+++ 35. The SIXTH Devastating Argument: +++
A Late 1800s Pope Augurs Our Apostasy, Crafts an
Exorcism Prayer & Fights an Apocalyptic Beast (Part 1)
You see, everything revolves around the Infallible Truth. If it isn’t absolutely certain that at least something is infallibly true, then how in the world can we be certain anything is true, to whatever degree of certitude… apart from one’s own individual consciousness & existence? It’s the old solipsist quandary (‘solipsist’ or ‘solipsism’ comes from Latin for ‘self alone’ --- meaning, it isn’t possible to know for sure that anything else exists apart from your own individual self & consciousness). In recent times, it’s popularly accessible in The Matrix film trilogy, though this kind of intellectual skepticism of certainty about ‘what is real’ has been a fashionable Modernist theme in so-called ‘science fiction’ or ‘cyberpunk fiction’ for many decades. (By the way, if anybody reading this is actually Catholic, then DON’T you dare blithely watch this cinematic trilogy without EXTREME CAUTION. It is, like most contemporary works of art or entertainment, seething with religious falsehoods, immorality & immodesty, whatever remarkable merits it may or may not possess otherwise.) What if a nefarious power or being or unseen reality is creating a ‘virtual reality’ that suckers us in completely, with poor little human folks or other sentient creatures totally ‘helpless’ to know that it’s a farce, or a mirage, or a diabolically clever scheme to use us for some purpose that is really not a nice thing for this power, being, reality or what-have-you to do, or etc., etc…? What then? How are you to know the truth? We’re pawns in a game.
Of course, solipsism isn’t a practical option. If you can’t know, why worry?
Why not just take everything at face value and play along as if it’s real?
Yet the dirty deed is done, intellectually speaking. The doubt is real. Perhaps we’re incapable of knowing the truth about ‘reality’ outside of us --- but if so, doesn’t that call into question everything we think we know? And it’s all very fine to say, “Well, in the end, at a minimum, I know that I exist.” Okay… so you exist. Excellent. Super. But… um… what is existence? And what is consciousness? Do we really understand these things? Or are we only using words, like labels, to talk like we fully ‘comprehend’?
It may seem all ivory tower ‘academic’ to you, dear soul. Yet this is our reality.
You may not think about it much --- you probably don’t --- but it’s still ‘real’.
And if you talk to, or read the writings of, or watch the video or podcast of, an impressively bright intellectual who’s really & actually thought about these things exceedingly carefully & rigorously… and is humble enough and honest enough to say so… then that bright person (who is rare, in my experience) will as much as admit, in so many words, “You know, we don’t truly comprehend consciousness. We can’t even define it adequately, let alone explain it. And existence? Don’t get me started.”
It’s like a duck. It quacks, it waddles. You ‘know’ it when ‘see’ it.
But can you explain the duck fully, down to the last atom or subatomic particle?
Can you explain all of its functions & behaviors to the nth degree, every little thing?
Down to the cellular or genetic level? Or on the macro scale, in flocks, etc…?
Or do you know what it’s like to be a duck, have you ever been a duck…?
Do you know the thing in and of itself, as philosophers used to say?
Uh, would that be a no? Then maybe quacking & waddling is --- oh, I don’t know --- a little insufficient. Maybe we ‘know’ a duck when we ‘see’ it, but --- in the bigger scheme of things --- we’re really not all that knowledgeable & fantastic about ducks. Oh, sure, our so-called ‘science’ can tell us lots of impressive-sounding things about ducks.
Yet is this the same as fully & truly comprehending ‘duckness’?
Or is it just taking a thing to pieces and saying, “Aha!”
As if ‘knowing’ how a few pieces work is the same as full & true understanding.
And that’s just ducks. What can we pretend to ‘know’ from the miserable little ‘pieces’ we like to think we have ‘comprehended’ about ‘consciousness’ and ‘existence’? How on earth does this inspire confidence in the truly thoughtful & honest human being? How is it the ‘knowing’ of how a few pieces of consciousness or existence ‘work’ --- if that’s actually certain, even --- supposed to assure us we really understand…?
Ah, but what’s the point of this whimsical yet grave detour?
+++ 36. The SIXTH Devastating Argument: +++
A Late 1800s Pope Augurs Our Apostasy, Crafts an
Exorcism Prayer & Fights an Apocalyptic Beast (Part 2)
I’m glad you asked. Or, er, that is, that I asked for you.
Hopefully, you’re coming along for the ride. Because there really is a grave point.
The whimsy we indulge as we walk along the mental road is because, when you love knowing & having wisdom, it really is ‘fun’, as it were, to know the truth and have wise understanding. If this idea strikes you as ‘childish’ or ‘silly’, then perhaps you haven’t looked closely at Sacred Scripture, my beloved one. Have you not read where it says:
“Doth [does] not wisdom cry aloud… saying… ‘The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning. I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made… When he prepared the heavens, I was present… when he balanced the foundations of the earth; I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, PLAYING BEFORE HIM AT ALL TIMES; PLAYING IN THE WORLD: and my delights were to be with the children of men [i.e., humanity, who are made in the Image of Our Uncreated Creator, the Lord God, and particularly with THOSE WHO FEAR HIM AND LOVE HER... that is to say, Wisdom].’” (Proverbs 8:1a, 3b, 22-23, 27a-b, 29c-31 DRC)
You see, precious reader, epistemology (that big old fancy ‘scary’ word, with its multisyllabic, Greek-derived form), simply means the study of knowledge, of its origin, nature, methods & limitations. In other words, how do we know what we know? How can we be sure, that what we think is true, really is the truth? And to what degree of certainty is it that we can be sure? Is it infallibly certain? (To wit, we couldn’t possibly be wrong.) Of an absolute moral certainty? (Accordingly, we don’t claim ‘infallible’ certainty, but, honestly, we have absolutely no good reason, after very, very, very careful thought & investigation, to think that we’re wrong… and, if we are wrong, that extremely wary thought & investigation, is what wisely & prudently protects from moral guilt in the matter, should our wrong judgment have unforeseen consequences.) Mere prudent certainty? (Seems, after careful thought & investigation, to be the best conclusion. Howsoever, some facts are unknown or doubtful, or our logic is not beyond all contesting.) Bare certainty? (Really haven’t time to think this through wholly, investigating everything. But it’s not that important and worth the effort.)
Do you see?
We can use varying terminology. It’s never the precise terms that matter. It’s the meaning. Do certain other terms used mean what I mean? Or somewhere in-between? That’s the truly imperative thing when it comes to something like this. The point?
Epistemologically speaking, the dogged & tenacious thinker realizes that, given the threat of ‘solipsism’ (see Chapter 35 just above, poor reader, if you don’t remember what this is), what is, ultimately, the degree of certainty of knowing in this world? For small finite creatures such as ourselves, that is. Who, while smart, are indeed limited.
And the answer?
Surprisingly --- for the person who hasn’t thought it out ruthlessly --- it is:
WITHOUT INFALLIBLE TRUTH, THERE IS NO CERTAINTY.
