The Antichrist will be nourished in the Womb of Catholic Silence...
Slouching Towards Lund To Be Conceived
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.…
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.…
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
W. B. Yeats, "The Second Coming" (1919)
Some might consider it inappropriate in an
article such as this to quote Yeats, who was a Gnostic (Theosophy and
Rosicrucianism). Sometimes, however, a pagan may indeed be
prophetic and, if he is an artist, truly poignant. Yeats believed that
at the end of the “gyre” (an historical period of about 2,000 years)
following the life of Christ, the spiritual anarchy described in the
above passage would descend upon us. We are now there.
As an extension of the extraordinarily powerful imagery in the above
poem, I would ask the reader to consider the possibility that the
already conceived, but not yet born, spirit of Antichrist will pass
through Lund, Sweden, this very month, and here will receive that form
which is to be nourished until the Son of Perdition (2Thess 2:3) makes his appearance upon the world stage.
Ever since the rise of intense ecumenical
activity after Vatican Council II, a special emphasis has been placed
on Catholic-Lutheran relations. It was of course Luther who began the
revolt by which half of Europe was lost to the Catholic faith. Catholic
civilisation has been in catastrophic decline ever since. Within
Lutheran philosophy and theology lie all the principles of this plunge
into what is now being predicted by many as “the death of Christianity”.
In my recent article titled The Dream of Nabuchodonosor, I examined the errors and deceptions regarding the doctrine of Justification to be found in the 2013 document titled From Conflict to Communion (the
culmination of 50 years of ecumenical dialogue between the Pontifical
Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Lutheran World
Federation). It was, of course, Luther’s perverse concept of
Justification which always has been the primary source of contention
between Catholic and Lutheran theology; and there could never be any
hope for any “reunion” (except genuine conversion on the part of
Lutherans), unless a false agreement about this doctrine should first
be declared. This was first accomplished through the issuance of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1999, and then basically repeated in From Conflict to Communion. It is this latter document which will form the foundation for what will occur in Lund at the end of October.
It is one thing, however, for bishops and
theologians to spin their lies in documents. It is altogether another
thing to establish a unity of hearts in practice and worship. After
all, a very small percentage of the laity ever read such documents.
Somehow these lies must be incarnated in pastoral practice. It is not,
therefore, an accident that the document which will be the foundation
of the Common Prayer and celebration in Lund is titled, From Conflict to Communion.
It is almost certain that the eventual goal of this event will be the
recognition of the right of Lutherans to receive Our Lord in Holy
Communion in Catholic churches. It is then inter-communion which will
act as the river of darkness enabling these lies to penetrate the minds
and hearts of the Catholic faithful.
I must also mention the role that Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia has
played in eventually eliminating barriers to inter-communion. In my
analysis in the June-July edition, I explained how the Catholic concept
of Charity and Sanctifying Grace, which has been the traditional
defense against such sacrilege, is therein heretically falsified and
denied. As I pointed out, it would seem very telling that the
“Celebration” in Lund is to follow close upon the heels of the issuance
of Amoris Laetitia.
However, inter-communion between Lutherans and Catholics also necessitates the “solution” of very serious, specific doctrinal differences in regard to the Eucharist and the Mass. In its hunger for false unity, From Conflict to Communion proves itself again up to the task of deceitfully falsifying Catholic doctrine in this regard. There are 22 paragraphs in this document which deal directly with the Eucharist and the Mass.
However, inter-communion between Lutherans and Catholics also necessitates the “solution” of very serious, specific doctrinal differences in regard to the Eucharist and the Mass. In its hunger for false unity, From Conflict to Communion proves itself again up to the task of deceitfully falsifying Catholic doctrine in this regard. There are 22 paragraphs in this document which deal directly with the Eucharist and the Mass.
As is the case with the Catholic Church’s
doctrine of Justification, the great bulwark protecting Catholic
doctrine concerning the Eucharist is the Council of Trent. And just as From Conflict to Communion
undermines and contradicts Trent in regard to the doctrine concerning
Justification, so it does the same in regard to the doctrines of
Transubstantiation and the nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Transubstantiation
After stating that Luther’s notion of the
presence of Christ in the Eucharist was that He was present “in, with,
and under” the bread and wine (Consubstantiation), which “is analogous
to the union of the divine and human natures in Christ”, From Conflict to Communion then proceeds to undermine Trent’s teaching with the following:
Although the Council of Trent admitted
that we can hardly express with words the manner of his presence and
distinguished the doctrine of the conversion of elements from its
technical explanation, it however declared, ‘the holy Catholic Church
has suitably and properly called this change transubstantiation’. This
concept seemed, in the Catholic view, to be the best
guarantee for maintaining the real presence of Jesus Christ in the
species of bread and wine and for assuring that the full reality of
Jesus Christ is present in each of the species.
