By Jude Duffy
December 7, 2015 Anno Domini
Michael Hoffman’s infatuation with Protestantism – Part II
Part I | Part III
One of the most celebrated Puritans in history, the 17th century English poet John Milton, advocated no-fault divorce, one of many historical facts that completely refute the notion that radical Protestant liberalism is a purely 20th or 21st century phenomenon.
C.S. Lewis, no philo-Catholic, acknowledged that in so far as the Reformation was a struggle between rigour and laxity, the Catholics were the rigorists, the Protestants the liberals.
Calvin’s own radical departure from traditional Christian views on economic and financial matters couldn’t be clearer: he explicitly endorsed usury and thus broke completely with the traditional Christian teaching on money (9). Hoffman attempts, quite absurdly, to muddy the waters by citing the Catholic Fuggers’ usurious activities, and certain Catholic theologians’ partial endorsement of usury. In so doing he ignores the crucial fact that neither the Fuggers nor such theologians formed the Magisterium of the Catholic Church – whereas Calvin very obviously defined the spirit and letter of Calvinism. The clue is surely in the name.
Hoffman argues that the Pope Leo X bull permitting limited interest on loans for charitable purposes, not Calvin’s teaching, was what really opened the floodgates to usury (10), though he never gets around to explaining why, if this is so, it was the great Protestant powers, Britain, Holland, Geneva, and latterly the U.S., where usurious capitalism really took off.
Regardless, of how one, with hindsight, views Leo’s bull on a prudential level, it was anything but a ringing endorsement of usury, but rather a partial and very tentative derogation in response to special circumstances. It may have been a foolish compromise with the usurious spirit, but the unpleasant truth is that most of us compromise in some way or other with the usurious spirit every day. Hoffman himself accepts donations through usurious financial institutions – in fairness he might not be able to carry on his work if he did not.
Hoffman argues that the failure of Cromwell’s effort to allow Jews en masse back into England proves that the conventional old-school Catholic critique of Cromwellian Puritanism is unfair. But again this is to engage in facile historical reductionism, whereby the context of history is ignored in favour of extracting isolated facts for use as debating points. Thus, while it is true that Cromwell didn’t succeed in allowing the Jews into England, it cannot be seriously argued that he did not plan to do so (11) or that the Puritans were not, in general, extremely philo-Judaic by the standards of the time (12).
In fact, the rise of “Anglo-Saxon Protestant” supremacism resembled Jewish racial supremacism in many ways – the very term White Anglo-Saxon Protestant” having its roots in crypto-Judaic national exceptionalism. The “Anglo-Saxons” were not especially Anglo-Saxon – recent DNA studies of the indigenous English population confirm what many serious historians and genealogists have known for years: that the English share more genetic heritage with the French than with the Germans (13). But like Zionists and German National Socialists, British Protestants invented an ersatz form of racial jingoism to justify genocide, enslavement, and persecution.
Like other philo-Puritans, Hoffman acknowledges that the Puritans were much more concerned with activity in the world than with contemplation, but he fails to see the implications of this fact for his attempt to portray these radical Protestant sects as at least partial inheritors of the true spirit of medieval Christianity. No medieval Catholic would exalt work and action over contemplation. The Catholic Church has always taught that prayer and contemplation are far more vital for salvation than economic activity in the world. When that order of priorities is reversed, as it was in much of Europe and the “Anglo-sphere”, in the centuries after Reformation, the stage is set for the triumph of vulgar materialism. One of Mrs. Thatcher’s economic gurus, the former Communist Sir Alfred Sherman, poured scorn on the large number of Spaniards in monasteries and convents during the Counter-Reformation era, in contrast to the “economic dynamism” of Protestant Europe.
This notion, that Protestantism brings in its wake dynamic modern progress, and commercial and industrial enterprise – as opposed to the rural reactionary stagnation of Catholicism – has been a recurring theme of Whiggish Protestant historians for centuries (the Whiggish philo-Judaic Victorian historian, Lord Macaulay being a famous example). Some corporate media commentators have even suggested that it is not coincidence that four of the five countries at the centre of the E.U. financial “crisis” were Catholic – Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal (the other one being Orthodox Greece). They may have a point: it may be no accident that Catholic countries should be the first on the hit list of larcenous City of London and Wall Street bankers.
It might sound like a curious thing to say about a holocaust revisionist, but Hoffman is in some ways quite a conventional thinker, all too happy to accept corporate mainstream media versions of events if they can be made to dovetail with his own prejudices. In this, ironically enough, he resembles the Traditionalist Catholic movement – a recurring target of his ire. Just as Traditionalist Catholics in general accept the media version of the Catholic abuse scandals without investigation, Hoffman does likewise, albeit for very different reasons. Whereas “Trads” embrace the media scandal narrative because they foolishly believe it can be made to vindicate their own critique of the corruption of the post-Vatican II Chruch, Hoffman does so because he thinks this narrative vindicates his own philo-Protestant dislike of post-Renaissance Catholicism.
Significantly neither he nor the Trads seem remotely interested in independently investigating (A) the reliability of the many allegations made against Catholic priests or religious, or (B) the context of the scandals. For example, in a recent piece on his blog Hoffman cites one of the many anti-Catholic books published about Catholic clerical abuse in Ireland, and suggests that the horrific revelations contained therein “apparently drove the Irish people mad” and led them to the ignominy of being the first nation to vote for sodomitic “marriage”. This piece encapsulates Hoffman at his worst: unbalanced diatribes based on uncritical regurgitation of highly dubious “facts” from ideologically tainted sources. Moreover, like the Trads, he never seems to consider the possibility that the pattern of cause and effect he identifies is far from happenstance.
Or to put it another way: an unbiased commentator would surely recognise that it is highly far-fetched to suppose that the anti-Christian media and media class suddenly discovered a selective horror of clerical paedophilia just at the time they planned to unleash an extraordinary intensification of their onslaught on vestigial Catholic culture. There is a familiar pattern here which every reflective person should recognise. Just as western media attacks on Saddam, Milosevic, Assad, and Ghaddafi preceded massive military attacks on these regimes, the relentless media blitz against the Catholic Church preceded a cultural Marxist version of Shock and Awe, whereby rabidly anti-Christian propositions, that a few short years previously had been confined to the outer fringes of the far left, were targeted successfully at the mainstream of respectable society.
Unbiased investigation quickly reveals that that many – although by no means all – of the allegations of sexual crime made against Catholic priests and religious remain to this day completely unproven. This is because, contrary to the corporate media line that Hoffman faithfully echoes, Church authorities, for reasons best known to themselves, handed over many billions of dollars/sterling/Euros, without any proper investigations of allegations – often in cases where priests and religious had been deceased for many years, and were therefore in no position to defend their good name (18). Furthermore, both Church and State authorities deemed accusations “credible” on the very flimsiest of circumstantial evidence, e.g., an accuser having lived in the same town as the accused at the time of the alleged offences.
But in the simplistic crypto-punk outlook of Hoffman and the Trads, the undeniable corruption of the modern Church makes every allegation against a Catholic priest credible, and therefore in no need of unbiased investigation – even when there were and are compelling religious (or anti-religious), political, financial, and cultural motives for blackening the name of Catholic clergy.
It should be noted that when it comes to World War II, Hoffman abhors his own logic. In that context he freely admits that Hitler was indeed a war criminal and “one of history’s prize fools” but argues that these facts in no way vindicate all the charges of systematic genocide laid at his door.
Incidentally, while we’re on the subject of revisionism, one of the ironies of the on-going anti-Catholic feeding frenzy is that Protestants like Dr. David Duke recognise it for the co-ordinated Zionist psy-op that it is, whereas the Catholic Hoffman – not to mention the Catholic Trads – refuse to see what’s staring them in the face.
