The purpose of human language is to communicate truth.
This is saying which is agreed upon by nearly every member of humanity. But we often forget how profound its implications are.
Saint Thomas says, that the truth of which we speak here, is the right relation between the human mind and reality as it is. The discovery of truth, then, is the discovery of the right way to understand the reality which is around us or inside us.
But we often forget the other word in this universal definition of human language: communicate. “Communicate” is word which comes from the Latin verb meaning “to build up together” or to “to share gifts with one another”. In the definition of human language we see the profound social aspect of speaking and its goals on the level of society: sharing and the promotion of the perfection of one another. The communication of truth therefore is the fulfillment of the inherent goals both of communication and of truth.
What I have just written could be called the philosophical or anthropological principles of human language. Not just of any one particular human language, but of all human language.
The other tongue
An individual human language is also called a “tongue” from the fact that each language requires for its proper enunciation a way of enunciation which is habitual and requires the tongue which speaks it to adapt accordingly.
But there is another sense of the word, “tongue”, which I want to employ here: this is the sense in which the word means not one kind of human speech, but an entire different philosophy or definition of human language.
Because just as human language according to its natural or proper definition is a set of spoken sounds, which can be recorded in written forms, for the sake of communicating truth, so, if one changes the final purpose of human language, one, as it were, gives birth to an entirely different tongue, on account its altered purpose.
And such a tongue exists. And it has a name, not from its human author, but analogously from the first being which used communication for another purpose: Satan.
Satanic language is a system of communication for the purpose of sharing falsehood, and not for building up or the sharing of gifts, but for tearing down and theft and robbery, and ultimately for murder. As Christ said of its author: “Who was a liar and a murderer from the beginning” (cf. John chapter 8: read this whole chapter to see both Tongues at work)
This other tongue, since it is not creative except of deception — as it has no other reason for being — uses the words of human language and creates new words which serve to hide the lie under the appearance of truth. We can easily recognize these lying words, because of their novelty, and not just any novelty, but a novelty used to overthrow the words which have been used from the beginning.
Every tongue gives birth to its own Culture
Now it is a fact of reality and a truth of anthropology that every unique tongue gives rise to unique culture. This is because the language according to which we speak is the default form for our way of thinking and perceiving. And hence every language gives birth to its own culture: every language, not only in the sense of modes of human speech, but also in the sense of which I speak here, of the two purposes of speech.
The summit and perfection, the culmination and fulfillment of every language finds itself and its salvation in Christ, and in particular, in the preaching of the Gospel, the good news, which is the greatest gift we can share verbally and the greatest truth we can communicate.
The characteristic of a human language which is thus baptized is that it means what it says and says what it means, and both in the most profound way. We see this in Sacred Scripture, where though the Hebrew Language was chosen by God to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah, it speaks in vagaries and in a dark and obscure manner, quite unlike the Koine Greek which the Apostles sanctified for the preaching of the Gospel, which reveals clearly and openly the Salvation which comes from the Incarnation of the Eternal Word of the Father. Shadow passes to light, figure and prophecy to reality and fulfillment.
This is true even on the historical level. Because in very many such cultures, it was the preaching of the Gospel which gave rise to the historical forms of their human languages or at least fixed them in written form as a monument to the ages, and provided a millennial bridge from one generation to the next for the preservation of meaning and signification. We can see this especially in the Latin language, which once understood can grasp the meaning of what writers from the 5th century before Christ to the 19th century after the birth of Christ are saying. We see this especially in languages which had their birth or genesis after the preaching of the Gospel, as for example, English, a language which in its present form knew not disbelief until disbelief was introduced from another land.
The tongue of Satan also gives rise to its own culture. We can see this in the way those who oppose the Gospel have ever acted: denying the plain meaning of words, denying that words have meaning, denying that words mean things different than other words. This attack on human language is a necessary technique of that Tongue which serves to break down the other by the employment of deception.
This technique gave rise to a false and misleading way of reading the Old Testament, so as to convince all who read it to deny that Christ was its fulfillment. It created an entire commentary on the Old Testament filled with vain and false tales and strange and novel doctrines which aimed all with that same purpose. This way of denying Scripture gave birth to a sect in which attacking the good and attacking Christianity was a practiced habit of mind and speech.
