The Epitome Michael Bolerjack
ÂŠ 2012 Michael Bolerjack
Table of Contents Praemunire End of Prophecy If he crowned you Praise Timeline of the Antichrist When I look into your eyes Israel Ate Manna Christchurch Destroyed The Other Witness The Four Last Things Apostle is One Sent
PRAEMUNIRE In a preparation of a defense of the actions of the butler and the nuns, it is not so much necessary to justify what they have done or are doing, but to call into question the right of their accuser, the Pope. I believe the Pope bases the ultimate authority he has over them on long-standing notions of sovereignty to which the medieval theory of the divine right of kings is not foreign. But in what sense is Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, a “king”? If he claims sovereignty, it is probably in some sense as a kind of king, a monarch, an absolute, unquestioned ruler, reigning by divine right. Let us look at this. The liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church designates the last Sunday of the Church year, just before the Advent season, as the Solemnity of Christ the King. At any one time there can be but one King. That is Christ. It is Christ who is sovereign of the Church, not the Pope. Does Christ need a man to represent Him with say, power of attorney, as His agent, in the see of Peter? The presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, conferred on each member at confirmation, indicates, if one believes, that God is already represented and present and can directly affect persons and events. In the case, also, of each individual in the Church there is the all-important conscience, which as Cardinal Newman said is the “vicar of Christ” in each person. I believe it is this spiritual vicar whom the nuns and the butler are obeying instead of the man on the throne in Rome who is, in contradiction to one of the most important achievements of the Second Vatican Council, the treatise on conscience, produced after centuries of ambiguity and inquisition, forcing their consciences, and this precisely in religious matters, which the Council Fathers said was the area in which the rights of the conscience of the individual are most to be defended. Of course, the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated under John Paul II and signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, allows the teaching of Newman on conscience in one place, while later saying that Catholics cannot deliberately set their consciences against the Magisterium. I believe one can deliberately violate one’s conscience, but I do not see how one can deliberately “set” it, as one would set a watch. Rather, it is the conscience that sets us. Since conscience is the vicar of Christ, it is Christ who sets the conscience. The butler said he did what he did in leaking Vatican documents under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. It was God’s will. The Spirit blows where He will. God is free. The butler has told investigators he saw evil all around him in the Church. This
from a man who has been at the Pope’s side day after day for years. A Vatican psychologist said the butler suffers from a “grave psychological disorder.” From the symptoms described, such as “uneasiness,” it seems to be a matter of an uneasy conscience, a moral dilemma, not a psychological problem. Other matters, such as the planting of a check in his apartment, to make him look like a thief rather than a whistle-blower, make me incredulous. If he asked no money from the press or publishers for the leaked documents, why would he appropriate a check? As an employee or resident of Vatican City State, he may be able to be held accountable in the Pope’s courts for his “crime,” but in terms of the higher law of the theological issues involved, the butler is not guilty. It was not a sin. It was an act of faith in God and an act of love for the Church. The Pope, sometime spiritual leader of a billion people, is now but a temporal ruler, like the popes of old, concerned with money, power, law, politics, keeping secrets, hiding things the Church and the world should know. He seeks to enforce justice on truth-tellers like the butler and the nuns, while at the same time begging for mercy for the sex-abusing priests and the bishops responsible for the cover-up. Only in a totalitarian regime could he get away with this, not in a democracy. There is some sort of dissonance here between Benedict’s roles as temporal ruler and spiritual leader. On the other hand, does the Church then have two Kings, Jesus Christ it’s spiritual sovereign and Benedict it’s temporal? We know the history of the popes and emperors in the middle ages. The pontiff always held the spiritual ruler to be supreme. And so He is. Let us never say we have no king but Caesar. Christ is King. May He come quickly. The sovereignty of Benedict being in dispute and the sovereignty of Christ recognized, let us appeal to English law. The rule of Praemunire applied to those who upheld papal supremacy in legal matters involving the English King. Convicted, those supporting the Pope had to forfeit. A fortiori if Praemunire is applied by analogy to the current question. Christ is King in the Church and in each individual in the Church. One cannot serve two masters, as the Lord said. Benedict must forfeit. Certainly, Christ the King may have a council or counselors, as other kings may have, but he needs no other sovereign. I believe, as in the parable of the vineyard, the King is returning to take it back from the usurpers who beat and killed the men the King sent to them to speak for Him. Benedict, on his accession, claimed to merely be a laborer in the vineyard, but this means one who does not give to God what is God’s. Christ the King has chosen the American nuns and the Pope’s own butler to speak and act on his behalf, to rebuke Peter to his face, which seems to be a time immemorial job for those in the Church. I
call on Cardinals and Bishops to also speak and act, in defense of the butler and the nuns, and in common cause with them and their lay supporters. I thank God that these events are unfolding on the fiftieth anniversary of the convening of the Second Vatican Council, which is still in living memory. Blessed John XXIII said God spoke to him directly and told him to call the council. Across the board, the current Pope and his predecessor have besieged it and attempted to roll-back point by point the high-water mark of the Catholic Church. In matters of “practical theology” such as church administration and the liturgy they have pretty much succeeded, but in terms of what may be called “mystical theology,” that is, the individual, unique relationship of each Catholic with the Holy Trinity, they will not succeed. For the Kingdom of Heaven is indeed within us and cannot be overturned. This relationship is forever, and will outlast even St. Peter’s and the so-called eternal city of Rome.
