PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
Papal infallibility may once have been useful
for keeping autocratic monarchs in line, but these days, even though
Catholicism is a Western anachronisms with universal pretensions, there would seem
to be scant justification for it - at least in relation to monarchs, a majority
of whom would be constitutional even in Catholic countries, never mind their
Protestant counterparts in countries like Britain, whose apostate monarchic
systems have mellowed over the course of time.
On the other hand, the concept of infallibility
from a theological as opposed to politically pragmatic point of view is even
less credible, in view of the fact that infallibility, if it is to mean
anything, must surely mean infallible in relation to Truth, that is, incapable
of error in relation to faith and morality, not to say doctrine.
But the Catholic Church manifestly falls short
of Truth by dint of its adherence to Illusion, to the bound soma of metaphysics
epitomized by the Crucifixional paradigm, at the expense of metaphysical free
psyche, which has always been 'beyond the (catholic) pale' on account of its
extrapolative nature from metachemical Creatorism and kind of straining on the
leash via worldly relativity and an almost androgynous corporeality towards the
furthest point from metachemistry, namely metaphysics, without being able to
achieve, on such a basis, anything but a truncated metaphysics (bound soma)
that is susceptible, for want of free psyche, to being 'done down'
pseudo-metachemically, in terms of a 'sacred heart' parallelism, from fear that
transcendental meditation could get out of the bag, as it were, of 'sacred
lungs' to which metaphysical bound soma, including the Son-of-Godly
Crucifixional paradigm and metaphor for bound will, would be entitled, but at
the expense, necessarily, of the so-called Father (Creator), meaning, in
effect, Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father as, historically, the 'best of
a bad job' starting-point of monotheistic civilization in its Judaic roots and,
subsequently, Christian extrapolative flowering, a situation that the Church
could not condone, much less encourage, without putting its own existence as an
alpha-stemming but somewhat limited omega-oriented phenomenon in grave
jeopardy.
Where, then, is the basis for papal
infallibility in a religion which is fundamentally false (metachemical) and
only partially true (metaphysical) or, rather, less partially true (though
knowledge-centred puritan Protestantism would qualify ably enough in this
respect) than wholly illusory in relation to the Son-of-God order of truncated
metaphysics?
I have long been against this Judeo-Christian
tradition, as of all 'bovaryized' or fundamentally false religions, and I
firmly believe that only Social Theocracy can claim to represent metaphysical
truth and, hence, Truth per se.
Therefore it should supplant, in the event of a majority mandate for religious
sovereignty in countries with the right kind of axial preconditions (such as
those that, like
Papal infallibility is just one more
anachronism in a plethora of both Western and Eastern anachronisms that could
have no place in a more evolved society - one effectively commensurate with
'Kingdom Come' in which the People, having voted for religious sovereignty,
conceived as the ultimate sovereignty, had rights commensurate with that
sovereignty which it would be the duty of Social Theocracy to serve.
As things stand, papal infallibility remains an
obstacle to that process, being in effect a kind of disguised authoritarianism
more germane to an autocratic age. The Church, alas, is not right, but
fundamentally wrong, and therefore just one more institution that will have to
be democratically consigned to the rubbish bin of history in the interests of
Truth and, hence, what has loosely been described as 'Kingdom Come'.
If this can happen, then democracy will not
have been in vain; for democracy, like 'the world' of which it is a
manifestation, is not an ideal but, rather, the degenerative substitution of
secular culpability through political sovereignty for religious, i.e. sinful,
culpability, whose republican socialist face turns away from Roman Catholicism
even as it pertains to the foot of the same axis, but without the benefit of
even the most meagre surrogate grace. Rather, does it suck up to metachemical
licence for evil and crime, and thus to that which is contrary to
church-hegemonic axial criteria and rooted, all too vaingloriously, in a
worship of Beauty and a love of Power, even unto the Almighty, whether in
traditional or more contemporary (Hollywood-esque) terms!