All peoples, however, who abandon Jesus Christ and all groups who reject Him, must follow in the same path, because you cannot reject Incarnate Truth without attacking the truth incarnate in every word and speech or thought of mind.
Thus we see this Other Tongue in action in the errors of Nominalism (the philosophical position which says that words do not name anything real), Modernism (the theological heresy which holds that everything in religion comes from sentiment, not God) and the global push for a new form of humanity, divorced from reality and wantonly joined to unnatural falsehoods.
This war of two tongues is most evident in the fight to defend the life of children in the womb and at birth. The entire maniacal and diabolic industry of death and genocide makes its every move on the turn of the meaning of an old word or the invention of a new word to conceal their murderous intent.
Another recent example of this war is the recent study by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, in which the destruction of Sodom is insisted to be a punishment for a lack of hospitality not for a lack of chastity. Still another, is seen in the verbal gymnastics used to insist that Benedict resignation were valid or conformable to the Code of Canon Law also gives rise to entirely new words (Bennyvacantism) used to conceal lies and entirely new ways of reading Canon Law (munus = ministerium), Catholic Doctrine (infallibility does not prevent a heretical pope), or the Bible (the Gates will not prevail means they can succeed some times), which are invented solely for one purpose, to deny the truth.
The war between Satan and Saint Michael the Archangel began with a war of communication with entirely two different tongues. The war of cultures among men also has its source in a war of Two Tongues. I hope, therefore, that this post enables you to discern these Two Tongues and these Two Cultures better. Of them Saint Augustine wrote eloquently in his Book on the City of God, in which he spoke of Two cities: one founded on the love of God unto the contempt of all other things, and the other founded upon the love of self unto the contempt of God.
A CALL FOR VIOLENCE TO PROMOTE THE GREATER REVOLUTION
Rome, March 9, 2015: Students of theology at Rome, who are catholic, have long experience in “reading” what their professors are saying. This is because the current climate of Modernism, and the persecution of Catholic seminarians which is attendant upon keeping it in power, makes a woeful variety of the forms of dishonestly flourish under its pallid “sun” of error.
Modernism, as Catholics know and recognize, is the error which says there is nothing religious but what comes from the sentiments of the human heart. It is a species of atheism, of the kind apt to be found in those who pretend to be religious. It is a very apt and useful error for the ecclesiastical parasite, the priest-careerist or the hierarchical climber, because it absolves from all conscience and morality and thus enables any compromise necessary to ascend to ever greater depths of moral depravity and power.
In classes at the Pontifical faculties at Rome, the Modernist is easily recognized by his inability to speak sincerely and straightforwardly, his use of metaphors, indirect symbols, passing remarks, to key to his audience the “secret” meaning of his lecture, and allow it to be understood correctly. Few modernists omit this method, because it is so useful and successful; it leaves them in a strong position from where they can with difficulty be accused of being heretics, and one in which those who espouse heresy, can understand what they should be understanding in a certain sort of coded language or discourse.
The talk at Ognissanti is a perfect example of this method, but since this method is rarely recognized for what it is, let us unpack it for those Catholics who have the blessing never to have been “initiated” into it by attending a Pontifical university or seminary class.
First, the very occasion of the talk provides the context. The Modernists who pushed to dump the original schema for Vatican II and who controlled the entire implementation of the texts of the Council into which they wrote nearly all their own errors, find no greater occasion to rejoice but the anniversaries of their revolution. The 50th anniversary of the first mass in the vernacular, as was celebrated on Saturday March 7th, is just such an occasion.
It would be enough for the Pope to celebrate the occasion, even though he scrupulously avoided using the actual ritual Pope Paul VI used on that day, 50 years ago: no, no! such a liturgy, that of 1965, is much too much like the Traditional Latin Mass, of the “preconciliar era”. To have used that liturgy, would have been to confirm what Pope Benedict XVI often spoke about, the necessity to reconcile the 2 liturgies. But since “reconciliation” presupposes equality, and since Modernists deny the legitimate spiritual equality of the Old Rite — they actually deny the totality of the legitimate spiritual quality of that rite — there could be no question about using the liturgy of 1965. That would send the “wrong” message, in their minds, to their followers.
