A Re-Assertion Of Catholic Orthodoxy Against...

Perennialism And The Coomaraswamies

©Lúcio Mascarenhas, November 02, 2004.
[Copyright Terms & Conditions].

This article is part of a triology:
  1. Ananda Coomaraswamy: Prophet of Neo-Pagan Triumphalism
  2. The Slime Is Churning!
  3. Perennialism & The Coomaraswamies

Many years ago, when I began to investigate the "crisis" that afflicted the Church, I was introduced to the literature of Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy. Reading one of his works, I came across the argument, which I reproduce — amplified — from memory:
"The Pope possesses Free Will, and by becoming Pope, he does not lose his Free Will. Now as one possessing Free Will, he is entirely capable of not only sinning, but also of dissenting from Orthodoxy, even contumaciously, so that he becomes a Public and Manifest Heretic, and thus ceases to be a Christian. When he ceased to be Christian, he also ceased to be Pope. To deny that the Pope can become a Public and Manifest Heretic, then, is to deny that the Pope possesses Free Will."
This argument was crucial for my further development, since I had arrived at the point where I came to recognize that the "Crisis" was deliberately created and is maintained by the "Popes" since 1958, in the form of the Aggiornamento and "Vatican II", and in order to reprogram the Church with a new Ideology that is identical with the Heresy of Modernism formally condemned and excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X.

As a result, on 8th September 1993, I walked out of the sect that adheres to "Pope John-Paul II", anathematizing him as a heretic, a Modernist infiltrator, a Satanist and an Antipope.

Another result was that I came to cherish Dr. Coomaraswamy as my third spiritual father, after Frs. Leslie Rumble & Charles Carty, who, through their works, the Radio Replies, converted me from an atheist to a Catholic. And I began to correspond with him.

Soon, however, an awkwardness developed. Dr. Coomaraswamy kept on writing to me as "Sri Prakash", and took pleasure in his Vellala Brahmin ancestry. Both of these turned me off.

Like Dr. Coomaraswamy, my ancestors were Brahmins. They belonged to the Gaud Saraswat Brahmins, who had resettled in the Konkan after taking refuge first in Trihota in Magadh, after their original homeland, the Saraswat country (in modern East Punjab) was destroyed by ecological degradation and became a permanent desert to this day. At the time of the liberation of the city of Goa by Affonso de Albuquerque, my ancestors, in the land of Bardez to its north, which was then in the hands of the Sultan of Bijapur, were the bhots (priests) of the village temple, with the right of first entry; so at least says my family tradition. Missionaries under the auspices of the Portuguese poured in from the city of Goa and began to proselytize the Bardez country, so that my ancestors and others converted in a near en-masse conversion.

Now, according to the laws of Manu, which is the law governing the Hindu religion and its system of castes, my ancestors, by "apostatizing" from Hinduism to Christianity, lost their position as Brahmins and became "Mlecchas" (Barbarians), the lowest and most despised rank of mankind. Yet, as the fervor of the Portuguese and of the missionaries died out, the Goans back-slided, so that they began to return to their old ways, mainly caste-ism. Goan Christians began to once again call themselves Bamons and Chorddem and so on. On the other hand, after the anti-Catholic Jose de Pombal rose to power, he began a policy of forced resettlement of Hindus, till then strictly excluded, in the thoroughly Catholic Old Conquests. These Hindus, immigrants from the New Conquests, rightly contemned the Christians, according to their own religious laws, as polluting Mlecchas, even as they took advantage of their new found proximity and of the liberal stupidity of some Goans in order to seduce them to backslide further into paganism!

When a Christian pretends to be a Brahmin, he more than merely sins. He actually blasphemes Christ Jesus. According to the Law of Manu, all mankind outside of India belong to the class of Mlecchas, which includes Christ Jesus. Brahmins, above all, are obliged to avoid the pollution of the company of the Mlecchas. Therefore, when a Christian pretends to be a Brahmin, he commits a great blasphemy against Christ Jesus.

Yet, is it not that to be a Brahmin, one needs to admit oneself as being in communion with the Hindu 'god' Brahma, who gives the Brahmin his name? And, according to Christianity, is it not that Brahma is a demon, a false god? Therefore, a Christian who pretends to be a Brahmin, even merely by that pretension, spits in the face of Christ Jesus and worships the devil Brahma!

