by Stephen Coughlin
My research over the winter and spring reached the point where I was preparing to write. It developed far enough so that a number of hypotheses converted to tentative conclusions but will take a level of effort that may force me to seek some kind of grant as, to make the 2 or 3 arguments in chief, a series of supporting work product will have be developed to re-form various elements of Catholic doctrine and history that Vatican II either deformed or demolished by intent. The top findings are that the Church was flipped at Vatican II by New Theologians who successfully mask their dialectically determined Gnostic Christianity in Catholic (and Christian) facades for the purpose of destroying the Church (and Christianity). Hence, the reason the Bishops fail to get their hands around the sexual predation issue is because they created it to undermine the priesthood in furtherance of destroying the Church. They want the issue.
“Integralism” is code for treating Thomism as a heresy.
While there are Neo-Platonic influences associated with St. Augustine, he was a classically trained Neo-Platonist who then became an elite professor, he abandoned it when converting. Having said that, there are strong Platonic / Neo-Platonic influences to Augustine. Plato is from Athens. Neo-Plato is from Alexandria, Egypt. In Neo-Platonism, Plato’s demiurge becomes “the one” – the Monad – from which all life emanates (and are themselves immanent). If one looks, one can find Ratzinger writing to the “monad”. The more academic treatments of Ne0-Planonism today focus on the more purely philosophical aspects of the lines advanced by Plotinus and even Hypatia (who bears no resemblance to the Hypatia of modern fictionalized history). But in its time, Neo-Platonism had, and still does have, solid theosophical foundations from which militant forms of Neo-Platonism like that from Iamblichus could support credible competing theological claims on which to counter Christianity – which the Emperor Julian in fact did. It still does. Chema, the land of the black soil, that in Arabic comes to us as al-Chema, is the ancient name for Egypt. Neo-Platonism is heavily infused with alchemy – Al-Chem-y. Neo-Platonism is organically associated with Gnosticism and is ready-made to serve as a Gnostic platform. These currents reflect the non-Christian roots of Arianism.
St. Thomas Aquinas was Aristotelian in his philosophical orientation. On the long view of Western philosophical thought, the two dominant strains have been Aristotelian or Platonic. Today, the dominant philosophical thread is Platonic. The esoteric operates from Platonic / Neo-Platonic threads. Although hollowed out by Modernists in the 50 years leading to Vatican II, the Church was still formally Thomistic at the Council’s opening. Vatican II dethroned Aquinas because he blocks the Ne0-Platonic threads that sustain the New Theology (that is Neo-Platonic at its core). The Platonic Church has always clashed with the Aristotelian Church from Arius, to the Albigensians, to Luther, to the New Theologians.
From the very beginning, Aristotle placed checks on Plato and, hence, downstream, on Neo-Platonic concepts along with the esoteric theosophies it sustains. Thomas restricts the excesses of Augustine. The Hegelian cosmology revivified Gnostic Neo-Platonic theosophy that competed with Christianity for becoming the dominant metaphysic of the later Roman Empire. At the theosophical level, this is the same cosmology as Blavotska’s and the Free Masons. Showing Kabbalistic influences (that in turn reflect the Neo-Platonic influences of the Monad and its immanentized emanations), the Hegelian dialectic implements a Hermetic worldview through Alchemical formulas designed to negate the objects of its attention. The Hegelian Cosmology, as with the Gnosis and Neo-Platonism it seeks to re-integrate, is Ne0-Platonic. Thomism restricts the excesses Neo-Platonism facilitates. The New Theologians are intensely Neo-Platonic, detest Thomism; designated it “integralism” and then de facto branded it a heresy – as Ratzinger did. By focusing on esoteric organizations instead of the esoteric theosophies they advanced, the Church’s losing battle with “Modernism” was under-inclusive to the threat; focusing on the effects and delivery instruments rather that the thought form itself.
The “New Theology” implements a NEW THEOLOGY which is the theosophy of Hegel that executes the initiate cults closely associated with Roman Emperor Julian (Julian the Apostate) that are intensely Neo-Platonic in orientation reflecting Platonic archetype forms. Operating in the form of a Post Vatican II theology, the new Ecclesia advanced by Vatican II is designated “Interfaith” and seeks as it object the re-formation of the prisca theologia that will be fully manifest at the end of history (that Hegel identified as Holy Spirit in the context of Absolute Act).