END OF PROPHECY There have been seventeen encyclicals of the antichrist. Because of the exigency of the number 18 (6+6+6=18, 6x6x6=216 and 2+16=18, and John Paul 2 + Benedict 16 = 18) there must be 18 such letters before the pontificate of Benedict ends. He said previously he was delaying his next one until after he had published the second volume of his best-selling work on Jesus. Now that that has been issued, as well as his book on the “signs of the time,” I think he will soon publish his fourth encyclical, to go with John Paul II’s fourteen, to reach the fateful number. What could this potentially culminating statement be? I think it will be the ex cathedra assertion of the proposed Marian dogma discussed for years of the Blessed Virgin Mary as mediatrix and adjutrix. That is, that she shares equally with Christ the role of both mediator and judge. The infallible declaration of this dogma, long championed by some in the Church, will do several things at once. First, it will permanently destroy the hope of ecumenism that in part gave rise to the Second Vatican Council, the hope of the reconciliation of the Catholic Church with the other Christian
churches. The Vatican in 2011 floated the idea that the real antichrist is the pope to come after Benedict, and that he will be an ecumenist. Immediately on certain Catholic websites the book by the Russian 19th century theologian Vladimir Solovyov, â€œTales of the Antichrist,â€? appeared, which the Vatican suggested supports their contention. As you may suspect, I believe Benedict was merely trying to direct attention away from himself. The prophecies of Malachy are wellknown. There is to be only one pope after the current one. And he well may be ecumenical, which Benedict definitely is not. The foreclosure of the ecumenical movement will isolate the Catholic Church, reinforcing the mystique of exclusivity, which one priest told me is the ideology of the Church today. The faithful will be told that they are the good ones, sure of salvation, on the inside, unlike those without, the heretics, apostates, sinners, and so on. Many people go along with this, unquestioningly, fearing the consequences if they are outside the circle. Perhaps the ecumenical movement was a dream as regards the Catholic Church, because no thinking Christian outside the Church can in any way accept the authority of the Pope, and those in the Church cannot, for the most part, imagine a Church without a
Pope, and are really not allowed to imagine it, as papal infallibility forbids it. The ecumenical impetus at Vatican II nearly gave rise in Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, to the redefining of the role of the bishops vis-Ă -vis the Pope, but Paul VI in 1964 had two notes appended to the Council document instructing how it was to be read, over-ruling the Council, and taking the wind out of the sails of reform in the Church. The proposed permanent council in Rome composed of a group of bishops went on, but was diffused and made ineffective by the Pope and the Curia. The forces of reaction, which had tried to hinder the bishops even before they met first in 1962, by devising a plethora of drafts that had to be completely rejected one and all by the Council so that the real work could begin, turned the corner on the progressives with the â€œinterpretationâ€? Paul gave of the most important document of the Council. It was only a matter of time, after what I think was the coup in 1978, for Wojtyla to step in with an iron hand and begin eliminating voices of opposition, dissent and even dialogue within the Church. The current struggle by the American nuns is a last attempt to stop the complete closure in the Church of the hope for a
freer Catholicism witnessed in part in Rome during the Second Vatican Council. What else will the possible encyclical on Mary do? It will do something I think unprecedented. The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, promulgated in 1854 and 1950, respectively, did not contradict scripture. The Bible does not comment on these matters, so the Popes had a free hand, and they had been widely discussed in the Church for years. However, the idea of the Blessed Virgin Mary being both mediator and judge with Christ is different. The apostle Paul said that we have “one sole mediator” with God, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ himself said “scripture cannot be broken.” An infallible papal dogmatic assertion on Mary as it has been discussed since the time of the Marian resurgence in the Church led by John Paul II, would be a flat contradiction of scripture as well as a long-held teaching of the Church, denying both St. Paul’s word as well as Christ’s. But the antichrist could well do such a thing, and I think he will. I believe he has already beatified and ratified the actual worship of the beast in
the Book of Revelation, and set in place the eventual suspension of the sacrifice, which will be made vacant spiritually, not literally. The odd thing about the notorious failed prophecy of May 2011 in “The End of the Church Age” was that it is not literally but spiritually true, and being invisible, may already have happened, almost unnoticed. That prophecy, which frightened many people about the end of the world, said a series of earthquakes would take place, ringing the globe, time zone by time zone, beginning in the Western Pacific Ocean. In fact, such an earthquake took place in Christchurch, New Zealand, devastating the city, but I believe that the prophecy may point to an event that has or will take place in the Catholic Church, connected with the recent changes in the Order of Mass, many of which may not have gone into effect because of the unheard-of innovation in the second half of it of the so-called masses of “reconciliation” which I do not think have as of yet been widely used, if at all. The paragraph of instruction on these all new masses stipulates different occasions for their celebration, such as times of emergency, and other more benign reasons. I believe that on a day now known to the Pope, before his reign ends in 2014, all of the
Catholic dioceses in the world will have one of these masses read and celebrated, and that this will be in conjunction with the assertion of the new Marian dogma, possibly with the insertion of the new titles for the Blessed Virgin into the mass. This may cause the deconsecration of the Roman Catholic Church on that day, time zone by time zone, around the world, from the start of the new day, west of the International Dateline. As it says in Revelation, Babylon falls in the space of one hour, the length of a Sunday mass. The Church will deconsecrate, if it does, because of lese majesty, an offense against the sovereignty of Christ the King, by the Pope, and against the Blessed Virgin Mary, who though seemingly exalted by this act of the Pope, is actually being impugned in her humility as the handmaid of the Lord. For too long the Church has distorted the image of Mary, and now I believe this was done with insidious intent, both to trap Catholics who love her into the coming deconsecration, and to make war on the Woman as the Dragon does in the Book of Revelation. It may be that nothing at this point can be done to stop this from happening. Perhaps all we can do is await the final spiritual vacancy of the Catholic Church, though what external temporal affect this will
have on the World cannot be known, though there are many frightening indications in the Book of Revelation of events prophesied to take place, which I think will be triggered by the voiding of Catholicism. We may look forward to the thousand year reign of Christ when the battles are over, but the road there will be hard for anyone to traverse. On the other hand, there are still one billion Catholics, and they individually, or nationally, by groups, or orders, or en masse, are still free to follow their consciences, to take action against the abuses of the Church already known, and the darker sub-text which has given rise to them. The democratic forces in the world have long been engaged in a struggle with antidemocratic forces, and this is true in the Catholic Church, too. These forces of democracy, nascent at the Second Vatican Council, may still be asserted and the Church taken back, saved, transformed, and the world with it brought to a peaceful and loving end, in which judgment is not necessary. The choice confronting Catholics is simple: a free, democratic Christian Church, or a totalitarian antichristian empire modeled on Caesar. May God forgive all who hold and teach the Catholic faith.
