In 1951, political pundit William F. Buckley, Jr. released his best known book entitled God and Man at Yale. Buckley wrote the book based on his experiences as an undergraduate at Yale University, and he forcefully argued that the professors pushed a secular left-wing ideology on the students by breaking down their religious beliefs through their teaching. This week, the Harvard Extension School Cultural Studies Club wanted the Satanic Temple (a group of Satanists) to perform a "black mass" on the Harvard campus as a means of fostering "multiculturalism."
Harvard's president, Dr. Drew Faust (yes, that is her real name), refused to cancel the event, citing freedom of speech. “The decision to proceed is and will remain theirs,” she said of the student group. Faust added, “It is deeply regrettable that the organizers of this event, well aware of the offense they are causing so many others, have chosen to proceed with a form of expression that is so flagrantly disrespectful and inflammatory.” Notice she did not decry it as evil, but simply "disrespectful." After a petition signed by tens of thousands in Massachusetts was presented to the university (not to mention a public rebuke by "Cardinal" O'Malley of the Archdiocese of Boston), Faust still would not cancel the event, but said she would attend a holy hour sponsored by the Archdiocese "...to demonstrate that the most powerful response to offensive speech is not censorship, but reasoned discourse and robust dissent.” At the last moment, amid death threats, the event was cancelled by the student group without further comment.
In order to fully understand what went on, several questions need to be answered: (1) What is the "Satanic Temple" and what do they believe? (2) What did they plan to do at the "black mass"? (3) What is the true Catholic teaching to be applied and how does it compare with the teaching of Vatican II?
I. What is the "Satanic Temple"?
According to their own website:
"The Satanic Temple seeks to separate Religion from Superstition by acknowledging religious belief as a metaphorical framework with which we construct a narrative context for our goals and works. Satan stands as the ultimate icon for the selfless revolt against tyranny, free and rational inquiry, and the responsible pursuit of happiness.
In theological terms, the mythology translates thus:
God is supernatural and thus outside of the sphere of the physical. God’s perfection means that he cannot interact with the imperfect corporeal realm. Because God cannot intervene in the material world, He created Satan to preside over the universe as His proxy. Satan has the compassion and wisdom of an angel. Although Satan is subordinate to God, he is mankind’s only conduit to the dominion beyond the physical. In addition, only Satan can hear our prayers and only Satan can respond. While God is beyond human comprehension, Satan desires to be known and knowable. Only in this way can there be justice and can life have meaning.
The Satanist harbors reasonable agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. The cultural narratives through which we contextualize our lives must be malleable to conformity with our best scientific understandings of the material world… Those understandings, in turn, must never be so rigidly codified as to themselves be inflexible to advancements yet unknown. Thus, Satanism is an evolving religion, unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Belief must reconstruct itself to fact, never the other way round. This is the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, even (and especially) when to do so irretrievably dissipates blissful and comforting delusions of old.
That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise."
Most Satanists do not claim to worship Satan, rather they claim to be agnostics and/or atheists who seek to satisfy their pleasures and cling to "science" while uniting around a "mythology" which unites them in a formalized setting. They further claim as their beliefs:
"There are seven fundamental tenets:
1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
3. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.
5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
6. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word."
One could rightfully ask, "Why does a group that claims 'reason' and 'science' want to go around offending people with something they consider mythology?" They would be better off joining the Ethical Humanist Society if "reason and science" were their main concerns, and drop the whole "myth-schtick." Satan is the Father of Lies and it seems more than likely, there are some (even most) who do buy into the actual worship of the devil. This is the same group that wants to donate a Satanic statue to the Oklahoma State Capital, to get "equal time" with a monument of the Ten Commandments. The statue of the Baphomet, or Sabbatic Goat, a figure that has been used to represent Satan for centuries, is to be made of bronze, poured over a clay mold. Images in the news show the hideous figure on a throne, with smiling children at each knee.
Look again at the seven fundamental tenets. don't they seem to be the same subject matter Antipope Francis talks about, and the themes of most Vatican II clergy "homilies"?
II. What did the Satanic Temple plan to do at the "black mass"?
According to Joseph Laycock: "Had the black mass proceeded as planned, it would have been about two hours long, with the first hour devoted to an educational lecture and the second half to a performance. There would have been a short speech by Harvard ethicist Christopher Robichaud about how we define such ideas as hate-speech and tolerance" Then, "The second half would have been a performance of a black mass based on descriptions from the nineteenth-century French novel La-bas. Two actors dressed as a nun and a priest would have performed a ritual in liturgical Latin. A prop representing a communion wafer would have been stepped on or otherwise defiled. It was this last detail that became the focus of the controversy."
