+++ 49. The Fifth Big Problem With Ignorance: +++
What’s the Point of Catholic Missions for
Non-Catholic People?
And so we come to the fifth big problem with
‘salvation through ignorance’.
To wit, what’s the point of the
Roman Catholic Church sending Catholic missionaries to non-Catholic
people in order to convert them to the Catholic Religion, when,
in fact, it is not truly necessary for everyone of intelligent
mind to believe in the Catholic Faith?
Why in the world would the Roman Catholic
Church, since the very first century with Christ & His Twelve
Apostles --- and for thousands of years since then --- act like
it’s the most important thing ever to send Roman Catholic missionaries
to all kinds of non-Catholic people all over the earth everywhere,
if, in fact, it is not truly most urgent and absolutely necessary
for every single person of sound & intelligent mind to
literally know about, truly believe in, and profess voluntarily,
God’s One & Only Roman Catholic Religion in order to save
his or her immortal soul?
Do you savvy?
It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out.
Intelligent people saving their souls while dying as non-Catholics makes mincemeat of the idea that it’s vitally imperative for Roman Catholics to convert non-Catholic individuals
to the One True Religion of Roman
Catholicism!
End of sentence.
+++ 50. How to Categorize
Fraudulent ‘Catholics’? +++
Now here is an area where self-styled
‘catholics’ will differ.
Not that they’ll argue about it with each
other --- usually --- but, if you talk to them in some depth, you’ll find
a remarkable degree of divergence in their opinions regarding
‘salvation’. They definitely do not
see eye to eye when it comes to entering Heaven.
For instance, Liberal Novus Ordoists (LNOs) are the most happy-go-lucky. Essentially, there are no rules in their books that
could keep a soul out of
Heaven. (Except for, maybe, Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, or a
real Catholic who believes in ‘no Salvation outside the Church’
correctly. Then LNOs can get curiously strict
and damning.)
Indeed, for many of them… perhaps
most… there is no such thing as hell.
That idea, they are convinced, was quaintly medieval,
sadly cruel and wisely jettisoned with the new-found ‘spirit’ of
‘enlightenment’ and ‘mercy’ at Vatican II.
(People who, after Vatican II, call themselves
‘catholic’ but are not
actually what they say they are can best be described as ‘Novus Ordoist’
since post-Vatican II leaders threw away the Latin Mass of ancient times and
replaced it with an assembled-by-liturgical-committee rite known as the ‘Novus Ordo’
(Latin for ‘New Order’) which then, by proxy, became symbolic of
all the modernization and silliness that followed in the
flotsam-and-jetsam-riddled wake of the Vatican II Pseudo-Council.)
Meanwhile, Conservative
Novus Ordoists (CNOs)
are middle-of-the-road.
Some of them can be pretty broad-minded. Hell
exists, they admit, but who knows if anyone
winds up there? God is so loving, you know. We
can’t judge and we must hope, however uncertainly, that only a small
number of souls suffer everlastingly. In any case, it cannot be doubted that
some of the souls in Heaven will have died not realizing they were
‘invisibly catholic’.
Whereas other CNOs are more careful. Both Sacred Scripture and the Church have always warned us how few
there are that escape the fire of damnation. Who are we to dare to think otherwise? Best to
play it safe, be ‘catholic’, and watch out. Nevertheless,
they, too, admit at least some of the ‘saved’ die not knowing they
were ‘catholic’.
Lastly, Traditional
Novus Ordoists (TNOs)
tend to be the most cautious.
They may or may not think antipopes since
the 1960s are ‘popes’. They definitely don’t like the Novus Ordo Mass or Vatican II. Yet they still like to believe that intelligent people can die not
professing Catholicism and, maybe, end up saved, regardless.
This predilection makes them waffle all over the
place. Hell exists, yes. Its threat is real, widespread, powerful, deceptive
and horribly dangerous --- true.
But who,
specifically, actually winds up going there?
Ah, there is the rub.
Most TNOs will never admit, in particular, that
anyone went there or goes there. Absolutely, resolutely, they are determined to
act as if God via His Church has not
actually spoken with precision regarding the conditions of salvation and
that --- barring visible evidence
to the contrary --- it really is possible, with moral certainty,
to know that he or she who dies not
professing Catholicity, dies in the state of eternal damnation.
A few TNOs, though, are
much more cautious. They admit God via His Church has spoken clearly about the
stark requirements of salvation. Notwithstanding, they cling to
‘invincible ignorance’ with surprising tenacity. They will insist
that, however unlikely amidst the wickedness of this foul world, somebody could
be ‘sincere’ and --- if only upon his or her deathbed, unable to
speak and unconscious --- somehow be ‘perfectly contrite’ for their
terrible sins despite their
lack of Catholicity --- maybe even become
secretly Catholic unknown to us! --- and
so, just barely, at their last breath, slip into Heaven with no visible Sacrament
administered or audible Profession uttered.
This is the gamut of so-called
‘catholics’ nowadays.
+++ 51. And How Is This Wide Ranging Gamut Still
+++
Another Stumbling Block for Salvation Heresy?
The huge difficulty
with this wide ranging spectrum of so-called ‘catholics’?
Even if you want to think all Novus Ordoists are ‘catholic’ --- from liberal to
conservative to traditional, whatever their particular ‘style’ or
‘preference’ or ‘brand’ of ‘catholicity’
--- and that dying in the ‘state-of-an-invincible-ignorance-and-sincerity’
makes you somehow ‘invisibly connected’ to the Church and that this
‘invisible connection’ is an ‘infallible
teaching’ of a visible Catholicism, how is it that the understanding of this ‘infallible
teaching’ ranges all over the place?
I mean, think about it.
How can a teaching that is now supposed to be
‘infallibly’ clarified and true --- having been upheld with brief
but clear references, at the very least, during the Vatican II Pseudo-Council
of the 1960s (although some CNOs or TNOs try to push it back all the way to Pope Pius IX in the
1850s) --- vary so wildly in interpretation, whilst, at the same time,
this astonishing array of opinion about how
‘salvation-in-the-state-of-ignorance’ works and, exactly, to
whom it may apply (a broad range tolerated by most post-Vatican II
leaders), is, as well, supposed to reassure
an intelligent human being that this teaching is, without doubt,
‘infallibly’ true?
