“The Church Must Breathe with Both Lungs”: Thoughts on the Council of Florence

 

Image result for council of florence

The Council of Florence (1438-1445) has cropped up a lot in my research on Neoplatonism and magic. While much good did come from the council and one of its goals: the bringing of Eastern Orthodoxy back into the fold of Catholicism is a noble end, there seems to have been some curious activity going on “behind the scenes.”

I have already written of the transmission of Neoplatonic magic, hermeticism, theurgy, and other occult ideas from Eastern Orthodox prelates who came to the West during the Council of Florence and after the fall of Constantinople.

What I want to look at here is the idea of using the Council Florence to kick start not the return of Eastern Orthodoxy to the Catholic fold but the creation of a one world religion.

Writing of the Council of Florence’s importance for some, Dennis Lackner writes, “The Council of Florence symbolized the aspiration for reconciliation between the two sundered halves of Christendom, Greek and Latin: a universal religious peace to achieve, in the words of Nicholas of Cusa, concordantia Catholica and pax fidei”

This language of universal peace and concordia sounds like the goal of the coexist movement as well as the religious dialogue between East and West that has occurred since the end of the Second Vatican Council, which has been especially important to John Paul II and Pope Francis.

There seem to be two ways of looking at the topic of Eastern reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church.

The first is the idea that the Eastern bishops and patriarchs must submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic pontiff and thus return to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The second is that the Eastern and Roman Catholic churches merge into one body while maintaining contrary theological positions and with the pope as merely the titular leader or figure head of the Church.  This “union” would serve as the catalyst for the unification of all  religions into one pagan religious riddled with contradictions and worshiping a nameless “God” who offers defication or “Christ consciousness” to its adherents.

Which one have post Vatican II popes been workign toward?

 

Paul Johnson, Vatican II, and The Greatest Crime in Human History

The Catholic British historian Paul Johnson is unquestionably a joy to read. However, despite being a firm critic of Marxism and Communism as well as even some aspects of liberalism and the Whig Narrative of history, Johnson, nonetheless, has some strong neoconservative streaks. While not a neocon puppet like Victor Davis Hanson, Johnson nonetheless has a decided Anglo and Americancentric view of history and is not afraid to create crude caricatures of nasty premodern cultures like Japanese Bushido when they surface in the 20th century, getting the way of Anglo-American world dominance.

I just came across an interesting comment in Johnson’s most famous work, Modern Times in which the historian, who by all accounts is a devout Catholic, wrote that the “greatest single crime in history” was “the extermination of the European Jews.”

This passage reminds me statements made by John Paul II to the same effect.

When visiting Auschwitz in 1979, John Paul referred to the mass executions of the Nazis as the “Golgotha of the Modern World.”

These statements made by Johnson and Pope John Paul II affectively say that the Holocaust is either worse than or just as bad as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

The Holocaust then is not merely the “ground zero” of the new philosophy of postmodernism and deconstruction (yes, I know they begin the 19th century with Nietzsche and the Russian nihilists), but the new theology as well.

The new theology of nonjudgmentalism, open borders, anti-discrimination, and tolerance peddled by Pope Francis is rooted in the belief that the worst thing to ever happen in human history was not the crucifixion  of Christ for the sins of man, but rather the killing of large numbers of the Jewish people at the hands of an authoritarian regime.

Thus the new ethics of this new theology is the destruction of authoritarianism and the eradication of the Western civilization on which Nazism grew like the tumor.

While there is a clear connection between the theology of Pope Francis and the holocaust, it is unclear why Johnson would make such a statement.

Mikhail Gorbachev’s Verdict on John Paul II

Image result for mikhail gorbachev

One of the greatest paradoxes among many incoherent and disjointed arguments within the Catholic neoconservative narrative is the depiction of John Paul II as both the great humanist and advocate for liberty of conscience (with a necessarily attendant liberal view of salvation) as well as a great missionary for Christ, saving souls and bringing them within the fold of the Church.

It is interesting that a similar portrait of John Paul was given by the great reforming Communist of perestroika and glasnost (now turned New Ager), Mikhail Gorbachev. When asked to comment on JPII’s death, after noting John Paul was a “servant of the Church of Christ,”  Gorbachev stated,  “He was a humanist really. A Humanist with a capital H, maybe the first humanist in world history.” This is a very curious statement from the former leader of the Soviet Union and someone who now advocates nature worship.

The fans of JPII as well as JPII himself clearly saw John Paul as playing a world historical role in a world historical moment, what was called during his reign, without irony, a New Pentecost.

What is more, it is quite clear that John Paul was a Christian humanist whose great love for human beings caused him to “tone down” essentials of the faith. Furthermore, JPII’s humanism paved the way for Francis’s radicalism, which also combines more than a dose of Gorbachev’s occultism and environmentalism.

The roots of humanism like much of Enlightenment liberalism are rooted in the rediscovery of Neoplatonic philosophy, which exalted man as a God and argued for the destruction of Constantianian or Tridentine Catholicism in order to make way for a new Promethean freedom.

The question is: Is there something Gorbachev knew about John Paul II that we don’t? Or was his statement just a nice platitude?

Manly P. Hall, Ronald Reagan, and John Paul II (A Shocking Revelation).

51U3HoqStyL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

Throughout his work, A Pope and A President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Story of the 20th Century, in which he attempts to seize the message of Fatima and use it as post-Cold War American imperial propaganda, Paul Kengor repeatedly refers to the phrase “Divine Plan” or “DP,” which was regularly used by Ronald Reagan, his staff, and according to Kengor, John Paul II himself during their intrigues against the Soviet Union.