+++ 37. The SIXTH Devastating Argument: +++
A Late 1800s Pope Augurs Our Apostasy, Crafts an
Exorcism Prayer & Fights an Apocalyptic Beast (Part 3)
If everything except for your own individual consciousness is questionable, then absolutely nothing else in the world around you --- that you think you see or sense --- is knowable with any kind of real certainty, to whatever degree, or lack thereof, we may want to think a certain thing is ‘certain’. This is because we are not omniscient (all-knowing) and we are not omnipotent (all-powerful). Ergo, there is never any way, in situations of this sort, to rule out completely the very real possibility that we are utterly self-deluded and that so-called ‘reality’ is not what we think we see or want to think.
End of sentence.
Most people don’t think about these things.
Those who do, either eventually laugh it off or call it ‘hypothetical’.
Those who never think about it are simply unthinking. I.e., thoughtless. Literally.
Those who do think about it and then laugh it off are foolish, being unwise.
And those who call it ‘hypothetical’ are ‘technically’ correct.
Yet evading the question, all the same.
Well, since you can’t rule it out with infallible or absolute certainty… not being omniscient or omnipotent… then why aren’t you using the intelligence of that individual consciousness of yours --- which has gotten you this far just fine, in the meantime, as you pursue the truth about truth, knowledge, reality & epistemology --- and complete the uncompleted, drawing the correct conclusions about our existence?
Either that you can know absolutely nothing certain about existence aside from the tiny, albeit critical, matter of ‘I exist and I perceive’, or else you can have certainty about all that is critically important for you to know --- and that something is real apart from yourself --- due to there being a Creator Who made you for a Purpose.
I mean, you didn’t make everything that exists, if indeed it does exist, did you?
Nor did I. Nor did any reader of this work. Nor did any mere creature.
So if you aren’t willing to embrace solipsism full on, then get real.
Various forms of ‘evolutionary theory’ or ‘evo devo’ are NOT sufficient to explain the origin of All That Exists, being based on all kinds of assumptions, out of thin air, in order to make them look like they can ‘fly’. They are not ultimately ‘testable’, and, while very clever scientists like to say that ‘we can never know for sure, another theory may come along that supersedes what we think we know for the present’ --- thereby sounding, supposedly, ‘humble’ about their limitations of knowledge --- they are filled with utmost hubris, and have no real desire to learn the truth about truth, let alone the truth about the world around them or the truth about themselves. They may claim that ‘falsifiable’ tests (although that’s stretching it way far since you can never actually ‘test’ the universe or multiverse, ‘falsifying’ one particular theory of ultimate origins over another, and, anyhow, no amount of ‘observations’ of things around you is an ultimate ‘proof’ of anything at all since ‘observations’ mean NOTHING without us interpreting them) become the ‘gold standard’ of Science… with a capital ‘S’ that requires you to bow before their altar, worshipping their godlike minds and ‘ability to know’, which they pronounce with the ‘authority’ of popes, pretending that you dare not doubt them, itty bitty peon of intellect that you are, without any ‘high degree’ of learning behind you (which, even if a doubter has this high degree of learning, they sneer at, regardless, because that was never the point to begin with)… yet endless ‘falsification’ never fathoms final truth or certainty. It could still be, all of it, TOTALLY WRONG.
Only infallible truth gives us a frame of reference in a world of ignorance.
+++ 38. The SIXTH Devastating Argument: +++
A Late 1800s Pope Augurs Our Apostasy, Crafts an
Exorcism Prayer & Fights an Apocalyptic Beast (Part 4)
Do you start to see why Pope Pius IX fought hard to get Papal Infallibility at least minimally defined with an explicitness that would not let those who are foolish, wicked, rebellious or bad slither out, like the snakes they are, from the Infallible Catholic Truth?
And he did it, just barely,
before the revolutionaries ended
Or, should we say, since Vatican II is a pseudo-council --- being false since filled with various heresies --- the one & only Vatican Council that there has been hence far in time. Indeed, a Council never formally closed. They were in a rush, remember?
To get out of there before the revolutionaries trapped or killed them.
Technically speaking, the Vatican Council could be re-opened.
Oh, yet mayhap the skeptical reader is still unconvinced. Perchance (albeit the chance would seem pretty remote…) he or she says, “You really haven’t dealt with the fact of evolution correctly or fairly! No properly informed person today disbelieves in the reality of evolutionary change over billions of years. We merely argue over the theoretical details.” Then they go on to cite the Galapagos finches, etc., etc.
That atheists may read my book seems unlikely; but, just in case, we’ll deal with it.
Too, they might take pains to distinguish ‘cosmological’ from ‘biological’ evolution. “The two are not the same,” such a person might insist. Although such a claim is either naïve or disingenuous, we’ll grapple with it to be thorough. Nonetheless, it bears noting, I’ve not designed this book, Inter Regnum, to be a comprehensive, let alone exhaustive, study of, or statement upon, ‘evolution’ or ‘evo devo’. That would have to come in another book in the future --- if ever I have the time or motivation. Meanwhile, intellectuals have written books about Darwinism and found it lacking.
Even intellectuals who don’t necessarily believe in a Maker.
Yet since this strikes at truth’s heart, we state carefully:
First, to pretend a distinction between the ‘fact’ of macro-evolution and ‘theoretical’ details is a common ploy of Darwinists. Another common & useful strategy of theirs is to focus on micro-evolutionary evidence that’s indisputable --- like the aforesaid Galapagos finches, whose beaks vary back-and-forth in length over decades, or the Peppered moths of England, who, some 200 years ago prior to heavy industrial pollution, were mostly ‘peppered’ in appearance and thus camouflaged better on less-darkened tree trunks, whereas, with heavy pollution, darker-bodied moths came to dominate with darker-trunked trees, the process reversing later with less pollution --- and pretend it’s ‘evidence’ for transformation of one kind of organism into another altogether.
Both are the logical fallacy of putting the cart before the horse. No one has ‘proved’ the macro-evolution of one kind of organism into an altogether & distinct organism, with a genome so different that the two distinct kinds are no longer able to reproduce, ever, period. This goes for microbial life as well. To use the observation of micro-evolution (Galapagos finches, Peppered moths, and so forth) as if this ‘proves’ organisms change minutely over millions of years into utterly distinct organisms, with genomes that can no longer support genetic reproduction between the two, is to extrapolate illogically without actual evidence. (For instance, a fossil record showing minute & gradual changes every step of the way from one kind into another, which is totally in contradiction to what the fossil record reveals after centuries of study. Or a detailed, plausible & wholly tested description of minute changes that could add up, gradually, into organisms that really survive & propagate, instead of airy fairy ‘just so’ stories that we constantly get from Darwinists without the truly believable & nitty gritty details. And why do they choose to believe in the ‘just so’ stories that they make up? Because they are already ‘believers’, with ‘blind faith’, whereas the rest of us, who believe hard evidence & solid logic are necessary, understandably balk at these Modernist religious myths regarding our ultimate origin and how things came to exist.) The intelligent skeptic of macro-evolutionary transformation of species notes the blatantly obvious, pointing out, logically, how micro-evolutionary changes are merely ‘gene pool shift’, a natural variation of population groups within their genetic limitations. This is particularly manifest with the Galapagos finches or Peppered moths --- who we have never yet witnessed ‘evolving’ into organisms with genomes & phenotypes so distinct they no longer have any remnant ability to reproduce. They simply vary within genetic limits, which, when scientists in the laboratory or breeders of animals try to push a species beyond its limits, either sacrifices the organism’s ability to survive in its natural environment, or else ruins its ability to survive utterly, even in a laboratory.