Because if ‘salvation through ignorance’ has been both infallible
& accepted for quite some time amongst Roman Catholics (a few CNOs or TNOs even dare to claim
--- albeit wrongly, badly mangling and misinterpreting a paucity of old
texts --- that Catholics of old taught ‘salvation’ for intelligent
souls visibly outside the Church), WHY
isn’t this ‘salvation through ignorance’ teaching then perfectly uniform amongst everyone
everywhere, not to mention (if indeed ancient) everyone everywhen?
How can it be ‘infallibly’ true when
it’s not uniform and
unchanging?
How is it God left earlier
Catholics in the dark about this ‘dogma’?
+++ 52. What If You Tell ‘Sincerely
Ignorant’ People +++
the Truth and Make Them
Guilty of Sin, But Never Tell
the
‘Insincerely
Ignorant’ and Leave Them Guilty in Sin?
And, if that were not enough, consider this:
How can it be a good idea to send Catholic
missionaries to non-Catholic people when, if these
‘ignorant’ but intelligent people of sound mind are truly invincible
and inculpable in their ignorance --- and,
therefore, surely safe in their ‘sincerity’ about false
religion --- it would then likely jeopardize the eternal safety of
their immortal souls by telling them about Catholicism and then cause
them, in their natural obstinacy & disbelief, to reject the
Church’s Infallible & Saving Truth, whilst, if left alone in their
‘sincerity’ --- undisturbed by plain & clear Roman
Catholic Teaching --- they would
consequently never run the atrocious risk of rejecting a Catholic
person’s testimony about the Faith?
Do you get it?
It’s a no-win
situation.
Tell ignorant but ‘sincere’ people about the One True Religion,
and you might send them to hell if they refuse
to believe what you both rationally and politely tell them.
Or, on the other hand, don’t tell ignorant
but insincere people about the
One True Religion and you surely help them hasten to hell since they’ll never seek the truth on their own with minds
that are rational & curious, and, as a result, wind up damned both
for their sins of immorality and their sin of (insincere) unbelief.
How are you, a material and visible creature,
supposed to be able to perceive the immaterial and invisible state of a
person’s soul and know which is which?
What can we do to distinguish between the two
possibilities?
And how is this supposed to help us save souls?
Because you do
remember (don’t you?) that the purpose of the Church is for human beings
to be safely inside of Her
--- and whether you want to think this
‘insideness’ is visible or
‘invisible’.
Meanwhile, this purpose of salvation fails miserably if a person --- and whether visibly or ‘invisibly’ --- winds up dying outside Her Ark of Safety.
+++ 53. Why Does Tolerance Work Only
Which brings us to one other
thing before we finish explaining the fifth big problem with ignorance about
True Religion and the salvation of one’s immortal soul.
Namely, why does tolerance work only one way?
Consider.
Most Novus Ordoists
will put up with an astounding array of widely differing interpretations when
it comes to the teaching of ‘salvation-in-the-state-of-ignorance’,
even to the point of these differences being radical and outright
contradictory.
It doesn’t seem like they care.
They will still gladly, most of them, extend the
title of ‘roman catholic’ to such a person and act as if
disagreements of this sort are of no consequence. They are both of them members
of --- and worshipping within, say they --- the ‘same’ religion.
Nonetheless, take one step toward orthodoxy
and… bam!
Tolerance flies out the door.
Immediately.
This is most evident with LNOs
and CNOs, but even TNOs
(who are a tiny fraction of Novus Ordoists overall)
will often exhibit an identical prejudice.
As long as you call yourself
‘catholic’ and they think that you think that
‘ignorance’ and ‘sincerity’ have an amazing power to
save intelligent yet non-Catholic souls --- to whatever extent this power may
or may not operate --- then the festival of ‘love’,
‘friendliness’ and generally inexhaustible ‘patience’
goes on indefinitely.
Deviate one iota toward Salvation Dogma, however,
and… well, let’s just say it’s not
pretty. Why is this? Why does tolerance go in only one direction?
Not that this all by itself would make them real
Catholics if they were, any of them, suddenly tolerant and friendly toward a
real Catholic sticking up for ‘no Salvation outside the Church’ in
its most ancient, narrow and correct sense.
But why
can’t they be tolerant toward the actual dogma as well?
Most of them can put up with all kinds of radical
and contradictory opinions when it comes to heretical notions about
‘ignorance’, ‘sincerity’ and ‘salvation’.
They’ll still talk to these Novus Ordoists
calmly & respectfully, even treat them like they’re
‘catholic’.
So why can’t they do the same with a real Catholic? Why can’t they talk about the Salvation Dogma calmly &
respectfully, too? What’s going on here?
I think any intelligent, honest & truly Roman
Catholic person knows the answer or is bound to figure it out eventually.
The truth is stark:
It is the Spirit of Modernism, the zeitgeist of our era. It is the diabolical spirit of their father
in the matter of religion, Satan, the adversary & accuser of our souls.
You may not want to believe me, dear reader.
You may want to think I’m being
‘alarmist’ or needlessly ‘harsh’.
Although it bears noting how a reading of Sacred
Scripture in the Gospels shows you an example of Jesus Christ Himself
speaking frankly to His audience in the same way. To wit, telling them --- ostensible members
of the Old Testament Catholic Church --- that their father is the devil.
(John 8:44)
But the mystery here begging to be explained
doesn’t go away just because of your lack of experience & curiosity,
or because of your bias & unbelief. If you say you’re ‘catholic’
yet really, really, really don’t like my defense of the Salvation Dogma
--- maybe you even get mad reading this book, perhaps over & over again,
several times --- then, precious soul, you know exactly what I’m talking about… and to
whom I refer.
+++ 54. What’s the LNO Agenda for
‘Missions’? +++
Yet back to the subject at hand.
Why conduct Catholic missions for non-Catholic
people?
Why, as a visible
member of the One & Only Roman
Catholic Church, try to convert
any human being of a sound and intelligent
mind to this
How does telling ‘ignorant’ and ‘sincere’
people about Catholicism do them any good when they’re already
‘fine’ just as they are when it comes to their fate in eternity?
And so the ‘catholic’ silliness
commences.
For LNOs (Liberal Novus
Ordoists), it’s a no-brainer.
There is no good reason to convert anyone to Catholicism.
