Under the banner of co-belligerence, Evangelicals continue to deepen their ties to Roman Catholicism and openly work alongside elements within its larger order in pursuit of their political goals and aspirations. As Catholicism represents a spectrum every bit as broad as what is found under the definition of 'Protestantism', it is the Traditionalist Catholics (so-called) who are the natural allies of the Evangelical sphere – as they too labour to turn back the cultural clock. And while their conceptions of 'Christian America' or Christendom are different, they are united with Evangelicals in opposing secular humanism.
Most likely, were this alliance to score real victories in
the culture war and assume a position of dominance, the now dormant issues
which divide them would be revivified and schisms would develop. And just as
within the spectrum of Evangelicalism there is a wide array of positions and
opinions, the same is equally true of Catholicism. Some traditionalist groups
are on the fringe, almost to the point of breaking with the papacy and becoming
schismatic. And there are various groups that have in fact done this, such as
the sedevacantist sects. Others are more mainstream, but have strong conservative
leanings and (generally speaking) Right-wing political views. It's complicated,
just as the Evangelical picture is in fact a complex mosaic. The monolith often
presented in the media is something of a fiction.
As one who loosely follows some of the discussions within
Traditionalist Roman Catholicism, I have been repeatedly struck over the past
several years of a stark difference in their sense of authority and
eschatology. Functionally Roman Catholics are akin to Charismatics arguing for
visions and prophecies in our day. And at a fundamental level the doctrines
concerning the papacy and the magisterium contain what could be called
'charismatic' elements. Tradition obviously plays a significant role, but it's
very much a living tradition that interacts (by means of various dynamics) with
a charismatic impulse.
Some Evangelicals have little difficulty with such concepts,
others who argue on the basis of Sola Scriptura would take strong exception to
these claims. This is further complicated by the spectrum of ideas that can all
lay claim to the Sola Scriptura moniker. By no means does everyone mean the
same thing by the claim and even fewer are consistent in its application.
For those familiar with Dispensational circles, discussions
regarding prophecy are common enough and can become quite sensational but the
cutting edge prophetic narratives in Traditionalist Catholicism are quite
different – if no less intriguing. They don't argue over exegesis, but over
prophecies, usually of the Marian variety. They're not looking for a secret Rapture,
Seven Year Tribulation, or a revived Roman Empire. Nor are they caught up in
arcane speculation regarding the Mark of the Beast, the nature of
Dispensationalism's coming one world currency, or the secret preparations for a
rebuilt Jerusalem Temple.
Though free from these errors, Catholic Traditionalists have
fallen prey to their own, and several of the intrigues and controversies
surround some of the visions and prophecies associated with the town of Fatima,
Portugal and the so-called Marian Apparitions of 1917. This is an important
date for Traditionalists and the larger world, as it is also the year of the Russian
Revolution.
There are secret prophecies kept under wraps – some (such as
the still controversial Third Secret) were later tied to the John Paul II
assassination attempt in 1981, an event still surrounded with mystery and many
unanswered questions. Some Catholics (and others) continue to assert the
Russian-KGB theory though a great deal of the evidence militates against this
as the Turkish elements involved in the plot were (and are still) connected to
the CIA and the US security apparatus. But for those who hold the now
'official' view, the Russian connection once more comes into play – all the
more in light of current events.
The Fatima apparitions called for the consecration of Russia
and some believe if this had been done then history would have taken a very different
turn. Subsequent popes have 'consecrated' Russia and yet Traditionalists
dispute whether this has been done properly and many argue that in fact it has
not yet formally happened.
Remember that after the fall of Constantinople in 1453,
Russia developed the doctrine of the Third Rome and subsequently (in many
respects) assumed the mantle of leadership within the larger Orthodox world.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy have been at odds for more than a thousand years and
formally anathematised each other in 1054 – in the so-called Great Schism. This
was but one critical point in the long history of misunderstanding and enmity
between the Latin West and the Greco-Slavic East.
First the Greek world was sundered, and then as Orthodoxy
came to be dominated by the Slavic peoples, it was the rise of Muscovy in
conjunction with the Turkish conquest of Byzantium that placed Russia and the
Russian Church in its unique position – as the power centre of Eastern
Orthodoxy.
Centuries later, 1917 represented a crisis for not just the
Orthodox world and the ideology and claims of the Third Rome – but for
Christendom and indeed the entire globe. And many believed that in consecrating
Russia, the Greek-Latin/East-West schism would be healed and the world would be
saved from the great evil of communism. The healing of old wounds and the
defeat of a great evil could usher in a golden age – or at least that's how
some understand it.