As even mainstream secular journals admit, it is well known that Ronald Reagan was an avid reader of the works of Manley P. Hall, the high ranking Free Masonic occultist who envisioned the creation of America as a product of millennia of conspiracy on behalf of secret societies. These secret societies aimed to create a world republic using America as a vehicle. Manly P. Hall called these efforts “The Great Plan.”

Sounds a lot like “Divine Plan,” doesn’t it?

We are thus, again, left in a strange situation with some troubling questions.

  1. Did John Paul II really believe in a Divine Plan or Great Plan in which America would bring about an occult world republic? Is this what John Paul meant by the New Spring Time of Evangelization (a term derived form the occult) and New Advent (advent of whom? Christ has already come!?).
  2. If not, does this reference to Hall give us a key to understanding the neocons’ infiltration of the Church and their attempt to coral her in the service of American imperialism? Are/were Kengor, Weigel, Novak, Fr. Neuhaus (and others) part of some organization that is working toward the Great Plan?
  3. What is going on here?

John Paul II and the Cardinal John Krol Conspiracy Revisited.

 

346

One the conspiracies surrounding John Paul II that is repeatedly brought up by neocon biographers is the suggestion by the KGB that Cardinal John Krol of Philadelphia worked as an agent on behalf of the United States in order to get Karol Wojtyla on the papal throne.

Dear reader, I do not know whether or not this conspiracy is true. However, there is enough evidence to suggest that some in the Vatican and the United States were jockeying to place the Polish cardinal in a position of power.

In 1976 the future John Paul II was invited by Pope Paul VI to give the Lenten meditations at the Vatican. Later that year, Cardinal Woytla traveled throughout the United States, attending a Eucharistic Congress in Cardinal Krol’s Philadelphia in August, which was attended by President Gerald Ford.

geraldford_ap200

The mass attended by Gerald Ford was themed “The Eucharist and Man’s Hunger for Freedom” and included a talk by Cardinal Wotyla who spoke on the universal hunger for freedom.

John Paul further said in another statement given in America during a commemoration of the birthday of the United States in September of that year:

“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever experienced. I do not think that the wide circle of the American Society, or the whole wide circle of the Christian Community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-church, between the gospel and the anti-gospel, between Christ and the antichrist. The confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence. It is, therefore, in God’s Plan, and it must be a trial which the Church must take up, and face courageously.”

This speech was later published in the important neocon mouth piece The Wall Street Journal in 1978 and has been finessed by neocon interpretations ever since.

Two years after his visit to America, John Paul II was elected pope.

Before I engage in any speculation, I want to make a few things clear.

1.) John Paul II repeatedly criticized capitalism and the decadence of the West as well as the Western imperial wars inaugurated by the neocons throughout his life.

2.) Just because John Paul II admired America, it doesn’t mean he was an agent of American intelligence.

3). Just because some American politicians and some members of American intelligence thought John Paul could possibly serve as an asset in the Vatican, it doesn’t mean that he actually did serve as such an asset or that he did not evade being “handled” by American intelligence.

Nonetheless, there are a number of unanswered questions.

  1. Was John Paul invited to America to be scouted out as a suitable papal candidate?
  2. Was John Paul II signaling to the Americans during his trip that he was on their side?
  3. Or is there merely a narrative being crafted over John Paul II’s life and work that is trying to mold him as an agent of American imperialism when, in fact, he was his own man?

What the CIA Thought about Mehmet Ali Agca.

john-paul-ii

One of the interesting revelations of Paul Kengor’s book The Pope and the President is that William J. Casey, Ronald Reagan’s head of the CIA, had to fight against the institutional Central Intelligence Agency to push the narrative that Soviet intelligence was involved in the assassination attempt on John Paul II. Furthermore, Kengor himself was rebuffed by CIA men when he proposed the theory, and as Kengor reveals, the CIA even went out of its way to attack Claire Sterling, the journalist who first proposed the Soviet connection in Reader’s Digest.

Of course, there is evidence of collaboration between elements of American and Soviet governmental bodies during the Cold War. Was there collusion in the attempt on John Paul II’s life? Or was it just a rock the CIA did not want to turn over?

This dismissal of Agca by the Central Intelligence Agency leaves us with some interesting questions.

  1. Why is the narrative of Soviet involvement in the attempt so important to Catholic neocons?
  2. Why would the CIA so vehemently deny the involvement of the KGB or any other intelligence agency in the attempt?
  3. Was Agca working for someone else outside the main channels of Soviet or American intelligence?

Two More Gems from John Allen Jr: John Paul II’s Critique of Capitalism and the Neocons Refuted

Monopoly

Dear Reader,

I’ll readily admit that I had largely bought the narrative that John Paul II grew more sympathetic to capitalism at the end of the Cold War and projected at least some of that sympathy into Centesimus Annus (even if the neocons were wrong to augment that sympathy into endorsement of American style late capitalism).

However, while reading John Allen’s The Francis Effect, I discovered two quotes from John Paul II in which he strongly and explicitly condemns capitalism. Allen points to a quote from 1993 (two years after Centesimus!) in which John Paul II said, “Catholic social teaching is not a surrogate for capitalist ideology…[which is] responsible for grave social injustices.”

Allen further notes quotes John Paul II as saying “the bourgeois mentality and capitalism as a whole, with its materialistic spirit acutely contradict the gospel.”

These very strong words further condemn the narrative that John Paul gave his blessing to American style capitalism that has been pedaled by Catholic neocons for two decades.