It’s merely a personal preference. Love the
religion or philosophy that you are? Then
don’t change. It’s not important. You’re
perfectly dandy being non-Catholic. Or, oddly, are you attracted to
the particular rites and ceremonies or ‘profound’ theology of Novus
Ordoism? Well,
okay, then go ahead and be a Novus Ordoist if
that’s what you really, really, really want and nobody important
or powerful is too offended or upset at you doing so… and just
as long as you don’t do so claiming, stupidly & ridiculously,
Catholicism is the only way that God’s given you to save your
immortal soul.
That would be bad.
Medieval Catholics were dumb. They thought they
had to preach to everybody all over the world and convert poor pagans to the
Catholic Church lest they go to hell. Oh, and by the way, ‘proselytizing’
is a hideous word. Nobody does that anymore.
We’re smarter now.
We’re more modern and up-to-date.
Hence, if we must as Novus Ordoists do something for non-Catholic people somewhere
else in the world and call it ‘missions’ --- which is a very old-fashioned and rather backwards-sounding term
nowadays --- we do so not
to convert anyone, but for the greater and more noble goal of
‘social justice’. We feed the poor, clothe the naked, shelter the
homeless, heal the sick, and, in general, make everyone more modern and more
free, helping them to be the best (modern) Hindu, Muslim, or etc., he or she
can be.
We are so much more enlightened than Catholics
used to be.
Thank God for
+++ 55. What’s the CNO Agenda for
‘Missions’? +++
Meanwhile, CNOs
(Conservative Novus Ordoists) aren’t too far
behind.
Yes, they are conservative,
so they don’t go so far as the LNO when it comes to modernist
thought. Nevertheless, they are Novus
Ordoists, and thus don’t dare to think the person they haven’t told about ‘catholicism’ --- or have told about ‘catholicism’
(as politely and subtly as can be, incidentally) but, because he or she can’t
help being uncomfortable with the Church because of his or her upbringing, rejects
Roman Catholicism --- certainly winds up in hell forever without visible Catholicity.
So why
does the CNO conduct ‘missions’?
In part, for the same reason the LNO does
‘missions’ (if the LNO can even stand the thought of calling what
they do ‘missions’):
Social justice.
To wit, feeding the poor, clothing the naked,
sheltering the homeless, healing the sick, and --- to a lesser yet still
significant extent --- helping everyone be more modern and more free, making
sure a Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist or Jainist, or what-have-you,
is the best (at least somewhat
modernized) Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist or Jainist,
or what-have-you, someone like he or she could ever be.
On the other hand, the CNO does believe in hell.
And the CNO does indeed admit (if only
theoretically) that some people of bad will might wind up going
there after death (although this makes the CNO nervous and inclined to find
ways to believe such people are few in number… perhaps zilch).
Hence, the CNO will also, usually, if discoursing
on the topic long enough, add that becoming ‘catholic’ is the best
way to ensure the safety of your soul, and that --- in spite of who knows how
many people are ‘saved’ in the state of ‘ignorance’ and
‘sincerity’ --- well, you know, it’s only charitable and
compassionate to want such people to become ‘catholic’ so they can
experience as many graces and divine assistance as is possible.
That is to say, true & visible Catholicism
may not be needed to save a soul, but it’s ‘safer’ and makes life
on earth so much more spiritually ‘deep’, ‘rich’ and
‘rewarding’.
+++ 56. Whither Missions, Then? +++
This kind of thinking has caused no end of
problems for the CNO position.
E.g., the well-informed & honest CNO cannot deny that the priesthood,
monasteries, nunneries and, yes, those involved in missions themselves…
not to mention the amount of
conversions… plummeted
in terms of sheer statistics immediately after
the conclusion of the Vatican II Pseudo-Council during the 1960s.
It doesn’t matter how they juggle
statistics in the longer run --- facts are facts.
Clergy left the priesthood in droves, monks and nuns abandoned
their vows en masse, participants in missions did the same or else
openly mocked and repudiated the purpose of missions to convert people
as the Church has sought since the first century, and far fewer people
converted to what was now supposed to be ‘catholicism’
than before Vatican II, while most so-called ‘catholics’ no
longer went to ‘mass’ or became something entirely different,
like Protestant or Atheist or New Age or etc., etc.
Period.
This is the reality.
There was no ‘springtime’ of
spirituality and religion in the wake of
I mean, ponder it carefully and be frank with yourself:
If visible & actual Roman Catholicism is NOT truly the only
way to save one’s immortal soul, then
why believe that the
Social justice or a
‘deeper’ and ‘richer’ spiritual life?
You can practice social justice by being a social
worker in a poverty-stricken urban area for the government, or join the Peace
Corps and help countries that are dirt poor.
You can get a ‘deeper’ or
‘richer’ spiritual life by becoming a Buddhist monk in the Country
of Tibet, or move to the State of California and practice a more recent and
‘westernized’ version of Buddhism in wealthy Marin County in the
Bay Area.
+++ 57. A New Gospel?
(Part 1) +++
This is a real concern.
We are not making this up.
And if you’re going to call yourself
‘catholic’ while disavowing the former goal of missions --- which
was to convert the unconverted to Catholicism lest
the intelligent person of sound mind wind up in hell forever --- then you are going to have to grapple, too,
with real life, especially if you lived through Vatican II and its aftermath.
In other words, we used to do missions to proselytize.
Now, however, Vatican II not only makes that
unnecessary for a purported ‘catholic’ today --- since any intelligent human being you
encounter can be both ‘ignorant’ and ‘sincere’ and
hence already on his or her way to Heaven as an ‘invisible member’
of the ‘church’ --- but also makes vivid how it is very
definitely no longer polite to attempt to convert anyone to the
Catholic Church, and no matter how courteous the effort!
So what are ‘missions’ for?
You don’t have to be a great intellectual
or deep scholar to think through the obvious effect this new and anti-Catholic
reasoning had on people who grew up Catholic prior to Vatican II and thus thought it was in some way necessary for the Catholic Church to
convert non-Catholics to Her Singular Faith.
It’s pretty straight forward.
The sudden ‘official’ change in
belief about how people save
their souls --- or at least how most
people save their souls, since salvation heresy had been percolating behind the
scenes in a much more ‘conservative’ form --- and that visible
membership in the Church is no longer
necessary for salvation, very easily explains why conversions and missions and other aspects of a now
thoroughly phony ‘roman catholicism’
catastrophically plummeted
after the 1960s.