The astonishingly fast breeding, short-lived fruit fly, Drosophila, often studied in a natural environment, or experimented with in laboratories, because of this and other advantageous research factors, shows these limitations perfectly. Perhaps this or other kinds of organisms spread so widely that their genetic variation may or may not allow overlapping reproduction. Yet is this ‘proof’ of an entirely new species? Patently not. And when pushed through breeding or hybridization or mutation beyond the limits, Drosophila, against the boundaries of its ‘gene pool’, ceases to survive properly. Additionally, this kind of organism & others show, again & again, how genetic ‘mutations’, where induced or observed, are almost always --- if not always --- deleterious to the organism. Which is NOT the same as ‘chromosome shuffling’ or ‘horizontal gene transfer’. The shifting of DNA or RNA fragments, or the sections of chromosomes, may be an increasingly firm fact, especially in microbes such as viruses or bacteria, but a mutation in the essential & strict sense is an ‘accidental’ or ‘random’ event that mutates the DNA or RNA at some point along a chain or ring (‘ring’ if we’re talking about DNA ‘plasmids’). This kind of genetic mutation has been essential for Darwinists, a key point in their argument for ‘life from chance’. For while chromosome shuffling or horizontal gene transfer plays an undeniable role in ‘changes’ to organisms, often seen easily in the phenotype (physical & visible attributes of an organism due to its genes, which latter is an organism’s ‘genotype’), you plainly cannot get from ‘here to there’, evolutionarily speaking, without something driving a CHANGE IN INFORMATION, genetically speaking, so as to permit a kind of organism to gradually morph into another kind of organism altogether… and whether or not the transformation is ‘more complex’. It is ‘random mutation’ (in this essential sense) plus ‘natural selection’ that has been the dominant thesis of Darwinists for roughly the past century. They may admit debating the ‘theoretical details’ of evo devo. Though, again, it’s a logical fallacy to put horses behind carts. Horses pull carts, NOT the other way around. To wit, if such Darwinists CANNOT even now… after almost 160 years of trying to… both formulate ‘theoretical details’ in rigorous enough detail to be totally plausible and test all these ‘theoretical details’ with rigorous experiments that are defined adequately enough to be falsifiable (instead of endlessly explained away or perpetually interpreted, without solid basis, and ‘spun’ always in favor of macro-evolution despite the lack of rigor that is falsifiable, if adequately tested) or, at least, supported mightily & repeatedly with observations that any adequately intelligent person can observe and affirm (e.g., an extensive & unbroken fossil record which literally does appear to demonstrate gradual changes, to one type of organism, step by excruciating step, into another type completely, and NOT the wide-ranging fossil record we actually have, that never reveals anything of the sort, gradual step by excruciating step, showing instead a remarkable propensity for stasis of kinds of organisms, within general boundaries), then where do they get off, logically speaking, PRETENDING it’s a ‘fact’? Rigorously prove the details first!
And, secondly, whether we are addressing ‘biological’ evolution or ‘cosmological’ evolution, the general principles & mechanisms are the same. Accordingly, randomness allied with RULES. In biological evolution, this means ‘random mutation’ of genes and ‘natural selection’ of the resulting organisms. The mutated genes are the randomness or chance; while nature selecting is the RULES or LAWS nature uses to determine the ‘winning’ organisms. In cosmological evolution, this means ‘random motion’ of mass, energy or so forth, and the ‘natural shaping’ of the resulting structures that we see in the universe (or guess at in a hypothetical ‘multiverse’ or ‘quantum bubble froth’, etc.). The Big Bang, or Cyclical Bangs & Collapses, or Infinite Zero-Point Energy Fluctuations in the Quantum Froth Erupting into New ‘Universes’ (or whatever specific origin theory scientists may subscribe to, albeit the ‘Big Bang Theory’ has dominated for the past several decades) are the randomness or chance, a randomness that, with quantum mechanics, along with so-called ‘chaotic’ or ‘nonlinear’ systems, seems to perpetuate indefinitely over ‘billions of years’ in the opinion of Modernist scientists, not to mention increasing thermodynamic entropy, despite this ending in the ‘heat death’ of the universe if Big Bang believers are right and there is no ultimate ‘Big Crush’ in the distant future, where everything collapses back to a ‘singularity’. Meanwhile, physics, chemistry & other disciplines of science are rules or laws that govern nature, determining how the universe, multiverse, quantum bubble froth, or what-you-will, evolves over eons of practically neverending time (from our little human point of view, that is), thereby placing limitations on the options available (apart from those who love to interpret quantum mechanics from the ‘many worlds’ stance, providing them with an infinite number of ‘realities’ that nature has played out with every little option encountered, although it’s hard for others to swallow since these alternate ‘realities’ would be, it seems, impossible to prove or disprove…), hence giving us the cosmos that exists.
The problem? As we remarked near the beginning of Chapter 29:
It’s NEVER ‘randomness’ or ‘chance’ all by itself… is it? It is always --- we repeat, ALWAYS! --- for a good little evolutionist, ‘randomness’ or ‘chance’ put together with ‘RULES’ or ‘LAWS’. In biological evolution, the rules constitute ‘natural selection’. The LAWS OF NATURE determine which organism lives to propagate and which organism bites the big one, never to leave offspring or ‘replications’ of itself. In cosmological evolution, these rules constitute ‘cosmic selection’. These LAWS OF NATURE show us which structure of universe or multiverse or quantum bubble froth (or put in your favorite material theory of origin here) wins the cosmic lottery, being the actual ‘reality’ that we think we find ourselves within (or near to, if you imagine more than one universe with many different ‘rules’ existing). Ah, but we’ve a small logical problem, don’t we? As already noted, WHERE did the ‘laws of nature’ or ‘rules of operation’ come from? Modernist scientists, grounded firmly in the assumption of ‘there is no Creator’ or, leastwise, ‘there is no Creator that intervenes within or guides His Creation’, assume, from out of wee thin air, that these ‘laws of nature’ just happened to pop into existence magically, out of nowhere, somehow, inexplicably (and they never bother to ponder, let alone explain, this magical origin of such laws… or almost never… but, then, the tiny few who do are indulging pure ‘metaphysics’, aren’t they?... and that sort of thing is rather frowned upon by philosophically materialist Modernist scientists). Yet we’ll ‘force’ scientists to ponder it. Well, that is, if they bother to read this book or listen.