Knowing all this, it should not be surprising that I loath and passionately hate Brahminism, and that I cannot and will not either pretend to be one, or look with pleasure on another Christian pretending to be one.

Then there is the honorific "Sri". It is the original Sanskrit honorific, which the modern Hindi uses in the form "Shri", reserving the archaic form "Sri" for the Hindu "deities" and for "divine places", such as Sri Lanka.

In contemporary India, Hindus usually reserve "Sri" for their 'gods' Rama and Krishna. Therefore, it was unpleasant for me to be called "Sri". To be called "Sri", in my mind, betrays the Hindu heresy of Advaitism, which alleges that all spiritual beings, including the "souls" of stones, trees, tools, vehicles, machines, animals and men, etc., are part of "God", part of the "Divine Substance" of the Param-Atman (Super-Soul / "God") in a state of delusion (maya) until they overcome it and realize their "God-ness". The Advait believes that all are "Gods" — Tat tuam asi! ("Thou are God!"), as he is fond of proclaiming to his fellows.

[Dr. Coomaraswamy himself alludes to the Advait heresy thus:
In Indian thought, everything is permeated by the Supreme Universal Spirit (Paramatma or God) of which the individual human spirit (jiv-atma) is a part. The system of yoga is so called because it teaches the means by which the jivatma can be united to, or be in communion with, the Paramatma, and so secure liberation (moksha). ]
As a result, a certain coldness and reserve developed, and I ceased to correspond for many years, until I began to correspond, off and on, by e-mail. For all my problems with Dr. Coomaraswamy, I attributed his peculiarities to his Hindu ancestry and upbringing.

I was introduced to the Internet in the end of 1999. Once when I was surfing the net, I found a series of articles about Ananda Coomaraswamy, the father of Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy. Intrigued, I collected the lot and read it. I even collated it into one single web-page and uploaded it on my (old) website: http://www.geocities.com/orthopapism/akk.html.

A "Traditionalist" told me that Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy had developed good relationship with Marcel Lefebvre, and began to teach in the SSPX Seminary in New England, and even that it was he who introduced Sedevacantist ideas to the priests of the SSPX thus resulting in the secession of a group of priests — Clarence Kelly, Daniel Dolan, Donald Sanborn, Antony Cekada, Paul Baumgartner, etc. — from the SSPX on the Una cum issue. Today, Kelly, Dolan and Sanborn are "bishops" for three different ideological groups.

One day I heard a rumor that Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy had been ordained priest. That was very baffling, since from what I knew of his parentage, he was very probably ineligible according to the norms of Canon Law, besides being a married man. Later, I learnt that the rumor was true. Dr. Coomaraswamy himself emailed me saying that he had been made a "Monsignor". Since I was then under the impression that a Monsignor was a bishop, I queried him on the point, and he told me that it was merely a honorific, a title, and that he was only ordained a priest. Yet I believe that only the Pope can designate someone as a Monsignor, and that the non-jurisdictional bishops of the Catholic Resistance do not have this right. Again, I find it unacceptable that a bishop should presume so much that he should usurp Papal rights in dispensing Dr. Coomaraswamy from the requirement of being either celibate or widowed, before ordaining him!

All this only went to show the utter anarchy and presumptive usurpations that is the mark of the "Traditionalist Movement"!

Up until this time, I was under the impression that Ananda Coomaraswamy was involved only in questions of Indian (i.e. Hindu) art. I was totally ignorant of the fact that he was a co-founder of an ideological school.

That information I received from the blog of one Ms. Carrie Tomko. I had found this blog when I had found that it had been linked to one of my pages, on the question of Ryan St. Anne. Once I understood Tomko's charges against Ananda Coomaraswamy, I quickly did a Google search, and found a great deal of information. All of this information corroborated Tomko's charges, so that I wrote an article in refutation of Ananda Coomaraswamy and his heresy: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/coomaraswamy.neopaganism.html.

I wrote to Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy to show him this article before publication, and asking for any comments or clarifications. Particularly, I requested him to clarify my increasing doubts that he himself is an adherent of this same heresy that was co-founded by his father, along with Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon.

I posed the question:

Where Does Rama Coomaraswamy Stand?

When we are confronted with the discovery of the profoundly anti-Christian activities of Ananda Coomaraswamy, one, as a Christian, is forced to ask questions of his son, who is known as a Christian.