Statistics that any capable person can confirm if one looks for one’s self at
publicly available data and doesn’t try to ‘explain away’ the
devastating plunge from the late ’60s to the 1980s with yet later numbers
(say, from the 1990s, or from the ’00s of the early 21st
century, etc.). These later statistics can be made to look, ‘spun’
superficially in a certain way (and ignoring for the moment the question of
whether or not most of the people purportedly represented by these later
post-Vatican II numbers, apart from valid baptism, can be correctly labeled as
‘Novus Ordoist’ since they don’t
even bother going to Novus Ordo religious services,
‘confession’ or so forth), as
if ‘catholics’ recovered from this precipitous dive and
returned to more ‘normal’ and impressive numbers.
Numbers that a smart and honest person cannot
help realizing, were the horrific plunge to have never occurred in the first place --- and if the former
growth curve had continued
being the norm --- then mere momentum
all by itself would have made the statistics significantly higher by far than they are at the present time.
(This reminds the learned of a popular Mark Twain
quote. “There are three kinds of
lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
(Emphases added.) He attributed the statement to 19th century
British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in a serial excerpt from his rambling,
anecdotal autobiography in the literary magazine, North American Review in 1906. Historians say this was incorrect.
The point, though, is pertinent… that
either partial or overly sweeping statistics, when taken out of
context, can be very misleading and amount to the sin of a hurtful
lie against those who expect and deserve the truth. For more sensitive
readers, please pardon the quote’s flippant use of the word
“damned”.)
+++ 58. A New Gospel?
(Part 2) +++
This radical change for ‘missions’ and
consequent plunge in ecclesial statistics even galvanized John Paul II --- the
longest reigning post-Vatican II antipope from 1978 to 2005 --- to devote an
‘encyclical’ (released on 7 December 1990, the 25th
anniversary of the promulgation of Vatican II’s
statement on ‘missions’, Ad gentes) regarding the new purpose of
‘missions’ after the revolutionary ‘re-orientation’
of the Vatican II Pseudo-Council and its religious repercussions.
In Paragraph 2 of his antipapal encyclical, Redemptoris missio, he notes
the plunge in fortunes whilst clinging to the remarkably enduring fantasy of a ‘springtime’ of spiritual renewal for
so-called ‘christianity’ in the wake of
Vatican II:
“Nevertheless, in this ‘new
springtime’ of Christianity there is an undeniable negative tendency, and the present document is
meant to help overcome it. Missionary
activity specifically directed ‘to the nations’ (Ad gentes)
appears to be waning… Difficulties
both internal and external have weakened
the Church’s missionary thrust toward non-Christians, a fact which must arouse concern among all
who believe in Christ. For in the
Church’s history, missionary drive has always been a sign of
vitality, just as its lessening
is a sign of a crisis of faith.” (Emphases added.
Apostrophes in this quote represent quotation marks in the text from the
official
John Paul II then goes for the jugular and
acknowledges a sobering fact, stating the Novus Ordo
problem succinctly in Paragraph 4 of this same antipapal encyclical:
“Nevertheless, also as a result of the changes
which have taken place in modern times and the spread of new theological ideas, some
people wonder: Is missionary work among
non-Christians still relevant? Has it not been replaced by inter-religious
dialogue? Is not human development
an adequate goal of the Church’s mission? Does not respect for conscience and for freedom exclude all efforts
at conversion? Is it not possible to attain salvation in any
religion? Why then should there be missionary activity?”
(Emphases added, except for italicization of the first interrogatory clause,
which is in the text as posted at
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio.html
and retrieved on 24 June 2016.)
+++ 59. A New Gospel?
(Part 3) +++
For the real Catholic who is paying attention,
this is a stunning admission.
Isn’t “human development an
adequate goal of the Church’s mission?” he asks. (Ibid.) That is to say, “Isn’t
it enough to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, heal the
sick, and, in general, help everyone on earth be more modern and more
free?”
Indeed, John Paul II went so far as to query,
“Does not respect for conscience and for freedom exclude all efforts at conversion?”
And he continues, “Is it not possible to attain salvation in any
religion?” (Ibid.)
Wherefore he concludes with a very sensible and
logical question:
“Why then should there be missionary activity?” (Ibid.)
Why, indeed?
To be fair, John Paul II is not meaning to say,
in this last quote --- to put it into full context with everything he says in
the encyclical --- that this is all ‘missions’ amounts to. He does
elsewhere maintain that there is a kind of ‘spiritual aspect’ to Novus
Ordo ‘missions’ that is still
‘valid’ or ‘important’.
Yet he also does
not ever deny that this shocking quote is perfectly true.
To the contrary, in Paragraph 10 of Redemptoris missio (Latin
for ‘the mission of the Redeemer’) he confirms what he said
previously and goes into further detail:
“The universality of salvation means that it is
granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and
have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available
to all. But it is clear that today, as
in the past, many people do not have an
opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter
the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not
permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious
traditions. For such people salvation
in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious
relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of
the Church…” (All emphasis added.)
+++ 60. A New Gospel?
(Part 4) +++
Did you get that, my dear reader?
Salvation is ‘universal’, says he.
Which at least suggests here in this context, at
a bare minimum, that not only does he think everyone in the human race can
be saved, but, as well, that he might dare to think everyone in the human race
surely does get saved no matter what they do or say!
(John Paul’s other writings or speeches proves this niggling suspicion beyond a doubt. He
did indeed gravitate toward ‘universalist’ heresy, which claims
hell is empty.)
Yet he was supposed to be such a conservative ‘pope’.
I.e., staunchly CNO.
So shouldn’t ‘salvation’ have
something to do with Christ or His Church?
“The UNIVERSALITY of salvation means that it is
granted NOT ONLY to those who EXPLICITLY BELIEVE IN CHRIST and
have ENTERED THE CHURCH…” (Ibid.)
You mean Christ & His Church have nothing
to do with ‘salvation’?
“For such people salvation in Christ is accessible
by virtue of a grace which, while having
a mysterious relationship to the Church, does NOT make them FORMALLY
A PART OF THE CHURCH…” (Ibid.)
Ah, so it’s the explicit formality that’s missing for
“…such people…”
In other words, Christ & His Church are in there
somewhere in this strange, new, murky and opaque Novus Ordo
equation for the ‘saving’ of intelligent human souls --- it’s
just that it’s really mysterious, complex & invisible to everybody,
including the intelligent and ‘saved’ --- but not visibly and thus not
actually Catholic --- person.
