Fragment 56

Recent events have inspired me to write a new "Fragment".The events that inspired me are the death of Pope Francis (Jorge Mario Bergolio) and the elevation of Leo XIV. As my frequent reader knows, I have been thinking about writing about the Catholic Church and Liberation Theology for a while. This is not going to be that "Fragment", but it will incorporate some of my research. The other issue is :Why would an Occultist be writing about the Catholic Church? The reason is simple: the Catholic Church is the spiritual center for over one billion people. It is time for occultists to comment on events about spiritual works and organizations. The Catholic Church has a lot of problems. In this "Fragment" I shall try to address the central and fundamental problem of the Church. The very identity and theology of the Church. Some critics of the Church have said that there are two churches in the Catholic Church. There are three different theologies that the Church is tearing itself apart over. The first theology is what some people mistakenly call "Traditional" theology. This is better called Tridentine theology. The theology and the reforms made during the Council of Trent.(1545-1563) This is the Church that the Traditionalist lay follower wants to have restored. The trouble is the Tridentine Church died with Pope Pius XII. This is not an option to the leadership of the Church. The two theologies that are in conflict are the Modernist theology of the Renewal theologians in the twentieth century, and Liberation theology, also from the twentieth century. To understand how this happened we must go back in history. We could go back to 1958 when Pope Pius died, but the trouble started long before. The trouble only surfaced when Pope Pius XII died. The trouble was Modernism. Modernism was the fuel of the Renewal theologians. The Renewal theologians wanted to replace Aristotle as the metaphysics of theology. They wanted another metaphysic to replace Thomism. I am not going to spend much time discussing the theology of the Renewal theologians. Instead I shall relate my first impression of reading them back when I was young and not sure of what they were about. In my early twenties I tried reading the Renewal theologians with unhappy results. I did not go into it with any previous information about the movement. While I was reading them a metaphor kept coming to mind. It seemed that they boldly walked out of the front door of the Church; only to sneak around the side of the Church to go in the backdoor. It seemed to me that they started out with bold heretical propositions. That they then turned into traditional sounding results. I did not realize at the time that they were using duplicitous language. They wanted to disguise the meaning under traditional sounding language. Making it matter of interpretation. One also observes this in both Liberation theology and wokeness. The big problem that the Renewal theologians had is they did not have a metaphysic to replace the old Aristotelian Thomism. This changed with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He had a new metaphysics to offer: evolution. Thomas Aquinas looked to Aristotle, so Chardin looked to H. Bergson for his metaphysics. Chardin was a Jesuit Priest who was also a paleontologist. Chardin's main idea is that he wanted to get rid of the historical Jesus, and substitute his idea of the Cosmic Christ. To understand his idea of the Cosmic Christ of Omega point, we must understand his idea of the "Noosphere". The noosphere is not a new idea. It is very much like Gitchtel's idea of the "Astral". It is the conscious envelope that encircles the world. For some reason Chardin seemed to think this mind sphere was something exalted. (a mistake that Gitchtel did not make) Chardin believed that the noosphere would evolve into the Omega point. This is the second coming of Christ, or at least Chardin's idea of Christ. What this would look like is everyone would think and act alike. That the noosphere would become the mind of Christ and everyone would be the body. The only sin would be individualism. Of course, this has no relation to scientific evolution. Chardin called it "a scientific assumption of faith'". A phrase that means nothing, but sounds impressive. Chardin's thought is unfinished and has holes all the way through it. It is more a vision than a theory. An example would be: is Chardin a pantheist? The answer is sometimes. He said different things at different times. That did not keep it from catching on. Some of the Jesuit order converted during his life. Even Pope Francis quoted him. (in Mongolia) It also had a big influence on Liberation Theology. Gustavo Gutierrez quotes Chardin. And it seems to be the metaphysics of LIberation Theology. Again like good modernists it was hidden under traditional language. This all came together in Vatican II. In 1958 Pope Pius XII died. Pius was the last of the Tridentine Pope. With John XXIII