As Christians, we have the right to be told whether Rama is a Christian as a Christian, or a "Christian" in the sense of "Perennialism", just as various other "Perennialists" embraced Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.?

As Christians, we have the right to be told by Rama what his own appreciation of his father and his ideology is.

Lúcio Mascarenhas, formerly "Prakash"

Going further, I emailed to Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy:
From: Lucio Mascarenhas
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:13 AM
To: Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy
Subject: The Question of Ananda Coomaraswamy

Dear Sir,
1 Cor. 3:10-15 — 10According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation: and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus. 12Now, if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: 13Every man's work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. 14If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any mans work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
Luke 14: —26"If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
I submit for your pre-perusal, my page on Ananda Coomaraswamy, which I intend to publish, without the part addressed to you, and seek your clarifications, comments, etc. http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/coomaraswamy.neopaganism.html.

Particularly, I wish you to provide me an answer to this doubt: Becoming aware of the "Perennialist" heresy, I am troubled by the serious doubt that you too are an adherent. Are you? Are you a "Catholic" just as Rene Guenon, Titus Burkhardt, Palavacini, etc. became Muslims, and others became Hindus, Buddhists, etc.? Or are you a Catholic in the orthodox sense?

I need to know. And I believe that all souls have the right to know this; just as they have a right to know the truth about Ananda Coomaraswamy, even though he is relatively insignificant to Catholicism.



Dr. Coomaraswamy replied:
From: "Rama Coomaraswamy" <[email protected]>
To: "Lucio Mascarenhas" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: The Question of Ananda Coomaraswamy
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:32:16 -0500

Dear Lucio:

I am a Catholic first and foremost. I am a Perenialist in so far as the truth, wherever it is found, as St. Thomas says, has the Holy Ghost for its author. I have benefited much from reading some of the so-called Perennialist authors, including my own father, but always as a Catholic.

I have read your piece on my father and while it has many correct facts, it would require a book to put things into correct focus. Two incidental points — 1) my father was very much against freemasonry and theosophy, and 2) Sedgwick's book Against the Modern World is not a good book — a recent review in the Sacred Web exposes its rather gross errors very well.

I would suggest that you might read some of my father's writings and then make up your own mind about him. A recent book which I edited is The Essential Ananda Coomaraswamy (World Wisdom Books) might be of some value. I am about to publish a book entitles The Art of Living which contains some of his essays on Catholic Art which are quite superb, and there is an inexpensive Dover publication entitled The Christian and Oriental Philosophy of Art. If you cannot get the latter, I can send you a copy.

With regard to Guenon, while he said many good things, his understanding of Catholicism was grossly distorted. An excellent discussion of this is available from the most Catholic author Jean Borella — Esoterisme Guenonien et Mystere Chretien (Delphica, Paris).

As to my own position as a Catholic, my web page (http://www.coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com) should make my position very clear.

I hope these comments are of some help.


The Proof Of The Pudding...

I had found Rama Coomaraswamy’s attitude odd at times, particularly his attitude to my attacks against the pretensions of Hinduism. Since Dr. Coomaraswamy has adverted to his website, my mind recalled certain articles which I had found odd, at least in part, and therefore, I hoofed over there once again.

I have neither the time nor the ability to examine thoroughly each and every piece of Dr. Coomaraswamy's writings, but three of his articles on Hindu-Christian relations should be more than sufficient for our purposes.

These three articles are:
  1. The Desacralization Of Hinduism For Western Consumption
  2. On "Gurus" And Spiritual Direction
  3. Philosophia Perennis And The Sensus Catholicus
It is interesting that the first article is a lecture delivered probably to the "The Foundation For Traditional Studies". Undoubtedly, it was published in the Foundation's journal Sophia.

It is interesting that this article is titled "Desacralization of Hinduism". One can "de-Sacralize" only that what is sacred. Paganism, from the Christian viewpoint, is NOT described as "Sacred". For two thousand years, Christianity has contemptuously described Paganisms as profane — and has even paid with blood for it!

If one may speak of "De-Sacralizing" Hinduism, pray, why cannot we speak of the "De-Sacralization" of the Canaanite religion, or for that matter, the Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Philistine, Aramite, Sidonian, Tyrean, Assyrian, Babylonian or Egyptian religions, that God, in the Old Testament, repeatedly and insistently denounces?