To wit, everyone in the world is
‘saved’ not because
you don’t actually believe in Catholicism, but in spite of not actually believing in Roman Catholicism.
And everyone in the world is ‘saved’
not without visible baptism
into Roman Catholicism’s Church, but in
spite of no visible baptism into Her Body.
It’s all so very clear when you’re
perfectly clear about what you’re…
Well… not exactly… clear about.
+++ 61. A New Gospel?
(Part 5) +++
Despite the lack of clarity, do you comprehend, dear soul?
John Paul II baldly
defied the four ancient and infallible
statements of the Roman Catholic Church that we examined in some detail
from Chapters 25 to 40 in this book, Helplessly
Ignorant, including the testimonies of two
saintly doctors of the Church --- one
of them a scholastic theologian
and usually thought to be the greatest
theologian the Church has ever seen --- that we looked at in
Chapter 42, both of whom clearly
affirmed the constant and ancient teaching of Catholicism regarding how
the absolute necessity of knowledge
about the Catholic Faith, for everyone with a sound & intelligent mind, is never made impossible to obtain
simply because of their circumstances to begin with, and regardless of how unfavorable one’s situation may
look, humanly speaking.
(Please recollect the example they both use of a human being raised in the wilderness by
animals devoid of any human contact,
which, both Ss. Aquinas & Alphonsus point out, is
never enough to stop God from
putting the law of natural reason
in such an isolated but intelligent human being’s heart and,
additionally, if such a
person cooperates with this
natural law, avoiding evil
and doing good, God then sends either a direct
inspiration from the Holy Ghost, a celestial angel or a human missionary to tell this person about the
teachings of Roman Catholicism
which they so badly need to know about, and profess, in order to save their divinely-shaped, priceless
& immortal souls.)
The upshot?
It is as I explained above.
For the CNO, ‘missions’ is for the
work of ‘social justice’. However, it is also for the goal of
making people everywhere in the world more ‘spiritually
enlightened’.
Not
to save their souls… although the particularly cautious (and non-universalist)
CNO will probably mention conversion to their Novus Ordo
‘catholicism’ as a more certain means of
assuring ‘salvation’.
No, ‘missions’ for the sake of
‘salvation’ is now passé.
And to insist
on missions to non-Catholic people lest
all such souls unreached by the Faith & Baptism of Catholicism end up damned in hell is positively verboten.
Such thinking is politically incorrect,
undiplomatic and insulting.
+++ 62. A New Gospel?
(Part 6) +++
John Paul II himself raised a firestorm in 2000
by issuing, through one of the offices of his Novus Ordo
Unfortunately, from a Protestant or other non-CNO
point of view, he dared to mention that Protestants don’t really have
something that can be called ‘churches’ (in the ancient sense of valid Holy Orders with valid bishops and valid priests) and that other religions are, regrettably, just the
slightest bit ‘deficient’ in comparison to the Religion of
Catholicism (but certainly not
that non-Catholics can’t
be saved, mind you!).
The outcry was indignant and deafening.
Can you imagine what would have happened if he was a real pope
and had actually, in a very public and global way, upheld the infallible
dogma of ‘no Salvation outside the Church’ in its most ancient,
narrow and correct sense?
He would have been savaged and eaten alive.
A return to bloodthirsty, violent and murderous
persecution might have ensued, the likes of which have not been seen since the
tyranny of paganism in the old
Now the altar before which we must bow --- or be cast to the ravenous human beasts of
modern religion --- is the altar of
‘one-religion-is-as-good-as-another’. Except for when it comes to
the Religion of Catholicism, of course (I
mean, after all, what sane & right-thinking modern person, who is infallibly
certain in teaching that God’s Church is most certainly not infallibly certain about all
of Her teachings, could put up with that kind of lunatic talk about
infallibility & salvation?). Per the most modern of people, the Roman Catholic
Religion is never as good as
another religion (in fact, it’s the worst).
Or except when, of course, any traditional religion dares to say --- nay,
barely hint! --- that it’s better than another
religion, especially religion that is modern and up-to-date. Then,
my sweet & gentle reader, be prepared for an utterly vicious, brutal and
hate-mongering hurricane of condemnation from the world at large and the
powers-that-be.
Oh, you can say that your car is better than
another car.
You can say democracy is better than any other
form of government.
You can say quantum mechanics appears to be
completely correct, all of the time, in all of its predictions about the
behavior of subatomic phenomena; or that racism is never, never, never right to
believe in, or practice, at any time, in any place, for anyone.
Period.
Yet we tolerant and modern-thinking people must
draw the line somewhere.
We can’t let judgments of comparative
superiority or absolute morality get completely out of hand. Let traditional-thinking
people feel free to speak publicly in ways that question or defy modern ways of
thinking and you have gone too far!
And so, sweetest & gentlest of readers, when
it comes to traditional religion --- particularly the One True Church of Roman
Catholicism --- you must always remember and be sure to ‘tremble’
before the awesome threat of this modernist commandment:
Thou shalt NEVER
say traditional religion is better or right.
The modern and ‘tolerant’ have no tolerance for that.
+++ 63. What’s the TNO Agenda for
‘Missions’? +++
Let us wend our way back, though, to the last
serious-sounding argument that someone may try to wield against the fifth big
problem with ‘salvation-via-ignorance-and-sincerity’ --- namely, why do ‘missions’
when people are ‘saved’ without it?
We’ll call it the ‘TNO parry’.
TNO, you’ll recall, stands for
‘Traditional Novus Ordoist’.
That is to say, they love the traditions
of Roman Catholicism --- especially the ancient Latin Mass --- and hate the novelties
or ambiguities of Vatican II during the 1960s, particularly the ridiculous
and modernist ‘reforms’ that followed in its wake.
Notwithstanding, they, like all other Novus Ordoists, are curiously blind to the one novelty of
‘salvation-in-the-state-of-ignorance-and-sincerity’ around which
everything else spins. This is because most TNOs are
a ‘freeze frame’ of Roman Catholics from the 20th
century just prior to Vatican II,
from the 1930s, ’40s & ’50s. Leastwise, in our
part of the world where English is the main language, in the (historically
speaking) mostly non-Catholic yet still vast land of the
I haven’t talked about TNO
‘missions’ till now for two reasons.