Notice the verbs that are here applied to the Church’s infallible teaching: “admitted” and “seemed”.
It is as though in defining the Eucharistic change as
transubstantiation at the Council of Trent, we must now view the Church
as having been a tremulous young lady who was not at all sure of what
she was doing. Quite to the contrary, Trent was completely bold,
masculine, and assured in proclaiming the following:
If anyone saith that, in the sacred
and holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and
wine remains conjointly with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole
substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of
the wine into the Blood — the species only of the bread and wine
remaining — which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly
calls transubstantiation; let him be anathema.
This is not an “admission” of something which might “seem”
to be true, but rather a bold proclamation of absolute Truth itself.
It is a direct condemnation of Luther’s teaching, and a condemnation
and excommunication of anyone who denies the Church’s teaching
concerning transubstantiation.
What is more, it is profoundly deceptive to state, as does From Conflict to Communion,
that Trent “distinguished the doctrine of the conversion of elements
from its technical explanation”, implying therein that Trent somehow
“admitted” that the Eucharistic conversion was a total mystery
possessing no elements corresponding to human categories of thought and
expression. While fully respecting the fact that, as Trent itself
declares, Our Lord is in the Eucharist “by a manner of existing… we can
scarcely express it in words”, it yet does indeed offer a quite
technical and simple explanation of the metaphysical manner in which
this conversion takes place. And it is this explanation — this doctrine
of Transubstantiation — that Trent declares binding on the minds and
hearts of all Catholics.
However, the “arts entirely new” which From Conflict to Communion spins
around the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, in its attempts to
whittle away at the insurmountable distances between Catholic and
Lutheran doctrine, are almost “innocent” when compared with the
deception practised in its treatment of the Eucharist as Sacrifice.
The Eucharistic Sacrifice
It would first seem necessary to offer a
short explanation of Luther’s own view of the Catholic Mass. This is
“aptly” uncovered in Article II of The Smalcald Articles, written by Luther in 1537, which constitutes an integral document of the Lutheran Book of Concord,
and was intended by Luther to be presented at a Council called by the
Pope in Mantua. (This Council did not actually come to fruition, buts
its aims were gloriously achieved at the Council of Trent.) Therein,
Luther writes the following (excerpts):
- "That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious."
- "For it is but a pure invention of men…."
- "This article concerning the Mass will be the whole business of the Council. (The Council will perspire most over, and be occupied with this article concerning the Mass.) For if it were (although it would be) possible for them to concede to us all the other articles, yet they could not concede this…. Thus we are and remain eternally separated and opposed to one another."
- "In addition to all this, this dragon’s tail, (I mean) the Mass, has begotten a numerous vermin-brood of manifold idolatries." [Luther then proceeds to examine Catholic beliefs and practices such as the belief that the Mass works to the remission of sins and the reception of grace, the belief in purgatory, Masses for living and deceased souls, prayers to saints and pilgrimages for souls both living and dead, veneration of relics, and the granting of indulgences as being examples of the “vermin-brood of manifold idolatries” which are the “children” of the Catholic Mass].
I offer the above analysis of Luther’s
view of the Mass in order to first establish that the hypocrisy and
duplicity practised by Catholics at the ecumenical activity in Lund,
will be fully matched on the side of Lutherans. Repeating Luther’s own
words, we “are and remain eternally separated and opposed to one
another”.
On the Catholic side, the document From Conflict to Communion again treats the Council of Trent as a young, inexperienced maiden, more than slightly befuddled and unsure of herself:
As a result of the loss of an
integrative concept of commemoration, Catholics were faced with the
difficulty of the lack of adequate categories with which to express the
sacrificial character of the eucharist. Committed to a tradition going
back to patristic times, Catholics did not want to abandon the
identification of the eucharist as a real sacrifice even while they
struggled to affirm the identity of this eucharistic sacrifice with the
unique sacrifice of Christ. The renewal of sacramental and liturgical
theology as articulated in the Second Vatican Council was needed to
revitalize the concept of commemoration (anamnesis).