Thus, the significance of the day of March 7 and the use of the Novus Ordo for the 50th anniversary.
Significant too, is the Cardinal of whom this church is assigned among the Sacred College: Cardinal Walter Kasper, chief theologian of “Team Bergoglio” and papally authorized proponent of the Kasper thesis, which holds that it is mercy to abandon 2000 years of Christian teaching which bars public and impenitent sinners from reception of the sacraments.
All of these 3 circumstances already say all which the Modernists need to say. Their con-catenation means that unless their agenda is explicitly denounced in the Homily for the celebration, that agenda is in fact explicitly affirmed by the silence.
Let us now examine the text of the talk to see what else can be gleaned.
As the Modernists would be very inclined to fear that Traditionalists would be apt to criticize this talk — there were even rumors in Rome that the Vatican was obsessed that traditional Catholics would stage a demonstration against the Anniversary — we have to look closely to see what is intended to be seen only by initiated Modernists.
Quotations are from our unofficial English translation of the homily…see previous Blog post for citations.
+ + +
Holy Mass at the Roman Parish of Ognissanti, on the Via Appia Nuova
Homily of Pope Francis
3rd Sunday in Lent
Saturday, March 7, 2015
On the occasion of the feast of the Jewish Passover, Jesus went to Jerusalem. Arriving at the Temple, he does not find people who seek God, but people who are conducting their own business: merchants of animals for the offering of sacrifice, money-changers, who exchange the “impure” money, bearing the image of the Emperor, with the money approved by the religious authority to pay the annual temple tax. What do we find when we take ourselves there, when we go to our temples? I give you this example: The unworthy commerce, source of ill-gotten gain, provokes the energetic reaction of Jesus. He overturns their tables and throws their money to the ground, he drives the merchants away, saying to them: « Don’t make the House of my Father a market! » (John 2:16).
Note, from the start, that the Pope founds his entire homily on the comparison between the Jewish liturgy and the Christian liturgy. This is the standard Modernist reading of the liturgical aggiornamento: Just as the Jewish liturgy was ignorant and superficial, the Christian inspired and interior; so the old Mass was obsessed with appearances and rules, the reformed Liturgy is open and free and unvexing.
Note that the Pope uses the current Italian version of the Gospels, which erroneously translates the Greek, οἶκον ἐμπορίου, as “market”, when in fact is means “house of business”, that is, “covered market place”. (The actual mercantile practices in the Gospel text took place, not in the Temple, but in the Courtyard of the Gentiles, the most exterior part of the outer area, in which even Gentiles who were believers could enter. No part of the Mosaic Law forbade trade in this area. Contrariwise, the Mosaic Law, of which Jesus as God is the author, precepted the offering of sacrifices to God: the support of the Temple by the annual tax, too, was a customary obligation of the entire Jewish People, to which Jesus never objected.)
In fact, the use of the Jewish – Christian parallelism to fault the old liturgy and praise the new, is a form of antisemitism which we would expect from a Lutheran faithful to Luther’s bigotry against both the Jewish People and the traditional Mass, the kind of theological bigotry propounded in liberal Germany theological institutes, such as those from which Cardinal Kasper may draw his racially tinged concepts of African Bishops, as Edward Pentin exposed during the recent Extra-Ordinary Synod on the Family. But let’s not allow our expectations or history to get in the way of the evidence.
Referring to the words of Jesus in John 2:16, the Pope continues:
This expression does not only refer to the traffic which was being practiced in the courtyards of the Temple. Rather, it regards the type of religiosity. The gesture of Jesus is a gesture of “cleaning”, of purification, and the mentality which He expresses can be found in the texts of the Prophets, according to which God does not take pleasure in an exterior cult wrought through material sacrifice and based upon personal interest (cf. Isaiah 1:11-17; Jeremiah 7:2-11). This gesture is a call back to authentic worship, to the correspondence between liturgy and life; a call which is valid for every epoch and even for us today. That correspondence between liturgy and life. The liturgy is not something strange, over there, far off, and one during which I think of many things, or pray the Rosary. No, no. There is a correspondence, between the liturgical celebration and what I then carry on in my life; and on this (path) one must go further ahead, one must journey onward.
Here the pope abandons the common reading of this passage in the Fathers, which attributes Jesus’ ire not to the mercantile operations per se, but to the corruption which had crept into it, such as not exchanging coins at the fair value, or selling animals for sacrifice at inflated prices; all of which defrauded the honest Jew who came to worship God, especially the poorer ones. (Remember that Jesus’ family was so poor that, at His birth, Joseph could only afford 2 turtle doves for sacrifice not the customary lamb).
To use this text while avoiding the condemnation of the sin of the exploitation of the poor, is a very notable exception for the man who is Pope Francis: seeing that he has railed against this for his entire Pontificate. This omission, therefore, should be seen as significant: namely that the true message of his homily is aimed at something else. We can see what that is, in the text paragraph of his talk:
The conciliar Constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium, defines the liturgy as « the first and indispensable source from which the faithful can draw the true Christian spirit » (n. 14). Which means to reaffirm the essential link which unites the life of the disciple of Jesus with liturgical worship. This is, above all, not a doctrine to comprehend, or a rite to fulfill; it is naturally also this but in another manner, it is essentially diverse: it is a source of life and of light for our journey of faith.
That is, he is going to speak about the liturgical renewal, not about Jesus cleansing the Temple, per se. The Pope continues:
Moreover, the Church calls us to have and to promote an authentic liturgical life, so that there may be a harmony between what the liturgy celebrates and what we ourselves life in our own existence. It treats of how to express in life what we have received by means of the Faith and what which have celebrated (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 10).
The Church does nothing of the kind, actually. Vatican II did not impose any obligation on anyone in the Church, since it established no canons or anathemas not even promulgated a new liturgy. The Novus Ordo came into being only in 1969, and its authors were the Consilium established by Pope Paul VI, not by the Council Fathers. Nor did it even attempt to be faithful to the document, which the Pope just cited. The Pope could have mentioned this, but he did not: and his silence is significant. He is affirming that his intentions are to continue in that line of misrepresenting the Council as Pope Paul VI did.
The Pope continues:
The disciple of Jesus does not go to church only to observe a precept, to feel okay with a God who should not “trouble” him much. “But I, Lord, go every Sunday, I fulfill …, don’t mix yourself up with my life, don’t bother me”. This is the mentality of so many Catholics, so many. The disciple of Jesus goes to church to encounter the Lord and to find in his grace, working in the Sacraments, the strength to think and act according to the Gospel. On which account, we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that we can enter the house of the Lord and “cover ourselves over”, with prayers and devotional practices, comportments contrary to the requirements of justice, of honesty or of charity towards our neighbor. We cannot substitute with “religious gifts” what is owed to our neighbor, putting off a true conversion. The cult, the liturgical celebration, are the privileged place to heed the voice of the Lord, which guides us along the road of righteousness and Christian perfection.
Notice the dichotomy between the “disciples of Jesus” and “too many Catholics”. If you think the Pope is literally saying that “many Catholics” are not “disciples of Jesus”, you are correct!The truth is, however, that when one speaks properly, “Catholics” are the only disciples of Jesus that there are! for they are the only ones who take Him as seriously as He Himself insisted to be taken. So what is the Pope getting at? We must understand, that while it appears that he is using words in their proper sense, he is not; thus we must consider that he is not, if we are to understand him aright.
Secondly, if one considers the many scandalous deeds and actions of Pope Francis, as Pope and before in Argentina, we can rightly say that we find his words astounding: because he is condemning “many Catholics” for doing what he himself is notorious for doing, yet omitting that he is also at fault for that.What kind of “authentic Christian life” is that?
