The final play was to get the men you trust to teach you objective truth to, over the past 60 years, whittle away at it using a combination of apparent authority, *fancy intellectual phrases* like "remote material cooperation," or false piety like "peaceful prayer protest."
The problem reveals the solution. Have you not wondered why Bergoglio demonizes the word "rigid?"
It's because, in the face of a global demonic assault against it, your salvation depends on you rigidly adhering to objective truth, and ignoring their dissembling.
Once you do,
Once you seek and become grounded in first and fundamental principles, God's law, the 10 commandments and the two that explain their meaning and their source as given to us by Christ, once you do so humbly, consistently, and without intellectual compromise (by this I mean not sacrificing or justifying principles simply because you, as we all are, a sinner. A thief can steal knowing it's wrong & never justify it) the entire bloody charade falls apart. All of it. Literally.
But it requires consistently, fortitude, and aspiring to live in the state of grace. These are what they fear. The latter two go hand in hand. The consistency, I've come to begrudgingly accept, is often a charism either given by our heavenly father, or taught by our earthly. But it absolutely can be acquired.
Bottom line:
Literally all it takes to understand the state of the world is to reject the noise, fall back on extreme first principles, practice them, and reject any idea or person who would entice you to compromise them in *any* way.
Perfect performance is impossible. But *attempting* perfect performance with humility and sincerity will reveal to you the Great Deception and how unbelievably obvious and stupid it all is.
It is time for radical Christianity.
It absolutely is.
In other words, stop compromising. But, to do that you must learn all the ways you've been compromising while being unaware.
I got into a heated discussion with a (very) tradcat after Mass yesterday. He was attempted to convince the neophyte I was with that shopping and dining out Sundays is ok, so long as you're not working and internally keeping the Sabbath. Because of the neophyte, I had to correct him.
Like so many, he'd never read the Commandment. He assumed the summarized phrase contained all of God's law.
Have you?
Restaurant staff are our "servants," as are store clerks.
This is a really tough one. One of the high-points of my week (and theirs) was Sunday brunch with my sons. I stopped that 3 years, and it's caused a lot of problems. It's unbelievably difficult to avoid profit places on Sunday. So simple, yet so hard.
I'm sure I'll get blown up now by all sorts of internet theologians telling me I'm wrong. So, just to head that off, I'm telling you now that I won't respond to Sabbath arguments, because it's simply an example. Disagree? Ok, choose another example. There are plenty.
But stop compromising.
Get back to first principles. Obey Jesus as Sovereign King. Apologize when you fail. Then, you begin to scrape away the decades of calcification over your conscience, and Satan has a hard time deceiving you.
The problem of course is that nobody will like you.
But that's how He said it would be.
----------------------------------------
* Michael: You're right. I accept the correction & am placing it here because the point is important. Passion doesn't excuse carelessness. I should have said that modernists have abused & misconstrued the phrase, not that the theology itself is erroneous. Thank you.
@Catholic_Jack
I’m going to offer a rebuttal to what’s contained toward the end of this tweet, regarding “fancy intellectual phrases like ‘remote material cooperation,’” but with the humble invitation to be proven wrong on the topic, if backed by approved sources of the Church.
And of course, @JonahofNinevah and anyone else here knows that by “the Church” I don’t mean any garbage emanating from the mouths of anti-popes John XXIII-on, or published with the approval of their minions. I’m talking about clear, no-nonsense, anti-modernist, pre-VII sources.
With that in mind, I’d like to draw attention to this compendium on moral theology: “Moral Theology” by Frs. McHugh and Caplan, with a 1958 imprimatur from Abp Spellman
Electronic copy here: https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/35354/pg35354.html
Given the date of publishing, its imprimatur, and the fact that this book is a comprehensive collection of already established principles of Catholic moral theology, the inclusion of language and explanation regarding cooperation in evil (formal/material, immediate/proximate/remote) suggests that this is in fact the language of the Church (albeit rather technical and intellectual-sounding).
Unless it can be demonstrated that this is the first such instance of language used in this way in a book approved by the Church to lay down the principles of Catholic morality and how to apply them, or if there’s proof that those who introduced this language, and there were
Some large conspiracy within the pre-VII church to approve this language being done only by anti-Catholic usurpers of episcopal sees, then we all have to accept this as the language of the Church.
With that in mind, I think the real battlefield is actually in the interpretation and application of those principles to the major moral issues of today (voting when it has become evident that the entire American political system is broken, its representatives actors on behalf of the global banking cartel toward the complete destruction of Christendom; vaccines for “pandemics” which used aborted baby tissue in the manufacturing process, etc.)
https://twitter.com/Catholic_Jack/status/1348678212478525441?s=20