Modernism came to the surface in Vatican II. Most of the Cardinals and Bishops had Jesuit secretaries that wrote up the documents. Again they hid Modernism beneath duplicitous language. There was never a formal interpretation of the documents. At some time in the future the Church will have to call another council to standardize the Church's teaching. The Vatican moves slow, so do not expect anything to happen this century. This is the crisis in the Catholic Church. Many of the laity want to go back to the Council of Trent, but this is not going to happen. The question becomes what version of Modernism triumphs? As many readers may have guessed I have relied heavily on Malachai Martin's book "The Jesuits". We have two more historical issues to add. The first is Pedro Arrupe, the Father General of the Jesuit order. (1965-1981) He was elected to implement Vatican II, the radical modernist interpretation. Arrupe is an interesting man. He was at a Novitiate outside of Hiroshima Japan when the A Bomb was dropped. He was also with his fellow Jesuits the first medical aid into the city after the blast. He was also a dedicated Modernist and proponent of the social gospel. The Father General to the Jesuit order is often referred to as the "Black Pope". The "White Pope" and the "Black Pope" were going to war. When I say "White Pope" I mean the series of Popes after John XXIII. The war is which version of Modernism shall the Church adopt. The second issue is the Council of Latin American Bishops at Medellin, Columbia. A young Bishop named Jorge Mario Bergolio was there. It was also the debutante ball for Liberation Theology. Gustavo Gutierrez's book "A Theology of Liberation" was published in 1971. Liberation Theology was about to set parts of Latin America on fire. More later on that. One more note on the Jesuits. The Jesuits are a huge international organization that owns media outlets, publishing houses, schools, etc. So their ideas get a wide distribution, this is why Wokeness, and Liberation theology became so popular so fast. So let us observe the Popes since John XXII and look at the feud between the Popes and the Jesuit order. We shall begin with Paul VI. Paul was the gentilist man ever to become Pope. He was no match for the street fighter Arrupe. Paul believed in that hoary old fallicie. That you show people the good and they shall do it. Paul tried to remind the Jesuits of their historic mission to be the Pope's men. This of course did not work. Paul finally wised up and had a dossier composed on the Jesuits, to be passed on to his successors. We come to John Paul I who unfortunately died too soon to do anything. Next up was the rock star Pope John Paul II. John Paul II thought he was ready for a fight but did not realize the extent to the fight. This led to his humiliation that happened in his visit to Nicaragua. The revolution in Nicaragua was supported by the Jesuits. It is in Nicaragua that Liberation theology got its base in Latin America, and its ideas tried. Those of us who lived through the 1980s remember well the supposedly secret war that the U.S. fought in Central America. (Iran-Contra) Although as usual our worthless, lying media did an awful job explaining what was happening. It never mentioned The Jesuits or Liberation theology. It seems John Paul II was going to take action, but he got shot. And it took the fight out of him. Next up was Benedict XVI. (Joseph Ratzinger) Benedict XVI had been one of the premiere theologians of the 20th century. It is easy to say what Benedict did. He did nothing. I guess that means he was successful as a caretaker Pope. It seems that even the slow Vatican bureaucracy got tired of him doing nothing and he was forced to resign. We now come to Pope Francis. Francis is one of the few Popes I have taken a deep interest in. Francis was supposed to be the radical. The Liberal Pope that would finally clarify the Church's position, and move the Church in the new direction. As I said he was at the Council of Medellin. He was supposed to move the Church into modernism. The radicals had miscalculated. Even though he was a Latin American Bishop he was a Peronist. He was a supporter of Juan Peron, the controversial President of Argentina. For those who do not know Juan Peron; the best way to describe him is that he was a lot like President Trump. He was a populist and a showman, but he was not a Marxist. Donald Trump could be described as America's Juan Peron. For those who wanted women Deacons, married Priests, and blessings of same sex unions; he was a disappointment. Although he did try to destroy the hold the Tridentine Church still has on some of its members. (getting rid of the Latin Mass, etc.) So what is next? We do not know what Leo XIV shall do. As I said, the Church moves slowly. The Church also always believes it has time. They have been a huge player in the Occult War. The trouble is for the Church is this time they may not have time. Their Aeon is ending.