It would be remiss to write on this subject without noting how the Zio-masonic media and political establishment treat genuinely credible allegations of paedophile rings in their own milieu. Since 2012, many senior public figures in Britain, living and deceased, have been accused of paedophilia. Some have already been sent to prison for such offences. Very recently, allegations of child abuse against former British Prime Minister Ted Heath made it into the mainstream media. Most of that media, including the BBC, implied that these were completely new allegations, and that Heath’s accusers were cynically taking advantage of the fact that he was no longer around to defend himself.
As anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the so-called alternative media can testify, this is complete bunkum. Regardless of one’s view of David Icke, it is a matter of public record that he publicly challenged Heath (in the Guardian newspaper) to sue him over precisely the allegations that many in the media are now dismissing as cowardly posthumous attacks on the reputation of the “asexual” former Prime Minister. Strangely the notoriously combative Heath declined to take up Icke’s gauntlet. The point here is that the same media which accepted without any reservation every allegation made against Catholic priests and religious, living or deceased, seem far less eager to form lynch mobs where pillars of the secular masonic establishment are concerned. Indeed many media outlets have viciously character-assassinated the alleged victims of establishment paedophile rings.
By the same token, many of the media that have obsessively pursued the Church on the issue of paedophile clergy, have themselves been deeply and very directly implicated in the cover-up of paedophile networks. The BBC, a deeply corrupt organisation that has broadcast endless hit pieces on the Church, not only covered up paedophilia in its own organisation, but actively facilitated the notorious child predator Jimmy Savile, by continuing to employ him as host of audience-based children’s TV shows long after his criminal proclivities were widely known.
(Editor’s note: Footnotes to come)
Said the Pharaoh “America is no more & Christian country” & now says a British Baroness “England is no more a Christian Country” For the root of both their statements are unto the Sodomic Propagation in alternative life styles, against the basic structure of the Family, based on the first Holy Family of God.. Like frogs sittin under a coconut shell & thinking it is the roof, for by looking up & around all they see is darkness & no light , so short sighted that they think Christianity is Protestantism, rebellious(in the spirit of Jezebel) themselves even as the Beast is seen treading upon the harlot that rides it- Protestantism to the Prophecy, most Ignorant of the words of the Son of God unto the Angel of the Church of Thyatira “For those who have not known the depths of satan I will give them the Morning Star” the words “depths of satan” & “morning star” relates to that Enmity put by God at Eden.
Now this Morning star, totally contrary to the Jezebel spirit, was revealed as “Humble & Loving” (denoting the Fiat of Mary) a sheer Delight unto the sons of men, even with eyes as flames of fire & feet as of fine brass, just as our Lord himself, & as stated in Job”– When the Morning Stars sang together & all the sons of God(The Elohim) shouted for Joy’. The word Morning Star is not to be confused with the son of the morning or dawn or Light bearer which is not the light but its reflection or Forerunner of the Light , who became corrupted by his Pride & fell away trying to project himself as the light. against the truth of the Morning stars that cannot be corrupted for it is God Himself through His Expression, revealing the First Holy Family of God upon which are all families based in Heaven & Earth The very “Ark of the Covenant”, The Throne of God , popularly called as the Throne of David, even his root & offspring.
Protestantism in abstract Gnosticism have not the “gnosis” of this simple truth, is but to retrospect on their grave Error out of Rebellion & Pride, lest they fall after the fallen one, even as the Pharaohs & Baroness’s think to change times & Laws, for unto the likes of these & their boss is prepared the lake of fire.
Northsider, you write “The Catholic Church has always taught that prayer and contemplation are far more vital for salvation than economic activity in the world”. What? Where in the Bible do you find salvation (from Hell to Heaven) being contingent upon prayer, contemplation, or for that matter anything other than faith/trust in Christ and His finished work on the cross…plus nothing?
Jimmy:1) where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only authority needed? 2)If you actually read the Bible instead of just quoting certain passages which you, wrongly, imagine proves the Protestant position at the expense of the Catholic; you’ll realise that quite a lot more than merely accepting Christ as your ‘personal Lord and Saviour’ is required for salvation and one of the things required isn’t the Protestant work ethic!
In fact, Timothy, since you are the host of this site, and I assume you allowed the article by Northsider to appear here, let me ask you: What do YOU believe the Bible teaches a man must do to het to heaven? Easy question (see Acts 16:30). Jimmy
Jimmy: I refer you to Matt 25:31-46. Accepting Christ and getting baptised are only the start. After that, as St.Paul says, we have to work out our salvation in ‘fear and trembling’. As Jesus Himself said: very few will be saved. So It can’t be as easy as you, and other Protestant, like to imagine.
I don’t claim to speak for Tim, But I imagine that he rejects the Protestant heresy, invented by Luther, of Sola Fide.
Jimmy, if you have a problem with Northsider’s article, why don’t you argue against it point by point rather than trying to argue the generalized Protestant vs. Catholic debate.
Jimmy, Mary Louise has expertly demolished the question-begging premise of your question, but I would just add that even if you do use the Bible as your sole authority, there is no record there of Christ ever recommending work over contemplation.
What a great article, Northsider, even better than Part1. I knew that Jews, such as Keith Joseph and Milton Friedman, were major influences on Thatcher’s economic policies, but I’d never heard of (Jewish) Alfred Sherman before reading your article.
I’ve discovered that Sherman actually fought on the side of the Communists during the Spanish Civil War. No doubt he got a big thrill out of killing Catholics.
Sherman’s Wikipedia entry says that he was a Communist, ‘but later changed his views completely’. This is ,of course, nonsense. both Communism and laissez-faire Capitalism are Jewish constructs and two sides of the same coin.
Mary Louise: Thank you so much for your kind words. Yes Sherman actually claimed credit for inventing Thatcherism. There’s a passage in the late Alan Clark’s infamous published diaries where Sherman tells Clark that he will make him a big political star – as long as he follows the Sherman script. Clark, being Clark, was sceptical, but it’s one of those published exchanges that give you a partial insight into the methods used to recruit Zio-stooges. Clark, let it be noted, was a man in late middle age at the time, so apparently it’s not true that political veterans are exempted from such entrapment.
As for Keith Joseph, it’s interesting to contrast the way the very credible allegations of degenerate sexual behaviour on his part at Tory Party conferences have been rubbished, and then subsequently buried, by the same crass media that treat any and every allegation against Catholic priests as proven – no matter how tenuous, or even far-fetched, the evidence. The media have adopted the same deeply hostile approach to paedophile allegations against Heath, Brittan, Janner & co. This in spite of the fact that Tory bigwigs such as the late former whip Tim Fortescue and Edwina Currie have publicly admitted that not only was it known that paedophiles occupied high ranks in government, but that this knowledge was used as a way of controlling the political class.
Timothy: You state, “Jimmy, if you have a problem with Northsider’s article, why don’t you argue against it point by point rather than trying to argue the generalized Protestant vs. Catholic debate.” As evidenced by my comment to Northsider, I have a problem with a specific sentence in his article. I brought this to his attention via a question. He has yet to respond. It’s just that simple Tim. Now, try as you may to drag me into a “Protestant vs. Catholic” false dilemma, I am not biting. I’d rather continue to stick with the teachings of the Bible.
Mary Louise: Like Timothy, you appear to operate under the false assumption that if someone is not “Catholic”, they must be “Protestant”. Absurd. This is not unlike suggesting that a person who is not a Republican, must by necessity be a Democrat. My interest is simply what the Bible teaches, not what some labeled group says it teaches. As an aside, you might be interested to know that Luther was not the champion of “justification by faith alone” as most falsely claim. Not unlike the Catholic church, He added works (i.e. water baptism) to grace for salvation too–a false gospel regardless who spews it. NOTE: I plan on responding to your misunderstanding of Scripture tomorrow. And Tim, it will be done “point by point”.