What makes you think ‘LAWS OF NATURE’ or ‘RULES OF OPERATION’ just magically happened to pop into existence for no real reason at all (nor is a quantum ‘fluctuation’ that occurs randomly according to statistical probability, supposedly, and, every so often ‘inflates’ into an entire ‘universe’, exempt from being ‘laws of nature’ that pop into existence for no real reason at all!) are, then, somehow & inexplicably, ‘bound’ to stick around consistently, or apply consistently, everywhere & everywhen? (Nor is it relevant, successfully ‘refuting’ this point, if a Darwinist claims the multiverse or the universe is ‘self-eternal’. It still begs the question: “Why these particular laws of nature and not something else? Why do they persist without capricious change?”) And, mind you, we don’t say ‘everywhere & everywhen’ to the exclusion of the possibility (in several scientists’ minds today) of a ‘mulitiverse’ or ‘quantum bubble froth’ realities having different kinds of basic ‘rules of operation’, we simply point out the obvious --- what makes you think such suddenly appearing ‘laws of nature’ inexplicably ‘must’ stick around somewhere long enough to produce the cosmological or biological evolution that such scientists want to believe is true? What innate logic justifies us assuming that? It’s NOT logical or rational… it is illogical & irrational. It is a BLIND FAITH in a non-conscious cosmos to magically pop into existence ‘laws of nature’ for no real reason at all, whilst, in addition to this, for no real reason at all, keep them around to make your precious ‘theory of evolution’ look… without reason… somehow ‘plausible’.
Do you get it? It takes BLIND FAITH to believe in macro-evolution, period.
+++ 39. The SIXTH Devastating Argument: +++
A Late 1800s Pope Augurs Our Apostasy, Crafts an
Exorcism Prayer & Fights an Apocalyptic Beast (Part 5)
Of course, the particularly obstinate reader may mention the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ version of biological ‘evolution theory’ in order to get around blatantly missing fossils that’d show, manifestly, tiny & minute & gradual changes that could be, plausibly, then interpreted as powerful circumstantial evidence for one type of organism slowly, ever so slowly, changing into another type totally. ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ is still putting a cart before the horse! First assume macro-evolution is ‘true’, then explain away the lack of fossil evidence by saying organisms mysteriously stay ‘static’ for millions of years until, suddenly, they up and ‘race along’ (relatively speaking when you’re dealing with epochs lasting for untold millions of years…), changing into another type of organism wholly, without adequate fossil evidence to truly support ‘evolutionary theory’ in the first place… Don’t know about you, my dear soul, but I call that CHEATING.
Really, it’s all cheating --- a fraud! --- intellectually speaking, when it comes to the ultimate truth. And it’s pretty hard to get more ‘ultimate’ than when it involves the truth about the origin of everything in existence and how we ourselves came to be individually conscious beings in this vast thing called ‘existence’. Again, Darwinists cheat when they pretend macro-evolution is a ‘fact’ and that every smart, informed person ‘must’ agree about this supposed ‘fact’; that the only thing ‘debatable’ about macro-evolution are ‘theoretical’ details concerning the precise process or history of evolution. Not so.
And, again, Darwinists cheat when they make ‘random chance’ and ‘laws of nature’ twin pillars of their ‘theory’ --- for where did such ‘laws of nature’ come from in the first place? The same place the matter or energy of our cosmos came from… out of nowhere, with no reason at all for it to appear! Sure, you can assume something happens for no reason at all. But is this logical & true? Only if you assume that ‘evolution’ occurs before having adequate proof to begin with. Then it’s a truly stunning example of circular reasoning. How do we know macro-evolution is true? Because the cosmos & life must exist somehow. How is it that the cosmos & life came into existence? Because macro-evolution was able to do so. How do we know macro-evolution is true? Because the cosmos & life must exist somehow… And so forth and so on. I think you get the drift. Darwinists tend to hate the thought of a Creator, and they definitely hate a Maker Who dares to tinker & fiddle with the cosmos & life. Macro-evolution lets Darwinists feel as if they’re both ‘honest’ & ‘intellectually fulfilled’.
Again, Darwinists don’t just assume that matter & energy popped into existence out of nowhere for no reason at all. And they don’t just assume that ‘random chance’ is enough, all by itself, given ‘enough time’, to grow the cosmos and evolve life & consciousness into existence. They also assume these ‘laws of nature’ popped into existence for no apparent reason, and they assume, too, that these ‘laws of nature’ mysteriously stick around, enough everywhere & enough everywhen, that both ‘cosmic selection’ and ‘natural selection’ transpire, in union with ‘random chance’, to evolve everything in existence. And even though such ‘LAWS OF NATURE’ popped into existence FOR NO APPARENT REASON AT ALL --- these ‘laws of nature’ being their non-conscious ‘creator god’, as it were --- and is a BLIND LEAP OF FAITH.
Yet the link with infallible truth and apostasy, exorcism & apocalypse?
Well… do you recall that uncanny philosophy, SOLIPSISM?
The unthinking person never considers it. The foolish person wantonly mocks it. The fearful person cautiously avoids it. Whereas the wise person boldly embraces it. Why? It seems so ‘pointless’, so ‘peculiar’, so ‘impractical’. And yet it’s not. For the ignorant soul seeking to comprehend consciousness, existence and the purpose of being a human being, it is the key to beginning to unlock the door. What door is this? To the House of Truth.
Either I alone exist, or else there is a Creator. Yet even if I alone, how?
How did I come to exist? I didn’t make myself. Who did?
Without Omniscience (All-Knowingness) there is no way to know anything for sure. Curiously, part of ‘knowing everything’ is KNOWING that you ‘know everything’. I certainly know that I don’t know such a thing! Namely, everything. So how is anything knowable? I could be wrong! Who knows? Ah, there. There is the rub. Who, indeed?
If there is no Creator, then there is no rational possibility for order in existence --- any order at all, no matter how tiny, infinitesimal & modest. Patterns & order do not come into existence all by themselves for no reason at all. To think so is to be a fool. Either unthinking (ignorant) or poor thinking (illogical). Truly, to purposefully think it so, whilst of sound intelligence and having plenty of time and opportunities to think it through, adequately, is to be anti-thinking (immoral). You are a brazen LIAR!
We human beings have our intelligent minds & free wills for a reason.
It’s part of the plan. It’s central to why we exist. A human mind is not there as a consequence of ‘random chance’ and ‘laws of nature’ so as to leave more progeny. Or, should we say, for a ‘blind’ thing called ‘evolution’ to produce ‘something’ after lots of ‘time’… and for no purpose at all, since ‘purpose’ is a quality of mind & will. But the thing called ‘evo devo’ is neither conscious nor determined. Or, should we say, if ‘determined’, determined ‘irrationally’, by a purportedly ‘blind’ causality.
Yet cause & effect are rational things. Where then is reason in evo devo?
