Let us suppose for a moment that the Sedevacantists are right. The chair of Peter has, by some form of apostasy or other, been vacant for a significant time now. In fact, the exact date and cause doesn't even matter in this line of reasoning. Even if you just suppose that the current claimant to the throne of Peter, one Jorge Bergoglio, has no such rightful claim in any form, actual or potential, the foregoing argument still holds on a carry-forward basis.
Now, if this is true, what are our actual obligations as faithful Catholics? Why, we are to find the highest remaining authority in the Church that has not gone along with the apostasy that led to this vacancy in the seat of Peter and follow that man. We have not always been promised a pope. Our Lady warned us when she appeared at La Salette that "Rome will lose faith and become the seat of the Antichrist." We do not have popes during the time between the death of one and the election of another; this is the origin of the term sedevacante. While it is an obligation for us to hold that the supreme earthly authority and rightful exercise of power in the Church belongs to the successor to Saint Peter, in absence of such a one, the hierarchical structure of the Church, by its very nature, does not break down. There may be limits on what can be done in absence of a pope, but God's authority still remains in the Church, who still possesses the keys which our Lord gave to Saint Peter and against which our Lord promised the gates of Hell shall never prevail.
Viewed in this light, it is somewhat silly the amount of ink that has been spilt by traditional Catholics over the issue of sedevacantism. It is disordered in light of the real issue, identified over and over by Our Lady, apostasy. And in any event, while the philosophical truth of the matter is indeed important, the practical outcome can easily remain the same. Even if you adopt the sedevacantist position, it would seem to make the most sense to follow the Society of Saint Pius X, as founded by the highest ranking Church authority that openly opposed the current apostasy who in keeping with the rules set by previous legitimate papal authority created an institution that unimpeachably carries the apostolic succession forward.
Briefly, let us spend a moment dismissing the claims that the Society, despite by all outward appearances keeping the faith, somehow at one time or another found itself infiltrated by a mason or two rendering its effort in all or part void. As Church scholars have argued, since there is no way for earthly creatures to ascertain the intention of another such creature, mere objective participation in the rites of the Church, as they have been lawfully codified and always been celebrated, is enough to assume the proper intention. This is clearly the case, or the enemies of the Church would have never endeavored to alter the rites of the Church. Satan, ever the most cunning of God's creatures, would have seen all the more fit to leave the old rites in place and merely infiltrate the Church with men who would withhold their intention in performance of the old rites. No! - no! - no!!! This was not an avenue for undermining the Church. There is something inherent, objectively true in the traditional rites of the mass that demonstrate integrity between action and thought. There are some actions you cannot perform without making an admission of their own truth. We know this even from simple, secular forms of study, such as economics. "Man acts," and to endeavor to disprove the truth of this statement would itself be an action, thereby proving its truth. It is impossible to participate in the traditional rites, without admitting their truth. This is not the same of the new rites of the mass, and the very reason the enemies of Christ saw fit to implement them.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Far from a Reagan redux, the premature high-fiving within the alt-right while Trump already signals to 'conserve' certain portions of Obamacare and begins a rapprochement with the remaining and former political establishment, along with the far-worse cultural and fiscal situation in which we find ourselves should give pause to those who think the forces of truth and justice are firmly in power again. Trump has more to undo than any of his conservative predecessors ever did. And mere tax-cuts, while a step in the right direction, along with huge infrastructure and defense contracts handed out to the existing cohort of crony-capitalists, which may lead to job creation in the short-run, do not undo the institutional arrangements which have placed our country in these dire straits pre-Trump and would lead us back to our current predicament the minute the establishment gets its grimy hands back into the White House. We will need to see a much more forceful, structural cleaning-of-house if the Trump administration represents a true morning in America versus only a stay in her execution.
Yes, Trump's seemingly instant post-election friendly relations with the likes of Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may only be a superficial strategy gauged to see how much of his real agenda he can push through using the facade of the establishment. Yet power corrupts and hobnobbing with the very criminals we have worked so vociferously to oppose is fraught with danger. Those of us most optimistic about the possibilities under a Trump administration must be the most vocal about the dangers of going off-rail.
With his election success, the media and establishment politicians are at their very weakest now. An emboldened strategy of finishing off the worst elements in these two, empowering at the peak of our momentum we who stand ready to replace them, is the best course forward in these trying times. It will be a tragic irony if Trump uses this moment to befriend those who are most assuredly to undermine him later. We must keep our wits about us in victory most especially. Let us hope the rapprochement lasts for one week and not a minute longer.
Those of us aware of the real structural problems within the United States, the cultural-deterioration which is unlikely to be fully reversed, the fractional-reserve banking system, the satanic elite's dehumanizing cashless economic plans must use this reprieve to strengthen our independent means of support in building farms, homesteads, independent businesses, redoubts, churches and small, informal communities, rather than blindly trusting the Trump administration and returning to a consumerist mind-set. Trump may end up being everything we hope for, he may over-confidently stumble at first and wake up to the full realities of Washington later, or he may represent only a temporary return to the better side of a Keynesian economic boom that will lead us right back to the elite's plans as soon as he leaves office. Regardless, it remains our job to continue to rebuild true civilization.
What realistically should the Trump administration look like? Using precedence within the American system, now seems time for an updated and renewed Jacksonian democracy (full credit to Wikipedia):
- Also known as the spoils system, patronage was the policy of placing political supporters into appointed offices. Many Jacksonians held the view that rotating political appointees in and out of office was not only the right but also the duty of winners in political contests. Patronage was theorized to be good because it would encourage political participation by the common man and because it would make a politician more accountable for poor government service by his appointees. Jacksonians also held that long tenure in the civil service was corrupting, so civil servants should be rotated out of office at regular intervals.
- Strict Constructionism
- Like the Jeffersonians who strongly believed in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Jacksonians ...favored a federal government of limited powers. Jackson said that he would guard against "all encroachments upon the legitimate sphere of State sovereignty."
- Laissez-faire Economics
- Complementing a strict construction of the Constitution, the Jacksonians generally favored a hands-off approach to the economy, as opposed to the Whig program sponsoring modernization, railroads, banking, and economic growth.
- In particular, the Jacksonians opposed government-granted monopolies to banks, especially the national bank, a central bank known as the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson said, "The bank is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" And he did so. Jackson himself was opposed to all banks because he believed they were devices to cheat common people; he and many followers believed that only gold and silver should be used to back currency, rather than the integrity of a bank.