Jimmy: that’s a nonsense analogy. You accept all the false precepts of the Protestant “Reformation” ie Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, therefore you are a product of Luther’s revolt and therefore a Protestant. I can’t, in conscience, call you a Christian.
It is you, not us, who “misunderstands” Scripture. You have no authority except your opinion about scriptural interpretation. We, on the other hand, have the 2,000 year teaching authority of the Church.
Your remark about water baptism proves my point about Protestants, ie, you cherry pick passages taken out of context which you falsely think proves your beliefs against Catholic beliefs. If you read your Bible thoroughly, you’ll know that Jesus commanded water baptism as necessary for salvation.
This article is written in response to Michael Hoffman to refute his claim that it was the Renaissance Catholic Church who was responsible for the acceptance of the practice of usuary, rather than the Judaizing Calvinists. It isn’t about Catholic versus Protestant theology.
Btw: in your original post you claim that prayer and contemplation are unnecessary. Well, go back to the Gospels. You’ll find numerous instances of Our Lord going off alone to pray to His Father. Unless you pray, you cannot develop a relationship with God.
Mary, Tim, Northsider: I’ve finally found some free time to answer your comments. Sorry for the delay, it’s a busy time of the year for me.
Mary, allow me to address first your most curious statement wherein you write, “You have no authority except your opinion about scriptural interpretation. We, on the other hand, have the 2,000 year teaching authority of the Church.” Regarding the “Church”, have you not read that the Body of Christ is the “Church”? (Romans 12:5,1 Corinthians 12:12-27, Ephesians 3:6 and 5:23, Colossians 1:18 and Colossians 1:24). Notice that Jesus Christ is seen as the “head” of the body, which is the Church, while the “members” of the body are seen as members of the Church. In truth, if you can grasp this one beautiful truth, you will have more understanding than most of professing Christendom. Now, it will do you no good to respond that I’ve somehow received this notion from “Protestantism”. It’s right there in the Word, written so simply that even a child could understand it. Regarding “scriptural interpretation”, what would you have said to the Berean’s who tested everything by Scripture that the Apostle Paul told them in order to find out if he was telling the truth (Acts 17:11-12)? By whose “authority” did they do that do you think? Were they wrong to do so in your view? If so, why do you think the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write that they “were of more noble character” because of their diligence in testing what Paul said by the Word of God?
Mary, you write: “If you read your Bible thoroughly, you’ll know that Jesus commanded water baptism as necessary for salvation.” Please show me the chapter and verse. NOTE: By the way, like you Luther also believed in baptismal regeneration. So far you have more in common with Luther than I do. So much for your “Protestantism vs. Catholicism” straw man argument.
Rather than addressing the other comments at this time, let’s just start with these first…
Jimmy: I’ve never come across anybody as talented as you for sheer verbosity while at the same time saying nothing of value.
May I remind you that the purpose of this article is to refute Michael Hofmann’s assertion that the Renaissance Catholic Church, rather than Calvinism, was responsible for the acceptance of usuary among Christians. I repeat: it is NOT about Catholic versus Protestant doctrine.
It is you who arrived, uninvited at this site, breaking the china. I don’t know what your purpose is, but nobody is forcing you to visit this site and read the articles. Feel free to leave if you don’t like what you see. You won’t be missed.
My Bible informs me that Christ founded a visible, teaching Church upon Peter, which you in your arrogance, just like Luther, refuse to submit.
The fact that you cite Luther as believing in Baptismal Regeneration only proves my point about the illogicality at the heart of Protestantism. Because Protestants accept no authority, except their own faulty interpretation of scripture, there are as many Protestant beliefs as there are Protestants. It also proves that Bible interpretation is not as straight forward as you like to believe, since you all arrive at different conclusions as to its meaning. Hence the necessity of an infallible teaching authority. The eunuch in Acts recognised this.
Jimmy: “let’s just start with this first..”
No, actually let’s not – let’s start with your question begging premise. You cite the Bible as an authority, but the Church preceded the Bible, and selected and codified it, so it’s absurd to use Scripture as an argument against the Church – as absurd as an anarchist citing clauses in the constitution of his country as an argument against government and the rule of law.
As for “Protestantism vs Catholicism” being a straw argument: it is nothing of the sort. Protestantism is simply a name for any professed Christian who rejects Catholicism and Orthodoxy – it is a purely negative descriptor. So whether you choose to call yourself a Protestant or not is a complete red herring, Your rejection of the Church is Protestant in the context of this argument, and that’s all that matters.
–continued. Now to the rest of Timothy’s, Northsider’s, and Mary’s comments:
Mary: You ask rhetorically, “where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only authority needed?” It appears from the wording of your question that you recognize the Bible as authoritative. Moreover, you demonstrate this by citing passages from the Bible in an attempt to refute me. I have no problem, though I wouldn’t be in agreement, with your idea that there is another authority on faith and conduct other than the Bible, but demonstrating my reasons why would be a waste of time and space. The important thing is that both you and I believe the Bible to be authoritative. We can, therefore, have an intelligent conversation.
You go on to write: “If you actually read the Bible instead of just quoting certain passages which you, wrongly, imagine proves the Protestant position at the expense of the Catholic; you’ll realise that quite a lot more than merely accepting Christ as your ‘personal Lord and Saviour’ is required for salvation and one of the things required isn’t the Protestant work ethic!” First, you are not omniscient Mary therefore you have no way of knowing whether or not I’ve read the Bible in its entirety. Secondly, I have no interest in any “Protestant position” or “Catholic position” as my interest is solely in what the Word of God says. Thirdly, I did not write, nor have I ever said or wrote, that “accepting Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour” is the way to heaven. Lastly, where in the world did you read me saying anything about a “Protestant work ethic”? Let’s just stick with what I actually wrote, ok? Here’s what I wrote: “Where in the Bible do you find salvation (from Hell to Heaven) being contingent upon prayer, contemplation, or for that matter anything other than faith/trust in Christ and His finished work on the cross…plus nothing?” Notice, Mary, there is no “accepting Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour” in my sentence. Notice also, there is no “protestant work ethic” in my sentence. Let me spell out what the sentence means lest you attempt to add anything else to it: The only condition for receiving eternal life is faith/trust in Christ (Who He is–John 8:23-24; John 20:28-29) and His finished cross-work (What He has done on our behalf–the Gospel–1 Corinthians 15:1-4). In fact, there are over 160 verses in the New Testament which declare that the only condition for receiving eternal life is faith in Jesus Christ. Among them are John 1:7, 1:12, 3:18, 3:36, 6:29, Eph. 2:8-9, etc.)
My next post will address your abuse of Matthew 25.
Closing thought: That any person would attempt to add works to grace for salvation in light of clear passages such as Eph. 2:8-9, Romans 11:6, Galatians 5:4, Romans 4:4 is remarkable. Mary, you will not stand before the “Catholic” or “Protestant” religious leaders at the Judgment one day. You will stand before Christ Himself, and any excuses you provide as to why you refused to trust in Him and His finished cross-work alone as your only hope for salvation will be to no avail. You are right about one thing, though–Jesus did indeed say few will be saved. One need only talk to those in professing christendom to see this truth. Few are trusting in Christ and His finished cross-work alone for salvation. Many are trusting in Christ PLUS themselves. The “many” believe Christ is necessary, but sadly they do not believe He is enough. This will be there undoing. I hope you repent (have a change of mind) lest it be your undoing as well.
Of course I recognise the Bible as authoritative! Nowhere have I said otherwise. What I reject is Luther’s heresy of Sola Scriptura.
You may not have said it in those exact words, but what you said about all that’s required for Salvation, is “belief/trust in the finished work of Christ” amounts to the same Lutheran heresy of Sola Fide. May I remind you that the Bible states that faith without works is dead.