There is no reason. We are reasoners trying to find reason in a reasonless world, reasoning ourselves into a pretended ‘reason’, and all for the reason of… avoiding real reason in our existence. Without a Creator we are our own ‘creators’. Whilst to imagine ourselves ‘creators’, we must forsake reason and defy all creation… the evidence it plainly offers us, if only we freely choose to look with honest & intelligent minds.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice [read: intelligent humans are willfully ignorant of the Truth About God for the sake of them pretending it’s okay to sin]: because that which is known of God is manifest in them [read: human beings of sound mind have what Catholic theologians call the ‘Law of Natural Reason’ on their hearts, making it impossible for intelligent humans not to know that God exists]. For God hath [has] manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him [read: the things about God that we can’t see with our physical senses], from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the THINGS THAT ARE MADE; his eternal power also, and divinity: SO THAT THEY ARE INEXCUSABLE.” (Romans 1:18-20 DRC)
This is the Natural Law. There is also a Supernatural Law: infallible Catholicism.
Infallible truth gives us both a spiritual compass and an epistemological frame of reference in a world of ignorance. The Law of Natural Reason upon our hearts is like a lodestone, a magnetic rationality that draws us ineluctably toward this Infallible Truth. The Roman Catholic Religion is a diamond-hard and diamond-beautiful mountain commanding, in its all-encompassing immensity, the weather around it. We, the intelligent spirits that God made in His Image, are breaths of wind nearby.
There is no escaping it. We can fight it, but such a war is irrational.
Why defy what is clearly, infallibly and undeniably so true?
There is no reason in that… unless you hate the truth.
Since the Original Sin of Ss. Adam & Eve, most human beings, most of the time, have irrationally hated the Infallible Truth of God. Many times parts of humanity have tried to fight Our Creator’s Roman Catholic Mountain and His Holy Spirit of Truth. Humanity as a whole --- except for a mere eight human beings --- once rebelled completely, right before the Great Deluge. Today, humanity once again rebels completely.
Pope Pius IX realized this during the latter third of his life. It’s why he fought hard to define Papal Infallibility near the end of his life, achieving this goal against tremendous odds & opposition, even from in his own Church, of which he was the visible head. Because he saw the demonic storm attacking this Church, and he foresaw the stupendously hellish hurricane to come, in the very near future.
This future is now upon us, my beloved soul. Humanity is in Apostasy, we are collectively possessed --- requiring Exorcism --- and the Apocalypse has arrived, a reckoning for our rebellion. And all because… we hate this infallible truth.
+++ 40. The SIXTH Devastating Argument: +++
A Late 1800s Pope Augurs Our Apostasy, Crafts an
Exorcism Prayer & Fights an Apocalyptic Beast (Part 6)
For forty days it poured rain nonstop, at the start of the Great Flood.
For forty years St. Moses led the Israelites through the waterless desert.
For forty days Jesus fasted & prayed in the desert, being tempted at the end.
For forty hours He was in the Tomb, lifeless & inanimate, the saints do assure us.
For forty days He appeared in the Flesh after His Resurrection, His Church teaches.
In forty is the perfectly holy & divine, as well as the imperfectly corporeal & human. In it we drown, upon it we float. In it we wander, upon it we labor under the shining sun. In it we fast, upon it we pray. In it we die, upon it we remain unblemished. In it we see God, and upon it we find how to see Him forever, via the Shining Son of the Star of the Sea.
Forty years after Our Lady of La Salette appeared to
two poorly instructed Catholic children upon a lovely summit in southern
1886 minus 1846 is 40. Get it? Forty years went by in this stretch of time.
It’s curious, as well, that there seems to be no official record for the act.
And even though no good scholar denies Pope Leo XIII did this act!
Are you familiar with the Prayer of St. Michael, my dear reader…?
“St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do you, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, cast into hell satan and all the other evil spirits who prowl about the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.”
The precise translation can differ a bit here and there. The difference is immaterial as long as the meaning is essentially the same. (So don’t be a ‘priss’ or a ‘CF’ --- Catholic fundamentalist --- and get tied up in exact words. Over decades & centuries words often change in definition or popularity, and, with plenty of similar-meaning words to choose from, translations can differ in wording without changing the meaning of something in this prayer. This, by the way, constitutes part of EXHIBIT NO. 13 in this book.)
In addition, strictly speaking, the prayer is not an ‘exorcism’ in the classic sense. Accordingly, it’s not necessarily recited over someone that, one has excellent reason to believe, is demon possessed. (Demons really do exist, and really can possess a human being. If you’re truly Catholic, or call yourself such, then it’s not debatable. Simply peruse the Gospels in Sacred Scripture to see evidence of Christ Himself exorcising demons --- also called ‘evil spirits’ or ‘fallen angels’ --- from His fellow Hebrews everywhere He went.) Which is not to say it can’t be used in a classic exorcism. Howsoever, Leo XIII merely required recital worldwide after Low Mass.
And what’s a Low Mass?
It originally meant a Mass where the parts of the prayers of the Mass said by the presiding priest are said by him quietly or ‘privately’. This did not mean ‘privately’ or ‘secretly’ like we mean these words nowadays in everyday conversation. It just meant they were never said loud enough for the whole parish congregation to hear… not that these priestly prayers were purposely ‘hidden’ or kept ‘secret’ from everybody else. The terminology is confusing, though, since, as words change meaning across centuries, the term ‘private’ later came to refer to a Mass said by a priest all alone, by himself, no servers or congregation celebrating this Mass with him as the spiritual ‘father’.
The opposite, so to speak,
of a Low Mass is a Chanted or ‘Sung’
In a Low Mass (in Latin ‘Missa lecta’, i.e., literally, a ‘read Mass’) the priest’s prayers are read quietly. In a Chanted Mass the priest chants or ‘sings’ his prayers aloud, so that they are no longer read or said so quietly. Perhaps not everyone in the parish flock hears his chanting clearly. That’s not the primary point; the fact that he chants them aloud is. And, just to make it a little plainer (with no intention of confusing the poor reader any further…), a Chanted or ‘Sung’ Mass becomes a High or ‘Solemn’ Mass when the presiding priest has assistance from sacred ministers, who, amongst other tasks, do responding prayers at the correct times as the priest leads the Mass. (In Latin, Chanted Mass is ‘Missa cantata’, while for High Mass it’s ‘Missa solemnis’.) You understand?
My poor, poor reader. Don’t feel bad if you’re confused. It’ll make sense eventually.
+++ 41. The SIXTH Devastating Argument: +++
A Late 1800s Pope Augurs Our Apostasy, Crafts an
Exorcism Prayer & Fights an Apocalyptic Beast (Part 7)
So why are we telling you all this? Where is it headed and why is it important?
Pope Leo XIII’s ‘Leonine Prayers’ in 1884 were really just prayers --- mostly, if not totally --- already put into place by his predecessor, Pope Pius IX. Pius IX is the pope we’ve been talking about when we explained Our Lady of La Salette. The Apparition of La Salette occurred in the very first year of Pius IX’s papacy, 1846, and in 1859 (a mere year after the secret that Our Lady gave to Melanie urged Pius IX to stay put in Rome, never leaving again, by the way) Pope Pius IX ordered certain public prayers be said immediately following Mass in every Catholic sanctuary within the Papal Estates (territory stretching across the midriff of Italy’s peninsula), ruled by the popes for a millennium or more, as a civil authority, in order to give the Papacy means to support itself without having to rely on, sometimes, rather ‘unreliable’ Catholics elsewhere in the world to support the Papacy & It’s Curia (the officials who do a legitimate bishop of Rome’s duties, with a pope’s delegated authority, since one man can’t do it all).
