The words of Dietrich Von Hildebrand, who was, nevertheless, a supporter of the Vatican II religion but felt compelled to make such a statement about the New Mass. Quoted by Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 1980, p. 80.


I think in reflecting back on the overall spirit that permeated the Second Vatican Council one might be struck by the fact that the overall mood was led by an unbridled desire for ecumenism, peace with the world at any cost, and ostopolitik or detente with those those who opposed us and were rightly considered heretics prior to the Council. It was a ‘false peace’ established not for the help and protection of the Catholic peoples but was in fact a complete surrender to the whole of our progressive  modernist world. In this regard, I think the above quote from Dietrich von Hildebrand may have limited the scope of how he might have viewed the ruinous results of this Screwtape Council’s overall theme; which of course used the liturgy as its primary means to rob Catholics of their culture; one might say it was their weapon of ‘mass (Mass) destruction’.

The Second Vatican Council was an Ecumenical Council but with a difference. In the previous 20 Councils of this type, the Councils were called to settle a matter of heresy, prevent a schism, to pronounce a new Dogma to be infallibly held or to generally protect the Church and Her Children from being misled by the modernist world and other threats to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

But this Council would be different; it was purely pastoral in nature and was not going to pronounce any new dogmas or warn of any clear and present danger to the Church and Her followers. However, it was not as if there were no dangers that needed to be expressed at the time; especially Communism, Modernism and Freemasonry which were running rampant in the world and had infiltrated the Church by many of the theologians of its day not to mention highly placed prelates and even ordinary pastors. Basic morality was breaking down and threatening not only Christian life but the very ethos that bound entire nations together. But it seems that ecumenism was to be bought at any price; even the price of the souls of Mother Church and Her hundreds of million sons and daughters. Instead of defending the Church against heresy it as though the Church was suing the World for terms of peace.

“In a 2007 book called The Metz Agreement, veteran French essayist Jean Madiran gathers a number of sourced claims, testifying that a deal was hatched during Soviet-arranged secret talks in 1962. The meeting, Madiran says, took place in Metz, France, between Metropolitan Nikodim, the Russian Orthodox Church’s then “foreign minister,” and Cardinal Eugène Tisserant, a senior French Vatican official. Metropolitan Nikodim was, according to Moscow archives, a KGB agent.

Various sources have since confirmed that an agreement was reached, instructing the Council not to make any direct attack on Communism. The Orthodox then agreed to accept the Vatican’s invitation to send a number of observers to the Council.”__ Read more here: Catholic News and World Report.

We also know that the original schema as drawn up for the Council were rather benign and one must wonder what the Church would have looked like had the progressives not taken control of the Council after its first session; for these first documents were in complete agreement with what had been stated prior to the Council and a condemnation of Communism was planned to be included within the documents. One also wonders if they might have made mention of both Modernism (battled against for about a 100 years) and Freemasonry which the Church had been fighting since its beginnings in the early-18th century and was a large reason for the French Revolution and its persecution of the Catholic Faith. These heresies were at least clear and present dangers to the Church which have only worsened since the close of Vatican II. One might say that the Church even capitulated in its rejection and opposition against these threats.

There was also a novel idea which took root within the Council of a collective Church; a collective redemption and salvation. It, of course, would have to abandon the idea that the objective Truth was in its entirety to be found in the One True Church. All flavors of religion and even non-religion were to be included in this collectivism and nobody was excluded. A globalist view was emerging which see quite prominently in the mainstream of Catholic teaching these days.

“. . . totalitarian ideology is not alone in sacrificing the individual to the collective; some of Teilhard de Chardin’s cosmic ideas, for instance, imply the same collectivistic sacrifice. Teilhard subordinates the individual and his sanctification to the supposed development of humanity.” __ Dietrich von Hildebrand.

So nobody can discount the thoughts of Teilhard de Chardin which exerted a strong influence upon the Council though he died some 7 years before the Council. His spirit lived on in the framers such as Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, Cardinal Bea et al.