One, they’re a tiny fraction of Novus Ordoists overall. They therefore have not attempted to
practice ‘missions’ anywhere in the world. They don’t have
the resources… they’re just hanging on to the traditions that they
love. Some of them call the post-Vatican II antipopes ‘popes’ (for
instance, the SSPX or FSSP). Others don’t (for example, the CMRI or
SSPV). It doesn’t really matter.
Apart from the FSSP, none of them obey these
Novus Ordo ‘popes’.
And, two, were the TNOs
to conduct ‘missions’, their approach would be little different
from the most conservative of CNOs. Viz., yes, hell
exists and is a real threat. Bad-willed people actually wind up there. But, no,
an untold number of people can be visibly non-Catholic whilst --- via ‘invincible ignorance’ and
‘earnest sincerity’ --- getting into Heaven should they die in
whatever false and non-Catholic religion they are.
Ergo, were TNO ‘missions’ to exist,
it would really only amount to ‘conversions’ to ensure the
‘safety’ of souls that, possibly, are already secure, and, if safe
already, to make these souls spiritually ‘richer’ and
‘deeper’ with the advantages of ‘roman catholicism’.
Granted, it would also be for works of social
justice. I.e., feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, heal
the sick, and (to a much lesser extent
than LNOs or CNOs, but
still significant) make sure everyone is more modern and more free. In
fact, these works of social justice are the ‘ticket’ to
conversions, think they. Be nice to people and, provided the niceness is
impressive enough and it keeps going on long enough, you’ll persuade at
least some people (eventually) to convert for that reason alone.
I mean, infallible truth and supernatural miracles
are fantastic… all the same, with plenty of works of ‘corporeal
charity’ up your sleeve, you can still play a pretty
strong hand of religious poker, right?
+++ 64. Out of Jail But Still Imprisoned? +++
But TNO ‘conversion’ is little more
than a ‘get out of jail free’ card.
Some non-Catholics
(or at least a few, at a bare minimum) stay out of hell with ‘invincible
ignorance’.
Yet we can’t count on that, think TNOs. On the
other hand, they are really not as cautious and conservative as they might
sound to the unwary reader. It is still a most unpleasant thought for them to
think of people winding up damned in hell --- as it should be for any real Catholic, too! The
typical TNO response to this unpleasant thought, however, is different
from a real Catholic’s reaction… and thus still more evidence of
the modernist sentiments buried in their hearts, of how they are merely
gussied-up Novus Ordoists, draped in the glittering
robes of tradition.
They’re like Evangelic Protestants (EPs)
who believe ‘once saved, always saved’ after they’ve said
their EP ‘sinner’s prayer’. Simply replace the term
‘sinner’s prayer’ with the term ‘sacraments’ and
you find that TNOs act similarly, as if becoming
‘catholic’ like them is a ‘once saved, always saved’
type of proposition.
Yes, they will admit that a Catholic could die in
mortal sin, unforgiven.
They will admit such hypothetical persons would
go to hell.
Yet it’s not just who in specific goes to hell that trips them up, as we
mentioned in Chapter 49, describing the various types of fraudulent
‘catholics’. It is, as well, the great number of such souls that rubs them wrong ---
particularly when it comes to thinking about the eternal fate of the souls
within their very own group of TNO ‘catholics’.
Jesus said “few” find eternal life.
(Matthew 7:14 DRC, see 7:13-14 for the fuller context.) He also told His
disciples --- to their immense shock and horror --- how difficult it is for a
“rich man” to enter God’s Kingdom, i.e., Heaven forevermore.
(Mark 10:25-26 DRC. See 10:17-27 for a full understanding of why, and what,
Jesus was teaching His disciples at this moment.) How, then, could being a Catholic guarantee Salvation automatically?
Remember, entire nations were, at one time not
too long ago, Roman Catholic!
How could Jesus’ words about
“few” being saved apply when whole countries for centuries
on end were Catholic --- meaning
all their individual citizens --- and, thus, as if few (or
not that many!) in these places was going to hell forever when they died?
How can it be ‘unthinkable’ that many Catholics, much
of the time, go to hell?
Being truly Roman Catholic gives you the hope of saving your immortal
soul. Whereas actually getting saved requires being a good Roman Catholic, especially
at death.
A well-trained TNO will admit a lot of these
things in theory.
But, oh, how it grates to admit, additionally,
that, for many Catholics much of the time, it is comparatively few who enter Heaven and comparatively many who end up in hell.
A real and good Catholic is humble about this;
the TNO blithe and dismissive.
The real Catholic ponders His Lord’s words
in the Gospels about Salvation honestly and gravely; the TNO thinks as he
wishes regarding ‘salvation’ of human souls, along with the rest of
an apostate world, imprisoned by the heretical thoughts of his own mind.
True, the TNO may not be universalist
in his claims for ‘ignorance’.
This objectively good lack of universalist
heresy, howsoever, fails to compensate for another lack that is most definitely
and objectively bad. A deficit that every single salvation heretic today shares
in common, as have all rebels since the beginning:
The lack of a true, proper & sufficient fear of God.
Which in turn means a lack of true, proper &
sufficient respect for what it is that God Himself clearly announces via
His Very Visible Catholic Church, which is certainly the Infallible
& Explicit Truth about the real & actual means of our Heavenly
Salvation.
+++ 65. And How Is This Linked to
Do you see how the TNO thinks, precious
soul?
And do you understand how their recent predecessors, before
1965, ‘rotted from the inside out’ --- as it were --- the
Catholicism that ostensible ‘catholics’ and ‘members’
of the True Church practiced in the century or so prior to Vatican II
during the 1960s?
It’s why
Vatican II was able to happen.
Bad teaching in seminaries & monasteries from
the 1700s and 1800s onward produced more & more heretical priests, bishops,
monks and nuns, and bad catechism in parishes & books from the 1800s and
1900s produced more & more heretical laymen and laywomen. By the mid-1900s,
most if not all ‘catholics’ were either overtly or covertly
heretical.
A very ‘conservative’ form of
salvation heresy by today’s standards, granted.
Yet it’s why the out-in-the-open, public and ‘official’
approval of the teaching of ‘salvation through ignorance’ within
the documents of the Vatican II Pseudo-Council caused not a ripple of
discontent or protest.
Because everyone there had already come to believe in
the possibility of a so-called ‘salvation’ in the state of an
‘invincible ignorance’.
They were already acting as if
‘sincerity’ was an eighth ‘sacrament’.
Vatican II merely let the most liberal of
so-called ‘catholics’ go way further and act like any visible
membership in God’s Singular Body was of no real necessity at all.