Deo gratias, the Novus Bogus Vatican II service is null and void, so a real Host could not be defiled. Interestingly, when the Satanic Temple was asked about this, they said the host would be unconsecrated, but when the University group suggested stepping on a piece of broccoli instead, they refused! (See
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/7878/black_mass_hysteria_at_harvard__the_real_story/)
III. What is the true Catholic teaching on such matters and how does it compare with Vatican II?
Just as William F. Buckley, Jr. deplored the effects of bad teachers on good Faith and Morals in 1951 at Yale, what happened at Harvard (unthinkable even 25 years ago) is the logical outcome of the false teachers at Vatican II.
Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World) §73 states:
"No better way exists for attaining a truly human political life than by fostering an inner sense of justice, benevolence, and service for the common good, and by strengthening basic beliefs about the true nature of the political community, and about the proper exercise and limits of public authority."
Obviously, the text is not concerned with "political life" marked by Christian values, but "political life" marked by human values, that is, by values that are generally characterized by "an inner sense of justice, service for the common good." In fact, in this scheme, it is not a question of intellect and will adhering to principles of "justice" and "charity" and to "service" founded on revealed Truth, principles that are objectively set forth by God and taught by the Church throughout the centuries, and necessitate our adherence to them. Rather it is a matter of values merely heeding to an "inner sense." This is totally foreign to Catholicism, and even mortally contrary to it, but is typical of Modernist thinking. However, it goes along nicely with the tenets of the Satanic Temple, doesn't it? Let's see what the True Church teaches,"That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. (See Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, #3, 1906).
Even in a society where Catholics are not the majority, to give free reign to the public worship of evil (under a guise of humanitarianism guided by Freemasonic principles, must be condemned as intrinsically evil. It is not merely "disrespectful." Being bigoted is the ONLY sin the general public acknowledges these days. Even then, if the KKK wanted to re-enact a mock lynching, I doubt they would have gotten the support of the president of Harvard. The satanists claim the analogy is inapposite because what they do is not oppressive to any minority; they are the minority that has been repressed, and they are showing their disapproval by blasphemy. Once you accept the Masonic/Modernist premises, such nonsense starts to sound OK. The fact is, approval of those who deny God and his objective moral order must be condemned and stopped-- whether those who do so are a majority or minority. This is contrary to the Masonic principles of our country and of the Vatican II sect which joins them.
Nostra Aetate (Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions) §2 states:
"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy (vera et sancta) in these religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."
This means that, for the Vatican II sect, the truth "which enlightens all men" perhaps comes through rules and teachings that differ "in many particulars" from the Church's teaching! (How could an authentic ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church have been inspired to articulate such an idea? Answer: It couldn't!). We get this insanity from the heretical notion of "Frankenchurch"( i.e.that there is a "Church of Christ" within, yet not wholly contained by the Catholic Church and is present according to how many "elements" are to be had). To have all elements is best, but having just some is good too. So if the Temple of Satan acknowledges the devil as portrayed by the Bible, they have some truth, so why protest? Think I'm making an overstatement?
§18 of Ad Gentes (on missionary activity), states:
"Working to plant the Church, and thoroughly enriched with the treasures of mysticism adorning the Church's religious tradition, religious communities should strive to give expression to these treasures and to hand them on in a manner harmonious with the nature and the genius of each nation. Let them reflect attentively on how Christian religious life may be able to assimilate the ascetic and contemplative traditions whose seeds were sometimes already planted by God in ancient cultures prior to the preaching of the gospel."
Here, "ancient cultures" whose gods were "devils," and whose sacrifices were offered "to devils and not to God" (I Cor. 10:20), are recognized in them a salvific presence of "semina Verbi" of the "seeds of revealed Truth." The devil is thus rehabilitated by Vatican II.
Finally, isn't the Novus Bogus Vatican II service the blackest of all blasphemous "masses"? The people seek the Food of Angels and are given nothing but bread. It pretends to be of God, but it comes from Hell too.
In summation, the Vatican II sect protested a "black mass." It was held to be wrong due to "prejudice" more than being an intrinsic evil to society. They went to worship a piece of ordinary bread for an hour because they have destroyed the True Mass and Sacraments. Worst of all, the teachings of Modernism have led us to a place in history where to permit devil worship (properly so-called or otherwise), despite the protestations of a few, is really nothing more than being offensive to people's sensibilities. How could it be otherwise given the teachings of Vatican II?
At the "canonizations" of Wotyla and Roncalli, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), lamented the elimination of the devil's advocate. They still can't see Mr. Begoglio and his robber council are the biggest advocates Lucifer ever had.
No comments:
Post a Comment