“When I read the documents relative to the Modernism, as it was defined by Saint Pius X, and when I compare them to the documents of the II Vatican Council, I cannot help being bewildered. For what was condemned as heresy in 1906 was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church.” (Jean Guitton, Portrait du Père Lagrange, Éditions Robert Laffont, Paris, 1992, pp. 55-56). Read more here.

A new era of the Church was being constructed while the 2000 year old Church was belittled and scoffed at. Our new Church would be up to date and modern as we embarked upon the aggiornamento (updating) called for by the Council. It would be a Church of dialogue, ecumenism and above all a Church that listens rather than a Church that teaches. We would now be in the world without passing judgment on the world. One could say that the old enemies of the Church, ‘the world, the flesh and the devil’ were no longer reasons to avoid worldliness or the ‘near occasion of sin’.  You will rarely hear either of these statements used today within hallowed walls of a parish.

This new globalist and collective sense of humanity led us from true charity to secular humanism, from nation states to open borders, from proclaiming the True Church to proclaiming the ideals of the French Revolution (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). In short, we have turned the ideals of those who wished the complete destruction of the Catholic Church into being our own ideals as well. Ideals whose origin was to be found in the heresy of Freemasonry.

If that was not enough the sense of a new egalitarian spirit overcame us as well especially in adopting market socialism if not outright communism or marxism. Besides the Liberation Theology that is now lauded, one need only view the sellout of the underground Catholic Church in China and the recent beatifications of radical leftists to get a sense of how far this cancer has spread.

In a few words, ‘what once was up is now down and what once was down is now up’. The Church has been stood upon its head.


“[Evelyn] Waugh’s words in response to this revolution are arresting: “Church-going is now a bitter trial,” he wrote. Elsewhere he said, “the Vatican Council has knocked the guts out of me.” To a friend, he wrote, “I have not yet soaked myself in petrol and gone up in flames, but I now cling to the Faith doggedly without joy.” In another letter to a cleric, he sought to know the least he was “obliged to do without grave sin.” This is remarkable, coming from one of the most famous Catholic writers of the 20th century, one who had previously adored the Mass.” __ Read more here.

Neither the people nor the priests petitioned Rome for a change in the liturgy. For the liturgy in use for many centuries had produced countless saints and martyrs and theologians who are still the backbone of what we continue to believe; St. Thomas to this day is the most widely referenced theologian in the Catholic Church and cited more than any others in the new Catechism of the Catholic Faith. So why did they feel that this was such an important mandate for the Council to address?

Was it perhaps that it was too authentically Catholic? Too much of a feature of Catholic identity; our common Catholic Culture? One need only ask the question how one would go about destroying a culture, a nation. For the things that bind a culture together are primarily language (in this case Latin), traditions (no more meatless Fridays and few processions on feast days), music (Gregorian Chant being the identifiable music for the Catholic) and devotions which have somewhat been restored and hopefully will help us recover that which has been destroyed after the Council.  So if you attack these you attack not only the culture but the way we believe and the way live: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi or how we pray, is how we believe, is how we live. Since the change in the prayer of the Church following Vatican II we don’t need to look far to see that the way we believe and the way we live has changed radically. Our beliefs and our tolerance of immorality is almost identical to that of world at large. We no longer understand or transubstantiation nor do we recognize Christ in the Eucharist and we divorce at the same rate as protestants, accept same sex marriages, fornication outside of marriage and a host of other things that no Catholic would ever have accepted prior to the Second Vatican Council.

So was the reason for the changes to make the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass indistinguishable from a protestant ‘service’ and to minimize our focus on the Sacrifice during the Liturgy so that we would not scandalize the protestants? Annibale Bugnini who designed this liturgy seemed to think that this was what was needed and such a change was good for the Church: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.”  – Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

So, once again, how would destroy the Church if you were satan?  Would the nuclear option be the destruction of how we pray, believe and live? And would not the Mass be the logical place to accomplish this diabolical assault on the Faith?

Since the Novus Ordo was promulgated the fruit has been the loss of vocations, the emptying of pews and the dumbing down of the laity and the priesthood in their below par formations; Canon 249 has been neglected by our bishops which states the following.

Can. 249 The Charter of Priestly Formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also well versed in latin, and have a suitable knowledge of other languages which would appear to be necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of their pastoral ministry.