As for the Protestant “work ethic”. I didn’t suggest that you believed in it. I was pointing out, in the context of northsider’s article, that many Protestants believe that material affluence is a sign of God’s favour and that it’s no accident that Protestant countries tend to be more affluent than Catholic countries. The late Ian Paisley touted this view as to why Protestant Northern Ireland was, allegedly, more affluent than the Catholic South. Rather than a sign of God’s favour for Protestant countries, it is far more likely that Jewish banksters are going to financially screw over Catholic countries than Protestant.
As for your pompous, sanctimonious sermonizing: you stated that I am not omniscient; well neither are you, Jimmy, yet you seem to believe that you can see into my heart and so judge me as to what trust in. If I won’t stand before Catholic or Protestant leaders on Judgement Day, neither will I stand before you. Maybe you should look to your own salvation first.
I look forward to reading your attempt to explain away Matthew 25.
Mary: You, yet again, make reference to the “Lutheran heresy of Sola Fida”. How cunning Satan is that he has successfully a) convinced “Protestants” that Luther believed and taught justification by faith alone in Christ alone, and b) convinced “Catholics” that Luther, their supposed arch enemy, taught something significantly different soteriologically than the catholic church. Truly a masterstroke by Satan.
Lest there be any doubt in your mind that Luther did NOT believe and teach justification by faith alone in Christ alone, read his own words on the topic. Luther in His Own Words from The Large Catechism (All from The Large Catechism of Martin Luther, translated by Robert Fischer):
“It remains for us to speak of our two sacraments, instituted by Christ. Every Christian ought to have at least some brief, elementary instruction in them because without these no one can be a Christian … First we shall take up Baptism through which we are first received into the Christian community. … Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved” (pp. 80-81).
“Hence it is well described as a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water, for through the Word Baptism receives the power to become the “washing of regeneration,” as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5. … Thus faith clings to the water and believes it to be Baptism in which there is sheer salvation and life …” (p. 84).
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved,’ that is, faith alone makes the person worthy to receive the salutary, divine water profitably. … But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as God’s command and ordinance, so that, baptized in the name of God, you may receive in the water the promised salvation” (pp. 84-85).
“He always [the Christian] has enough to do to believe firmly what Baptism promises and brings — victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God’s grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts. In short the blessings of Baptism are so boundless … Now here in Baptism there is brought free to every man’s door just such a priceless medicine which swallows up death and saves the lives of all men. To appreciate and use Baptism aright, we must draw strength and comfort from it when our sins or conscience oppress us, and we must retort, “But I am baptized! And if I am baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body.” … No greater jewel, therefore, can adorn our body and soul than Baptism, for through it we obtain perfect holiness and salvation, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire” (pp. 85-86).
“Thus we see what a great and excellent thing Baptism is, which snatches us from the jaws of the devil and makes God our own, overcomes and takes away sin and daily strengthens the new man, always remains until we pass from this present misery to eternal glory. … As we have once obtained forgiveness of sins in Baptism …” (p. 90).
So, Luther believed that through baptism one becomes a Christian. And, thus, it resulted in salvation on the basis of “faith alone.” But there’s more. Luther also taught that one received forgiveness of sins (that threatened one’s relationship with Christ) through Communion:
“For here in the sacrament [Communion] you receive from Christ’s lips the forgiveness of sins, which contains and conveys God’s grace and Spirit with all his gifts, protection, defense, and power against death and the devil and all evils” (The Large Catechism — p. 98).
In summary, Luther taught that the so-called sacraments of baptism and Lord’s Supper are vehicles that communicate the grace of God. … Luther’s concept of baptism did not differ markedly from the Roman Catholic view; he retained much of the Roman ceremony connected with the rite. Luther taught baptism is necessary to salvation and, in fact, produces regeneration in the person. … Luther also upheld infant baptism, teaching that although infants are unable to exercise faith, God through His prevenient grace, works faith in the unconscious child. He based the baptism of infants on the command to baptize all nations (Mt. 28:19). So Mary, you have been bamboozled by the leaders of the Catholic church, just as those who adhere to Protestantism have also been deceived by their leaders. Can’t you see that Satan would love these two man-made groups of people to think they are markedly different from one another soteriologically? In so doing, both groups continue to fight against one another without ever coming to biblical salvation.
Now, I’m happy to show how you’ve been deceived regarding Matthew 25, James 2:14, etc., but I will not waste my time doing so until you can show me a modicum of intellectual honesty. In light of Luther’s own words, can you admit that Luther did not teach anything significantly different than the Catholic church on the all-important topic of salvation?
All the intellectual dishonesty, and error, is on your part. It is you who is trusting in yourself, not me. how do you know that you’re not deceived? I know that I’m not because I have the Christ instituted teaching of the Church. It’s irrelevant to me whether Luther taught Sola Fide or not; I reject it’s because it’s opposed to the Gospel and heretical.
I had a good laugh at at your last paragraph, I’m supposed to jettison 2000 years of Church teaching and accept YOUR interpretation of Scripture! You’ve a mighty high opinion of yourself, Jimmy. From whence do you get YOUR authority?
Also Mary, you state, “As for your pompous, sanctimonious sermonizing: you stated that I am not omniscient; well neither are you, Jimmy, yet you seem to believe that you can see into my heart and so judge me as to what trust in.”
Why would I need to attempt to see into your heart when you’ve already informed me, and anyone else who can read, what you’re trusting in for salvation? Read your own words: “…you’ll realise that quite a lot more than merely accepting Christ as your ‘personal Lord and Saviour’ is required for salvation”, “Accepting Christ and getting baptised are only the start. After that, as St.Paul says, we have to work out our salvation in ‘fear and trembling’”, “If you read your Bible thoroughly, you’ll know that Jesus commanded water baptism as necessary for salvation”, “Btw: in your original post you claim that prayer and contemplation are unnecessary (for salvation). Well, go back to the Gospels. You’ll find numerous instances of Our Lord going off alone to pray to His Father. Unless you pray, you cannot develop a relationship with God”.
There you go Mary, according to your own words you are trusting in what YOU DO (i.e. WORKS) for salvation. Will you be so intellectually dishonest to admit this?
Those aren’t my words, Jimmy, they appear in the Bible. Will YOU, for once, Jimmy, be intellectually honest and try to overcome your profound ignorance of Catholic doctrine?
***Proselytizing babble deleted***
Save your breath. We’ve all heard it before.
Last warning, Jimmy. You have not argued against any of the points of the article above but instead used the comment section as a platform to proselytize your Protestantism, whatever form it may be. Not going to allow you to divert any further. You are welcome to post in relevance to the article.
Timothy, in Northsider’s post was a statement proclaiming a false gospel. Believer’s are instructed to defend the true gospel. I did that and will not apologize for doing so. The rest of the content in Northsider’s post takes a back seat to the importance of the Gospel. You should know that. My work is done. Thank you.
Jimmy, like Michael Hoffman, you talk complete disingenuous drivel. Like Hoffman you slither around pretending that you’re not propagandizing on behalf of Protestantism – when that is clearly what you are both about. Since I wrote my article I came across a Youtube video interview Hoffman did with a Protestant pastor on the issue of white slavery. Hoffman mentions English slavery and Scottish slavery – but he never once even broaches the subject of the many Irish Catholics who were forced into slavery by rabidly Protestant post-Reformation British regimes. This is utterly extraordinary. Anyone who knows anything about white slavery in Britain’s American colonies knows that a huge number of these slaves were Irish Catholics. Indeed Hoffman himself has acknowledged as much elsewhere. So why in this interview did he deliberately imply that the Irish had not been enslaved by Protestants, and that Protestant English and Protestant Scots were the only victims of the white slave trade? Could it be that he was hawking a book on a Protestant radio channel and felt it was unwise from a financial point of view to criticise Protestants, or to sympathise with Catholics? So much for all his sanctimonious humbug about usury. When it comes to turning a quick buck he’s as prepared as any Zio-presstitute to misrepresent the historical facts. Incidentally the pastor directly asked Hoffman if he was a Christian, to which Hoffman replied that he was, without mentioning that he was a Catholic.Yet this is the same Hoffman who whines hysterically about Catholics giving up supporting his site because of his criticisms of the Church. I’d guess the vast majority of them gave up on him, because they realised that his heart – and his wallet – are both joined at the hip to Protestant Masonic liberalism.