Indeed, when it comes to that, what is the Old Testament, if not the consistent "de-Sacralization" of Baal, Bel, Chemosh, Moloch, Dagun, Astarte, etc.?

Heretics like the Perennialists like to gloss over the serious difference that Christianity presents, and which Islam mimics, by claiming that these are based on human interpretations of sacred teachings, or on human additions to sacred teachings.

Yet this claim is an outright insult to Christianity and to our God, as it falsely alleges His teachings to be merely human ones, and not divine, and thereby rubbishes them in favor of their own particular heresy.

Yet, in a challenge that never fails, I ask: Is there any similar religious history in the whole world, where the tribe or people wished to go one way, but their God another? There is none aside from that of Israel.

Why waste time in comparing insignificant similarities, such as the alleged "Golden Rule", when the far more fundamental core of Christianity — the insistent exclusivity of its God — has no similarity in all the world whatsoever?

The world, both "Old" and "New" is full of very many historic and native religions, and most of them are very similar in structure, with only minor differences. Yet, the religion of Israel is sharply different and there is no other religion of its kind in the whole world — a religion where the will of its God and of the people are so totally opposed to each other!

Heredity has never been a criteria for judging the sincerity of a Christian. That a convert may have parents who are viciously and fanatically pagan, is not relevant. One is always judged on one's own merits.

Now it is evident that while Ananda Coomaraswamy may have been an inventor of the Perennialist Heresy, along with Guenon and Schuon, it is not proof of the bad faith of his son, Rama Coomarasamy. Yet, one does not expect an Orthodox Catholic to be associated with the pagan organizations that his pagan father had established.

Certainly, we may expect to see the spectacle of "Liberal" Catholics, members of the Antichurch, indulging in such activities, but members of the Catholic Resistance?

What then is Rama Coomaraswamy doing giving lectures in honor of Frithjof Schuon, and published in the Perennialist organ, the Sophia?

Why does he refer to the "Sankaracharya" of the Kamakoti Peetham as "His Holiness"? Whatever is holy about a pagan priest?

Figs do not grow on thorns, nor can we accept or condone such cooperation. But the last of the three articles is the most interesting, and will require an article in itself, to discuss its implications.

The Bible Vs. The Perennialist Heresy

Before we proceed any further, we will take up the particular Bible texts relevant to this discussion (My commentary appears in blue):
John 14 —6Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
Our Lord is telling us that He alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and the ONLY means of access to God the Father.
John 10: —1Amen, amen, I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 7Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8All others, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers: and the sheep heard them not. 9I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in and go out, and shall find pastures. 10The thief cometh not, but for to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come that they may have life and may have it more abundantly. 11I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
I have added the emphases. It is clear that all the founders of the false religions, the rivals of Christ Jesus for the office of Savior and Redeemer and or of Liberator from Sin, Ignorance and the Difficulties of this life, as many as have come, are, as He says, thieves and robbers.

I live among the Hindus, who dominate the demography of my city. The Hindus are fond of claiming the unity of all religions—"Sarva dharma sambhava"—which is only a hypocritical pretense, as anyone familiar with Hinduism and its history will certify. But in particular, the Hindu teacher and pretender-"god", Sai Baba of Shirdi, and his disciples, are famous for claiming "Sab ka Malik ek!" ("One is the 'God' of all men!") "Sai Baba" roughly translates as the True Father, "Baba" being the Urdu form of the Hebrew form, via Arabic, "Abba", Father. Malik is originally "king", but has come to mean "god".

Is it true that "Sab ka Malik ek"? In the absolute sense, yes. In the sense intended, no. The One True God is certainly the only true God, and therefore, He is the God of all men. Yet, not all men acknowledge Him as their God. And when "Sai Baba" makes this claim, he is claiming divinity for himself, and also claiming to be the God of all men, which is not only false, but also an insult, and a provocation, an aggression and an attempted imposition upon Christians.
Amos 5 — 25Did you offer victims and sacrifices to me in the desert for forty years, O house of Israel? 26But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves.
Acts 7 — 42Did you offer victims and sacrifices to me for forty years, in the desert, O house of Israel? 43And you took unto you the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your god Rempham, figures which you made to adore them.
In the above two texts, God distinguishes between True Israel and False Israel. False Israel is that Israel that has had to remain suppressed and inarticulate during times when the True Israel had dominated, but which always sought to subvert the Israelite nation. False Israel can also be called Antisrael.