Did we violate the mandate of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the first document of the Council?

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

Do we experience this in the normal Novus Ordo Liturgy today? Of course not. There was always obfuscating language and loopholes planted throughout the documents of the Council to give the bishops the necessary wiggle room to evade these norms.

How about communion on the hand? The bishops voted no, resoundingly at the Council. But we have it now. So how did we get it you might ask. I will leave that to your investigative skills but it isn’t pretty. How also did we get lay readers (male and female) and how did they violate the Vatican rule that if they were to be used that they could not do so from the sanctuary? Maybe its because the sanctuary is no longer that holy space reserved for the priest (which they like to call a presider these days) and his altar boys. And today we have female altar boys which is a outrage since they were always regarded as young men who might be led toward thinking of the priesthood for a vocation. It was a privilege extended to them and it was taken with a seriousness and a sense of awe. All of this has changed in the spirit of Vatican II; a spirit of egalitarianism and a distorted understanding of the Council’s wish to increase the ‘active participation’ of the laity at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

We could list literally hundreds of changes including the rewriting of other Rites of the Church which seems, ironically to have one thing in common amongst most of them; the absence of the exorcism that once took place in the Rites before a Blessing was given to a sacred thing or a sacred ministerial duty. How convenient when we have abandoned the spiritual realm for a realm that is at home in a fallen world that we were mandated to teach and to bring them the teachings of the True Church.

God have mercy on our soul but we allowed this to happen by allowing ourselves to become complacent about our education in the faith. It is not simply the hierarchy or our parish priests that bear this burden of closing a blind eye to the obfuscation of truth and the destruction of our Catholic Identity; though many will have much to answer for at their particular judgment.

Immaculate Heart of Mary have mercy on us. Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on us. Saint Joseph pray for us. Saints Peter and Paul pray for us. St. Michael the Archangel drive this diabolical infiltration from the Church and restore the Bride of Christ to once again be resplendent in this world; without spot or wrinkle.

The Argument from Coherence (3)

In the previous post we concluded that there must be an ultimate, objective Reality. Plato, the Rationalists, Empiricists, and Transcendentalists all realised the problem of knowing what the reality is actually like. Descartes attempted to argue that our senses do tell us truths about the world because, having proved to his own satisfaction that God exists, God is not a deceiver. Berkeley denied the existence of mind-independent objects. Hume argued that the concept MIND-INDEPENDENT OBJECT is actually the result of confusion. Kant explicated the principle that certain concepts cannot be derived from experience, but are in fact necessary presuppositions in order to interpret experience.

Accepting the existence of the ultimate Reality is one thing. Showing that the Reality is God is another. Even if one shows the existence of God, further work is necessary to demonstrate that God corresponds to the figure found in the Bible, as opposed to that articulated by other religions. It certainly is true that the different religions are mutually exclusive. They cannot all be true. Either one is right or they are all wrong.

The Reality must be coherent. What is coherence? Coherence is the absence of contradiction. It must also be non-contingent. If it is ultimate, it depends on nothing else for its own existence.

However, reality is more than these things. Humans attach, for want of a better word, meaning to reality, which is bound up with the problem of Truth. The struggle between the Rationalists and Empiricists revealed the difficulty that arises when one tries to say what reality actually is, independent of our senses. And so, Kant elaborated transcendentalism. This epistemological wall that hinders penetration of the garden of ontology is the reason why metaphysicists sound like mystics.

Atheism is not a common metaphysical commitment among humans. It is very natural for humans to attribute personal qualities to the Reality. In attributing personal qualities, humans turn that Reality into God. The naturalness of such attribution, if accepted, is not an argument that the Reality actually is God. Since humans are capable of mistakes, this could be a mistake.

However, “attribution” is a misleading word. It assumes that humans are fashioning God, whereas they may in fact be discerning His qualities through legitimate reasoning. The argument from coherence seeks to show that the nature of the Reality can be sufficiently explored to demonstrate that the Reality is God.

The key to the problem is personality. Hume thought that an impersonal Reality was no less reasonable a proposition than God. Such being the case, with no side in Hume’s estimation having a conclusive power, the agnostic was perfectly entitled to withhold his assent. (The atheist, having an assertive position, would need further material before he could claim legitimacy).