And why did Pius IX do this? Because Freemasonic-inspired revolutionaries were breathing down his neck, threatening to take over the Papal Estates and make them part of a new nation of Italy, but a nation founded not, primarily, upon Catholic principles or authority, but on anti-Catholic, Freemasonic & Endarkenment [Enlightenment] ideas not wholly compatible with… if at all… the infallible dogmas of God’s Singularly Roman Catholic Religion. This was Pope Pius IX’s way of invoking Heaven’s help.
The revolutionaries won by
21 September 1870. They had overrun the Papal Estates, occupied Rome, and even
that part of Rome where the Vatican Curia did their work, on the ancient hill
of Vaticanus (or ‘hill of prophecy’ as both an ancient pagan
writer and an early Church father, St. Augustine of Hippo, tell us), site
of St. Peter’s Martyrdom & his relics, underneath the high altar of
St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City. True, they had enough sense not to
He had also, the day before on 20 September 1870, issued a papal bull (read: official papal document), Postquam Dei munere, adjourning the Vatican Council without sure plans to reconvene it at some definite point in the future. Hence why I remarked earlier that, surprisingly, this Council was never formally closed and could be --- technically --- continued in time to come. Likely? I don’t know. God alone knows. The revolutionaries, though, won their victory just 65 days (66, if you count inclusively…) after the Council approved the formal definition of Papal Infallibility on 18 July 1870, and, presumably, promulgated by Pope Pius IX that very same day. The Modernist revolutionaries had triumphed temporally; the Catholic pope had triumphed spiritually. But just barely.
Without the Papal Estates,
popes were ‘prisoners’ of the
Ergo, scholars calling themselves Catholic… and whether they really are or not… promote the notion that Pope Leo XIII’s extension of Pius IX’s wishes to the entire Catholic Church, under the term ‘Leonine Prayers’, was simply a way to invoke God’s Aid in resolving the conflict, between Modernist authorities and the Papacy, in favor of His Singularly Saving Roman Catholic Church. There is probably much truth in this assertion, in my scholarly opinion. Notwithstanding, such academics overlook another truth that is obvious. And that would be? That the scope of the Church, and Her Infallible Papacy, goes beyond mere earthly politics. The loss of the Papal Estates was a sore blow to the Church & Her Papacy, to be sure. Politics were involved, inarguably. All the same, the battle was not just ‘political’. The revolutionaries were vehemently anti-Catholic, to some degree or another. It’s possible many of them may have painted themselves as ‘catholic’ in spite of their grievous sin of, literally, attacking the Papacy, in so far as conquering Pope Pius IX’s Papal Estates against his stark will in the matter does, undeniably, constitute grave disobedience toward the pope. In reality, these revolutionaries were already NOT Catholic due to their Modernist teachings.
Therefore, when Pope Leo XIII obligated Catholic priests throughout the world to perform Pope Pius IX’s prayers immediately after every Low Mass --- with, perchance, slight changes or additions (I really don’t know for certain, not having had time or access to hard data, relying, instead, on the dependable research of mostly decent scholars) --- it was for more than earthly or political assistance. That is to say, these popes weren’t just asking Heaven to solve an earthly or political dilemma, they were also very aware that this terrible battle was a war --- a hideous & diabolical war --- against HELL itself. There can be little doubt that Leo XIII acquainted himself with Maximin & Melanie’s secrets, just as Pius IX had read them in 1851. Why wouldn’t he? He had to have been knowledgeable about them; it’s ridiculous to think that he wouldn’t take the time to peruse them as a pope himself, if not already familiar with them via Pius IX. And, regardless, didn’t Melanie release her secret publicly in 1879? This is but a year following Leo XIII’s elevation to St. Peter’s Throne. If not in 1878, wouldn’t a sagaciously endowed man (and Leo was wise!) go over her secret by 1880?
Of course he would. It’s only sensible. Skepticism at this point is foolish.
Yet Pope Leo XIII didn’t add the St. Michael Prayer to his Leonine Prayers until AD 1886, two years after he ordered the Leonine Prayers said by every priest throughout the world, upon the completion of a Low Mass, in 1884. Why did he wait, and what’s the significance? Here’s where it gets tricky. Epistemologically, we can’t be fully sure.
But we do know, from Scripture, St. Michael fights for God against Lucifer.
Is a shrewd suspicion
beginning to form in your mind, my beloved soul? The clue is apocalyptic. Literally, in the Apocalypse, last book of the
Bible, where, in Chapter 12, we read
about St. Michael the
Plainly… this is simple & basic logic applied to Catholic Truth.
And I establish this firm basis of logical thinking, together with lots of unassailable historical facts, so as to handle the kneejerk skepticism that self-styled ‘catholics’ may have (and even real Catholics, too!) toward what we’ll discuss in the next chapter of this book, Inter Regnum, concerning Leo XIII’s Leonine Prayers and closely related topics. Meanwhile, it’s clear. Leo XIII did have temporal matters in mind. Nonetheless, he thought of spiritual matters as well… even more crucial than the Papal Estates.
Did you know, dearest soul, that high ranking Freemasons considered AD 1881 an extremely important year? For instance, their eccentric yet legendary learned Mason, Albert Pike, who lived from 1809 to 1891, was well aware of the significance of 1881, as were many other occultists & esoterics of the time, whether directly Freemasonic or not. For such people it represented, astrologically & astronomically, the end of one ‘aeon’, heralding the birth of a ‘new aeon’, or New Age, wherein humanity will transform entirely into an ‘enlightened’ people, living in a New & Golden Age of the Sun.
Satan masquerading as “an angel of light” anyone? (2 Corinthians 11:14 DRC)
+++ 42. The SIXTH Devastating Argument: +++
A Late 1800s Pope Augurs Our Apostasy, Crafts an
Exorcism Prayer & Fights an Apocalyptic Beast (Part 8)
Here’s where it gets fascinating, confusing & tricky. You have to be very careful, epistemologically sorting through the historical testimony with a discerning & keen eye. Most people don’t have this patience or training, so that, even if inclined to investigate such an arcane subject (as most people see it), they don’t do their homework properly. And, to be fair, it’s a tough nut to crack. Scholars themselves can run aground!
Luckily, historical testimony & documentation give us a few solid facts:
First, Pope Leo XIII did another curious thing in AD 1888. On September 25th he officially approved yet another St. Michael Prayer --- but this one, in contrast, very long. Secondly, he granted an indulgence of 300 days for its recitation, an indulgence which, as far as I am aware, is applicable to everyone in the Catholic Church… not just the clergy. And third, he completed these apocalyptically-oriented decisions with a final act of the same nature on 18 May 1890. He approved a new ritual for the clergy, entitled Exorcism Against Satan & Apostate Angels, that included the previously issued long St. Michael Prayer, along with other prayers, and put everything into the appendix of The Roman Ritual, urging bishops all over earth to pray it often, not to mention allowing bishops, where appropriate, to give permission amongst their priests to officially recite this general exorcism rite, too. But what does the text of the long prayer reveal?