If he crowned you
If he crowned you, If he made you an Everlasting imperishable sign, I would still read to you And need you as I do, Speaking poverty To holiness, Artless, Poetic.
Praising God And finding you.
Timeline of the Antichrist
Vatican Council I
John Paul II
There are 144 years on the timeline. 1870 to 1942 is 72 years and 1942 to 2014 is 72 years. 1870 1906 1942 1978 2014 are separated by 36 years. There will be 36 years in the combined reign of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the beast and false prophet of Revelation. The Number 36 relates to the number 666, because in the series 1+2+3…and so on…+36 the result is 666. 666 applies to John Paul II and Benedict XVI because 6+6+6=18 which equals 2+16. Also, 6x6x6=216. 2+16 = 18. The Mariavite order in Poland left the Roman Catholic Church, but found some vindication in John Paul II and his ratification of the message of Divine Mercy by St. Faustina, a doctrine similar to that of the Mariavites who were from St. Faustina’s hometown of Plock. Is the message of mercy from Poland the real doctrine of Christ, when the Scripture says God has mercy on Whom He will?
When I Look Into Your Eyes
When I look into your eyes I see glaciers falling, light sparring, momentum gathered, earth at her zenith, no dejection. The fire in you rises, your clothes loose in the wind, a breath of God on your hair, and stars around to abet your half-smiling lips, now serious, now laughing. In your transitions is abiding, a certainty next to durable unknowns, that make the thorns of the heart easier to bleed, the tears not awkward to drop.
Israel Ate Manna
Israel ate manna in the desert. The bread from heaven tasted like what each person desired. The infinite God can do this. The world today is like the story of the manna in the wilderness. God tests each one of us individually, uniquely, according to His own design. The infinite God can do this. As Thomas said, it has not yet been demonstrated that God cannot do an infinite number of things simultaneously. The world is what it is for each of us. Each lives in a separate reality. For Israel, the manna was taken away when the people of God entered the Promised Land. In our time, the sacrifice is being suspended, as Daniel prophesied. The manna will be no more. If the ranks of Catholics knew this already, they would be dismayed. But if they knew further, their grief would turn to joy, for unless the manna is taken away, the people of God cannot enter the Promised Land. Daniel said, 12:7, that God will scatter the power of the holy people. This is what is happening to the Roman Catholic Church today. At the heart of the Church, its source and summit, as Vatican II said, is the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the mass, the transubstantiation on the altar of the bread and wine. The way to scatter the power of the holy people is to make void the sacrifice, to de-substantiate the bread and wine. Rather than the bread and wine becoming Christ, the Lord and His Spirit will be driven out of the institutional Church, though God is free, and the Spirit blows where He will. It may be impossible; it may be impossible for the infallible Church to be in error, yet as one priest I know often says, God does the impossible. It is not impossible, then, that God created the Catholic Church only to see it destroyed, to see it abandon Him, as Israel always does its Lord. Salvation is the history of just this trespass, betrayal, adultery. God has promised a remnant, though. Who these people are and where they are is known only to God and that is good enough for me. Just as the Jewish people, as True Israel, forfeited, according to the Romans, so too that later True Israel of Catholicism is forfeiting, and just as the latter benefitted from the former, so I hope the world will gain life from the destruction of the Church. God has mercy on those He chooses. Many are called, but few are chosen. Many will say “Lord, Lord.” Yet the mercy of God is His alone to dispense, and cannot be bought, sold, appropriated, controlled, manipulated by anyone. So-called indulgences are well-named, but God does not think as people do, as is said in Isaiah. He does not indulge us, nor can He be indulged. Jesus said what you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, so grace is bought and sold, God’s hands seemingly tied. But his mercy and justice are one.