Was Hume’s assessment correct? He stood in opposition to St Paul, who declared in the opening of the Epistle to the Romans that:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse…

Although the context of this passage concerns other matters, the use of it in this post is appropriate. In order for Paul to address his view that humans are rebelling against God, he must presuppose that:

  • God exists;
  • Humans are capable of knowing that God exists;
  • Humans are capable of knowing God’s will; and
  • Humans are capable of freely choosing to disobey God’s will.

The following posts will tackle the problem of inferring personhood from the existence and nature of the Reality, and from that inference accepting that there is a God.

The Argument from Coherence (2)

The debate between the rationalists and empiricists concerned the rationalists’ claim that there is a class of synthetic propositions that can be known a priori. Kant agreed with the rationalists on the existence of this class, claiming that various mathematical propositions were synthetic, but could be known a priori. To the best of my knowledge, he did not put the proposition, “God exists”, in this class.

The claim, “God exists”, seems to defy categorisation. It seems to be both analytic and synthetic – and more. Aquinas rightly perceived, as seen in his arguments, that our world of experience must be dependent on something beyond it. In other words, our experience is contingent, but the Great Reality is necessary. He wanted to say that the Great Reality is God. Hume held that this was a leap too far, that the inference of the Necessary Being could not, in and of itself, tell us whether that Being is God or simply an eternal universe.

This Necessary Being sits at the conjunction of the analytic and synthetic, of the a priori and a posteriori. The reasoning that leads our minds towards the inference of this Being’s existence tells us about both the structure of our conceptual world and objective reality. In other words, thoughts concerning the Necessary Being put us in touch with reality; this line of thought crosses from the phenomenal to the noumenal.

It should be noted, however, that humans cannot grasp God in His fullness. To enter the noumenal is not to know all or to know God in perfect exactitude. In this instance, it is to know that our thoughts have connected with the Great Reality.

Without the Objective, there is nothing at all. Nothing at all. Subjective existence, alone in the void, is a contradiction. This is because the subjective is contingent; it must depend on something else, ultimately upon the Great Reality.

This reasoning is not new. Long before Locke, Leibniz, Hume, and Kant, Descartes explored the  conjunction of the analytic and synthetic. He realised that our world of experience could be a lie (the Evil Genius Hypothesis). He may not have had the language of analytic and synthetic, of a priori and a posteriori (these appear to have been codified by Kant), but he was able to work through the reasoning in his own language.

He wanted to show that God existed and that we could, in essence, trust our experiences and reasoning. While subsequent philosophers have found problems in his reasoning, and in the leap from the Great Reality to a personal God (on to which Christians must add further reasoning to show that God is Yahweh), his basic instincts are correct.

The next post will continue on the journey to the Argument from Coherence.

Where is the outrage? Nothing but crickets. And we keep sending money to the UN for this crap.


Comprehensive Sexuality Education: This  is the link to the video . . . here.

Where in God’s name is the opposition to this outrage? Where are the Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelicals and their leaders? Where are the leaders of our countries and their Ambassadors to the UN?

The people who are pushing this rot and destroying the lives of our children should be rotting in jail before they rot in hell which is probably their final destination.

For me, as a Catholic, I ask where is the Pope and where is the USCCB on these issues? Are they too busy worrying about climate change and the invasion of illegals who are destroying our cultures,while saving the planet and giving our children over to satan and the loss of their souls? Where are the homilies and the action groups pushing to oust these monsters and jail them for the damage that is being done to the souls of our children? This is child abuse at its worst and nobody cares and nobody knows about it and it gets worse every year.

God forgive us.

The Precious Blood of Jesus Christ spilled once again on the floor this morning at Mass; and nobody seems to mind or care.


Today is the fourth time I have witnessed the Precious Blood spilled on the floor during Communion at my parish (Novus Ordo, of course). Yet it is neither a problem of sufficient worry to stop Communion under both kinds nor the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, presumably because The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would take too long without them: after all they have to get back home and watch a football game. No prob.