Timothy, that you a) advocate a false works-based “gospel” and b) deride anyone who dares to follow Jesus’ command to preach the Gospel to all men, reveals just how devoid of the Holy Spirit you truly are. That can change my friend. Repent and place your trust is Christ and His finished cross work alone. Then, and only then will you have eternal life. Jimmy
“Jimmy”: With each comment you post I get more suspicious of your true agenda. Your modus operandi reminds me so very, very much of anti-Catholic disinfo trolls I’ve encountered before – the pseudo-piety, the lame attempts at passive aggressive condescension, and above all the clear diversionary intent. In your last but one comment you indicated that you were finished posting on this thread. Yet immediately after I post my comment regarding Michael Hoffman’s anti-Catholic misrepresentations on the issue of white slavery you’re back with another comment – which as usual has absolutely nothing to do with either the topic of the thread or Hoffman’s suppression of the facts regarding Catholic white slavery. It seems highly likely to me that you are engaged in a species of diversionary trolling to deflect this debate away from Hoffman’s provable falsehoods. How very interesting that on the issue of the Catholic Church at least, Hoffman appears to have steadfast allies in the organised trolling/shilling community. Maybe he should set up a bookstall outside the next gathering of his local lodge.
Northsider, I mistakingly thought it was Timothy I was responding to. Nevertheless, it appears you’ve overthought things. My agenda is simply to see folks get saved. Whether you choose to believe that or not does not change my motivation. Northsider, Mary, Tim: Today is the day of salvation. Repent (change your mind from thinking you can be saved by your works, traditions, and sacraments). Place 100% of your trust for salvation in Christ and His finished cross-work alone. Should you do so you will receive eternal life according Scripture. I pray this will be your response. Jimmy
Jimmy, it;s like you have absolutely no knowledge of the history of the Church whatsover and just decided to heed an altar call one day and now think you know it all. Great that you are learning about Judaism and its anti-Christ nature, but I suggest you also learn Church history, unfiltered by your Protestant sages.
Jimmy: you come across sanctimonious, condescending and passive-aggressive, just as Northsider says. You have consistently proven yourself to be ignorant of Catholic teaching. You owe us the duty to research what it is that Catholics actually believe instead of creating your own straw men to attack.
Riddle me this Jimmy: if works avail nothing why do you spend so much of your time proselytising against the Church? That’s a form of works in itself – though certainly not good works. If you truly believed what you say you believe you would keep your mouth shut, and not bother anyone with your views. And of course for someone who believes faith alone the idea of “repentance” is completely meaningless.
Well said, Northsider. Note that Jimmy, who has made more ‘comebacks’ than Frank Sinatra, stated on the December 21 that “My WORK is done”. Obviously he does believe that ‘works’ are necessary after all.
Northsider, I should also add that in the past I’ve emailed Hoffman sharing the biblical plan of salvation with him as well. Tragically, like you, he seems destined to continue relying on what the Bible calls “dead works” (see Hebrews) to save him. Tim’s website, as well as Hoffman’s website have helped me to better understand the threat of Judaism to Christianity and the world. For that I’m thankful. This doesn’t change the fact, however, that both of these men (and yourself) must be born-again. Jimmy
The Letter to the Hebrews was addressed to Jews and the “dead works” referred to are the the laws of the Old Testament – dietary laws, circumcision, etc., – which have been superseded by the New Covenant. They have nothing to do with Catholic teaching on salvation.
There is this fellow who though not a protestant by birth went about with a Protestant talk saying “I am saved” even to confirm it by saying “Jesus appeared to me saying you have no Judgement” , twice. The visionary revealed to him “The first time Jesus was stating His intention for you & the second time by repeating the same words was but a warning.” With that, his Pride melted & the fear of God got into him. Later on he did witness Our Lord’s Grace when he was struck by two sudden illnesses in a short span of time, forcing him to let go of two particular habits that had been enslaving him, which he could not let go off, for a very.long time.
Likewise was the case of another fellow struck by a sudden serious illness, which the doctors were not able to diagnose & was sinking rapidly, but was miraculously saved. Not understanding the whole truth, he went about rather foolishly as a protestant, when he was reminded of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of all graces, who had appeared to him by a vision when he was very young, was for that very critical moment of his life.
In both cases deceived by Protestantism & its propaganda..
Northsider writes, “Riddle me this Jimmy: if works avail nothing why do you spend so much of your time proselytising against the Church? That’s a form of works in itself – though certainly not good works. If you truly believed what you say you believe you would keep your mouth shut, and not bother anyone with your views. And of course for someone who believes faith alone the idea of “repentance” is completely meaningless.”
Have you not read that believers should preach the gospel and make disciples of men? This is not “proselytizing against the Church”, but rather in keeping with Christ’s commands…and He alone is the head of the true Church (Body of Christ). The reason you are unable to distinguish between working for salvation vs. working after salvation is because in your mind a) salvation is a lifetime process that b) is based on works. Lastly, if you understood biblical repentance you would know that repentance and faith go together. In EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE in the Bible where the word “repent”, “repentance”, “repented” is employed and the consequence of said repenting is the reception of eternal life, the same Greek word, metanoia, is used by the Holy Spirit. Metanoia literally means a “change of mind”. The lost person must repent (change his/her mind) then trust in Christ and Him alone for salvation. The context always informs what the lost person must change his mind about. NOTE: You’d rather uphold your tradition than follow the Bible which is why I suspect you define saving repentance as “turning from sin”. It certainly aligns with your works-based plan of salvation, but is anathema to the Bible. By the way, God is doing a lot of repenting as well as refusing to repent in the O.T. Still want to maintain the definition of repentance is “turning from sin”?
Jimmy once again you substitute semantic waffle for argument. You have not even attempted to address my points. You either believe in works or you don’t. By the logic of faith alone religion, preaching the Gospel is works every bit as much as feeding the poor or visiting the imprisoned is. What makes it different? In fact in some ways it requires more sacrifice – if it is done with pure motives. Of course in the case of Protestant evangelicals that’s often a very big “if”. Jimmy Swaggart spends much of his time insisting to his follower that good works avail them nothing from one side of his mouth, and from the other telling them they urgently need to buy his new video or Bible study guide (the usual Protestant pseudo-magisterium at work here – not so much “every man his own pope” as every gifted rabble-rouser his own congregation’s pope). Swaggart’s followers don’t seem to spot the blatant contradiction. If faith alone saves, why do they need Swaggart or anyone else’s interpretation of the Bible? All they have to do is stay at home and “believe”.And in fairness, compared to the Zio-shills Hagee and the late Ian Paisley (a British intelligence asset, let it be noted), Swaggart seems like a spiritual giant.
As for your comments on “repentance”, once again you use semantic blather to try and avoid addressing the absurd contradictions in your statements. You can’t repent if you’ve done nothing wrong and a faith alone based religion effectively abolishes the concept of wrong-doing. That, incidentally, is why Protestantism has always been intimately connected to liberalism, and why the media direct 99 per cent of their anti-Christian fire at Catholics.