Hence the sudden and
apparent ‘collapse’ of the Church.
Hence the appalling plunge
in statistics afterward.
+++ 66. Are Newer CNOs
Any Different? +++
Younger CNOs of the
last two or three decades --- shaped as they were by the putatively
‘conservative’ nature of John Paul II’s
antipapacy and that of his now ‘retired’
successor, Benedict XVI --- didn’t have this shocking jolt to deal with.
They were already weaned on the sweet venom of salvation heresy as formulated
by post-Vatican II leaders who interpreted it for everybody else to follow and
repeat during the past fifty years.
Consequently, they experienced no bitter
disillusionment.
They never thought in the first place that missions is primarily an urgent endeavor to convert
non-Catholic souls for the sake of Salvation. Ergo, no
crushing disappointment from the upheaval of the 1960s. They were either
oddly attracted to the sense of ‘religion’ that conservative Novus Ordoism provides them, or at least convinced that the Novus
Ordo ‘church’ is merely Catholicism under
a more modern and attractive ‘veneer’.
And they really thought, if fervently CNO, they
were joining a noble & exciting ‘modern crusade’ for the
‘culture of life’ and ‘civilization of love’ that the
charismatic John Paul II promised with his call for a ‘new
evangelization’. (As if the ‘old one’ was ‘worn
out’ and in desperate need of ‘updating’, or had
‘failed miserably’ despite the Church of Roman Catholicism having
converted a pagan Roman Empire and spread throughout the entire world over the
past two millennia with billions upon billions of visible members).
Of course, many of them are now shocked at the
disconcertingly and blatantly in-your-face modernist leadership of the present
LNO antipope styling himself as ‘Francis’. Even they, Novus Ordo though they be, are
conservative enough --- a few of them, at least --- to start wondering aloud,
seriously, with no humor intended:
Is the ‘pope’ Catholic?
+++ 67. Eyes Wide Shut or Eyes
Long Gone? +++
And they are blind.
They are under the curse God warns of through the minor prophet, Amos, in the
Old Testament (Amos 8:11-12), where He takes away testimony of His Singular
Religion to punish those who
keep going schismatic, heretical & apostate. A punishment that helps ensure
these rebellious people go to hell forever since they deserve perpetual fire
for not caring one bit what God commands when it comes to the One True
Religion. This curse is the same thing as the “operation of error”
God sends them “to believe lying” during our era of the
Great Apostasy, spoken of by the Missionary Apostle, St. Paul, with an
inerrancy guaranteed by the Holy Ghost and stamped with the infallible
assurance of God’s Roman Catholic Church. (Please see 2 Thessalonians
2:10 DRC and an explanation of this “operation” in Chapters 21 to
23 of Helplessly Ignorant.)
As a result, they really can’t see
yet… they really don’t yet realize… that, if truly
Catholic and of an intelligent mind, then anyone --- knowing and
professing what you must in order to be Catholic to start with
--- can know, with moral certainty, that
any notoriously & pertinaciously
heretical or schismatic person is not
actually Catholic.
Period.
This is in ancient canon law for anyone to see.
What’s more, the Catholic Church in Her
Canon Law makes no exceptions
for the persons of popes. Which is why, when a real Catholic recognizes former
popes to be antipopes, he as a lay person is not ‘judging’ or ‘deposing’ mere men
from the papacy. He is not pretending
to have a ‘jurisdiction’ or ‘authority’ in the Body of
God’s Church that he, the layman, doesn’t lawfully have. No, the Church Herself --- the Visible Body of Her Lord, Jesus Christ
--- has complete & total
jurisdiction over this now openly false man and, as already set up to
go in canon law since the most ancient of times, automatically judges,
excommunicates & deposes
a fallen pope from the Petrine Throne, just as She
does with any person at all
in Her membership who becomes notoriously
& pertinaciously rebellious for everyone with eyes to see.
The real
Catholic is merely being a wise
Catholic in recognizing this factual truth.
The truth that a man, even if Catholic and a pope
to begin with, is no longer Catholic
--- and thus no longer the visible
head of that which he is no longer a visible member --- if he notoriously (something clear, public & undeniable for any intelligent, patient
& fair human being to perceive) and pertinaciously (repeatedly,
so that the heresy or schism can’t possibly be a fluke or accidental
mistake), and thus inarguably, contradicts
& denies what the Religion of Roman Catholicism explicitly & infallibly
teaches.
End of sentence.
And what goes for a man who starts out
Roman Catholic and a pope, goes for a person who merely pretends
(however sincere he may or may not be) to be Catholic and a pope, revealing himself for what he really is
when he both notoriously & pertinaciously contradicts the explicit &
simple teaching of God’s Infallible Church.
This may astound the reader sporting the title of
‘catholic’ and who tends to be ‘conservative’ or
‘traditional’… but who hasn’t yet ever thought it all
out, and isn’t even, maybe, what he or she claims to be in the matter of
religion.
Yet this truth isn’t just for clever
theologians.
It’s a truth for everyone truly
Catholic or willing to be so.
And, if truly Catholic, sooner or later you must
ask some vexing questions:
“What’s going on here? Why isn’t
the ‘pope’ talking or acting like he’s Catholic? Why aren’t
all these people who are plainly not Catholic --- and who obviously don’t like what Catholicism teaches
--- still calling themselves ‘roman
catholic’? And why isn’t anybody in power doing anything about
it? Why is everybody acting like it doesn’t
matter? Why on earth is the whole world getting more and more and more hideously
evil? Why is everyone determined to be as anti-Catholic as he or she
can be? Can this be real?”
Sweet & gentle reader,
don’t give up hope.
There are
answers.
If still curious or skeptical about what this
chapter has said, then, if claiming to be Catholic, please refer to
Should You Go to a CMRI Mass or Take Part
in the Worship of Other Traditionalists?
, especially Chapters 7 through 11, to
learn more about automatic excommunications. If vexed by the incredible
evil of our times and the terrible confusion of living in a world where
self-styled ‘catholics’ aren’t really Catholic and we have
no lawful priests or bishops or a pope to whom we may turn for the time
being, then read
This Is the Great Apostasy...
Now, How Do We Make Sure Our Souls Survive It?
A version of
each resides in the Books & Articles section of this website, The
Epistemologic Works.
+++ 68. What Is the ‘TNO Parry’? +++
But what is this thing I call the ‘TNO parry’?