Of course, in this enlightened age of total disrespect, lack of solemnity and disbelief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) it is no longer a big deal. Since it is a simple a symbolic meal it takes on the same concern that one might have in cleaning up a spilt glass of wine at a cocktail party. ‘Let’s get the club soda out so that we don’t stain our new, expensive carpets.’ Who notices or really cares?

And of course since 99.9 percent of the congregation receives the Body of Christ in their hands, as though they find themselves worthy to do so, we have, like everyone else in Novus Ordo land, quit using servers with patens to prevent the Hosts and particles from falling to the carpet. But that’s no problem; isn’t that what they made vacuum cleaners for, after all? So nobody minds.

Now since I became a Catholic I have found personally 3 consecrated Hosts which were discarded. I suppose the people simply palmed them and went back to their pews. They left one in a hymnal and another under the pew and the third one I found under a bush right outside the door to the parish. I have found others, but at different parishes. But hey, they only think of it as a symbol these days (the Pew poll saying that only 30% believe in transubstantiation); no biggie. Why all the fuss?

The parishioners don’t care, the pastor doesn’t seem to care and I guess I’m not supposed to care either. Like I said in my last post, ‘what does it matter, and who cares’? I’ve talked and pleaded until I’m blue in the face and they think that I’m the nut. But those who view the Sacrifice of the Mass as a symbolic meal seem to find no problem with these things. I wonder if they were at the foot of the Cross with Our Lady and St. John if they would have composed themselves this way and simply looked upon our Lord hanging and bleeding from the Cross as a symbol too. Who’s to say?

Mystery Babylon

I have written in the past about Mystery Babylon here and here. Chalcedon has also exploded the false teachings of Alexander Hislop on this subject here, with which I concur, having seen them refuted in Joel Richardson’s Mystery Babylon. I have recently been watching ministry videos from Paul Keith Davis, who believes that Mystery Babylon represents (among other things?) a kind of religious system, from which Christians are to exit (“Come out of her my people!”).

Mystery Babylon in Revelation is one of the most difficult and controversial passages in Scripture. I do not propose to offer a definitive interpretation here. However, the recent videos have caused me to return to a topic which I had left alone and, in particular, they have made me think about the topic of Christian unity, whether or not that is the point of the passage.

It is evident that many of the traditional churches have been corrupted. I am conscious that as a sinner myself (as all humans who have conscience are), it is awkward for me to find fault. Nevertheless, I feel I must make some observations because the situation is grave. There are many members of the clergy who cannot be called orthodox: for they deny (or do not assent to) fundamental tenets of the faith. These people, in positions of power and authority, are extremely problematic.

It seems unlikely that they will be forced out of the Church. Furthermore, they are making it harder and harder for orthodox, conservative enclaves within the Church to continue unmolested. Therefore, many Christians, even if they do not explicitly confess it to others, find themselves asking if the cry “Come out of her, My  people!” is applicable today. This does not mean that such questioning Christians believe that the final time of the end is upon us; rather, they wonder if the underlying principle of that cry has come into effect once more, just as it did in times past.

Such thoughts are more characteristic of Protestant Christians (and the churches lineally descended from the Protestant groups) than of Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Ecclesiology plays a role in how one interprets the data. Herein lies the problem: to hear the voice of God, one must remove preconceptions that hinder that audition. How does one determine whether a preconception is of God or not? It is by the Word and by the Spirit (and some would say the Spirit acting through Tradition (the Apostolic Deposit of the Faith)).

How do we discern the difference between the voice of the Spirit and the voices of other spirits or the voice of our own hearts? The Spirit’s word will be in concordance with Scripture. The work of God can surprise us sometimes. The Disciples were scandalised by people who did the work of Christ but did not travel as part of Jesus’ entourage. He told His Disciples not to hinder them, because they were doing His work. Such people belonged to Him, even though they did not travel in the entourage.

Do we need to learn this lesson again today? How do we overcome the Great Schism and the Reformation? How do we as followers of Christ overcome the corruption of the clergy and laity? How do we come together? Christ told us to love one another.