While this Marian-prophetic line of thought is completely
outside the purview of the Evangelical world, it's receiving substantial
coverage in the Catholic Traditionalist world. From Catholic radio, to numerous
websites and podcasts, these issues surrounding Fatima and (now especially in
light of the war in Ukraine) the 'consecration of Russia' are hot topics. As
the world veers toward a Third World War and possible nuclear conflict, there
are many Traditionalists who believe that a consecration can turn the tide and
save the world from this desperate situation.
Widening the scope of discussion, these issues are further
complicated by the controversies surrounding the Medjugorje shrine in Bosnia
and the series of visions that began there in the 1980's. For some Catholics
these are highly significant, others discount them and some even decry them as being
fraudulent. The papal hierarchy (as always) moves slowly as they don't want to
discount legitimate prophecies. For countries fraught with religious division
and strife there are political implications for these decisions.
And then there are additional factors and players involved in
the larger controversy and struggle – both in terms of politics and the Roman
hierarchy. For my part, since the early 1990's I've been somewhat fascinated by
the tales, narratives, and perspectives of the late Malachi Martin. Some
believe him to be in error or even something of a fraud. Others believe he was
an insider waging war against forces that had infiltrated the Roman Church – a
theme other traditionalists have picked up on, and now over twenty years after
his death we're seeing permutations of his theories and predictions.
Interestingly, Martin warned of Soviet espionage within the Vatican. I don't
doubt it and yet it is now well established that the CIA spied on the Vatican
and even the papal conclaves – and there's evidence to suggest Langley even
influenced papal and Vatican policy and politics.
In our day, Traditionalists and Evangelicals find common
cause in taking shots at Francis and criticising his leadership – of course an
earlier generation of Evangelicals would have also criticised the papacy itself
on a fundamental level in terms of its claims and very existence. While I
remember John Paul II being denounced in the pulpit of Fundamentalist churches
(and Ian Paisley famously did so in 1988 at the European Parliament), his
papacy represented a shift in attitude. Viewed as an ally of the American Right
in the Cold War, the Christian Right began to shift its posture vis-à-vis Rome.
Furthered by the cobelligerence teaching of Francis Schaeffer, Billy Graham,
and others, the efforts of Charles Colson would pay off in the 1990's and today
Evangelicals will often speak in friendly terms with regard to the papacy and
Roman Catholicism in general.
Interestingly though, the Traditionalist Catholics often don't
feel the same way. They'll work with Evangelicals and yet the more zealous
elements will still denounce Protestantism and view Luther as a great evil. In
fact some like Taylor Marshall invoke the '17' triad and by means of a
metanarrative tie together the dates of 1517,1717, and 1917.
The first of course represents the launching of the
Magisterial Reformation with the nailing of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses on the
door of the schlosskirche in Wittenberg. 1717 represents the public revelation
of Freemasonry with the founding of the Grand Lodge in London. The larger masonic
movement certainly antedates this but the move was significant – all the more
as masonry overshadowed the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and their many
revolutions. Even though its membership and activities remained secret, its
existence was indisputable and this movement would be connected to the
Enlightenment and all the philosophy, social ethics, science, and the political
revolution that it entails. Dominated by Protestants, Freemasonry would
actually be the subject of more denunciatory Papal Bulls than even
Protestantism. While many Fundamentalists, Confessionalists, and some
Evangelicals will also denounce the lodge, the truth is the movement is deeply
embedded within Protestantism and always has been. For Traditionalists they are
peas in a pod, the masonic temple and its Enlightenment values and agenda being
but an outworking of Protestant social theory and epistemology – 1517 and 1717
as it were.
Finally, 1917 represents the year of the Russian Revolution.
One might think that in the grand scheme of things 1789 is perhaps more
important and yet the Traditionalists would categorize the events in France as
an outworking of the 1717 marker. While conservative Protestants would raise
eyebrows at the connection being made by Traditionalists between the Reformation
of 1517 and the Marxist revolution of 1917 – for Traditionalist Catholics they
are in fact connected. They would not suggest for example that Presbyterians
are secret communists. Rather, what they're arguing for is that the
Reformation's shattering of Catholic Christendom and its corollary destruction
of the social consensus spawned a new epistemological and ethical age. As
Freemasonry represented the Magisterial Reformation gone to seed, Marxist
Revolution is little more than the rotten and degenerate harvest of the Masonic
Enlightenment and the Pandora's Box that it opened.
There's actually something to the argument though upon close
examination it's a little too packaged, reductionist, and historiographically
convenient. It ignores other forces that antedate the Reformation. Some Catholic
intellectuals (and a growing number of Evangelical Dominionists) realize this
and abandoning the '17' triad blame the whole process on Ockham and the
Nominalists. It's an interesting discussion and while it does contain a small
degree of merit, in the end it must be rejected. Additionally for New Testament
Christians, while we hardly find common cause with some of these historical
elements and intellectual movements, at the same time we cannot lament the
collapse of Catholic Christendom and the consensus it had created. One might celebrate
its fall (with the angels) even while lamenting the hydra that replaced it.