All mankind is divided into two camps, which is reflected in every single ethnic, social and political community. Even C.S. Lewis recognized this fact, by propositioning two rival Britains, in his "That Hideous Strength", wherein faithful "Longres", presided over by the Pen-Dragon, is opposed to diabolic "Britain".

I use this doctrine to explain the situation of Rome: There was always a St. Rome and an Antirome, each striving for dominance. The pagan Caesars represented Antirome, while Christianity redeemed and amplified and magnified St. Rome. St. Rome was represented by the saints, martyrs and the most of the Popes, except the few evil ones. Antirome had last triumphed during 1848, when the Pope had been forced to flee to Gaeta, then again in 1870, when the Popes were made Prisoners of the Vatican. The last triumph of Antirome has been, since 1958: the Antipope Roncalli, his Bringing-Up-To-Date and his Robber Council "Vatican II".

I quote these two texts very deliberately. These two texts represent the whole teaching of Christianity, which postulates the division of mankind into two opposing camps. The heresy of Perennialism, obviously, contradicts this.
2 Cor. 6 — 14Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? 16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God: as God saith: I will dwell in them and walk among them. And I will be their God: and they shall be my people. 17Wherefore: Go out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: 18And I will receive you. And will be a Father to you: and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Lastly, I have deliberately quoted this text as an answer, both to the Modernists, who operate the Hijacked Church, the Antichurch presently presided over by the Polish Antipope Wojtyla, and the "Perennialists".

What fellowship, indeed, between light and darkness? What concord between Christ and Belial?

Therefore, what fellowship between Christ and Ganpati, or with Sai-Baba or Hinduism whether in whole or in part?

But let us go further: What fellowship between Christianity on the one part, and Ecumenism and Inter-Religious Dialogue and Perennialism, on the other?

The Answer is a loud and resounding: NONE!

"Seeds Of Truth" In Systems Of Error?

There are many systems that put themselves forward as being "Religion", but only one of them is true. All the rest of them are false.

Each system of falsehood is a perversion of the truth. The truth exists in them, not ordained to the integral truth but ordained to damnation, to eternal loss.

An apt analogy would be a poisoned apple. The substance of the apple itself is good, but because it is poisoned, it is perverted. It would be foolish to say, "Oh, but the substance of the apple itself is good, and so I can eat it!" Eat it, and you will die. You will die, not because the substance of the apple was good, but because of the perversion of its goodness — which is the poison added to it.

Bits of truth exist in every false system, not to lead one to the full truth, but in order to justify the falsehood, which is built upon a perversion of these truths. As integral wholes, each of these false religions is bad and evil.

Each system of purported religion must be taken as a whole, and as a whole, each of them is a Machine designed to deliver souls to eternal damnation!

It is foolish and fruitless to attempt to isolate the truths that exist in systems of falsehoods. Those truths are not there because they are truths, but merely as means to justify the falsehoods, to justify the integral whole, which is a falsehood designed to deliver the soul to damnation!

Nor can dialogue result in purification of these falsehoods. Dialogue implies respect of these systems of falsehood, and of an acceptance of them as integral entities, and equals with one self.

Every original pagan religion in the world today is historically a heresy. Each of them began as a (post-Deluvian) rebellion against, and a secession from, the One True Religion, by entire clans and tribes, developing into the various particularisms.

Historically, Christianity is the development and fulfillment of the Judaic or Mosaic Dispensation. The Jews lived amidst pagans — Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Canaanites, Philistines, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks & Scythians (in the Decapolis), etc. Each of these people had their own "national" paganism, differing but slightly from each other.

If the Perennialist Heresy were true, God would have commanded the Jews to dialogue with, and to attempt to reform these various religions. He did not. Under His inspiration, the Jews categorically rejected each and every of these paganisms, and refused to have any part with them.

The Jews even rejected the Samaritans, descended from the Northern Tribes, but who had perverted the True Faith. Christ Himself told the Samaritans: "Salvation is from the Jews."

This fact is even more startling given that most of the peoples of West Asia were Semites with the same original traditions as the Hebrews. All of them had a cult of El, and had names combinations with "El" just as the Hebrews. Yet God rejected them, for they took the name of the True God, and corrupted it.

This was exactly what the older pagans had done earlier. Paganism, with its King-god and demigods, is patterned on the truth — the True God and His Choirs of Angels. Yet, they are also corrupted and perverted, so that the Truth is unrecognizable, and so they have been rejected by the One True God (See Romans 1).