Everything Vatican II executed was condemned as modernism for a century leading up to it. Vatican II de facto reversed the Council of Nicaea, even going so far as to adopt the Arian version of the Nicene Creed when removing the heavily contested, heavily fought for, and heavily tortured and killed for term “consubstantiation” from the Novus Ordo Credo. It is only from assessing the New Theology from the perspective of its archetype form – Neo-Platonism – that all the weird and discordant pieces become reconciled and make sense. Each of the symptoms – pantheism, immanentism, the dialectic, “evolution”, etc – of this new theology is an element of the prisca theologia as classically understood; camouflaged in orthodox Christian language. The 1950 Encyclical Humani Generis specifically condemned the Nouvelle Théologie along with the dialectic. In fact, the primary author of Humani Generis was Fr Garriou-Lagrange. In a few famous papers he explained how the dialectic is irrational and nihilistic. Vatican II implemented the New Theology and, in-so-doing, transitioned to a dialectically determined church. Catholic theology dialectically construed is Catholic theology that will be negated by operation of the dialectic in favor of the prisca theologia that the interfaith church is to become. As such, Pope Francis is not a break from Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, but rather he is their culmination.
The Strategy, Part I: Praxis to Execute Dialogue
As a theological term, “praxis” has a limited use and purpose. As a term of the dialectics of theosophy and of Leninism, praxis has a major operational application. Both the Free Mason Alta Vendita and Lenin (and Gramsci) spoke of penetrating Church organizations to silently implement the unstated practice of submitting it to a series of dialectical negations while remaining silent on the intent of praxis regarding the negation it seeks to effect. The negation events facilitated by praxis are called “dialogue.” While that casual interpretation of the term “dialogue” associates it with “discussion,” in fact dialogue is to be associated with “dialectic” (DIALectic – DIALogue) where dialogue serves as the crucible for the Church’s aufheben – i.e., negation.
As with much of the New Theology lexicon, major terms have binary applications so that the UNINITIATED understands a communication in a benign manner while INITIATES understand the true intent. As a supporting application, if activities come under too much scrutiny, the imitated simply revert to the benign use of the term until the heat is off. The initiated can always play off the uninitiated and prevail in most confrontations; and certainly all confrontations that do not account for this narrative device.
Vatican II was hailed as an AGGIORNAMENTO. Aggiornamento is simply Italian for “modernism.” Vatican II was likewise hailed as a pastoral council. As a part of the praxis strategy, when associated with dialogue, pastoralism is the dialectical Anti-thesis to all elements of Magisterial teachings and Tradition, which is designated as Thesis for the purpose of its negation. “We accept Tradition, but we must be Pastoral” is the essential dialectical formula behind “We have to accept Tradition so that it can properly serve as Thesis so we can position it for negation in a dialectical turn with its Anti-thesis, characterized as a pastoral necessity, and always reflecting Hegel’s ‘Holy Spirit’ – as Zeit Geist.”
PRAXIS IS THE SUSTAINED UNSTATED LONG-TERM PRACTICE OF SUBMITTING THE THESIS OF CHURCH TRADITION TO THE ANTI-THESIS OF PASTORALISM IN AN ONGOING SERIES OF DIALOGUES STRUCTURED TO NEGATE THE CHURCH IN FURTHERANCE OF AN INTERFAITH CHURCH THAT SEEKS THE PRISCA THEOLOGIA BROUGHT FORWARD THROUGH THE PRE-REFLECTIVE THOUGHT OF MAN AND FULLY MANIFEST AT THE END OF HISTORY.
Major post Vatican II encyclicals are dialectic. Ratzinger said the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes negated (“aufheben-ed”) the encyclicals leading up to Vatican II. Gaudium et Spes makes more sense when read dialectically, especially along Hegelian lines, as if Chardin’s theosophy serves as the key to recognizing the archetype form – which is thinly veiled Neo-Platonism. Pope Benedict called for yet another “new” mass that would be the SYNTHESIS of the Traditional (THESIS) and Novus Ordo (ANTITHESIS). The Lutheranism that the Vatican II Church emulates is the Pietist Lutheranism Hegel penetrated and repurposed to his cosmological form – already in pursuit of the prisca theologia.