We must understand, therefore, that in this homily, the Holy Father has no intention of presenting a call to authentic Christian life, rather, his goal is to attack it. For his actions speak louder than his words and give them context, even if that is politically incorrect to say. If his intentions were otherwise, he would publicly repent of his bad example and many scandalous words and deeds during the last 2 years as Pope. He did not. That is significant.
Therefore, the true reading must be, that the authentic Christian life which seeks interior conversion for the sanctification of the exterior life, is to be rejected, and in its place one should implement what the aggiornamento gave us, the appearances of a renewal, which have visibly altered the liturgies of the Church, but have entirely abandoned the interior man, especially the interior of many priests and bishops, to interior corruption, to hypocrisy, superficiality etc., the very same things the Pope appears to be condemning.
The Pope continues:
This regards the fulfillment of a journey of conversion and penitence, to take from our life the scars of sin, as Jesus did, by cleansing the Temple of petty interests. And Lent is the favorable time for all of this, it is the time for interior renewal, for the forgiveness of sin, the time in which we have been called to rediscover the Sacrament of Penance and of Reconciliation, which causes us to pass from darkness to the light of grace and friendship with Jesus. There is no need to forget the great strength which this Sacrament has for the Christian life: it makes us grow in union with God, it makes us reacquire the lost joy and to experience the consolation of feeling ourselves personally welcomed by the merciful embrace of God.
The error of Luther was to seek God in the confirmation of his own personal “will” to be saved, founded in a fiducial faith. This error gave rise to the sentimentalism of Protestantism, which puts the experience of faith in the place of dogmatic faith; to which error there followed unbridled free thought in matters of religion, since “faith” no longer required intellectual assent to defined propositions or to revealed truths. What remained from Protestantism was consumed by Modernism, where sentiment alone remains. Thus Modernists go to church to get a feeling, a consolation, just as the pope is proposing for “disciples of Jesus”. Thus, we have our true key to read the Papal homily: The “disciples” are Modernists, the Jews are the Traditionalists, the pre-conciliar Catholics, who refuse the Aggiornamento.
The pope continues this line of thought, in his concluding remarks, where he calls for the continued revolution in the Church.
Dear brothers and sisters, this Church was constructed thanks to the apostolic zeal of St. Luigi Orione. It is precisely here, that, fifty years ago, blessed Paul VI inaugurated, in a certain sense, the liturgical reform with the celebration of the Mass in the language spoken by the people. I auger that this circumstance may revive in you all the love of the house of God, In her, may you find great spiritual help. Here you are able to experience, every time you wish to, the regenerative power of personal prayer and of community prayer. Listening to the Word of God, proclaimed in the liturgical assembly, it sustains you in the path of our Christian life. You meet together here between these walls, not as strangers, but as brothers, capable of giving one another a hand freely, because you have been built up in love through Christ, the foundation of hope and the fundament of pledge for every believer.
Him, Jesus Christ, the Corner Stone, do we embrace in this Holy Mass, renewing the resolution to commit ourselves for our own interior purification and for the interior cleansing of the spiritual edifice of the Church, of which each of us is a living part in force of our Baptism. Amen.
To a simple Catholic it might seem that the Pope is saying something quite different than what we have expounded, but take it from a student of 3 pontifical faculties, that is just what it is intended and crafted to appear to mean to a simple Catholic.
Thus, in summation, we can say, that the homily as presented is calling for greater violence against the “Jews”, that is the traditionalists — Jesus cleansing the Temple, is after all a prime example for the justification for violence* — and in favor of the Aggiornamento of the Church ever more deeply, and thus in favor of the Kasper Thesis, the heretical thesis of divorcing the Sacraments from the observance of the moral law, the thesis promoted by Cardinal Kasper, who is the Cardinal patron of the very church in which this homily was given.