Of course these questions are not entertained when the
Evangelical and Catholic leaders engage in ecumenical dialogue and
socio-political co-belligerence. And indeed not all Catholic conservatives who
work with Evangelicals can be categorised as Traditionalists. They may or may
not like Vatican II, but not all are advocating the Latin Mass, a full blown
system of Catholic Integralism (Rome's version of Dominionism) and the like.
Generally speaking, it seems that most pro-Catholic Evangelicals are simply
ignorant of these disputes and discussions. They see Catholics as being
anti-abortion, pro-family, patriotic, and socially conservative.
And though it's actually an anti-Traditionalist stance, many
contemporary 'Trads' (as they're known) have vigorously embraced elements of
Libertarianism especially in the realm of economics. Such views fly in the face
of not only Catholic Social Teaching but even older paleo-conservative views
that are dismissive of liberalism in its entirety – and therefore
libertarianism in any form. In other words, some of the Traditionalist
Catholics have (like their Evangelical friends) confused and conflated
Right-wing social theories with older forms of social conservatism even though
they are in fact at odds. It's complicated and yet fascinating to watch all
these dynamics at work.
A few voices remain critical of the ecumenical movement and
Evangelicalism's relationship with conservative Roman Catholicism – and yet
their response is often schizophrenic – because again in most cases, even these
critics still share the dream of a restored 'Christendom' and share many of the
ideas and values of the Catholics wishing for the same.
Whatever one thinks of Evangelicalism's continued apostasy
and its growing friendship with Rome - or whether one questions if Roman
Catholics should be viewed as fellow Christians, the pertinent issue is that
for many Catholics and Traditionalists, these Marian-related prophecies play a
prominent role in their narratives and eschatology. We may think it's all rubbish
but it's interesting to take note as these are the same people that are in many
cases standing hand in hand with Evangelical leaders.
Apart from the erroneous theology of Rome and its idolatrous hyperdulia regarding Mary, the current episode
and buzz surrounding Fatima and the consecration of Russia demonstrate that Traditionalist
Roman Catholic piety and theology flows from a very different font and when it
comes to the warp and woof of daily life – apart from the Right-wing politics
that line them up with Evangelicals, they're really on a very different page.
And yet look at the confusion in Evangelical pulpits. Note
how these realities are whitewashed and ignored by Evangelical leaders even as
they encourage their flocks to stand hand-in-hand with Catholics and/or to
support them for political office. Just look at the recent surge of Evangelical
support for Amy Coney Barrett. Assuming for a moment that the Evangelical stand
vis-à-vis culture is correct, would it make sense to form such alliances? Does
the Gospel allow for it?
Of course it does not, and such tactics and strategies reveal
that the post-war Neo-Evangelical project has been fatally flawed since its
inception. But now a few generations later, look at its current allies (such as
Trump and neo-fascist groups) and how close it has come (on many levels) to
completely losing its way. And we haven't even addressed the movement's
alliances with Big Oil and Wall Street, let alone the Mormon world or in some
sectors its relationship with the Unification Church (The Moonies). Power and
mammon have utterly corrupted this movement and numbers and mammon drive the
pulpits and so they too are complicit in the cover-up of these profound
differences or in other cases are simply too corrupt and lazy to look into
these matters, take a stand, and warn their people.
In the meantime while Evangelicals continue to get divorced,
psycho-somatically drugged, tattooed and 'rock out' in worship, significant
numbers are defecting to Rome and even Constantinople. Having the theological bar
lowered, many are no longer afraid to look in that direction. At one time 'Swimming
the Tiber' was equated with apostasy. Today, some view it as unfortunate but
they're still happy to call such people 'brethren' especially within the larger
context of Christian politics and culture war.
When combined with a culturally-driven theological narrative,
the Traditionalist arguments versus the Magisterial Reformation and liberal
society can be fairly compelling. It's no surprise that many who are put off by
Evangelicalism's market-driven and casual attitude (and often functional
secularism) find a home in more traditional forms of Roman Catholicism.
We're witnessing a great swindle and a deception and an utter
capitulation on the part of hireling Evangelical leaders.
Whether the pope consecrates Russia 'properly' or not is of
no consequence to me. The very notion is absurd and rooted in layers of error
and false assumption. Why aren't Evangelical leaders exposing this as they
ought? They don't want to criticise their allies in the culture war. If Coney
Barrett is decried as the feminist idolater that she is, the support will melt
away and in many cases apathy will set in. The Dominionist project will fail –
all the more testifying to the fact that the Spirit wasn't in it to begin with
it. But instead ears are tickled and the people of God are made into
merchandise. Consequently the flocks are not warned and many flirt with Rome
not actually knowing what they're getting into.