Rod Pead: The Algebra pf Apostasy

From the April 2017 issue of Christian Order:

Small errors of principle have catastrophic consequences.

— Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, OP

Vatican II, inspired by Pope Paul VI and John, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to be open to modern culture ... The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old. ... Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. ... I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God... Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. ... Who am I to judge?

— Francis, Pontifex Maximus

As the centenary countdown to the greatest public miracle in history begins, what should we expect in the coming months by way of supernatural signs, wonders and meltdowns?

(Endtime Spoiler Alert!)

In sum: not much.

This isn't to say that the signs of the times do not portend a Noah-like response from on High. On the contrary, the wickedness of Noah's day seems fairly tame compared to ours. Though overused, "apocalyptic" precisely describes a world all but daring — goading — Almighty God to smite it. In this year of all years, therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect Divine intervention. And yet, as we know from the decisions of multiple pontiffs — firstly to defy Heaven's simple request to consecrate "Russia" to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, then to bury the original one-page text of the Third Secret — where Fatima is concerned, great expectations invariably give way to great frustrations.

Apocalyptic formula

Hierarchical disobedience/negligence/cowardice/lethargy/call-it-what-you-like, continues to amaze and appall. Even conservative prelates rarely promote the Five First Saturday Reparatory Devotions with any urgency. At best, all talk and no positive action sums up the hierarchical history. At worst — and overwhelmingly — it has been silence and negativity in the Modernistic process of marginalising, ecumenising and secularising Fatima by a thousand condescending cuts.

In effect, Our Lady's personal instruction of Lucia, Francisco and Jacinta between May and October 1917 triggered 100 years of devotion and struggle — in roughly equal proportion: fifty years of signature Catholic devotion to Mary, followed by fifty post-conciliar years of ecumenical embarrassment apropos Marian devotion in general, and the Fatima message in particular.

Sister Lucia famously put this down to the "diabolic disorientation" that views doctrinal, moral and canonical chaos as a gift of the Holy Spirit, and the ensuing "mess" as a work of mercy.

This malign malaise appears to have reached its zenith in the person of the current pontiff. Yet we must pause to consider the plain truth of the matter: that Francis is just the latest link in the ever lengthening Modernist chain.

This struck me once again while reading an article of impending doom by a Catholic expert on Freemasonry. Therein, he laid out his case by way of lengthy arithmetic and geometric calculations based on the occult symbolism of the Lodge. Tying it all to an allegedly demonic manifestation recently photographed in a region of Italy historically rooted in occult prophecy, this blizzard of hieroglyphics finally led the author to reveal the precise "Day of God's Wrath" as 3 July 2017. (Beware 2017 travel insurance policies that don't cover "acts of God"!)

Seriously, who needs complex and incomprehensible calculations to understand the current proximity of Divine Justice! (Or further photographic verification thereof. Those lightning bolts that struck the dome of St Peter's in the immediate aftermath of Benedict's resignation put us all on notice — big time!) No, the explanation of how we fulfilled the Third Secret and consequently tremble at the prospect of God's wrath can be reduced to a simple algebraic equation:

J23 + P6 + JP2 + B16 = F1

Hegelian thread

A reproach to the wishful-thinking of Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity", that elementary formula expresses the continuing — devastating — hermeneutic of discontinuity. Hardly rocket science, it encapsulates at a glance the theological and philosophical Liberalism that has brought the Church low since the Council — to include above all the insidious 'moderate' variety peddled by John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

John XXIII and Paul VI are easy targets on the spectrum.

The former imprudently called and then corrupted the Council: firstly, by insisting it be "pastoral"and avoid solemn definitions and condemnations of error; secondly, by inviting notorious arch-Modernist theologians to participate.

The latter just as imprudently allowed the already alarming Council to continue on after John's death, then progressively signed off/set off the time-bombs strewn throughout the Council documents (in the form of "compromise formulas" deliberately "designed" for "a selective reception" so as to cause "huge potential for conflict," as Cardinal Kasper has proudly confessed).

The 'progressive' papal bridgeheads that followed were more dangerous, however. Variously mixing and masking continuity and discontinuity in their wildly uneven pontificates (e.g., Assisi abominations vs. Ecclesia Dei adflicta/Summorum Pontificum), John Paul and Benedict easily won over papolators, who turned a blind eye to their myriad scandals and deeply problematic theology and attitudes (CO passim) — out of false-obedience, false-charity, and cowardly fear of having to denounce them. But this Hegelian ebb and flow of traditional sensibilities ("thesis") and liberal leanings ("antithesis") was simply Modernist continuity in the 'moderate' guise unmasked by St. Pius X in Pascendi.

Whenever the thought and writings of Karol Wojtyla came up in our private conversations, Father Paul Crane would often mutter disapprovingly: "Too much Hegel." The liberal thread binding all the post-conciliar pontiffs, I once explained Hegelianism by way of John Paul II's dire appointments:

Preening apostates like Cardinals Lehman, Kasper, Mahoney et. al.  have been introduced to the sacred college to keep the runaway post-conciliar train careering on. The papal rationalisation seems to be that they act as a political stabiliser: helping maintain a desirable “balance” and “tension” between opposing viewpoints. Through this Hegelian dialectic, the conservative likes of Sydney’s new Cardinal George Pell (thesis) are supposed to be offset by the liberal likes of Scotland's Cardinal Keith O’Brien (antithesis) giving rise to a purer form of Catholicism (synthesis).

That was in 2003, by way of pointing out our no-win predicament — viz., "slow ‘liberal-conservative’ decay, or rapid ‘liberal-liberal’ dissolution" — since, I argued,

the Conciliar milieu of liberalism and quasi-liberalism-masquerading-as-conservatism that has corrupted Keith O’Brien and contaminated George Pell, has already fashioned the next Hegelian pontiff. Thesis + antithesis = John Paul III.

Catastrophic consequences

In the event we got Benedict, who immediately aped John Paul II's failed and passive stratagem ("let error destroy itself") by inviting heretical Hans Kung to Castel Gandolfo: not to dispense his marching orders, but for several hours of futile "dialogue."

He then embraced the syncretic Assisi franchise he had once questioned. His brave offering, if not enforcement, of Summorum Pontificum only highlighted the Hegelian "tensions" at play during his 8-year pontificate of ongoing liberal-conservative decay that eventually ground him down, wore him out, and saw him off.

Inexorably, Jorge Bergoglio followed: spectacular living proof that far from destroying itself, Kung-like errors left unhindered grow like topsy, levelling every Godly thing, including the papacy

                                                        Read the whole article.