Jimmy: One more point: belief, in the context of religion, is an act of will – never more so than today – the age of the triumphalist New Atheists. There’s plenty of folk who find it much harder “work” to preach the Gospel in public than to give ten euros/dollars/sterling to a charity. Ditto reading the Bible. Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that in a Protestant Sola Scriptura universe, one man’s interpretation of the Bible is no more valid than anyone else’s, and instead focus on the fact that the Bible is a huge book – and for many people very difficult to read. Indeed for many, Bible reading (never mind Bible interpreting) is far more arduous than going to the gym or digging their garden. So, once again, the logic of your position is that for such people even reading the Bible is a form of heretical activity – just as prayer and charitable works are.
I’m still by no means 100 per cent convinced of your sincerity in all of this, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you are genuine, I’d urge you to reflect on the ridiculously self-contradictory nature of your outlook.
Northsider: you are right about the difficulty of the Bible. That is the reason why the Church, traditionally, advised caution for laymen in approaching scripture. It wasn’t, as the Protestant yarn goes, because it wanted to keep the Bible from the laity because it knew that it contradicted the Church’s teaching.
Northsider, I attempted to address all your points, but apparently I wasn’t very clear.
You wrote, “…if works avail nothing why do you spend so much of your time proselytising against the Church?” I didn’t say, nor does that Bible teach that works “avail nothing” (see Eph. 2:10). I simply agree with the Bible that works avail nothing in regards to salvation: “For by grace are you saved through faith, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the GIFT of God, NOT OF WORKS that anyone should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).
Now, Northsider, if works play a role in salvation as you suggest, would you please help me understand the following words/phrases in Eph. 2:8-9: “not of yourselves”, “gift”, “not of works”? While you’re at it, please help me understand what “Now to him who works, his wages are not counted as grace, but as debt” (Rom 4:4), “But if it is on the basis of works, then it is no longer of grace.” (Rom. 11:6b), and “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed on Christ Jesus that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” mean?
You write regarding repentance, “As for your comments on ‘repentance’, once again you use semantic blather to try and avoid addressing the absurd contradictions in your statements. You can’t repent if you’ve done nothing wrong and a faith alone based religion effectively abolishes the concept of wrong-doing.”
First, you say there is a contradiction, yet you fail to state exactly what that contradiction is. Secondly, how exactly does the biblical teaching of salvation by grace through faith in Christ apart from works (Eph. 2:8-9) abolish the concept of wrong doing? In Matthew 3:7-9 some religious men believed that they were going to heaven because they were fleshly descendents of Abraham. John the Baptist told them that they must repent (the Greek word translated repent is metanoia which means to have a “change of mind”. Were these men not guilty of wrong thinking? Luke 13:1-5 tells of a tower in Jerusalem that collapsed killing 18 people. The Jewish mind searched for an answer for this tragedy. They reasoned those 18 persons on whom the tower of Siloam fell were actually the 18 worst in all Jerusalem. God must have gathered them together at the appointed time and place to execute his righteous judgment. This however would mean that only the worst sinners are worthy of God’s judgment. The rest of Jerusalem (those who had not been killed by the falling tower) had apparently led good enough lives that they were not under God’s judgment. To believe this sort of reasoning, however, is to believe that salvation is earned by works of the law. Jesus warned those who believe this way that they were facing eternal condemnation. He commanded them to repent–(change their mind)–to abandon all hope of securing a right standing before God by the works of the law. Northsider, were these men not guilty of wrong thinking? In Hebrews 9:9-14 the Bible calls sacraments or religious rituals through which men try to reach God “dead works.” A few chapters earlier, the same author tells us in Hebrews 6:1 that the “foundation” of the Christian faith is “repentance from dead works and faith towards God”. How is this not clear that one must stop trusting in “dead works” (i.e. religious rituals, sacraments, etc.) before he can exercise a genuine saving faith in God? I believe the biblical command is clear. If a man believes that his religion will get him to heaven, he must repent (Matthew 3:7-9). If he believes that obeying the laws of God are necessary to get him to heaven, he must repent (Luke 13:1-5). And if he believes that he must perform some religious ritual or sacrament to be saved, he must repent, and stop trusting in any of those things to save him (Hebrews 6:1).
Jimmy: Do me a favour and look up the words “guilt” and “repentance” in a good dictionary, or any dictionary for that matter. The concepts of “wrong-doing”, and even “wrong-believing”, presuppose the existence of their opposites – right-doing and right believing.
The traditional Christian view of salvation is clear. Faith and good works are both necessary. As Mary Louise has already noted, the Bible is full of passages warning precisely against assuming that faith alone will get you to heaven. And by the way there’s no point in trying to slither away from your anti-works position now. If works avail nothing for salvation (as you now say) they avail nothing full stop – since eternal salvation is the whole point of Christianity and what sets it apart from this-worldly based creeds such as Judaism and Buddhism.
Furthermore if good works avail nothing in terms of salvation, there’s no earthly (!) reason why anyone should engage in any such works that don’t suit their worldly agenda. A Sola Scriptura Protestant may give money to a beggar because it makes him feel good, or makes him look good to his neighbours, or he may self-righteously denounce the beggar as a parasitical useless eater because THAT makes him feel good. Either way, according to you, it matters not a jot in terms of his eternal destiny.This is why Protestants latched on so eagerly to the Sola Scriptura heresy – it freed them up to engage in all sorts of pleasurable activities condemned by the Church – including grabbing nuns for wives, divorcing their current wives, and practicing usury. And it obviated the need to engage in all those tiresome practices like almsgiving and visiting the imprisoned. And I repeat: it’s why the New World Order is still relatively benignly disposed towards Protestants, including supposedly fundamentalist Protestants such as Hagee and Paisley – the NWO knows philosophical bedfellows when it sees them.
The most crucial point of all – which we have to keep coming back to – is that the Church ratified and codified the Bible – not vice versa, so everything you say regarding the Bible is question begging illogic. It’s a bit like arguing that the folk who invented tennis got the rules wrong. The game IS the rules, and anyone who doesn’t like them is free to invent their own game with its own rules. By the same token anyone who doesn’t like the Church is free to invent their own new religion, with its own books. What they don’t have the right to do is to use the Church’s sacred books as an argument against the Church. That is absurdism worthy of Samuel Beckett or Eugene Ionesco.
Perhaps Protestants blindly accept sola fide based on its semantical value. It’s a convenient and attractive meme. “Faith alone,” seems to roll right off the tongue, doesn’t it? It’s a nice, neat package that is a lot easier to sell than the harsh truth. And since Protestant churches are fixated on selling things—their business-model approach to evangelization—the sola fide meme fits right in. Although public relations wasn’t technically established as a system during Luther’s time, it seems to me that that is exactly what was at work.
I noticed you refused to interact with any of the verses/passages I asked you to explain. Let’s try again lest you’ve ceded all of your God-given critical thinking to your catholic leaders. Please explain to me how, in the context of salvation, “gift”, “not of yourselves”, “not of works” somehow means “not a gift but a barter”, “of yourselves”, “of works”.
As for your suggestion that I seek a dictionary definition of “repentance”, I’m more interested in allowing the language of the Bible to speak for itself than I am in consulting Webster’s. Again, in every single instance where salvation is the context and the word “repent” is used, the exact same Greek word metanoia is being translated–and it means “change of mind”.
You write, “The traditional Christian view of salvation is clear. Faith and good works are both necessary.” Where is it taught in the Bible that faith plus good works = salvation. Surely you will at least be willing to interact with those passages which supposedly teach what you think they teach. And while you’re at it, please explain Romans 11:6.
You write, “And by the way there’s no point in trying to slither away from your anti-works position now.” You see only what you desire to see. The only thing I took issue with in your article was that of SALVATION. I’ve consistently touched on that very issue. And, again, I contend the Bible teaches that works play no role whatsoever in salvation (e.g. Eph. 2:8-9). Now, had I taken issue with something you wrote about SERVICE (Eph. 2:10), that would be an entirely different matter, for works are completely involved there. So, you see, there was not “slithering away from my anti-works position”, there was only staying on the topic of salvation. That said, if you’d like to understand what role works play in serving Christ once a person has been saved by grace through faith in Christ, we can have that discussion.