Very simple.
The most cautious of TNOs
admit the existence of hell and that a bad-willed human being --- even a person
who is supposed to be ‘catholic’ --- could go there. They also
acknowledge there may be very few souls who are ‘invincibly ignorant’
and ‘sincere enough’ to wind up ‘saving their souls’ in
spite of their lack of visible Catholicity.
This, indeed, was the standard heretical position
of many purported ‘catholics’ of the past 150 years when the notion
of ‘salvation-in-the-state-of-ignorance-and-sincerity’ was still
pretty new and not automatically accepted, carte
blanche, by real Catholics still not willing to kowtow before the golden
idol of the latest modern theological ‘god’.
Hence, by its very ‘conservatism’ (the fact that it looks
so very ‘conservative’ compared to the extremes that
self-styled ‘catholics’ are willing to go to nowadays), it
appeals to many (who are few in contrast to the
majority) and looks, as a result, like the ‘truth’.
That is to say, a very cautious TNO --- just like
many, many, many so-called ‘roman catholics’ of the 1930s,
’40s & ’50s right before Vatican II during the 1960s ---
thought the same way.
They said that, yes, it is very important
to go to poor pagans in far away countries since these people are deprived
of the Catholic Faith and, ‘invincibly ignorant’ though they may
be, unlikely, without God’s True Religion, to be ‘perfectly
contrite’ for their iniquities and thus able to be
‘saved’ in the state of a purported ‘sincerity’ and a
consequent ‘invisible connection’ to the Singular Church of God.
Why is this important to understand?
Because a few cautious TNOs
may be tempted, if actually reading this book with patience and intelligence,
to argue that it’s not
a ‘black-or-white’ situation. Yes, they’ll admit, probably
only a very few souls are ‘saved’ in the state of ‘invincible
ignorance’. Yes, they’ll concede, ‘missions’ is still
very, very, very imperative to carry out, since non-Catholic people are hardly
likely to be ‘perfectly contrite’ and therefore truly
‘sincere’ in their adherence to their various false religions.
Ergo, say they, it is still crucial to carry out ‘missions’.
Sound convincing?
That’s why I’m bothering to address
this theological ‘parry’ against the soul-piercing thrust of the
Catholic Church’s sword-like, explicit & infallible Salvation Dogma.
+++ 69. Is It Either/Or? +++
Cautious TNOs and
cautious ‘catholics’ in the decades right before Vatican II (but
still infected with the religious disease of ‘salvation through
ignorance’) think this very thing. Maybe not consciously and
straight out --- since most people
aren’t intellectuals or theologians and don’t bother pondering
these rather arcane subjects carefully --- nevertheless, believe in them
they do.
And whether they realize it or not, what
they’re arguing is that it is not
either/or.
To wit, it’s not that EITHER you’re intelligent & visibly Roman
Catholic OR you’re intelligent & visibly non-Roman Catholic with no ground
to stand in-between the two options. Nor is it that EITHER
you’re intelligent & visibly
Roman Catholic and can go to Heaven OR you’re intelligent
& visibly non-Roman Catholic and surely go to hell.
Per such ‘cautious’ people, who have
called themselves ‘catholic’, it’s actually that, yes, most non-Catholics do go to hell.
This is unfortunate, but unavoidably true. Hence why it is so imperative to
conduct ‘missions’. But, no, it’s not actually the case that everybody intelligent yet non-Catholic winds up going to
hell. A few might escape this
peril.
This is what they think, whether they realize it
and admit it, or not.
But what it all comes down to is this one point:
Is this supposedly ‘cautious’ belief based solely on a manmade
opinion or the infallible &
explicit declarations of God’s One & Only Roman Catholic
Church, the Sacred & Ecclesial Body of His Divine Christ?
The attentive reader knows exactly where
we’re headed.
Because the answer is plain:
Yes, truly, the supposedly ‘cautious’ TNO or pre-Vatican
II ‘catholic’ belief that only a very few intelligent souls
can be ‘saved’ via a purported ‘ignorance’ and
‘sincerity’, which results in an ‘invisible connection’
to the Catholic Church, is indeed merely
a MANMADE OPINION and has never, ever, been the ancient &
explicit teaching of this Divinely Constituted & Absolutely Singular Church.
It is therefore a fallible human idea and not
infallible Church teaching.
Ah, but the problem does not end there.
Because it’s NOT just a fallible theological
‘opinion’ or ‘idea’.
The idea of any kind of ‘salvation’ via the means of
‘ignorance’ and ‘sincerity’ is most certainly, without
any doubt, in complete & heinous opposition to what the
Infallible Church of Catholicism has simply & explicitly declared to be
the truth!
Which means, then, that it is a very, very WRONG
opinion, an undeniably WRONG idea defying
God’s Church and sending souls to hell who believe in it, when, in fact,
She has spoken to us with a clear & explicit infallible teaching TO
THE CONTRARY.
The proof?
Dear soul, just review Chapters 25 to 40.
It’s right there, in plain view for any
intelligent person to acknowledge.
The four infallible & explicit proclamations that we
examined from Chapters 25 to 40 in this book, Helplessly Ignorant, make this bold assertion beyond any
reasonable doubt --- to say otherwise
is to be culpably ignorant if you’re an intelligent human
being refusing to look at the evidence that you ought to be
looking for; or when, looking and seeing, you in wicked obstinacy, refuse
to admit this clear truth.
Case closed in this particular doctrinal matter.
The answer to this
chapter’s title, then?
Accordingly:
Is it either/or?
And the rejoinder:
It most certainly is indeed.
God Himself, via His Infallible Church, explicitly says so.
+
+ +
Part One of Helplessly Ignorant (Chapters 1-20)
Part Two of Helplessly Ignorant (Chapters 21-48)
Part Four of Helplessly Ignorant (Chapters 70-99)
Part Five of Helpless Ignorant (Chapters 100-134)
Part Six of Helpless Ignorant (Chapters 135-180)
Coda of Helplessly Ignorant
(the Dénouement)
+
+ +
Pilate’s
query met:
Note:
if you’ve come
to this webpage directly from a search
engine or other
website, then, when done viewing this webpage
--- and assuming
you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---
please type the
website’s address (as given above right before this
note) into the
address bar at the top of your browser and hit the
‘enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.
Please go here about use of the writings
on this website.
© 2016 by
Paul Doughton.
All rights
reserved.