Balthasar’s theology purposefully aligns with Hegel’s at the point where Hegel’s alchemical dialectic aligns with Hermeticism. The “Hen kai Pan!” Bishop Barron’s “reasonable expectation that all souls go to heaven,” which violates Tradition and revelation, never-the-less conforms to the sublimated status of all beliefs when subsumed in the re-formed prisca theologia – that fully manifests at the end of a history in what Hegel identifies as the “Holy Spirit” when Absolute Act. Hegel’s theology is not Lutheran, it is not Christian. Balthasar’s theology is not Catholic, it is not Christian. Hence, neither is Barron’s. It mainstreams Hegel’s Hermeticized Christianity. It is the Gnosticism the Early Church feverously fought to stamp out.
A major point of penetration concerns Hegel’s mytho-theology concepts that later forced a hermeneutic that forces the Pentateuch to aligned with 6th Century BC Homeric mythology, designated as a science, that demands scientific conformance – for example; Wellhausen’s JEDP. It then pushes the writing of the Gospels past the fall of the Temple into Gnosticized interpretations as it likewise pushes the dating of those writings fully into the Gnostic era – inventing (manufacturing) the “Quelle” Gospel. The Monad, which can be argued was a classical response to Christ’s being the Logos when the original and defensible dating is relied on, is now positioned as a response to it.
The Strategy, Part II: Political Warfare – the Maoist Insurgency Model
The mechanism to execute the praxis/dialogue strategy is the political warfare model that makes full use of splinter movements and controlled oppositions. Political warfare is the Maoist “long march” mass line model. Running through Vatican II, the New Theologians split, with the “radical” outside group designated as the Concilium while the “moderate” inside group became the Communio, at which point the Communio also set the limitations of debate thus controlling the range of “Traditional” opposition. In America, as a Communio publication, Ignatius Press holds that line. The Concilium is the outside violent splinter, the Communio is the inside non-violent main actor. They both seek the same demolished Church Balthasar advocated that Ratzinger ratified.
The Schneider Paradox – You cannot Defend the Church while Defending Vatican II – It’s Rigged that Way
While working on the research tracing Hegelian and Free Masonic theosophical thought to the period of Arius, the Council of Nicaea, through Julian the Apostate, Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s articles popped up. A review of Schneider’s reasoning – that, while recognizing that Francis is a heretic, there is nothing to be done until he dies – shows that he bases his principled position on post Vatican II constructions of Pope Liberius and Pope Honorius.
Dispassionately analyzed, Schneider’s reasoning makes it clear that one cannot defend the Vatican II Church and defend The Church at the same time – that a Vatican II defense against Francis, even when successful, does so by undermining the Pre-Vatican II Church by design and by stratagem. For example, the post Vatican II Denzinger changed its position on Pope Liberius and actually misrepresents Honorius. The repositioning of Liberius and Honorius directly contradict the Post Vatican I scholarship that made clear that the Church believed them to be maligned or misconstrued figures. The Vatican II church adopts – in whole – the Gallic and caustic Reformation positions on Liberius and Honorius used to refute papal authority.
Muddied in post Vatican II treatments, Pope Liberius was the first pope to declare a Church council heretical on his own authority – thus demonstrating Papal authority in the face of a hostile Roman Emperor (that then forced Liberius to flee to the cemeteries and hide). Also, Honorius was NEVER accused of BEING a heretic, he was condemned posthumously for allowing a heresy where it is clear that what happened occurred after he died, at the direction of remote others, where Honorius may never have been aware. The condemnation of Honorius set a strict standard for popes when their non-ex Cathedra statements, through omission or commission, lead to heresy. It was taken so seriously, that newly elected popes had to take the Honorius oath for many centuries.
The muddied treatment of Honorius provides space for post Vatican II popes to abuse the Honorius standard that has Pope Francis making an intentional mockery of it. This is important because Schneider, when mounting the Vatican II defense of the Church against the heretical acts of Francis, positions his arguments, and his non-action rationales, on concepts of Liberius and Honorius that Post Vatican II groups worked to create that work to directly undermine/reverse historic Church positions (where these alterations seem to have foreseen and prepared for scenarios just like this). Embedded in Schneider’s defense is a veiled attack on Vatican I, including the status of Papal Infallibility. Schneider does not have to make the argument, although he does signal it, because it is subsumed in the Vatican II narrative. Clearly, even the contemporary Praetorian Roman Historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as did the Arian Emperor, as did St Athanasius, as did all when Liberius condemned a Church Council on his own authority that was convened on the authority of a Roman Emperor – which is why the pre-Vatican II Denzinger lists Liberius as a Saint – up to and including the 1954 edition.
A small digression, Bishop Schneider is correct that there has never been a ruling on a sitting pope engaged in heresy and, as such, all formal writings on the topic are limited to the legal status of dicta. But this is only because there has never been a sitting pope realistically believed to be engaging in willful open acts of heresy – NEVER. Not Liberius. Not Honorius. But Bishop Schneider is simply wrong when arguing that there has been no rule per se. Going back to the 8th century, and including the expressed statements of many popes including Pope Innocent III, the position of the Church and of Popes has been openly and ubiquitously expressed: that a pope cannot be removed for anything except heresy. That has never been contested until the Post Vatican II era. The rule has never been applied because there has never been a time when it could be.
Returning to the “praxis” strategy in this context, all Pope Francis has to do to ensure the success of his openly heretical actions is to embed them through practice (praxis) while not touching the third rail of technically speaking ex cathedra. Honorius condemnation was for omitting tighter language in a non-ex cathedra instrument that facilitated a heresy outside his control after his death. Francis knowingly engages in heresy in the here and now. Francis actions vastly exceed the single omission that resulted in the condemnation of Honorius. Even while openly, publicly, and officially expressing heretical views on many levels in ways that leave little confusion about his actions and intent, as long as Francis never touches the highly technical “ex Cathedra” line, a line lost on 98% of faithful Catholics and 99.99% of non-Catholics in these circumstances, he can completely de facto demolish the Church – ground it to dust – in actual heresy while the controlled opposition, Bishop Schneider for example, recognizes the ongoing heresy while choosing to take no action thus ensuring the success of the praxis (practice) strategy of pastoral demolition that continues right before the eyes of the World while elevating their servile responses to the status of a principled approach. Vatican II converts “good shepherds” to hired back-office administrators. The only course of action Schneider must take, he rules out. St. Athanasius he is not.
In saying that the post Vatican II mission is to raise that Bastions of the Church along the lines of Balthasar to bring it in line with 1789, Ratzinger was identifying with 1) the French Revolution (and its associated murderous mass-killing of Catholics) orchestrated by Free Masons and 2) the Alchemical Hermeticism that Balthasar’s theology mainstreamed into Catholic theology as Fr Chardin did the same with his Gnosticized Neo-Platonism. Vatican II seeks the de facto reversal of Nicaea, the de facto demolition of ex ecclesia nulla salus, and the de facto creation of a new church in the guise of an Interfaith movement where all religions are to merge as history moves forward to the prisca theologia. De facto in the service of praxis is the enemy of de jure until it can be made de jure. It is only the weirdness of it all that causes people to push back. It is the data points that make it real. Balthasar and Chardin were weird. Balthasar was also a pervert. Seriously, what is the difference between the Temple in Maccabees and Assisi? The praxis strategy operates in permissive grey spaces that should not exist and should not be tolerated.
The effort to put a credible analysis together that can stand scrutiny will be a substantial undertaking.
I would be interested in meeting with the priest with you so that when there is some pushback because it sounds so “bat-shit-crazy”, you can at least point out that a serious effort is being undertaken that can paint this picture in both the broad strokes and in fine detail.
In this regard, I am looking to arrange a meeting with a funder to see if he would be interested in some kind of grant for a 6-month project dedicated to just this effort where, at the end, maybe all that exists is a base document that will need years of funding to be fleshed out but will already point in key directions as noted above.
On the Islamic Issue, back in 2010, I wrote a paper, “Killing without Right” that laid out the Islamic concept of terrorism. The importance of the paper is that it explained that it is only in understanding the Islamic narrative that one can recognize how the Islamic world understands the concept of terrorism and, as it relates to today, how the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. has called for terrorism against U.S. citizens and that U.S. citizens have been killed as a result. In the 2016 paper “Burning Down the House,” it was further explained how the Islamic Movement operates as a continuous set of reinforcing splinters; the Ummah, the Dawah, and the Jihadi. I point this out because, today, all the Islamic splinters are active and interactive with their Neo-Marxist united front allies and we should expect escalating terrorism along the same script that brought us Benghazi and the Paris attacks (which were forecasted and which happened on schedule).