You write, “If works avail nothing for salvation (as you now say) they avail nothing full stop – since eternal salvation is the whole point of Christianity and what sets it apart from this-worldly based creeds such as Judaism and Buddhism.” What do you mean “as you now say”? Show me one instance where I’ve written that works play any role in salvation. Look, scripture is clear that works play no role in SALVATION (Eph. 2:8-9). It’s equally clear that works are essential when it comes to Christian SERVICE (Eph. 2:10). In other words, the lost person does not work to get saved, but after having been saved he does good works out of thankfulness to his Saviour and to glorify God. Allow yourself for one moment to read those scriptures and think for yourself. I know thinking for oneself is anathema to catholic leaders, but God gave you a brain. Use it.
Lastly, you write, “Furthermore if good works avail nothing in terms of salvation, there’s no earthly (!) reason why anyone should engage in any such works that don’t suit their worldly agenda.” Does not the Holy Spirit reside in the born-again believer? Does not the Holy Spirit lead one into all truth? The reason the believer does good works is because the Holy Spirit in him or her desires to do good works through that person. When the believer is yielded to the Spirit, good works follow. When the believer is yielded to the flesh–good works do not follow. Moreover, have you not read that every saved person will stand before the Bema Seat where his/her works after having been saved will be judged by fire (see 1 Cor. 3:11-17; 9:24-27; 2 Cor. 5:10-11)? Notice this is a Judgment for BELIEVERS and has nothing to do with salvation, but rather with SERVICE. Would you not think that the believer, aware of the future Bema Seat Judgment, would be motivated to do good works? Of course, he would. But, he would have to know about the Bema Seat Judgment first–meaning he would have to read his Bible. Which is it for you Northsider–have you simply not read enough of the Bible to know about the Bema Seat Judgment for believers vs. the Great White Throne Judgment for unbelievers, or have you simply decided to cease all thinking thereby allowing your catholic rulers to do it for you?
Jimmy, I’m not interested in “interacting” with you on specific passages in the Bible, since to do so is to give implicit credence to the absurd notion that Church dogma is to be evaluated on the basis of human interpretations of the Church’s own sacred books, when the truth is the reverse, i.e. Biblical passages must be interpreted in the light of Catholic dogma. The Church has always warned against taking passages from the Bible out of context.
Having said that, if you believe there’s nothing in Scripture condemning the notion of salvation by faith alone, you have far less knowledge of the Bible than you think you have. In fact St James couldn’t be more explicit on the subject: “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone… For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” – James 2.24.26
As Mary Louise has already noted, the stuff you keep quoting about “dead works” refers to empty religious rituals. A modern example would be the many Jews today who still attend synagogue and observe Jewish traditions, dietary laws etc., but who are, in all other respects, practical atheists or agnostics. In fairness the same applies to many “a la carte Catholics” and other nominal Christians. In truth therefore the boot is on the other foot – the passages you cite are actually a condemnation of an empty pseudo-faith devoid of good, spirit based works.
As was perfectly clear from the context of what I wrote, I accused you of trying to slither away from your original contention that works avail nothing – when you said you weren’t against works as such, but just didn’t think they were needed for salvation. As I pointed out , in the context of Christianity, this is a completely meaningless distinction. If works aren’t necessary for salvation, they’re not necessary – end of.
The idea that born again Christians are compelled to do good works out of gratitude for being saved is preposterous. Why should they feel so compelled? They’re saved – they’ve got their ticket to heaven, so they needn’t bother what they do. Unfortunately human beings as a species are not noted for gratitude – especially when it entails self-sacrifice, and when ingratitude incurs no penalty – as would be the case in a Sola Fide universe. .
So, I suppose Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Teresa of Avila, Thomas More, G K Chesterton, etc, etc – even Henry VIII before – just like Luther – he allowed his intellect to be clouded by his libido, all “ceded their God-given critical thinking to their catholic (sic) leaders”.
Good point re the Protestant business model Tim. A few years ago I caught an episode of Jimmy Swaggart’s show. At one point they started discussing Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin. One of the guys on Swaggart’s show implied that all the talk of Marian miracles was just a way for the Catholic Church to take money off its members. The gall of this was quite extraordinary. You can’t watch the Swaggart channel for more than a few minutes without being hustled to buy some book or cd or video. And then then there are the constant “telethon’s” where Swaggart’s extended family actually make a program out of reading out donations and urging others to donate. The Catholic network EWTN has many faults but you see nothing of the sort there.
Northsider, one thing I am starting to learn is that there exists in Orthodoxy, just like in Catholicism, overwhelming anti-traditional sentiment. But the amazing thing is, Orthodoxy doesn’t have the excuse of a Second Vatican Council on which to blame their modernization!
The Holy Eucharist isn’t bread.
No, he’s just trying to point out the hypocrisy of you and people like you.
How does pointing out the hypocrisy of Swaggart, which Northsider personally witnessed make him a paid shill? I’m sure you’d rather he didn’t mention such inconvenient facts.
The Protestant DOMINION theory , following the Zionists, comes out of the corruption through misinterpreting the words of Jesus Protestantism that go by the Zionists theory of DOMINION brought about through corruption in misinterpreting the words of Jesus ‘Ever since John, the kingdom suffers & the violent take if by force’ & the result is seen all over by the beast through destruction & death especially in the latter times in the middle East. Does the lord of hosts require man to take kingdoms for him. Lo Zionism through Protestantism in abstract beliefs deceives many
Tim, that’s interesting. I must confess I know very little about Orthodoxy – apart from reading a couple of Archbishop Bloom’s books, who seemed to me to be quite a profound spiritual thinker. I wonder would this anti-traditionalism be an Orthodox version of the Bella Dodd syndrome ,i.e., organised infiltration of the type that Dodd admitted to being involved in vis a vis the Catholic Church. Just as I don’t believe that even Catholic Traditionalism has been left untouched by the infiltrators, it would be very surprising if Orthodoxy, alone of all the Christian denominations, has not been the victim of entryism.
It always dismays me the way traditionalist and conservative Christians have no problem acknowledging that communist regimes used clergymen as agents in the Soviet bloc, but dismiss as tinfoilery any suggestion that western clergy and laity may have served a similar function for various entities – ranging from communists to the Mossad, AJC, ADL, Mi6, CIA, the Freemasons etc. Everyone knows that a lot of Orthodox clergy worked for commie regimes in various countries, and I’ve even seen it suggested that John Paul’s apparent freedom to travel abroad indicated that he had some sort of “relationship” with the Polish Communist Party. The apparent outing of Lech Walesa as a communist shill lends a certain weight to that theory.
Needless to say there’s a multiplier effect with such infiltration – in that it has the potential to compromise many members of a church, clerical and lay, who would otherwise be exemplars of sound doctrine. Also, the networks of corruption and subversion thus formed are very difficult to dismantle – especially when no one even wants to even acknowledge their existence.
In some respects at least Orthodox countries seem to be holding out more successfully against the wilder excesses of cultural Marxism than others. I suspect that may be partly because in countries like Russia and Greece the association between Orthodoxy and national identity is now a lot stronger than the association between Catholicism and the nation is in modern formerly Catholic countries. Also I don’t think they’ve had quite as much “psychic driving” propaganda directed at them as countries like Ireland and Spain have. Many Irish people in their fifties have been brainwashed into believing that the country they grew up in the 1970s and 1980s was totally dominated by the Church, when in reality Anglo-American trash culture – what John Lennon called “an extension of the Jewish religion”, i.e. Showbusiness – ruled the roost. My impression is that Russians, Romanians etc., aren’t nearly as shamefaced about their religious heritage as the Irish or the Spaniards have become thanks to the dominance of their countries by the rabidly anti-Catholic Zio-Masonic nexus. (apologies for the long post!)