Historically, man throughout the world has been dissatisfied with the answers as he inherited them, and sought for other answers. As a result, men arose and "reformed" their inherited religions and created new ones — Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc. In contrast to these men is the activity of those few souls who came to the Real Truth — such as Job, who was not a Hebrew, but who turned to follow the True God.

Should not one pause and ask, "Why is it that none of these men ever sought and approached the True God, and acceded to the True Religion?" Man is perverse and nothing proves this more than this history.

Indeed, when one looks at the history of the Jews, one is struck with the fact that the Jews, as an integral whole, did not choose the True God, and choose to be faithful to him. The faithful were always a minority. The majority merely wished to be free to live like and to make the same choices as the rest of mankind — which is to fashion unto themselves "gods" in their own images!

It is God Himself who chose and imposed Himself on the Jews as the vehicle for the perpetuation of the Truth amongst all mankind.

[See also Where I Stand!]

De-Coding Perennialism

I find it difficult to understand how one may be a Catholic, and yet also a Perennialist, even if one claims to be a Perennialist only according to how much Catholicism allows one to be a Perennialist. To my mind that is very much like claiming to be a Catholic and a Muslim simultaneously, and that one is a Muslim only so far as Catholicism permits one to be a Muslim!

When I discovered the heresy of Perennialism, I wrote to Mrs. Teresa Benns, who claimed that the heresy of Traditionalism condemned in the last three centuries, and Perennialism are one and the same. I quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, to show, from its articles on the condemned heresy of Traditionalism, and of Fideism, from which it developed, that they are not the same as Perennialism. This is her reply:

I have a different definition of Traditionalism, and one that would not exclude an interpretation other than Catholic.

In his Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Parente calls traditionalism:
"A philisophico-religious system which depreciates human reason and establishes the tradition of mankind, which is bound up with laqnguage, as the criterion of truth and certainty."
Now we know that there is pagan philosophy and non-Catholic religion. The Secret Societies are very big on traditon — the point being they claim to be catholic (universal) in a different sense than we do, and the reason for this sense is the (Gnostic) traditon dating back to Adam and before that they contend they alone have preserved. I explained much of this in my recent book.

In additon, Parente defines as a part of this heresy
"a worse fideism because it is naturalistic... that derived from Kantianism."
Now naturism is certainly a pagan system, based as it is on humanism, agnosticism, even atheism. This also from Parente.

Attwater's Catholic Dictionary gives even a more general definition of traditionalism:
"The transmission of facts or dogmas by a successive series of witnesses, whose testimony is contained in word or writing."
This leaves the door wide open for almost anything.

Yet another definition by A.C. Cotter reduces this heresy even further. Traditionalism, he says is
"What all men agree upon (owing to) the divine revelation vouchsafed to our first parents in Paradise."
Even the Jew and Muslims believe in Adam and Eve! Cotter remarks that fidesim throws man back to figuring out who and what God is, and who is God. So if these heresies require man to start at the beginning, who is to say he cannot perceive Allah or Buddha, in the end, to be God?!

Traditionalsits may not accept the authority of the papacy, but especially in the U.S., they do exactly what fideism describes: assume that nothing can be known for certain unless coming from "authority," whether this authority be false or true.

The Society of St. Pius X teaches the laity that they cannot study on their own or use their reason to deduce one set of facts from another. Instead, that very obedience Society clerics deny to the pope they arrogate to themselve and bind these people to obedience. I can't think of a much better example of fideism than that. Both the Pope and I have had several run-ins with these brainwashed individuals.

God Bless,

Teresa Stanfill-Benns

This article is part of a series of three articles:
  1. Ananda Coomaraswamy: Prophet of Neo-Pagan Triumphalism
  2. The Slime Is Churning!
  3. Perennialism & The Coomaraswamies
The first dealt with Ananda Coomaraswamy and his Heresy of "Perennialism"; the second with William H. Kennedy, a close associate of Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, and who made it his ministry to fight "Satanism" and Freemasonry, but who has been exposed to be himself a Freemason; this third is meant to deal with Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy.