Perhaps God will take us through this by internal promptings and external circumstances. Perhaps we do not need to formally come together: it may be sufficient that we are one in Spirit, that we support one another. If an exodus from the traditional churches is necessary to achieve complete oneness, perhaps there will be a coming of the Spirit, like at Pentecost, that will achieve this result. Perhaps persecution will compel us to flee the old institutions and supernatural revelation from the Spirit will guide us into new house churches that will restore what has been divided.

Prayer seems to be necessary whatever route God wants us to pursue. For my part, I am conscious that I must devote more time to prayer, that I must seek the Lord on these matters, that I must repent where appropriate, that I must give God space to impart revelation, to guide me in the attitudes of the heart and the strategies to be pursued.

The scene is grim. Although we in the West do not face the kind of martyrdom our brothers and sisters are suffering in the East, we are not without opposition. It is easy to feel alone, especially if one is zealous about the Gospel and reform. My prayer for my friends here at AATW, NEO, and Richard’s Watch is for the following things.

  • Christians in your area with whom you can share the deep things of your heart, be they priests, members of the congregation, family members, or co-workers
  • Fresh revelation from God about the times in which we live and how you as an individual can play your part for the Kingdom
  • Healing and blessing for your body, soul, and spirit – may you be empowered to do God’s work
  • Endurance, to run the race until the end
  • Protection, against all kinds of evil
  • Courage of your convictions – to make the difficult choices when you must

May God grant you all this and more, through Jesus Christ your Saviour.

Gloria Deo omnipotenti, Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto. Amen.


The Pan-Amazon Synod: Towards a New “Church With an Amazonian Face”

In the Instrumentum Laboris for the upcoming Amazonian Synod, we see Liberation Theology at its worst in its teaching of ’Tribalism’ but also its blind hypocrisy which is evident throughout the document.  

For the topic of its socialist teaching on Tribalism, I would refer you to the insightful interview with Prof. Thomas Stark over at Lifesite News:

As to the hypocrisy in the documents I will simply point out one for your consideration.

“78. The family in the city is a place of synthesis where traditional and modern cultures meet. However, families often suffer from poverty, precarious housing, lack of work, increased consumption of drugs and alcohol, discrimination and juvenile suicide. In addition, there is a lack of dialogue between generations in families; traditions and language are lost.  [. . .]”

It is obvious that since the opening of the windows of Vatican II we essentially allowed this ‘synthesis’ to take place within our Catholic Culture as well. And we are now seeing what happens when Modernist cultures meet the Traditional Culture that developed organically over the last 2000 years. The people are leaving in droves and they are losing their faith and our youth are committing spiritual suicide.

Note that the synod is against this transition of the traditions of these tribes but is all for throwing away our own Catholic traditions; as later in this document you will also read that they suggest ordaining married men and women. 

It is also apparent that they lament the loss of traditions and language (as they also spoke highly of incorporating traditional music, songs and symbols to be incorporated in their liturgical worship) and yet are oblivious to the self-same destruction they brought upon the Catholic Church after Vatican II.  Did we not simply chuck our Traditions without being consulted? Didn’t they just foist change upon change upon us; destroying the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and now haven’t we lost most of our uniting traditions like our songs of worship plus our Latin language? They seem to be blindly hypocritical.

This document tells us how these tribal groups can help inform our faith and that they should not lose their creation legends and such; these should be enriching to our own belief somehow. So are they going to next have us research the pagan societies from which the Jewish people emerged so that we can embrace those old practices as well? Should we delve into the occult and black mysteries associated with our lost traditions and origins?

I was not sure when I read this preparatory document for the Amazonian Synod whether it might not have been ghost written by Jeffrey Sachs, George Soros or some college professor of their ilk. If I had not read this document for myself I would not have imagined that the Catholic Church would ever actually write a document of such low-grade thinking and filled with so much heretical thought. But then this is what we deserve for allowing these abuses to be forced down our throats one by one all these years. 

Furthermore, isn’t it true, for all your griping and wailing over the exploitation by the Capitalists upon these poor tribes, that this is precisely what you yourselves have been doing to the Catholic people for years? We have been raped, ravaged and all of our spiritual resources have been depleted and polluted by whom? You, of course.

Hypocrites, one and all.