The notion that the doctrine defined in
regard to the Eucharistic Sacrifice at the Council of Trent was the
“result of the loss of an integrative concept of commemoration” is
indeed blasphemous. In Chapter I of Trent’s Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Church Fathers at Trent proclaimed the following:
He, therefore, our God and Lord,
though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the Cross
unto God the Father, by means of His death, there to operate an eternal
redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be
extinguished by His death, in the Last Supper, on the night in which He
was betrayed, — that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the
Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires,
whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the Cross,
might be represented, and the memory [anamnesis] thereof remain
even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to
the remission of those sins which we daily commit — declaring Himself
constituted a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech,
He offered up to God the Father His own Body and Blood under the
species of bread and wine and, under the symbols of those same things,
He delivered (His own Body and Blood) to be received by His Apostles,
whom He then constituted priest of the New Testament; and by those
words, ‘Do this in commemoration of me,’ He commanded them and their
successors in the priesthood to offer them; even as the Catholic Church
has always understood and taught.
Having established the fact that Trent does indeed fully see the Mass as a Memorial or “Commemoration” (anamnesis),
we would be blind not to see from the context of the above passage
that this “remembering” far surpasses any other sort of human memory
both in its cause and its effects. The following passage from Chapter
II makes this even more clear:
And forasmuch as, in this divine
sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is
contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, Who once offered Himself
in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the Holy Synod teaches
that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and that by
means thereof this is effected that we obtain mercy, and find grace in
seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a
sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the
Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof and granting the grace and gift
of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins, For the victim is
one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who
then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being
different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one, to
wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is
this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation).
Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other
necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are
departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it
rightly offered, agreeably to a tradition of the Apostles.
There could be no greater integrative
“concept of commemoration” than this dogmatic teaching of the Council
of Trent. There is here no immature “struggle to affirm the identity of
this Eucharistic sacrifice with the unique sacrifice of Christ.” There
is only the perfection of Divine inspiration and condescension to the
mind of man.
It needs also to be noted that just as was
the case with the doctrine of Justification, so here with the doctrine
concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, From Conflict to Communion
is intent upon portraying the alleged confusion of Trent finally
finding its remedy and cure in Vatican Council II. It is simply a lie.
What is at stake here is the denial of Trent.
The Priesthood
God our sustenance, bring us together at your eucharistic table, nurture within and among us a communion rooted in your love. Your mercy endures forever! Hear our prayer!
(Intercessory prayer from the Common Prayer Service to be conducted in Lund)
The final great barrier to inter-communion
between Lutherans and Catholics is, of course, the Priesthood, and the
question of its legitimacy. It is infallible Catholic teaching that
the ordained priesthood is one of the seven Sacraments, and that only a
validly ordained priest, whose ordination is derived through the powers
of Apostolic Succession, can confect a valid Eucharist. Thus, the
Council of Trent:
Sacrifice and priesthood are, by the
ordinance of God, in such wise conjoined, as that both have existed in
every law. Whereas, therefore, in the New Testament, the Catholic
Church has received, from the institution of Christ, the holy visible
Sacrifice of the Eucharist; it must needs also be confessed that there
is, in that Church, a new, visible and external priesthood, into which
the old has been translated. And the Sacred Scriptures show, and the
tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this
priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour, and that to the
Apostles and their successors in the priesthood was the power
delivered of consecrating, offering and administering His Body and
Blood, as also of forgiving and retaining sins.
It is fully admitted by the document From Conflict to Communion that
Luther and his fellow-travellers could find no bishops to ordain
ministers, that they themselves did not begin “ordaining” ministers
until 1537, and that neither Luther nor his cohorts and followers
considered Holy Orders a Sacrament conferring a power unique to the
ordained priesthood. Rather, while believing that there were those
called by the community to ministry (thus constituting a ministry of
authority, but not of unique “powers”), he believed that all the
faithful possessed all the powers of the priesthood of Christ, and that
all were priests. Rightly, therefore, does the Council of Trent also
teach:
Furthermore, the sacred and holy
synod teaches that, in the ordination of bishops, priests and of the
other orders, neither the consent, nor vocation, nor authority, whether
of the people or of any civil power or magistrate whatsoever, is
required in such wise as that, without this, the ordination is invalid;
yea rather doth it decree that all those who, being only called and
instituted by the people, or by the civil power and magistrate, ascent
to the exercise of these ministrations, and those who of their own
rashness assume them to themselves, are not ministers of the Church,
but are to be looked upon as thieves and robbers who have not entered
by the door.