Christchurch was destroyed last year. The city of Christchurch, New Zealand, was hit by a series of devastating earthquakes that destroyed the center of the city, killing hundreds, and causing thousands to flee and move away. This is the literal fact. It is also symbolic. For, in the theory by which I have written, the Church of Christ on its Roman basis was indeed destroyed last year. The Catholic Church fell into what may be appropriately called “mass apostasy,” and after the setting up of the abomination of desolation in the holy place on May 1 with the promotion of John Paul II to be one who is worshipped, the Church itself, in the changes of the Order of Mass, has either suspended or prepared to suspend the sacrifice, at the time of the celebration of the so-called masses of “reconciliation,” an innovation in the basic liturgy that is unprecedented. After the history of simony, betrayal of the gospel, and hypocrisy, culminating in recent years with the ritual abuse of children, the pope, bishops and priests are bringing about the utter deconsecration of Christ’s Church. There was a man who last year predicted the end of the world. This old California radio preacher predicted the end would come in May, 2011, through a series of catastrophic earthquakes that would ring the earth, time zone by time zone, beginning in the Western Pacific. But the day came in May and the end did not occur. The media laughed at the preacher, and his followers were embarrassed into silence. It was just another false prophecy. But I think it was not completely false, just inaccurate. For it was the end of the Catholic Church, not the world, that happened last May, or at least the Church began the steps leading to its destruction. Spiritual earthquakes are taking place, not physical ones. As the Revelation says, the city was destroyed in the space of an hour, the length of the Sunday mass, perhaps the beatification mass of John Paul II, when Benedict admitted the rules were suspended, ignored, and evidence with it, so his predecessor could be promoted for worship. The “mass apostasy” which was predicted by Our Lady of Fatima has taken place, not with many leaving the Church, but with an apostate mass that has or will make void the sacrament and what spiritual authority, even power, once held in Rome. The false prophet of Revelation promoted the beast for worship. The image of the beast that speaks and is worshipped is actually the statute, not statue, of the beast that is spoken for worship. It is the mass of the damned. Almost no one knows this outside a few in Rome. Some like myself have perhaps discovered the perfidy and chosen to risk separating themselves from the Church of Benedict, if only because God has promised a remnant that will not have knelt to Baal. We have not deliberately set ourselves in conscience against the Magisterium, as the Catechism says, rather found the Magisterium set itself deliberately against us, repealing in doing so the teachings of Vatican II on conscience. Christ is the judge, and the conscience is the judgment of Christ in me. I could not in good conscience be silent while Christ’s Church is destroyed.
The Other Witness
With the deconstruction of the world underway, and with it now the deconsecration of the oldest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, is there any alternative to the debacle? I think there is, and it can be found in language, in the very set of “decon” words that contains the other two. That word is decontamination. The era in which we are living is witnessing a machine-like generation of corruption, the complete contamination of everything. In part, this is being accomplished by the totality of the text, which has been taking place since about 1965. This totalization without a totalizer, as one might say, is the closure of the world in textuality. Deconstruction is occurring by means of it and cannot be separated from it. The deconsecration of the Church is taking place through changes in its liturgies, its texts. Likewise, these things were prophesied in texts, as well, two thousand years ago or more. If there is to be a decontamination in seems it would also have to take place in the text. The nature of textuality as closure signals a containment. Only within containment can the decontamination take place. What seemed the liability of the closure becomes its asset. As deconstruction says, it protects against what it causes. In metaphysical terms God is the container and the world the contained, being the infinite outside the totality. God is the limit. In terms of the post-metaphysical time we live in, textuality is the container, and the world itself has been transformed into it, everything in it being signifiers. In Derrida’s Glas we have an emblem of a container within his oeuvre which contains all the flith. Outside it is his scholarship, inside it is theft, blasphemy, inordinate sexuality and the theory of how the deconstruction takes place. By placing the entire contaminated into one binding Derrida shows that it may be contained. However, all the rest of the work meets up with it in various ways, until 1989 and thereafter, the time of Derrida’s conversion. As Derrida says in his Circumfessions, it may not be written here, but something takes place outside of this particular text, something like conversion. Almost immediately, Derrida makes his turn to religion in his writings. Justice, hospitality, democracy issue forth. This leads eventually before his death to considerations of the beast and sovereignty in his last seminars. An event takes place in Derrida’s life in July 1989, as he faces his possible death and the approaching death of his mother. The event, which by definition cannot take place in the text as such, leads to the decontamination of his work. Whereas, with Glas, though the filth was contained as a model of containment, yet influenced the rest of the work, in the Circumfessions, from outside the textual containment, that is from that place we call God, something happens that leads to the decontamination of the corpus as a whole. I believe that in the complicity of the deconstruction and deconsecration there can still be the intervening decontamination, affecting the outcome through texts, by the introduction of truth into the labile situation and bringing about a crystallization of the contents in the textual container. One such truth is that Derrida in his ever-oblique manner was bearing down on the antichrist in Rome throughout his religious writings, exposing the coming deconsecration, while at the same time transforming the deconstructive machine which he helped create. In this double movement, the French philosopher stayed true to his premises while achieving a far different conclusion than he appeared to set out for in the 1960s.
Up As in Joyceâ€™s Ulysses The Absolute Purity
New Jerusalem The Bride City Peace 1000 Year Kingdom Thesis History of the World:
War Ltd. Good
The moral-immoral struggle from Genesis to Revelation
32 ft ps ps (Joyceâ€™s Wake)
The both- and- neither- nor-
Synthesis End of history
War Without End
Both / Good
And / Evil
Neither / Good
Nor / Evil
1000 years of the abyss, Satan trapped by keys into textual abyss of the complete contamination
The Four Last Things
1 Christology 2 Happiness 3 Freedom 4 Convergence
Jesus of Nazareth was not God – yet. Jesus became God after the ascension. The hypostatic union is not incorrect. But it is not an historical event, rather an eternal one. By moving it from the incarnation until after the ascension, many points are saved. God did not die. God does not make mistakes. God does not create Himself. Jesus, post-resurrection, said to Mary Magdalene; do not touch me for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Why does He say this? He was still a man and could be tempted. God cannot be tempted. Jesus said to Thomas touch me. That’s ok, that’s not a temptation, but Mary Magdalene was. If something in scripture is in error, then something else can be, too. Jesus made a mistake in Matthew when He said this generation will not pass away until all these things are fulfilled. God cannot make a mistake, therefore Jesus was not God yet. Jesus said only the Father knows. If Jesus was God, He’d know. John’s and Paul’s Christologies are in error. If Jesus could make a mistake, a fortiori they could. John’s chronology is suspect, disregarding fundamentally all of the timeline of the synoptics. Paul says do not judge, but then violates the spirit of the Gospel, by his condemnations. God cannot forsake Himself. Eloi, eloi, lama sabachtani. This was said by a man forsaken. God speaks analogically or figuratively in scripture, of Jesus, or eternally, with the end in view. Vain repetition is inimical to God, but Catholic theology is vain repetition, therefore Catholic theology is inimical to God. God hates closure. The Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic canons are all closed. Philosophical inquiry is open. God loves truth in its openness. Therefore, God loves philosophy. The canons were closed in order to fetter people’s minds, shackle the truth and put God in a box. This closure cannot be effracted from within, only from without. We are placed outside, in order to effract it. The second coming will be different than the first. First, Jesus was a man. In the second He will be in hypostatic union with the Son of God. Jesus of Nazareth was not identical with the Second Person of the
Trinity, but was joined to Him, as all who are saved will be. Jesus is the first fruits. God does not pray to God. If Jesus had been God, he would have had no need to pray. God is free, but Jesus depended on the faith of others to work miracles, the faith of the recipient of the miracle, first of all. At the creation, God had no need of faith. At Nazareth, Jesus could work no great miracle. Therefore, Jesus was not God yet. Jesus grew in wisdom, but God cannot. Jesus was perfected, but God is already perfect. The scriptures contradict one another on such points as the identities of those crucified with Jesus. Are they thieves or revolutionaries? Both bad, or one good? God allowed error in scripture. He did not dictate it. For God cannot make a mistake. The true Torah is not written in a book of paper, but is in Heaven. If Jesus could be wrong, and John and Paul, how much more so fathers, doctors, councils and popes? Let God be true and every man a liar. All have fallen short. The Father is greater than I. The Bible is a literary object.
I think we should care for God’s happiness. Everyone naturally wants to be happy. God is a person. Therefore, He wants to be happy. In the Hebrew Scriptures at times God was unhappy, being angry, wrathful, and jealous. Many times His Bride ran away and left Him at the altar. But God loves her, and gives her more chances. What is God’s righteousness? Is righteousness in God’s life the same or even analogically similar to the righteousness of men, that is, with justice and morality? My ways are not your ways, nor are my thoughts your thoughts. Jesus said, put first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be added unto you. They say God does not need us. That He is self-sufficient. When I put my wife first, it is to make her happy. And so with God. How can I make God happy? If you love me (want me to be happy) keep my commandments. Love one another. Forgive your enemies. Why are we told to love God? I think it is just, and to our benefit, but also, this will make God happy. Partly because He will see that we are learning and trying, by putting His happiness ahead of ours. Jesus died, not so much in obedience, but to make His Father happy. In the war of life, Jesus had a special, monumental battle to fight. He rejoiced, though he died in pain, forsaken by the Father. It is not because He had the beatific vision and consolation of it, but because it made God happy for a man to lay down His life this way, to save His friends, win the war, and make God happy. It may be said that God’s righteousness is His happiness. Righteous is a slang term meaning genuine and good. It makes God happy to be genuine and good. When we are in our right minds, it does for us as well.
To say we are saved not by our righteousness but by God’s, is to say we are not saved by our own happiness, but by God’s. Put God first. Think of what will make Him happy. If He is happy, you will be, too. But if God is angry or unhappy, you will be even more so. God may be very unhappy with us today. He may be very angry. He loves us, but is unhappy we do not return His love. He will not force us to love Him, and He has already persuaded us so many times in so many ways. We must not love Him out of fear, or for our own good. He is deserving. He is not the cause of our problems. He wants us to win the victory over evil. Evil is not loving other persons, including God. So, we must love. He has given us so many ways to find out how to love, lessons in love, so that we may come to the altar first, where He will join us. The altar of marriage with God is the Promised Land. He wants to go there confidently, with trust, believing that although we have disappointed Him before, this time, if we get it right, He will forgive us. The Kingdom of Heaven, the Promised Land, the Wedding all mean the same thing. Do not fear the word righteousness, but substitute the word happiness for it. Morals and justice or mercy are how theologians speak. God would have love and happiness. God is more human than we think.
The twenty-two pages of this section were boiled down to the gist of the argument concerning the freedom of God and as “Salted With Fire” have appeared previously in the works End of the Church, An Icon from an Evening in Glas, and The Catholic Apocalypse. I omit them here.
Some people see the great contradiction of life and conclude that nothing is true, therefore everything is permitted. Others look on it and joyfully say, it’s all true, it’s all true. So it was for me on the day of my conversion, and so it is for me today. The philosopher Adorno said that the whole is the untrue, contrary to Hegel. How can this be? Because if the truth is a contradiction, then the whole is both true and false at the same time, and is not simply true or altogether false. In the pages on logic I published with the apocalyptic writings earlier this year, I asserted the truth of contradiction, which is not to say the contradiction of truth. The Lord has said let your left hand not know what your right hand is doing, and
the Lord has prophesied, look on, you scoffers, and be amazed, for I am doing a work you cannot comprehend. The work of the apocalypse is the full declaration of the divine totality and I see it like this:
As I have said elsewhere, the key to the interpretation of revelation is understanding the enigmatic number 666. And as I have said, 6+6+6=18, which is John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It is also via multiplication 6x6x6=216, which is John Paul II and Benedict XVI. But that is not the whole truth, nor the end of the matter. Vatican Council II can also bear the application of the number of the antichrist, for it is 2 and produced 16 documents, the constitutions, declarations and decrees. I think the supporters of the Pope will happily lay hold on this news and say, we knew it all along, it is as Paul VI said of the Council, that a wind of evil had gotten into the Church, and that the trouble in it had to be repaired by those holy men Wojtyla and Ratzinger. But it is not as simple as that. I have said elsewhere that the Church was to be stopped by God. I believe He condemned the Church before it was created. This, chiefly because of the simony, not limited to a few, but extending all the way back to the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter gladly took the money laid at his feet by persons desiring the power of the Spirit, and saw those struck dead who did not give all their money to Peter. It was not the Spirit of God who struck them dead. From this beginning, to the Pope becoming a temporal ruler in 754 was not a big step, and the career of the Church is not surprising, in that Christ said you cannot serve both God and mammon. The Church was destined to be torn down, either in deconstructing, as Vatican Council II set out to do, or through deconsecration, which is the path chosen by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. In other words, antichrist is both the Council and the Popes, the current one and his predecessor, at least, if not the last six. The periodicity of events in the recent church, worked out to a distance of 144 years, from the declaration of Papal Infallibility to the coming end in 2014, which will be 1260 years since 754, the number 1260 from Biblical prophecy, and used by Newton in his calculations, with the 144 years marked by divisions of 36, and as a whole applying to the 144,000 in Revelation, and to the 12x12 of the Two Israels, old and new, the totality of the Church, marked at the pivotal year of 1942 by the creation of the Vatican Bank, the deposit not of faith but money, is a kind of machine running inexorably to the apocalypse, when the evil of the Church will be revealed, when the truth is told, and many will repent and be saved, as Newton said. I must add that as for myself, my own name of Michael Bolerjack is composed of two words having sixteen total letters. I love Christ and do this work for Him, but seem implicated in the apocalyptic in an acute way, and no doubt will be or will have been vilified as antichrist myself. I am not, but being aware of this, of my journey as a Catholic, of how I once loved the Popes, and still think highly of the Council, I look on this great contradiction as being the truth. The fifty years of the Council and its aftermath in the reign of John Paul II and Benedict XVI can be seen as a matter of politics, of progressives and traditionalists. But it was a matter not of politics, but of prophecy. Who hath known the mind of the Lord or who has been His counselor? In the East there is an image of God in the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna discloses all his terrible sublimity to Arjuna, as both
creator and destroyer. As is said in Isaiah, I make good and create evil. As He says to Job, where were you when I created the world and made leviathan and behemoth? If God could require the death of his Son Jesus, or create Adam only to see him fall, condemn him, but later forgive him, or in all the complexity of His relationship with Israel show his freedom, as when he says I break my promise, to the people of God who refused to enter the Promised Land, ripe for the taking, as described by Joshua and Caleb, and as is said, God loved Jacob but hated Esau, then we might say God is Absolute, not to be comprehended. I think the Church in the definitions of the Trinity and the person of Christ tried to do what cannot be done. I will not speculate on the politics of the early Church that led to these dogmatic assertions, but suggest that the Church in these matters set itself up as defining God, or placing itself above Him in a sense, a role carried out ever more ardently by the Popes in particular, especially after 1870. In this the Church I feel is culpable of lese majesty, offense against the sovereignty of God. It may be that the institution cannot be saved, but that individuals may be. God has mercy on Whom He will. If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts. That there is still a Promised Land and that some will make it in, I believe. The gate is strait and the path narrow and few there be that find it. In the apocalypse, perhaps the gate is unique for each of us, being the call to do the one thing that Christ in particular requires of each of us individually, which may not be the same as anyone else’s task. Remember the case of Abraham our father in faith. The personal nature of your own apocalypse is between you and God and must be lived out fully. As Christ said to the rich young man, no one is good but God alone. I believe God is good, and His Heaven is good, where Mary and the angels and saints are. The world in some sense is still good as a vestige of His creation, and the Church too, still has some good in it, and still does some good. Those who say “it’s all good” are not completely wrong. It is in God that we live and move and have our being. To have become aware of this in my daily life was the great fruit of my personal apocalypse. It fostered in me an awareness of love I did not have before, of love’s responsibility. This responsibility for me is surrender to Christ. For me there is no other way.