* Remember, it is a mortal sin of sacrilege to use scripture for an evil purpose or to interpret it in a sense contrary to the common opinion of the Fathers of the Church. The true example given by Our Lord in the Temple, is that as God’s Divine Son He has the right to cleanse His own Church from corruption, and this He surely will do, even before the great day of His Final Return. And that it is a grave offense to the Divine Majesty of His Father, that the uses of the places dedicated to the worship of God, as He commanded it, be stained with moral corruption. In other words, the example of Our Lord in the temple gives us the exact opposite indications as that which the Pope promotes, because it is diametrically opposed to the impiety of Modernism, to the hypocrisy of the pink mafia, and to the objectives of Free Masons and the Progressive Movement, and the adaptation of liturgy to life, such as the Aggiornamento has been applied.
IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CATHOLICISM AND MODERNISM
Editorial: I heard the most absurd thing today. A journalist was interviewing the new Roman Catholic Bishop, recently appointed by Pope Francis; and the report ended by quoting the Bishop, that he was working to make the Church what it used to be, “a happy place to be” (sic)!
When I was on pilgrimage in France in the winter of 2004, I had the opportunity to beg a ride from a Catholic layman, whose name I do not remember, who after sometime began spontaneously to talk to me of his sorrow concerning the horrible state of morals into which the Catholic Church in France had fallen in recent decades. I asked him, to what he attributed the primary cause of this decline. He said to me, “Its the bishops! I cannot understand why Rome is appointing the worst of men to be our Bishops!” Then he “confessed” his personal sense of guilt, in having spoken thus, because he considers that as a good catholic, one should not think like that, and asked me what I thought.
I was completely honest with him: I said, “You are telling me nothing different than what the laity tell me wherever I go, whether in North America or in Europe: they all say, the problem is the Bishops; even clergy lament to me, saying, “Where on earth did they find such a man to be the bishop of such and such a diocese?”
It is remarkable, even more so, when the individuals nominated do not even understand the very nature of the Church. The Church, it should be obvious to anyone who has read the Gospel, is not a restaurant: a happy place to be; which must sell Herself like a commercial operation, pandering to each and every opportunistic proposal or desire of its patrons.
The Church is Christ’s mystical Bride, which He founded and redeemed by His Most Bloody Passion and Death, as the Ark of Salvation for all who want to be rescued from their own perdition, merited by their personal sins and/or the sin of Adam. The Crucifixion of Our Lord is not a source of entertainment, except for the wicked headed to perdition: for the faithful it is a most serious, grave and sorrowful thing to remember.
Hence it is, that to make of the Liturgy or a church, a “happy place to be” is tantamount to overturning the entire Catholic religion in that place. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is, yes, a “Sacrifice”, not a “celebration”. To make it the latter is not to participate in it. To approach and celebrate with the former, is to authentically celebrate.
Let us not delude ourselves: to be at mass in the latter spirit, is to spiritually adulterate the mass, is to spiritually abuse Christ, making of His most Bitter Sufferings, the occasion of my own personal enjoyment, entertainment, satisfaction. That is nothing short of perverse sadism at the highest theological level.
The Church, indeed, every Church, is a place where man rejects sin, purges himself with mortification and penance, receives the reconciliation merited by Christ’s horrible Passion and Death, is nourished by the most perfect participation in that Sacrifice, which is a humbly, contrite, penitential participation in the Sacrifice by a worthy communion and a life lived in the same spirit, in fidelity to the unchanging perennial Faith, taught by Christ, received by the Apostles, handed down in Sacred Tradition.
The trick of the Modernists has been to make us change the words we use to express our Faith, so as to make of forgetful of what the Catholic Faith is all about; and to substitute in its place the sticky-sweet terminology and philosophy of the world: of hedonism, in which personal satisfaction is placed before all other things.
Perhaps, that is why the Bishop who was interviewed by this journalist is so overweight as to no longer even have a neckline.
The persecution of Catholics by Modernists has advanced from the days of the Second Vatican Council by means of tricks, games, and deceits which were more sophisticated than the average Bishop, priest, layman or religious could understand, and so most or nearly all Catholics were fooled.
The Modernists have used these tricks to separate good Catholics who recognize the errors which Modernists promote and oppose these errors, from those Catholics who have not yet recognized them or who accept them.
The From Rome blog has spoken of this in particular, as regards centers of formation for priests and religious, previously. But now, it seems needful to address the laity in general.
4 Games Played by Modernists
What does Our Lord Jesus Christ expect of us during a doctrinal crisis in the Church, where heretics control some or a majority of the ecclesiastical structures? Does He want from us blind obedience?
In Creation and the Divine Order of things, a comprehensive theological explanation was given, to explain what true obedience and false obedience are, and there it was demonstrated that it is blind obedience which is the chief tool which Modernists use to turn good Catholics against other Catholics.
But false obedience takes many forms, and these are the tricks and games which Modernists play at.
Let us leave aside, for a moment, the lies and misinformation which are regularly given out by Modernists, since these regards words not appeals to obedience.
The first game is the “Approval Game”:“You don’t have my approval for that!”, the Modernist says, and the Catholic who does not know his faith, not realizing or recognizing what is Catholic and what is not in practice, takes such a disapproval as the norm or rule for recognizing what is Catholic or not. — “Father does not approve of that, therefore it must not be Catholic!” is the mantra which the Modernists most want to hear from the pews.
The second game is the “Normal Game”:“That is not normally done, the norm is to do such and such!” says the Modernist. A prime example of this was given today by Michael Voris on Church Militant TV (link to video here). The Modernist for whom the Faith is the enemy, obviously, will always call normal what is abnormal or not-Catholic, but he uses an authoritative seeming declaration to use obedience to bait-and-switch a Catholic from what is catholic to what is heretical.
The third game is the “Mercy & Rigor Game”:“You can’t expect people now-a-days to do such things, and by doing them you show yourself to be a rigorist, addicted to paradisaical practices.” This is a very commonly-played game in liberal parishes or in some liberal countries, such as in Argentina, where in the name of mercy, one sells out the faith lock-stock-and-barrel.
The fourth game is the “Guilt and Re-education Game”: Modernists, it must be remembered, are experts at emotional or psychological manipulation, since most of them are sexual perverts or moral misfits: they honed this skill in bucking the discipline their parents should have taught them. They know how to make the good feel guilty for being good, and how to propose the proper re-education of emotions or thoughts necessary to make a good Catholic think and act like a Modernist: they say, “Love is what the Lord want’s from us more than anything else; if it harms charity or sows division, then it is not of God!” They don’t want you to consider for a moment that love of evil is not charity, or that division from the devil is a work of holiness. Or that the Apostles and Fathers of the Church are unanimous in condemning every novelty as well as the norms and mores of the contemporary age (modernus in Latin means “contemporary”). Whereas, Modernists want the Catholic Church conformed to every aspect of contemporary culture and values, or at least accommodated to them in such wise that one can claim the name of “Catholic” without assenting to the Catholic faith or recognizing any objective moral obligation, as taught in Scripture, Tradition and the perennial Magisterium.
The Church will go down to destruction until Catholics stop playing with Modernists
The first requirement of every Good Catholic, is, as St. John the Apostle exhorts us in his letters, never to commune with heretics, never to seek their company, and not to share in their polluted affairs.
If Catholics continue to play these 4 games with Modernists, they will only succeed in destroying their own virtue, losing God’s grace, and being led to Hell.
They will also dis-empower themselves, because they will end up letting Modernists isolate them from good Catholics, from the saints of our age who recognize what Modernism is and who fight it openly.
Christ Jesus, Who by His august Sacrifice on the Cross, completely conquered this world, gave us the means to conquer every error and deceit in all future ages and to do His Will on Earth: this victory is chiefly in the Faith, the one true Faith without which no many can be saved, for without faith it is impossible to please God or even to want to please Him.
But for Our Lord, “faith” is always understood in conjunction with the love of God and hope in God which put faith into practice.
And one puts faith into practice chiefly by rejecting every practice which is not approved by Faith, Scripture or Tradition.
Thus, the next time you are doing something which is perfectly Catholic, and a Modernist proposes otherwise, remember that you only remain faithful to Christ by ignoring him, disobeying him, resisting him, and encouraging others to do the same.
In the meantime, for your re-inspiration, a beautiful video about what the Catholic Church was, before the Modernists, should now be without them, and will always be, once good Catholics like yourself rise up against them.