It is absolutely clear therefore that
Lutherans do not possess a valid priesthood, and equally certain that
they do not possess a valid Eucharist. Acting very much like the
confused and wimpish caricature with which From Conflict to Communion has consistently tried to paint the Council of Trent, it declares:
One of the remaining questions is
whether the Catholic Church can recognize the ministry of the Lutheran
churches. Together Lutherans and Catholics can work out the
relationship between the responsibility for the proclamation of the
Word and the administration of the sacraments and the office of those
ordained for this work.
Later, this document goes even further:
In the course of history, the
Lutheran ministerial office has been able to fulfill its task of
keeping the church in the truth so that nearly five hundred years after
the beginning of the Reformation it was possible to declare a
Catholic-Lutheran consensus on the basic truth of the doctrine of
justification [as explored in my article The Dream of Nabuchodonosor, this statement is a blatant falsification], If,
according to the judgment of the work of the Second Vatican Council,
the Holy Spirit uses ‘ecclesial communities’ as means of salvation, it
could seem that this work of the Spirit would have implications for
some mutual recognition of ministry. Thus, the office of ministry
presents both considerable obstacles to common understanding and also
hopeful perspectives for rapprochement.
As pointed out by Pope Pius XI, there can
be no rapprochement except through conversion of those in heresy to the
fullness of Truth and Life to be found only in the Catholic Church.
There can be no legitimate inter-communion for those living under
manifold heresies. If by holding firmly to this position we are accused
of lacking charity and mercy, then so be it. St. Teresa of Avila, who
was born two years before Luther proclaimed his 95 Theses, and is noted
for her great charity towards souls, simply and accurately described
Lutheranism as “that wretched sect”. It remains so to this day.
Formalising the Lies
From Conflict to Communion is a
tissue of lies. But the institution of these lies into the life-blood of
Catholic belief and practice is already underway.
In November of 2015, during an evening
Prayer Service at Rome’s Evangelic Lutheran Church, Pope Francis was
asked by the Lutheran wife of a Catholic husband about receiving Holy
Communion. Part of his reply consisted in the following (quoting from an
article by Edward Pentin):
Doctrine, he said "is a difficult
word to understand – but I ask myself: don’t we have the same Baptism?
If we have the same Baptism, shouldn’t we be walking together?" And
further, "Life is always bigger than explanations and interpretations.
Always refer back to your baptism, one Lord. ‘One faith, one baptism,
one Lord’. This is what Paul tells us, and then take the consequences
from there." He again told the lady, "I wouldn’t ever dare to allow
this, because it is not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith.
Talk to the Lord, and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything
more."
Clearly, he was saying that she should go
forward, but that as of right now he could do nothing to give it
official endorsement. Next stop, Lund.
Secondly, in January of 2016, a Lutheran
group from Finland, led by bishop Samuel Salmi of Oulu, received Holy
Communion in St. Peter’s, despite indicating to the priests present
that they were ineligible to do so. The priests were fully aware that
the group was Lutheran. The Lutherans were in Rome for the Week of
Prayer for Christian Unity, and had previously met with Pope Francis.
Interestingly, one of the things Pope
Francis said to the Lutheran woman mentioned above was that the answer
to her question was “not my competence”, but “should be left to
theologians.” As clearly evidenced in the case of the Synod on the
Family, the theologians are selected to implement Pope Francis’ agenda.
The public posture is humility; the hidden agenda is revolution.
Word vs. Silence
“For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by
thy words thou shalt be condemned” - Matt. 12:37
thy words thou shalt be condemned” - Matt. 12:37
As I have said before, the document From Conflict to Communion
is surely the most demonic document ever to have come forth from a
Vatican office. It falsifies Catholic doctrine in relation to
Justification, the Eucharist, Ministry, Scripture and Tradition (which I
have not covered here), and the Church. In the first paragraph of this
article, I stated that what will occur in Lund this month (on 31
October) — all of it being immersed in the spiritual and theological
lies of this document — will constitute that “form” of the spirit of
Antichrist which will be nourished until his actual coming upon the
world stage. This “form” is perfectly formulated in two of the Five Ecumenical Imperatives declared in From Conflict to Communion, and which are to be at the heart of the Common Prayer to be read at the celebration in the Lund Lutheran Cathedral (stolen from Catholics in 1536). The first imperative reads as follows:
The first imperative:
Catholics and Lutherans should always begin from the perspective of
unity and not from the point of view of division in order to strengthen
what is held in common even though the differences are more easily seen
and experienced.