Apostle is One Sent
I am sent to speak of the apocalypse. As Paul was an apostle of the founding of faith in the resurrection, which I take to be the true origin of the Church, not necessarily reckoned to Pentecost, for reasons I will come to, though hard to speak of, and perhaps only able to be spoken of in a mode of supposition or conjecture, without being bound by such speculations, that is to say again, as Paul is the apostle of the origin of the faith, in the resurrection, it seems to me that I am the apostle of the end of faith, or of the end of the Church, for the Church, despite its mission, has proved itself faithless. To act with the end in view, many disparate pieces of information will be gathered herein. All perhaps bearing on the question Derrida raised at the start of his writing, in the essay on Levinas: how can there be an absolutely surprising convocation? One of the premises of my thinking through of the apocalypse is that it applies only, or primarily, to the Roman Church. The Church is set in the World and the fall of the former will I believe have a profound impact on the latter. Another of my premises is taken from Derrida concerning closure, that it has taken place. But the meaning of this event, I think, has still not been understood, and I think can only be understood in relation to the apocalypse to which it is essential. Closure has a dual aspect. I think of Heideggerâ€™s comments to Stambaugh on the appropriation and the janus-face between the world and that which is the enowning of it. In thinking through closure, I am thinking of relations between the container and the contained, of the containment as it is thought in terms of its necessity for a decontamination to be possible. The triangulation of deconstruction-deconsecration-decontamination is the verbal matrix for my thought. The hope I have is that into the textual containment of closure a decontaminant may be introduced which will destroy satan, trapped symbolically in the text, as trapped in the letters of the words Christian and Transubstantiation. One way to look at the containment, and I may just mention this almost in passing, is found in Buddhist psychology, with the mind as mirror being the container and thoughts the contained. It is, I think, the goal of the Buddhist to wipe the dust of thought from the mirror of the mind. In this is a figure for the decontamination I hope will take place generally in what I believe, based on readings in writers such as Averroes, is the one mind. In Derridaâ€™s textuality, the text would be the container and signs the contained. In Ptolemaic cosmology, the Primum Mobile contains the concentric shells with the earth at the center. For Cusanus, there is the Wall, and for the early Heidegger, the horizon. One might say, reading the next to last paragraph of Derridaâ€™s essay on Levinas, that in this age of difference, our wall or horizon is one of hypocrisy. Closure, in a sense, is the worst for Catholics, and the best for the World, depending on whether the demise of the Church is life for the World in which it is set or if the voiding of Catholicism will deprive the World of something essential to it, on which it depended the last 2000 years, and without which it cannot survive. If all the worst is contained in the Church, all we go well for the World, but if on the other hand, the Church is a tomb or crypt, as in the deconstructionist theory of the text, from which a spectral truth will disseminate involving the World and contaminating it as well, then not only will the Church cease to be, hollowed out from within by its deconsecration, but the
World too will be erased by the complicity it has with the hypocrisy of the Church. Whether the Church and the World are one system or two separate entities remains to be seen. The Church in her history sought to see itself set apart from the World and completely opposed to it, and if that is true, then the World is fortunate. Of course, this is a paradox. Behind this paradox is the idea that the scandal of the Church is that unknown to it and despite itself, it became sin, in order to take away the sins of the World. In the closure of the text all good and evil is transposed into signs. In this containment the struggle takes place, with the possibility of a decontamination, involving a shift transcending the law of morality toward a mystical love above the antithesis. To recover this thesis is the way to decontamination. However, if this is not accomplished, there will be a fall into a synthetic state below the moral. The works of Joyce, Ulysses and the Wake, describe this schema, indicating both the way up, in the former, and the way down, in the latter. Though I think the complexity of the situation in the Wake is not simply one of the fall into a lawlessness without the hope of mystical love, which like the love expressed in the final words of Ulysses can redeem all, for there is the indication still that there will come an eventual awakening, and that the era of textuality is something that can be traversed, not a labyrinth without hope of exit. Having said these things as a kind of preparation for an apocalyptic gospel, I might begin the actual good news with the proclamation Be Not Angry, rather than Be Not Afraid. To echo Maurice Blanchot, with whom I bear a siglum, I say to Catholics, you are Awaiting Oblivion, but know it not. How could you? For the truth is outside your walls. Clean the inside of the cup. Inside your whitewashed tombs are dead men’s bones, buried under altars kissed. Having previously assessed a new Christology within the destruction of Catholic theology, the same can be done for a Pneumatology of Catholic spirituality. I recall John Ford’s film The Grapes of Wrath, in which John Carradine plays an ex-preacher who had the “spirit” and what it made him do, and diverse preachers of healing ministries like Benny Hinn, who attribute their gifts to the “spirit,” and keeping in mind the sacrament of confirmation in the Catholic Church, which is said to confer the “spirit” to the person receiving the sacrament, and that this confirmation is the required entrance into the sacramental life of the Church, and that furthermore, it is said in Revelation that the mark is received on the hands and the forehead, which is precisely where one is signed with the chrism in the sacrament of confirmation, gaining access to the economy of grace, and wonder what is “spirit” that it may possibly be present in all these instances, remembering Derrida’s important work on Heidegger’s spirit, and thus, without offense to the Holy Spirit of God, realizing that there is probably more than one “spirit” in the world, that Paul has instructed us to test the “spirits” because some are good and some are evil, and therefore question the spirituality of the Catholic Church in particular, inquiring philosophically as to the truth of the “spirit” it has. I wonder then if the “spirit” of the Church is the Spirit of God. I believe the Church at Rome claims for itself, beyond a mere papal infallibility, a general infallibility of the Church as a whole, as Thomas Aquinas assumes in his Summa, that the Church cannot be wrong, and that this is a matter of having the charism of the Holy Spirit. Christ promises the apostles the Spirit in the last supper discourse in John, and since Pentecost and the spiritual breakthrough recounted in Acts, the Church has assumed it is led surely by the Spirit of God. But is it? Can a Church that has done such remarkably evil
things in its persecutions, inquisitions and such, in its idolatry and bigotry and arrogance, be said to be led by the Spirit of God? I personally must be careful now in what I say, for I believe in the Holy Spirit of God, and do not want to speak incorrectly. I believe if I sincerely seek the truth and do not violate my conscience in what I write that I am speaking for the Spirit and not against Him. Christ said, if He said it, for I fear many things attributed to the Lord in the Gospels were inventions of the evangelists to suit the situation in the early Church, which accounts for many contradictory things in the sayings of Christ, that the Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth. But it seems the Church has often been in error and did not ever reach the whole truth or all the truth, failing in this to live up to its catholic, universal calling. For instance, Karl Rahner, one of the great theologians of the Second Vatican Council, found that the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, made hundreds of errors in just the area of scripture studies alone in the twentieth century. How can the Magisterium, and the Church as a whole, said to be led infallibly by the Spirit of God? It may be that the Catholic Church is not led by a good spirit. Looking back to the early days of the Church in the Acts of the Apostles, it seems to me that it is blasphemy to attribute to the Holy Spirit of God the case of the couple who were struck dead for not giving all their money to Peter. I identify this moment in the history of the Church as the moment when the Church went wrong. For the Spirit of God is not a Spirit of fear, but it was then that great fear fell upon the Church, as opposed to the previous joy following the outpouring at Pentecost. The Spirit of God is one of love, joy, peace, patience and self-control. I believe the career of the Church from that point on, up to today, is one that pretends spiritual good while doing spiritual evil. I realize in the lives of the saints there is abundant evidence of spiritual good that could be offered as a counter-example to my assertion. As has been said, the Spirit blows where He will. But the institution of the Church is not led by the same Spirit as some of its members. It is a case of the parable of the wheat and the tares, not drawing the distinction between the Church and the World, but between different spirits contending within the Church itself. The Church sought throughout its history to control through sacramental means the access of persons to the Spirit of God and to Christ, to ration the goodness of God, to in other words practice simony. It was not the Spirit of God however that they were bartering, for He is free and is not bound to obey such evil intentions. It was another spirit that led Catholicism. It was the Spirit of God that attempted to save the Church at Vatican II. It is another spirit that has made war on that council in the persons of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Christ said that one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit of God will not be forgiven. He spoke of those who attributed the true works of the Spirit of God that He was performing to an evil spirit. I do not knowingly or intentionally speak against the Holy Spirit in what I am saying. God forbid. I believe I am discerning the spirits and following the true Spirit of God. I believe on the other hand that the Church in some basic error has long attributed to the Spirit of God what cannot be His works, for the institution itself is full of sin and error, however holy many of its members may be. It was perhaps the root of the basic error to think that the Church was infallible. In this the institution never examined its conscience, since it believed it could do no wrong. Perhaps the next pope will call a council for just the purpose of performing a full public examination of the conscience of the Catholic Church. Surely, it can be said in response that John Paul II apologized publically hundreds of times for the sins and errors of the Church. Yet, why did things get worse instead of better?
The Church is in some radical way contaminated by evil spiritually and the Church must repent of that spiritual evil in order to be saved. Repentance means the beginning of the decontamination of the Catholic Church, the first step in the cleansing of it from the corruption that is destroying it. I have already argued at length and shown, elsewhere, the apocalyptic nature of the deconsecration that threatens the Church through the activities of the two popes who are antichrist, whether they know it or not. If the Church is to be saved, it must begin by admitting not in such and such a case, like the case of Galileo, that it got it wrong, but that in principle, the Church is fallible, not infallible, that no Pope or council, at any time, is ever infallible, since they are human, and on this basis to completely revise, even deconstruct, all Catholic theory and practice, in order to recognize the Catholic culpability in attempting to define and control God. When it has given up the intention to control God, God may choose to control it. When the Church has given up the notion that it is derived from scripture and tradition, it may die and be revived or resurrected by the Spirit of God which is living and true, of the present and the future, not a thing of the past. The Church must also give up its Roman bias, which is pagan and ancient, for a universal, truly catholic approach, to make real the aggiornamento that the men of Vatican II hoped to accomplish, the coming world-church that Rahner saw beginning during the council. All of this, which seems impossible, is not impossible, for it can be done by one man. That man is the man who will succeed Benedict XVI, the man who will be the last Pope of the Church. As in The Tempest of Shakespeare, this man may use all the papal machinery in order to set things right, and then lay that machinery aside forever. It would be possible at this point in the itinerary of the project to go on to the explication of the strategies of textual containment and decontamination, which might be useful, both in a general sense, and also in the special sense of the case of the Catholic Church, but I will leave these aside for now, with the intention of returning to them elsewhere. The work on this to come will involve a discernment of spirits at the level of the text, in what I call the Ultrastructure, the revelation of which is found in theories of the Cabbala and in the textual practice of James Joyce and in the writings of deconstruction. That work, if it comes to fruition, will show the interconnectedness of all things thought on the basis of the sign and the text as emblems of the one mind, which is at once both spiritual and psychological, that by which we cooperate in thinking, finding that the Spirit of God or the Imagination or the Active Intellect, names for this that â€œenownsâ€? us, to which we are appropriated, seen also in the prosthesis of the Artificial Intelligence and technology, is the mystery in which we are caught up to God and by which we experience the grace of God and perceive Godâ€™s providence and His work in the world, which Catholic theology reflected on as the Logos or Word, but in this held too much to the individual and univocal and failed to see the ensemble in which creation occurs.