In the case of Kennedy, it is seen that he is a member of the Freemasonic and viciously anti-Catholic sect, the "Ordo Lapsit Exillis", besides being associated as a contributor and member of the Perennialist organ, Sophia. And yet, we note, from the writings of Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, that he too is associated with the Sophia. We have seen no direct evidence to show that Rama Coomaraswamy is, like Kennedy, a Freemason, but one begins to wonder....

We can work on a line of logical development: Kennedy is an associate of Rama Coomaraswamy, who is his senior. Both participate in the activities of "The Foundation For Traditional Studies", apparently the Supreme Governing Body of Perennialism, and their writings are published in the Foundation's journal, the Sophia. In fact, when we think about it, it becomes obvious that there is very probably a Guru-Chela (Preceptor-Disciple) relationship between the two. Further, it is obvious that Rama Coomaraswamy is merely carrying on the tradition that he has inherited from his parents. And yet, not only do they participate in the activities of the Foundation, but we have also discovered that Kennedy is a member of a branch of the Freemasons, the "Ordo Lapsit Exillis"; by contrast, we have not found any similar direct link between Freemasonry and Rama Coomaraswamy. But there are two indirect links: the Foundation, and Kennedy. What does that tell you?

It is interesting that Kennedy makes it his vocation to "attack" Clerical Paedophilia. We are all aware that it is one branch of Freemasons, under the leadership of Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, etc., who have hijacked the Church and have created and fostered the crisis of Clerical Paedophilia, as but merely one instrument in order to achieve the total destruction of the Brand Name of Catholicism, whose reputation was built up in the blood and tears of innumerable martyrs for two millenia; on the other side, we have the spectacle of another bunch of Freemasons "coming to our rescue" (sic!) by exposing and "combatting" this Clerical Paedophilia!

We are therefore caught between the many arms of the Freemasonic Octopus!

The strategy of the Freemasons, who are not their own masters, but who labor for the Jews, is to bring about the establishment of a Universal Jewish Empire, and the enthronement of the Jewish Anti-Messias!

Freemasonry has always sought the unification of all religions into one world religion, preparing for the Jewish Anti-Messias. The Heresy of Perennialism is merely another strategy to get there!

The natural and inevitable opposition between Perennialism and Catholicism is best expressed in the words of Michael Fitzgerald, disciple and ally of Frithjof Schuon, as recorded by William Kennedy in his page on the Mark Kuslow vs. Frithjof Schuon case:
"The enemies of Schuon are people who don't adhere to Schuon's notion of a basic uniformity of belief. The problem with many of the people who don't like Schuon is that over a period of time they've become more fanatical for one religion."
This idea, that of a contrived and externally imposed "basic uniformity of belief", is indeed the very same idea that Ghandi propagated, which constituted the core of Ghandi's "Gospel"! It is indeed an unprovoked aggression against Christianity and upon Christians! Indeed the stark choice for Christianity, if it is to conform to Perennialism, is to prostitute itself:
"Come let us fornicate in the temple of our Baal!"
Perennialism does not REQUEST, it DEMANDS that we, Christians, prostitute ourselves. There is no other means by which we can harmonize our Christianity with Perennialism, with its imperative "notion of a basic uniformity of belief".

I have some simple questions for the Perennialists, for Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy and for Kennedy:
  1. How different is the ideology of Schuon and the Perennialists from that of the Freemasonic Patriarch of Lisbon, who denounced the Council of Florence's Decree for the Jacobites, a reiteration of the Doctrine of St. Fulgentius of Ruspa, as "that horrible text"?

  2. How different is the attitude of Schuon and of the Perennialists from that of Fr. Guerra, Rector of the Shrine of the Apparition of our Lady, in Fatima, and of Bishop Seraphim of Fatima, who invited the Hindus of Lisbon to worship in that Shrine according to their rites?

  3. How different is the attitude of Schuon and of the Perennialists from that of the Mexican prostitute Alma Lopez who depicted Mother Mary as a whore in that state of nudity, immodesty and undress called the bikini?
Further: Rama Coomaraswamy was aware of the Perennialist heresy. As a Catholic, it should have been obvious to him that Perennialism fundamentally contradicts orthodox Catholicism, and that it is nothing more than a heresy. As a Catholic, he should have known that it was his duty and obligation to bring to the attention of other Catholics, putting the truth of the Perennialist heresy in the public record, so that others could be on their guard. He did not. That has its own implications.