The fourth imperative, with its accompanying paragraph of elaboration, reads thus:
242. Catholics and Lutherans have
the task of disclosing afresh to fellow members the understanding of
the gospel and the Christian faith as well as previous church
traditions. Their challenge is to prevent this rereading of tradition from falling back into the old confessional oppositions. [emphasis on this sentence is mine].
The fourth imperative:
Lutherans and Catholics should jointly rediscover the power of the
gospel of Jesus Christ for our time.
In other words, the fundamental principles of this new “form” of both Catholic and Lutheran theology and life are threefold:
- Begin from the perspective of a falsely fabricated Unity;
- Do not “fall back” into doctrinal (“confessional”) differences;
- Do all of this in the spirit of “rediscovering” the “Gospel for our time.” And, of course, we must add a fourth principle, which is clearly that of Pope Francis: “Go forward” with inter-communion.
In other words, for Catholics, it is required that we be Silent
about the revealed truths we have received from Jesus Christ, and that
we adapt ourselves to the modern world. This is a precise inversion of
the most fundamental commission of Christ — to proclaim the Gospel to
all peoples and nations (Matt. 28:19), and to remain untouched by the
world:
I have given them my word, and the
world hath hated them, because they are not of the world; as I also am
not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the
world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil. They are not of the
world, as I am not of the world.
It was 52 years ago that the Catholic
Ecumenical movement was given the blessing of Vatican Council II in the
Conciliar document Unitatis redintegratio. Therein we read:
It is, of course, essential that the
[Catholic] doctrine be presented in its entirety. Nothing is so
foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism which harms the
purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its genuine and certain
meaning.
The document From Conflict to Communion, its Five Ecumenical Imperatives,
and the extraordinary lies and deceptions embodied in its teaching, is
profound testimony that such false irenicism and non-presentation (Silence) were genetically (so to speak) part of the entire ecumenical movement from the beginning. If they had listened to Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, they would never have been so foolish as to even begin.
Increasingly, I meet Catholics who are
aware of the horror of what is going on within their Church, and whose
attitude now consists in reading nothing, following nothing, doing
nothing, and simply waiting for things to change. They expected Pope
Francis to retire within 3 or 4 years, and he says now that he will not
retire. They wait for the election of a new Pope, and yet do not take
into account that the Cardinal electors are now in the process of all
being replaced by Pope Francis. They continue to pray, but do not take
into account that standing up for the Truth of Christ,
to the best of one’s abilities, is also a demand of the Gospel and not
just an option. Failure to do so can constitute a grave sin of omission,
and make “prayer” not seemly at all:
But men that speak
truth shall be found with her [Wisdom], and shall advance, even till
they come to the sight of God. Praise is not seemly in the mouth of a
sinner. For wisdom came forth from God: for praise shall be with the
wisdom of God, and shall abound in a faithful mouth….(Ecclesiasticus
15:19-20)
What is happening is not “hermeneutics of
continuity”; and it is not legitimate “development”. It cannot be
interpreted in the light of the magisterium. It is evil, towards which
our silence is the surrender of spiritual death.
The Antichrist will be nourished in the Womb of such Catholic Silence, and without divine intervention, will be born of its implicit blessing. We must pray constantly for such intervention.
The coming of Antichrist has of course
been predicted many times before. It may indeed be true that, given any
strictly human considerations, he would have arisen in the past, but
was prevented by divine intervention. Based on the message of Fatima, we
expect such intervention again before his final ascension to the world
stage. But, while there is only one Man of Sin at the end of
time, there are, in the words of St. John “many antichrists” and many
chastisements on our journey towards this Final Confrontation. It would
appear that before Our Lady’s Triumph we may expect the worst, and
that we will be required to speak our word.
It is not enough to pray; we must also stand and say, No.
It is a word for which even the most illiterate and humble person is
responsible. And we should do so now, lest we be whittled down to a
mere stump of Christianity, lacking the grace and fortitude to stand
with Christ (Matt. 12: 30, 37):
For by thy words thou shalt be justified,
and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