This is EXHIBIT NO. 13
as well and we focus on two things. One, what Leo has the longer prayer say about the world at large; and, two, what it says about
Glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of the heavenly host,
defend us in battle, and in the struggle which is ours against the
Principalities and Powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness,
against spirits of evil in high places. Come to the aid of men, whom God
created immortal, made in his own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great
price from the tyranny of the devil. Fight this day the battle of the Lord,
together with the holy angels, as already you have fought the leader of the
proud angels, Lucifer, and his
apostate host, who were powerless to resist you, nor was there place
for them any longer in Heaven. But that cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who
seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with all his angels. Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of man has taken
courage. Transformed into an angel of
light, he wanders about with all
the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out
the name of God and of his Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into
eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This
wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men
of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the
spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of
impurity, and of every vice and iniquity. These most crafty enemies have filled
and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the
Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most
holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have
raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the
sheep may be scattered. Arise then, O Invincible Prince, bring help
against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and bring them
the victory. The Church venerates you as protector and patron; in you holy
Church glories as her defense against the malicious powers of this world and of
hell; to you has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly
beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet,
so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and
harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they
may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil
and Satan, do you again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer
seduce the nations.” (English translation as based upon the Latin
text given in Rituale Romanum [The
Roman Ritual], and printed by the German publisher, Pustet,
in Ratisbon [
This is one of at least two English translations. Certain archaic words (viz., ‘thou’ or ‘thee’) have been changed to a contemporary form. Again, the point is not to get stuck on precise terms, but to stay true to the original meaning. That said, what may we surmise?
Note how Pope Leo XIII’s text, in reference to the world in general, speaks of Lucifer (from ancient Greek, meaning ‘light bearer’, you’ll recall) as “Transformed into an angel of light,” the very thing the Holy Ghost, via St. Paul, tells us about this fallen angel in 2 Corinthians 11:14. And what does the fallen angel --- the devil --- do? He invades the earth with “…all the multitude of wicked spirits…” This is extraordinary and amounts to all-out war, as opposed to significant-yet-more-limited battles or skirmishes. It also echoes the text of Melanie’s secret from Our Lady of La Salette, wherein we’re told that, as of 1864, Lucifer and a large number of his demons would be “unloosed from hell” and, no longer restrained, put an end to the Catholic Faith on the earth, little by little. Which, in turn, is just what Leo XIII warns us, that this diabolic horde, unleashed on us, seeks “…to blot out the name of God and of his Christ…” The parallelism is perfect.
And what is God & Christ’s “NAME” being blotted out? ROMAN CATHOLIC.
This is why Roman Catholicism has been in retreat for the past
century and a half. Christ’s
But do you doubt this is a Battle Royale, with everlasting consequences?
Then note how Pope Leo XIII’s text, in reference to Rome in specific, speaks
of the Church’s foes, who, going to “…where
has been set up the See of the most
holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have
raised the throne of their abominable
impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”
In other words, satan &
his minions strike at the very head of Catholicity, in
A TNO priest like Anthony Cekada would have us believe this part of Leo’s long Michael Prayer merely references the Italian’s new nation with the overthrow of the Papal Estates, and their excommunicated ‘king’, Victor Emmanuel, whose monarchy officially ruled Italy (though, really, Italy’s parliament increasingly did), until it became a full fledged ‘democracy’ after World War II. Now Mr. Cekada is a smart man. I don’t enjoy disagreeing simply for the supposed ‘fun’ of looking like you’re ‘right’ at the expense of someone else being ‘wrong’. If that were my goal, then, as a fallible man of limited knowledge, I could not have true moral certainty. Only when you’re prepared to be proven wrong can one ever discover a real moral certainty. I therefore praise Mr. Cekada for doing some nice legwork in the matter of the St. Michael Prayers, clearing up unscholarly messes. Still, I must oppose his purely political interpretation of the prayers.
Because it’s not an either/or situation ---
that is to say, it’s not
necessarily ‘either his
interpretation is accurate or mine is’. I think his political
interpretation bears merit. It seems clear to me that both Pope Pius IX and
Pope Leo XIII, in facing the foes they dealt with and the loss of the Papal
Estates, were galvanized into realizing how hideous it was, their foe not
merely human and wanting only earthly power. But it’s even bigger than that, and Mr. Cekada’s opinion is an interpretation of coincident historical events…
without any plain, explicit &
inarguable evidence for it (to my knowledge) from these popes.
Whereas, if you take the text of the long St. Michael Prayer in its plain & explicit sense, what
do you see? Correct --- a final &
enormous spiritual battle played out on the earth. Human souls the
prize, but one thing stands between us and our enemy, the devil, in achieving
his goal. An
Infallible Church. And where is the
Satan is “…a murderer from the beginning, and
he stood not in the truth;
because truth is not in him.”
(John 8:44c-e DRC) Yet Leo XIII, in his long St. Michael Prayer, reminds us how
the “Chair of Truth” --- i.e., the Throne of Truth --- is in the Diocese of St. Peter, which is
Rome’s Diocese in Italy.
Consequently, what do you think the devil
has been hating more than anything else for the
past two millennia, his murderous mind constantly pondering upon how to
overthrow it? Right again, my shrewd reader. Satan has been wanting, very badly, to conquer
Do you think the devil craves vengeance? Of course he does. He’s a killer.
By the middle of the
nineteenth century, the Papacy came into the possession of
‘instructions’ to the Carbonari. Remember
them? They were a Freemasonic-style organization, and, in
The full title of the documents? The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita.
In them are revealed a plot of diabolic proportions. Their ‘instruction’ was to be ‘permanent’ because their enemy --- the Papacy --- was of such a permanent and unassailable nature. In Italian, ‘vendita’ means ‘sale’, and ‘alta’ means ‘high’. To wit, ‘high sale’. This goal would cost a lot, and, to achieve it, anyone in allegiance to them would have to be willing to give everything for the cause… the destruction of the Papacy. Or should we say --- it is strongly hinted at in one of the texts of these documents, not to mention thought obvious by apparently pious Catholics --- the Freemasonically-linked Carbonari at first wanted total destruction of the Roman Catholic Church. Later, upon realizing how unrealistic this was, they then concocted a plan to infiltrate the Church from the inside and the outside. Outside, inasmuch as the revolutionaries created a society thoroughly immoral, modernized and anchored on principles belying the Church’s reason for existence. And inside, inasmuch as the revolutionaries even purposefully infiltrated their own into the Church, as priests or teachers.
Thus compromised, as generations pass, the young priests formed by these teachers become bishops, selecting yet more of these kinds of teachers to form a newer breed of clergy, and the bishops themselves, modernized, becoming mentors toward, or patrons of, such younger priests. In this way, the poison spreads, becomes deeper, and eventually ‘shapes’ the kind of pope the revolutionaries want: a ‘pope’ who will foment the ‘revolution’ wholly within the Church Herself, under the guise of ‘updating’.
Anyone who is truly Catholic and familiar with the Vatican II Pseudo-Council knows how this is exactly what happened. The revolution of a ‘New World Order’ and a ‘New Age’ eventually came to roost within, seemingly, the Church Herself. Her own ‘popes’ were heralds of a ‘New Order Mass’ (in Latin, ‘Novus Ordo Missa’), changing nearly everything they could lay their hands on, and the few who retained any piety were properly aghast at this spectacle, as well as confused as to what they should do.
An understandable confusion… facing what looks like the greatest religious calamity ever and utterly ‘unforeseen’ or ‘unprecedented’… yet unnecessary ultimately if formed adequately in the True Faith. Accordingly, if knowing how to identify who is indeed truly Catholic in the external forum, and who is not. And, in addition, comprehending Canon Law, knowing that those who expose themselves, notoriously & pertinaciously, for the rebels that they are, being openly & repeatedly heretical, schismatic or apostate, are automatically excommunicated, ipso facto, by this very fact, in an act called ‘latae sententiae’. It is this knowledge which would have allowed any real Catholics remaining to comprehend what happens when even a ‘pope’ reveals himself to be a notorious & pertinacious heretic or apostate, as is precisely the case with Vatican II.
Whatever the authenticity of the documents from the Carbonari, known as The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita --- and I do not doubt their authenticity, I merely make a shrewd suggestion --- I personally suspect an even deeper & more hellish ruse than the most cautious of real Roman Catholics (or, for that matter, the much more ‘traditional’ or ‘conservative’ of Novus Ordoists) recognize. One should not be given, foolishly, to irrational & unfounded ‘conspiracy theorizing’. Yet when a real Catholic knows, with moral certainty, due to papal testimony, that the Carbonari are condemned as anti-Catholic, then cunning conjecture cannot be blithely dismissed as either irrational or unfounded. These documents and their contents are indeed shocking. They are diabolic. And they are prophetic, the very thing they portend having occurred. Yet, I wager, it’s also more ghastly than anyone truly Catholic has guessed. I doubt the documents fell into Catholic hands totally by ‘accident’ --- or, if by accident, the accident then deftly woven into an even bolder and more heinous plot --- I suspect at least some of the documents were purposely planted in Catholic hands, using the innocent to further their scheme. Wherefore? It’s simple. Count on Roman Catholic trust in the indestructibility of the Church to come to one’s aid as an enemy of the Church, this ‘trust’ of theirs turned into less admirable human ‘pride’ and ‘presumption’ upon their parts. Then brazenly state in one of the documents how ‘unrealistic’ it is to seek the Church’s ‘destruction’. Popes will never come to the ‘secret societies’; rather, the ‘secret societies’ must come to the them. I.e., ‘secret societies’ must poison Catholic people and infiltrate the Church, creating a ‘pope’ which is advantageous to them. The catch? This will alarm a pious Catholic. Truly, it is in great part the truth… and hence very believable. Unfortunately, as the alarmed but presumptuous Catholic fights this threat, thinking it credible, he bothers not to fight the other threat, thinking it incredible & unbelievable. Forsooth, not thinking it at all, finding it beyond rational conception. The possibility that, while preserving His One & Only Church indestructible, God might, to punish bad Catholics and test the good... punishing an apostate & rebellious world, additionally… permit St. Peter’s Throne to become empty for a long while and for non-Catholic antipopes to fool the unwary, fooling everyone into believing they are both ‘catholic’ and ‘popes’.
Diabolic? Absolutely. Impossible? Not so fast. It’s exactly what’s happened. The ‘unthinkable’ has become the real. And in doing so, in playing out this apocalyptic scenario, the Apocalypse itself is fulfilled. Viz., the prophecies of the last book in Sacred Scripture, written by the Beloved Disciple himself at the behest of His Lord Jesus, with all their seemingly ‘bizarre imagery’ as they tell a final series of parables. This, by the way, is EXHIBIT NO. 14 and to be taken as the incredible evidence it is. Specifically:
“And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns, LIKE A LAMB, and he spoke AS A DRAGON. And he executed all the power of the former beast [the beast from out of the sea] in his sight; and he caused the earth, and them that dwell therein, to adore the first beast, whose wound to death was healed.” (Apocalypse [Revelation] 13:11-12 DRC)
Ah, but therein lies the
answer. For who is the representative of Jesus on earth, His Vicar?
Right, the Pope. A true & legitimate Bishop of Rome represents the
Lamb of God on earth in
Antipopes who are anti-Catholic --- like the devil! --- ‘ruling’ between popes.
This is what Pope Pius IX
feared and what Pope Leo XIII dreaded. They had the Carbonari
documents in their hands, and Melanie’s secret at their disposal. And
they saw the Great Apostasy begin to erupt as the earth quaked spiritually
under their feet, satan’s
It’s difficult to know
much for sure, but there is a persistent tale that says Leo XIII experienced a
vision while pope. Mr. Cekada disbelieves this tale,
claiming to find no reliable evidence, yet perhaps he did not search well
enough or the evidence was far too hard to find prior to a widespread
‘internet’ and ‘cloud’. In actuality, at least one
reliable source reports that two different men associated with Leo during his
papacy, serving him, spoke of Leo seeing something like a vision. The one man, Domenico Pechenino, says Leo XIII
wrote the St. Michael Prayer (presumably the longer version) in half an hour
after finishing Mass, having stared, strangely, at what was invisible to his
attendants. Meanwhile, via Cd. di
Corneliano, we learn that Leo’s private
secretary, Rinaldo Angeli,
said Leo had seen a vision of demonic spirits assembling in
though, have said that a vision Leo XIII saw involved a dialogue between God
& Lucifer. This is where it’s iffy, because there don’t appear
to be reliable sources --- yet --- for such an account. If true, per them, the
devil boasted that he could destroy God’s
What is not debatable is that someone did not want Leo’s prayers to go on.
The thirteenth in a line of
popes bearing the symbolic name, since ancient times, of a lion, it’s
intriguing that this pope, Leo XIII, should so courageously oppose the hordes
of hell with both his short & long versions of the St. Michael Prayer,
being like the Lion of the Tribe of Juda (Jesus
Christ) in the face of such misfortune. It may have been only a ‘clerical
error’ (literally, in the original
sense of the word ‘cleric’!), but the failure, in 1886,
of entering the shorter St. Michael Prayer into an ‘official’
record of papal acts is dubious, at a minimum. The Vatican Curia is very slow
& thorough. To err is human, but when the error is a small but potent
prayer against the devil, it is tempting to attribute the ‘mistake’
to an ‘anti-clerical error’. At any rate, the
Not to mention wicked &
fallen angels gathering in
The two disappeared as the pseudo-council unfolded.
+ + +
Part One of Inter Regnum (Chapters 1-12)
Part Two of Inter Regnum (Chapters 13-27)
Part Three of Inter Regnum (Chapters 28-34)
Part Five of Inter Regnum (Chapters 43-50 & 1-3)
+ + +
Pilate’s query met:
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.
© 2018 by Paul Doughton.
All rights reserved.