It’s comments like these that make me wonder.
The context of this comment was in response to a hit piece on Brother Nathanael Kapner. He is an “anti-Semite” even though he is probably Semitic himself, and a racist, according to these PC Orthodox members. I am sure there are racists that use Traditional Catholicism and Orthodxy as a crutch; however, a lot of it is warranted reaction to the current multi-cultural mess we are in—a mess to which the Church has a duty to respond, just like it has a duty to respond to the Jewish problem, freemasonry, and false-flag terrorism.
I can tell you from my experience in Orthodoxy that it is very ethnically based, which is probably the reason for a lot of its strength—as you point out, ethnic Greeks and Russians. The only ethnically based group in Catholicism I would compare it do would be a group like Filipinos. They seem to be one of the few remaining legitimately conservative factions within Catholicism—also probably due to their ethnic cohesion. The current mess is making me rethink the whole thing. Diversity, even within the Church, does not seem to work. It’s an ideal notion that it should, but it just doesn’t seem to work, ever.
Tim, my own historical theory is that after the Reformation and post-Reformation religious conflicts the Catholic Church suffered a sort of psychological exhaustion, and became very disenchanted with the idea of physically fighting her corner – a disenchantment that persists to this day. It’s hard to believe now that once upon a time in Ireland – during the 17th century – the Papal Nuncio saw it as his task to unite the fighting factions against the Protestant British invaders. A few centuries later the Vatican had become so timid that it felt the need to ask the Masonic Protestant British regime for permission to canonise Joan of Arc. You see this timidity replicated over and over again – as in the Church’s ralliement to the rabidly anti-clerical Masonic regime in France, in her call to the heroic Cristeros to surrender in Mexico, in the ban on Action Francaise – at the behest of French Masonry – and on an on and on.
This was all justified on the basis of the scriptural injunction to respect legitimate authority, but in truth various pontiffs often displayed a very pick and mix approach to this principle. For example Pius XI showed scant respect for the “legitimate authority” of Adolf Hitler when he snubbed the German Fuehrer, during his visit to Rome. Needless to say I’m no fan of AH, but was he really (this was pre-WW II remember) so much more reprehensible a character than the Freemasonic leaders who inflicted the carnage of the First World War on Europe?
Likewise Paul VI more or less openly sided with anti-Franco leftists in Spain and their ideological counterparts in Latin America. So it’s clear that due respect for authority was often not the issue at all – but was rather a convenient cover for buckling under to Judaeo-masonry.
Having said that, even Pius XII (much more liberal than folk on either side in the Church like to admit) absolutely insisted on the right of countries to protect the integrity of their ethnic make-up, and the Church only began really embracing this whole multi-culti psychological brainwashing after Vatican II. In fact I have a very strong hunch that Bergoglio was parachuted in as “Pope” precisely because he could be relied upon to back the Soros/Rotchshcild/Goldman Sachs sponsored invasion of Europe to the hilt. I suspect even John Paul and Benedict, for all their flaws, would have had serious qualms about endorsing this.
Tim, I think a key question that’s rarely asked is why do Jewish activists use the term “anti-Semitism” rather than “anti-Jewish” as their bogey word. I think it’s because they seek to conflate several very different things – (a) hatred of Jews on account of their biological race; (b) hatred of the Jewish religion, and (c) disagreement with Jewish political ideologies such as Zionism – all under the deliberately vague label “anti-Semitism”. I’ve even seem some Jewish writers say anti-communism is a form of anti-Semitism – on the grounds that Jews have usually dominated the Communist movement. Thus the likes of Fr Denis Fahey is routinely called an “anti-Semite” even though he condemned biological hatred of the Jews and stated that many Jews had excellent natural virtues.
One thing the white nats are right about is that nobody ever says “China needs more diversity” or “Japan needs more diversity” or “Nigeria needs more diversity”. And even left-wing pro-Palestinian activists don’t talk much about the explicitly racist nature of the Israeli state and the explicitly racist religion of the Talmud. So I’d agree with you that diversity, as that term is now used, doesn’t work. It doesn’t even work for its supposed beneficiaries. I read an interview with the black movie actor Eddie Murphy in the leftwing British newspaper The Observer, many years ago, in which, believe it or not, he said the whole American Civil Rights Movement had been a plot to destroy black communities – that prior to the Civil Rights Act blacks had a great deal of economic independence – their own shops, restaurants, cinemas and so on, and that afterward all this went kaput.
That’s why I think Duke was on to something when he tried to make common cause with anti-Zios of other races, and why I think he’s making a big mistake allowing himself to be influenced back in an openly racist direction by dodgy characters like Anglin. The racial hatred these guys come out with may expand the boundaries of what’s acceptable to say – but it also makes sworn enemies of many folk who could otherwise be allies. I suspect Duke, like many older guys, is a bit seduced by young people making common cause with him – especially when they appear to be making his cause “cool”. But even if these “new racists” are for real (and I have strong doubts in many cases) their abusive and violent language will end up making the white nat movement despised (or more despised than it is already) – if only because the macho threats of violent retribution and the outrageous insults tend to stay on the internet. There’s no sign, for example, that many of the folk who follow Anglin on the net are willing to put their money where their mouths are and go toe to toe with Soros SJWs on the streets. The Daily Stormer may get loads of internet hits, but if I’m not mistaken the numbers at white nat rallies in the US and elsewhere are still pitifully small.
Plus, hatred based on race is a sin – no question – though contrary to what the modern clerics would have you believe, it’s no more of a sin than hatred based on someone’s height or weight or hair colour, or tone of voice etc. On the other hand wanting to preserve the heritage, physical and cultural, of one’s own race is not a sin at all – in fact it’s a virtue.
I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever endorsed this diversity idea – quite the reverse – it has always favoured subsidiarity – i.e allowing nations, cities and even villages decide for themselves how much or how little they wish to mingle with outsiders. But like so many other ideas the true meaning of diversity has been turned on its head.
Well rounded insights. Thanks.
I listened to David Duke’s radio show the day before yesterday, in which he condemned Francis for endorsing mass migration to Europe. Needless to say much of what he said was true, but unfortunately it was accompanied by the by now standard “alt right” disavowal of any “conspiracy theory” belief – as in “I don’t believe Pope Francis is part of a conspiracy – I don’t believe he’s an agent.” Well I’m afraid I DO believe he’s an agent. In fact I think it’s far more far-fetched to believe that Benedict just happened to resign after months of open threats from Shillary, the Zio-BBC etc. , and he just happened to be ostensibly replaced by the avidly pro-immigration Bergoglio, just at the time the Tribe just happened to be planning to unleash huge waves of migration on Europe – than it is to believe that he was installed in an organised crime style “you have 48 hours to leave town” takedown. In any case the conspirators themselves have openly boasted of their plot.
It’s extraordinary to me how so many alt-rightists, Catholic trads, and so on, manage to hold what seem to me to be two mutually contradictory beliefs at the same time. On the one hand they say, “Oh the establishment are corrupt from top to bottom: they support abortion, ssm, men in girls washrooms, genital dismemberment for teenagers, genocidal wars, and on and on.” But then when someone says, “yes and they also engage in false flag terrorism, entrapment and blackmail of churchmen and politicians, star-whacking, political assassination etc.” the same folks in effect say, “Oh dear me know, they would never do any of that – that’s just wild-eyed conspiracy theory!”
That last observation of yours is so true, Northsider. My Dad loathes Tony Bliar. He knows what an evil, despicable schmuck he is. However, when I suggested that he might have been behind the 7/7 bombings, he laughed, and said he wouldn’t go that far.