Another fact is the tendency among all these persons, whether Rene Guenon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Frithjof Schuon, and even with Rama Coomaraswamy, that they do not want facts about themselves, and their antecedents placed in the public domain. This is a tendency that is nearly universal to these people (Kennedy is the first exception I know). It is an extra-ordinary attitude, and it is necessary to inquire into its causes.

Christ tells us: The Children of Evil fear to expose themselves to the light, for the light exposes their works. Why should any group be afraid of providing the public at large the facts about their own antecedents and history?

How is it justifiable that a man should claim to be a Catholic priest, presenting himself or consenting to be ordained, and deny to the world the right to know his antecedents, which is necessary to know in order to know whether he is eligible for ordination or not?

How is it that a man who sees no difficulty in cooperating with Perennialists should presume to receive ordination and present himself as a Catholic priest? Why did the "bishop" who ordain him, ordain him?

How is it that a man who has not denounced and severed all connections with the Perennialists should be ordained a Catholic priest? Why did the "bishop" who ordain him, ordain him?

What cooperation and synergies can there be between the foul, abominable, obscene and satanic heresy of Perennialism and the Holy Catholic Faith?

Did the "bishop" who ordained Rama Coomaraswamy fulfil his obligations in Canon Law by ascertaining the antecedents and suitability of the candidate for ordination? Did the bishops who presumptively conferred the honor of "Monsignor" on Rama Coomaraswamy ascertain his suitability as an orthodox Catholic?

As yet there were two impediments I knew of, towards Rama Coomaraswamy's ordination as a Catholic priest:
  1. His parentage (I believe that his father's wife, Ethel Mary Partridge, was living at the time of his "fourth marriage" with Luisa Runstein);
  2. His (Rama Coomaraswamy's) own subsisting marriage (only the celibate or widowed can be ordained).
A third impediment would be that of the grave probability of unorthodoxy — the heresy of Perennialism.

Coomaraswamy can settle the doubt about his affiliation with the Perennialist heresy only by these actions:
  1. Publicly sever all connections with the Perennialists, with "The Foundation For Traditional Studies" and with Sophia;
  2. Publicly deny and repudiate the false allegations that Christianity shares a common "Original Tradition" with all the false religions and that there is, between Christianity and other religions, a "basic uniformity of beliefs."

Opposition Feinted

Is it true, as claimed, that both Guenon and Ananda Coomaraswamy were opposed to Theosophy and Freemasonry?

Let us begin by underlining the basic fact that Guenon, Schuon and Coomaraswamy collaborated in perpetrating an obvious fraud, a fabrication being palmed off as being "original truth" dating back to the beginning of mankind. That does not bode well for any re-appraisal of these "gentlemen".

When we consider the two versions of the lives of Guenon ("Rene Guenon and Roman Catholicism" & "The Occult World of Rene Guenon"), both provided by Mr. William H. Kennedy, it becomes obvious that Guenon, at least, was self-centered and an egoist, which is why he quarreled with his Jesuit teachers, and then began to dabble in, and be open to various heterodox influences. It is also true that Guenon formally became a Freemason, and that he cooperated with a Theosophist — Gerard Encausse aka Papus — from 1906 until Papus' death in 1916. By contrast, Guenon's collaboration with Jacques Maritain in "refuting" Theosophy came rather late in the day—1921!

Again, despite the claim made on behalf of Guenon's parents, of their unshakeable orthodoxy, it is telling that his father had him transferred to the pro-Revolutionist, and therefore, anti-Clerical, College Augustin-Thierry, when he complained of persecution at the hands of the Jesuits. Thierry, I believe, was a Freemason and an Anti-Clericalist!

We know that Freemasons are, like the Modernists they spawned, notorious for dissembling. One may therefore take Guenon's supposed subsequent rejection of Freemasonry and of Theosophy with a pinch of salt. That Guenon continued unaltered with his original program is proven by nothing more than his false, disingenuous conversion to Sufi Islam, a part of a larger program to infiltrate and re-orient the religions of the world in order to achieve their unification.

The rejection by Perennialists of certain religions and religious systems such as "Theosophy" is merely a disingenuous feint. The two systems complement each other, and cater to men of different mentalities, all the while drawing them gradually and unknowingly to the same end, which for them is the Dawn of the New Age, and for us, Christians, is the Reign of the Antichrist!

Lúcio Mascarenhas
©Lúcio Mascarenhas.
[Copyright Terms & Conditions].
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws