St Paul's miraculous power, along with his followers' use of 3rd class relics

St. Paul's writings have been used by millions of ... let us politely say ... anti-Catholics, to justify living the life of laziness & selectively retained immoralities.  According to them, St. Paul said that you can do whatever you want and go to Heaven anyway, as long as you proclaim belief in a certain Nazarene whose name has been repeatedly used in vain, on modern movie screens.  

Newsflash:  This just in ===> The exact same St Paul wrote exactly the opposite.  

Example #1:

                  Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? 

                 Do not be deceived; neither fornicators  nor idolaters   nor adulterers 

          nor boy prostitutes  nor sodomites  nor thieves  nor the greedy  nor drunkards 

                        nor slanderers  nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. --- 1 Cor. 6:9

Let it be repeated.  St Paul, the disciplined & self-controlled aesthetic, NEVER wrote that you can commit all the sins you want and still go to Heaven, so long as you express belief in the miraculous Nazarene who was crucified by Roman soldiers.  Yet, an entire religion that kept splintering into "denominations" was founded upon that one premise.  Concerning this overly audacious Biblical interpretation, when Paul wrote that he no longer followed the law, he was referring to the Law of Moses and its many rituals which included animal sacrifice.  He was NOT referring to the moral law.  In fact, he also wrote:

              Now the works of the flesh are obvious:  immorality,  impurity,  licentiousness, 

         idolatry,  sorcery,  hatreds,  rivalry,  jealousy,  outbursts of fury,  acts of selfishness, 

            dissensions,  factions,  occasions of envy,  drinking bouts,  orgies,  and the like.

                    I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things 

                                             will not inherit the kingdom of God.  ---  Galatians, 5:19

Equally important is that Romans 3:28 did NOT state that "Faith alone suffices."  The less than diplomatic Martin Luther added the word, "alone," changing the entire meaning of St. Paul's mission & ministry.  Martin Luther dedicated his beer-drinking (ale-drinking) years to promoting the Sin of Presumption --- the sin of presuming God's mercy. 

Yet today, all of the modern Protestant Bibles omit the "Luther translation," having published instead the Koine Greek version of Romans 3:28 that actually was written by Paul.  That scriptural passage simply stated that a person is justified by having  Faith in the Jewish Messiah of Nazareth without needing to perform the rituals of the Jewish Law of Moses which included animal sacrifice.  The actual translation is:

 For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.  Does God belong to Jews alone?  Does he not belong to Gentiles, too?  Yes, also to Gentiles, for God is one and will justify the circumcised on the basis of faith and the uncircumcised through faith.  --- Romans 3:28

In electing to revert to fidelity in the Koine Greek version of Romans 3:28, Protestant denominations elected to delete Protestantism's thesis statement.  They deleted Protestantism's raison d'etre.  This is tragically ironic, in light of the wars & killings which could have been prevented --- highlighted in the 30 Years War and in Cromwell's genocide of Irish Catholics, as well as in the severely emotional anti-Catholicism of 19th & early 20th Century America.

There is the need of millions of people to quit making a mockery out of Saint Paul's epistles.  Moreover, there is a canonized saint of recent decades who converted from Protestantism.  He famously stated that, the deeper you delve into history, the further you remove yourself from Protestantism.   The exact quote was, "To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant."  His name is John Henry Newman.  All in all, St. Paul ... and Elizabeth Ann Seton ... as well as John Henry Newman ... should be the patron saints of Protestant conversions.  That will work ... really well.

In order to rationalize its existence, Protestantism performed selective amnesia in discarding 1,100+ years of Church history ...  all deleted from the Protestant memory, being that there was no Protestantism on any scene for the first 1,450 years of Christianity.  Protestantism will acknowledge Christianity up to the time of the FIRST Council of Nicaea, in 325 C.E; but not the SECOND Council of Nicaea, in 787.  After the Year 325 comes the amnesia blackout in the mind of Protestantism.

Martin Luther wasn't born until 1,450+ years after the original Pentecost Sunday, when Peter first spoke publicly in the name of Christ.  According to Protestantism, God the Holy Spirit is a liar who was not guiding the believers of Christ for 1450 years.  According to Protestantism, Martin Luther is the Vicar of the Holy Spirit who finally brought the Holy Spirit to mankind.  Protestantism denies the reality of the very sacraments which divert souls from spiritual death and which give souls purpose for being.  Protestantism is the Big Blackout, in several ways.

Now, Protestantism got its beginning by . . . stealing massive amounts of Roman Catholic Church property, in places where they could get away with it . . . and by killing Roman Catholics by the truckload, in places where they could get away with it.  Now, is that any way to start a religion?  Is that any way to start anything?   None the less, Protestantism was largely a geopolitical movement with occasionally unseemly (unexpected allies.)  This meant that Protestantism was a political party.  Then, out of it came religious fanaticism.

All in all, there was NO REFORMATION in the 1500s.  There are only Theft & Murder back then .... and defamation; lots of defamation.  That which was called the Reformation was actually the Great Defamation ... even the defaming of God, in claiming that the Holy Spirit was a liar and a bumbling failure who didn't guide the Church for 1450 years --- in claiming that the Holy Spirit was such a failure that the German ale drinker, Martin Luther, had to replace the Holy Spirit.  

Yeah,  Martin Luther was going to show the Holy Spirit who was boss.  Guess where Martin Luther is at this very moment.  Did you ever study exorcism transcripts?  His name came up, when a possessing devil was ordered by the exorcist to give his name ... to the exorcist, during a 19th Century exorcism.  For the record, damned humans have the capability of possessing a living person as much as a demon.  A demon is a fallen angel.   A devil is a damned human.

Martin Luther died a sudden death (at the age of 62).  He died without the Sacraments of the Church.  He rejected the Sacraments of the Church.  Do the math, here. 

Let us now address the miraculous power of Saint Paul which was somehow transmitted into linens and aprons whenever they touched St. Paul, himself.   Acts 19: 11-12 reads as follows:

                              So extraordinary were the mighty deeds which God accomplished 

                             at the hands of PAUL that, when facial cloths or aprons that 

                            touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left 

                           them and the evil spirits came out of them. 

Now, Acts 19 describes the valid & successful use of Third Class Relics -- or third degree relics.  Such relics are pieces of cloth or other physical items such as paper that are touched to an actual living saint or to the bodily remains of a saint who has already gone into eternity.   

Of course, the Church never declares any living being a saint.  None the less, people in the Church, on occasion, were known for miraculous results to their interactions with others.  It doesn't happen everyday, but it did happen in the very turbulent history of the true church of Christ ... as opposed to a "knock-off" church produced by Henry Tudor, his less-than-friendly daughter, Martin Luther & the politically motivated Elector of Saxony, the Swiss John Calvin, and more recent names who became associated with mass suicide and/or gun battles with federal agents.

Of course, a person who identifies himself as "a born-again Christian" or a Baptist or a Fundamentalist or someone "saved" would call the use of relics the ritualistic act of idolatry.   Well, to declare this is to declare St. Paul a ritualistic idolater.  In fact, it's to call the New Testament ritualistic idolatry.  This is because the use of third-class relics were used to spread Saint Paul's miraculous power.  Therefore, relics are Biblical.  The Catholic tradition of employing saints' relics traces itself back to St. Paul's followers.

The Old Testament gives at least one instance of a miracle involving a First Class Relic --- or first degree relic.  That type of relic is the actual saint, himself; as in a bone fragment, etc.  In the Second Book of Kings, a miracle occurred when a corpse was thrown into the grave of Elijah's prime student and spiritual heir, Elisha. 

2 Kings  13:21

 Once some people were burying a man, when suddenly they saw such a raiding band.  So they cast the man into the grave of Elisha, and everyone went off.  But when the man came in contact with the bones of Elisha, he came back to life and got to his feet.

 Thus, miracles done upon contacting a first class relic IS very Biblical.  So, if you are no-no on relics, then you are also no-no on the Bible, probably unbeknownst to you ... until now.  Now, concerning the Cloak of Elijah:

2 Kings 2:14: 

Wielding the mantle which had fallen from Elijah, he struck the water and said, “The LORD, the God of Elijah—where is he now?”   He struck the water.  It divided, and he crossed over.   Elijah's prime student did this with Elijah's cloak, so stated for the record.

Elijah's Cloak was a Second Class Relic.  A second-class relic is a former physical possession of a saint.  Examples are a writing quill, a walking cane, a favorite chair, an article of clothing, and Elijah's Cloak.   With this comes the conversation of metaphysical power which can be a lengthy topic.  HOWEVER, all angels have a METAPHYSICAL attachment to physical creation, and they perhaps come into the relic schematic, in matters involving second-class relics effecting miracles.

 Of course, Catholics understand that not everything is in the Bible, being that St. John wrote this into his Gospel.  Plus, Paul told his followers to also observe that which he taught them verbally, in addition to whatever written teachings were sent to them.  Verbal teaching is usually called, TRADITION.

Tradition comes from none other than the Latin, TRADITIONEM.  It means to deliver across something ... to hand-over ... to hand down.   The Greek equivalent is parádosi̱ which actually means to surrender something to others. 

2 Thessalonians 2:15

                       Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that

                 you were taught, either by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter of ours.

                *************************************************************

Thus, TRADITION --- church teaching that comes from outside of the Bible ---  is Biblical, ironically enough.  The Bible is NOT God.  It's a testimonial to the existence of God and to the mindset of God.  Mindset is understood to be the same as "personality."  Moreover, the Law of God and the Will of God are the exact same thing.  To claim that "everything is in the Bible," is the sin of  IDOLATRY.  It's the worship of the Bible, instead of God.

Moreover, being that God is so infinitely massive, the task of being God cannot be accomplished by merely one person.  It takes three infinite persons to accomplish the mission of being God ... literally.  In as much, in order for God to exist, God can only exist as a multiplicity of Three Individual Persons who share the exact same essence and nature.

                  See:  http://www.theheartofmary.com/2014/07/divine-reciprocity.html

Also see: http://www.theheartofmary.com/2011/08/comparing-holy-trinity-to-song.html

While we're still here, let's address the claim that it's a sin to call a priest, "father."  After all, Jesus did say to call no one your father, but God the Father.  Well, the Catholic Church does recognize God the Father to be the Unmoved Mover ... and the Uncatalyzed Catalyst ... who authored life and wrote the blueprint of the only Church ever founded by his only Begotten Son.  The use of the name, father, as it applies to priests, has a lesser meaning of the word.  And that practice came from St. Paul, himself.   In the FIRST Letter to the Thessalonians, Chapter 2, verses 10 to 12, Saint Paul wrote:

                               You are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly,  justly,                                                                       and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers.

              As you know, we treated each one of you as a FATHER treats his children,  

            exhorting and encouraging you, while insisting that you conduct yourselves 

                      as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.

 

The conclusion is that calling a priest "Father" IS BIBLICAL.  Case Closed.  Catholic haters lose.  The bottom line is that some people think that they know the mind of God & the Will of God, when the fact is that they are clueless.  Concerning people who don't read the Bible at all, they are more talented at insulting a person's intelligence.  Each example of this would be an article of its own.  

 

None the less, the aforementioned shows --- at face value --- that the Biblical Paul --- the author of multiple epistles --- had a significant influence upon the ordinary practices of the Catholic Church.  Catholic haters are not willing to admit this.  The Catholic Church was the first Christianity.  It will be the last Christianity, also.

 

C'est tout, pour maintenant.

The reason why God can only exist as a Trinity

Understanding the mystery of the Trinity with our finite
 minds is like trying to put an ocean into a beach pail.

How do you begin to write about someone who has no beginning?

Very simply, you enter into the midst of the person's being and describe the

activity occurring in the present tense.  That which is currently transpiring in

the Eternal God is that which has been occurring forever.

In eternity, there has always been one person with neither a beginning nor an

end who has been generating forth from his own essence an action which in-

cludes, but is not limited to, Charity.  (Note:  I don't use the word, love, when

speaking of spirituality, being that, in today's society, love is equated with Eros;

the erotic.)

This one person is the first infinite person of existence;  the first person of the

Holy Trinity.  Translated into human language, that which is spiritually being

spoken from this person is, "Let there be light."  So, what is this light?  This

light is every virtue in existence occurring simultaneously.

This endless action includes, but is not limited to, Charity, is:

1] an act of will ------ as opposed to uncontrolled motions, imposed by an

                                   inanimate force.

2] an act of desire --- where the desire was first inspired by the one desired.

3] an act of consent - liberating the desire to the point of transforming it into

                                   a living reality.

4] an act of power --- enabling the desire to be fulfilled in reality and actuality.

5] a command -------- testifying to the necessity of having the power liberated.

6] a way of being ---- living out that which is commissioned in the command.

7]  transformative --- in being a Charity (an Agape) so impactful that it makes

                                   you never the same again.

What is power?   ANS: Power is the ability to make things happen and to get

                            things accomplished.  Those governed must have the power

                            to abide by the command of the one in power, or the one

                            making the command will be powerless.  Thus, the second

                            infinite person of all existence already needed the power to

                            respond to that which the first infinite person generated to

                            him.  That power had within itself the power to inspire the

                            first infinite person of existence to generate his spiration of

                            Divine Charity and all other virtue, in the first.

 In light of this reality, as the way of God's being reflectively translates into

human life, power per se is NOT a trickle-down Reaganomics affect.  Rather,

power is something reciprocal.  Proof that even human power is reciprocal ex-

ists in the revolutions that plagued humanity throughout history, most of which

were triggered by the injustices of those in power.

                            In like fashion, the second infinite person of existence needed

                            the power to respond to that which the first person generated

                            to him.

In as much, a virtue is the power to let Being perpetuate forever.  The possession

of a virtue is the possession of a power that prevents the occurrence of nothing-

ness; that prevents the negation of being.  All in all virtue is a power that pre-

vents privation.   It prevents one from committing acts which lead to spiritual

death.  Thus, if God ever sinned, God would stop existing.

The first endless person of all existence has always had the power to keep his

own essence in perpetual existence.  This is known as being self-efficient.

This means that God is non-causative.  Nothing outside of God caused God

to be.

Concerning God's power, it's the power of existence which is equal to the

power to be forever free from the danger of entering into nothingness.  In

as much, God is properly described as He Who Is and  I AM - the one in

whom there is 1] the absence of nothingness, 2] the complete absence of

inaminateness,  3] the absence of frivolous vanity and pointlessness.

In God, there are neither any lapses of consciousness nor blind-spottedness.

Being that there is no pointlessness in God, there has to have always been

a reason for the first infinite person of all existence to have been radiating

forth his spiration of all virtue, in the first.  There had to have originally

been a reason for God to exist, being that God's existence was no accident.

God's existence is not happenstance.  He was motivated to exist and spirate

every virtue in existence.  Without the first infinite person's Reason for Be-

ing, the first infinite person of existence wouldn't have had any reason to

exist, and therefore, he would not exist.  Neither would we.

God's Reason for Being

The reason d'etre of the first person of all existence is none other than another

infinite person of all existence who has existed eternally, also.  In the infinite

spacelessness of eternity, this second infinite person is the one who consents

in the virtues that exude from the first infinite person.

The decisive truth in the second infinite person of existence is that he was the

one who inspired the first person to spirate virtue in the first place.  He inspired

the first infinite person to be.  Thus, the second infinite person of existence had

power; the power to inspire the first infinite person to be.  This teaches us that

power is reciprocal.  The power of the first infinite person is therefore equal to

the power of the second infinite person of existence.

Without the second infinite person of existence to inspire the first infinite person,

there would be no infinite person spirating forth any virtue, especially in light of

the fact that there must be a second person in existence to receive the simultane-

ous spirations.  This means that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is not sub-

servient to the first person.  Father and Son are equal in power, as well as essence.

The Divine Chorus

The most proper human name for the first person of all existence would be none

other than God the Father, aka the Eternal Father; the one who initiated the spira-

tion of Charity and all other virtues..  In as much, the most proper human title to

give the second infinite person of existence is God the Son.  This is because all

that is the Father has been generated to the second infinite person of existence.

The second person inherited the Eternal Father's divinity and infinite virtue.

The second person is the sole heir to all which is the Eternal Father.  They

have the exact same spiritual DNA.  The second person then can generate

that which his father sent to him, making him a spiritual father, as opposed

to spiritual mother.  He is a son who can perform the generating acts of a

spiritual father, as opposed to being a daughter who radiates virtue but does

not generate it.

From all eternity, in his consolidated infinite action, the Eternal Father has been

saying, "Let there be light."  God the Son simultaneously responds by saying,

"So be it."  God the Son requites every current of charity and virtue generated

by the Eternal Father back to the same Eternal Father.

Now, the synonym for So-be-it is Amen.  In the Book of Revelations, John the

Apostle records a vision that he had of the Second Person of the Trinity.  In that

vision the second person describes himself as the Great Amen.  After all, he is

the one who, in eternity, said so-be-it to the command, "let there be light."  He

simultaneously let the Will of the first infinite person of existence be fulfilled

in him.

More specifically, the second person of existence requites the charity that the

first person sends him.  In the process, both persons infinitely go through a

transformation which is complete, but eternal.  That is to say,  they are not

presently being transformed.  Rather, they have already been transformed

and are radiating the currents of accomplished transformation.

One God, One Reason for Being

Moreover, being that God is one, there is only one reason for God to have

been inspired enough to exist in the first place.  This reason for God's being

is the second infinite person of all existence.

The Third Infinite Person of all Existence

Even the virtues that are being generate from God comprise a living being.

Firstly, in God their is no lifelessness.  Even God's thoughts are alive in one

being.  The virtues which generate from God the Father and God the Son

are alive.  This is the Holy Spirit.  Properly speaking, the Holy Spirit is the

sum total of every virtue in existence being exchanged being the Father and

the Son.

In light of this, it is not as proper to state that God loves you as much as God

is Charity itself.  In sequence,  God is not merely faithful, as much as God is

fidelity itself.  Therefore, God is Truth & Kindness, endless innocence &

eternal heroism, along with infinite prudence and uncreated wisdom.  God

is also humility, fortitude, temperance, generosity, meekness, and mercy.

All in all, God did not create angels and mankind out of loneliness.  Rather,

God created angels and mankind out of generosity.

The Hail Mary & Marian devotion are definitely Biblical, found at the beginning of Luke's gospel, as well as existing throughout tradition.

"Henceforth, all generations will call me blessed, because he who is mighty has done great things for me and holy is his name."   Luke 1:48 - 1:49  (Marian Devotion fulfills this Biblical prophecy.)

Perhaps you know the thought process of those who follow TV preachers clad in business suits.  They claim that praying the Hail Mary is pagan idolatry, especially when done in front of a statue of Mary.  They claim that Marian Devotion [1] detracts from Jesus ... that it [2] robs Christ of the attention due to him ... that it [3] draws people away from Jesus, making him a stranger to mankind.  Do you see the supreme asininity in that claim?  

Take Note:

To start, the Hail Mary comes directly from the Bible itself, in the Gospel of Luke ... at the very beginning of it.  Things derived directly from the Bible cannot possibly be pagan idolatry.  Next:

The most common Marian devotion is the Rosary.  It was originally called, the Angelic Psalter.  The Rosary consists in praying the Hail Mary several times in succession, while simultaneously meditating on specific events involving Jesus Christ. 

The Hail Mary takes about 20 seconds to pray, unless if you're a contemplative, upon which it would take you about 35 to 45 seconds to complete.  Well, at the eight second mark, a person praying the Hail Mary states (either verbally or silently)  ...  "blessed is the fruit of your womb," Luke 1:42, with the word, Jesus, added to the prayer.

Now, the Rosary consists in calling Jesus blessed every 20 to 35 seconds, time after time.  How could a devotion which repeatedly calls Jesus blessed be one that detracts from Jesus?  How could a devotion that consists in a person reflecting on the Incarnation, Life, Sufferings, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ detract from Christ?  Hello?  Is anybody home here?

The Centering Prayer

In addition, being that the name of Jesus is blessed by the Rosary devotee every 20 to 35 seconds during Rosary prayer, this means that within the Rosary is the CENTERING PRAYER that was done by contemplative monks in ages past.  They simply repeated the name Jesus, within spaces of time, to keep focused.  So, while you are praying the Rosary, you are simultaneously doing the Centering Prayer.

The Our Father, too

The meditation of each mystery of the Rosary actually begins with the Our Father, taught by Jesus, himself.  So, how does observing the formula for prayer that was taught by Jesus detract from Jesus, especially when it's immediately followed by calling Jesus blessed, every 20 to 35 seconds?  In fact, as soon as you pray the Our Father, you are acknowledging Jesus as your "teacher."  Therefore, praying the Rosary consists in the devotee calling Jesus the blessed teacher --- or blessed rabbi.  Now, how does this constitute pagan idolatry that detracts from Jesus?

One more thing about the Hail Mary:  

The opening words of it are the words of God the Father, himself, spoken through the Archangel Gabriel.  This is why the Hail Mary was originally called, the Angelic Salutation.  In as much, to have an aversion to the Hail Mary is to have an aversion to the Will of God the Father, as was announced by an archangel.

Concerning the translation of "full of grace" in the Gospel of Luke, it comes from the common citizen's Greek.  It is translated from KECHARITOMENE, and it refers to someone who has been completely graced and who remains in the process of being graced.  It's like a flowing river which continues to get water from its tributary water sources.  In Mary's case, the tributaries flowing into her are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  So, the Hail Mary Prayer should actually be, "Hail Mary, fully graced, the Lord is with you." 

People who condemn the Rosary have one thing in common

They're lazy.  It's that simplex.  The Rosary requires a person to state verbal prayer, at least in silence, while simultaneously meditating on an aspect of Christ and the Holy Spirit.  They literally have trouble doing both types of prayer at the same time.  So, instead of being honest about their lack of concentration, they condemn the Rosary.  It's a lazy man's way of getting out of work. 

Now, if you have trouble combining verbal prayer with meditation, simply pray one Our Father and One Hail Mary, and then meditate on at least one of the "mysteries" of the Rosary.   Each mystery is basically an event.  One is a repeated event, concerning one thing Christ said.  The other mysteries are all single events.  

There are the Joyous, Luminous, Sorrowful, and Glorious mysteries.  Other mysteries not yet mentioned in this discourse include [1] Christ's baptism at the hands of his cousin, John ... [2] the Wedding Feast of Cana ... [3] Christ stating a couple times, in different places, that the "Kingdom of God is at hand"... [4] the Transfiguration, etc.  

Now, meditating on those events should be within your capabilities, even if only for a short while.  One Our Father and one Hail Mary will only take a minute and a half ... or even less time.  Easy to do ... unless if you are pathologically lazy.  If you're pathologically lazy, then you are also an impatient person.  If you're an impatient person, you also have a violent streak within you.  You need the Rosary all the more.

John the Baptist is a pivotal feature in Marian Devotion

Now, the words, "blessed is the fruit of your womb," were spoken by Mary's cousin, Elizabeth, after Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit."  Thus, to hate the Hail Mary is to also hate the inspiration of the Holy Spirit --- or to be jealous of Elizabeth for getting it 2,000 years before you were even born.

Incidentally, Saint Elizabeth was the mother of John the Baptist, and the Visitation involves Mary visiting Elizabeth, when both women were pregnant.  Elizabeth had a three month head start.

Now, the central mystery of the Visitation was that, as soon as Mary greeted Elizabeth, John the (Future) Baptist was rendered into the State of Grace.  In being rendered into the state of grace, he immediately recognized Christ within Mary, and he leapt for joy.  Ironically, it was Christ who rendered him in the state of grace, in the first place.  And Mary was there, front & center, like the miraculous Ark of the Covenant, literally carrying Christ.

John the (Future) Baptist was not conceived in the state of grace, as was Mary.  But, he was born in the state of grace.  Therefore, the Second Joyous Mystery, namely the Visitation, is the Mystery of John the Baptist.  And being that John the Baptist was the prophet commissioned to herald the arrival of the long-awaited Messiah, meditating on John will NOT detract from Christ.  It will enhance your understanding of Christ, all the more.  In fact, having John as your intercessor, praying for you, only makes you all the more protected from the servants of Lies & Violence.

By the way, being that John the Baptist was rendered into the State of Grace as a pre-born infant, he is proof that infant baptism is completely valid.  The Anabaptists, aka the Baptists, aka the Born-again "Christians," long since claimed that infant baptism is invalid.  St Luke says that they were & are hellishly wrong ... as usual.   Next issue . . .

Mary walks into Elizabeth's dwelling and speaks.  Immediately, John the Future Baptist is rendered in the State of Grace, upon the sound of Mary's voice.  What does this illustrate?   

ANS:  It illustrates that Mary is the Mediatrix of Grace ... as opposed to the mediator of the expiation of sin --- as opposed to the mediator of atonement.  Christ, himself, is the sacrificial lamb whose blood washes away sin.  Only the Eternal God could do that task, after having been made man.  However, the Blood of Christ came from the blood of Mary.  Yet, concerning those two circulatory systems, only Christ's blood was divine ... literally divine.

In review, to be the mediatrix of those graces which come from the Holy Spirit is something altogether different than to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.  So, cool it with the "idolatry" accusations.  It's just that the Virgin Mary walks into a dwelling, speaks, and voila; a child is rendered into the state of grace and leaps for joy.  That's power, and that power was & is a Grace from God.  

Very simply, Mary is the treasurer of the Grace of God.  Jesus' act of redemption is what unlocked the treasure chest ... the bank vault of grace ... the front doors of the Spiritual Fort Knox.   So, instead of regarding Mary as the Queen of Heaven, it is more proper to regard her as the Treasurer of Heaven. 

More specifically, due to the sacrifice of Christ, God the Holy Spirit was empowered to bestow upon Mary a treasury of graces.  Those graces became her possessions.  And a person may do with her possessions as she wills.  So, she shares her graces to others, in the millions ... the hundred millions ... even in the billions.   However, asking for the graces is required.  Graces aren't haphazardly strewn about, by her.

In review, by means of Christ's sacrifice, God gave Mary a wealth of graces.  She does with those graces as she pleases.  She explained this in Paris, in 1830, via a supernatural event endowed upon the incorruptible saint, Catherine Laboure.  This was also explained in Naples, during a supernatural event in 1884.  See:  Rue de Bac apparitions, 1830 & 54 day novena apparition of 1884.

The bottom line is that the Rosary enhances awareness of the presence of Christ, the charism of Christ, the personality of Christ, the mission of Christ, and the commitment of Christ.  Thus, the Rosary instills hope in Christ.   So, how does the Rosary detract from Christ, again? 

In summary, devotion to the Rosary is the act of joining Mary in being a fellow-follower of Jesus Christ.  She happens to be the most insightful follower --- the most powerful follower.  Jesus & Mary, as well as John the Baptist, can easily finish each other's sentences.  In fact, when St. John leapt for joy in the womb of his mother, he was literally finishing Mary's sentence, when she was greeting Elizabeth.

Sometimes praying the Rosary is like having a consultation with Mary.  At other times, it's like performing an inspection of the spiritual world.  At other times, it's like standing in front of a Ferris Wheel, and getting swooped-up in one of the seats.  

Prayer is the act of reaching out to God.  Heaven then reaches back to you, extending graces to you.  An actual grace is basically an impulse upon your soul.  Sanctifying grace, on the other hand, is a constant state of being.  It's like spiritual oxygen.  Without it, you suffocate.

Call to mind the miraculous cloak of Elijah which was then inherited by Elisha.  Well, all Brown Scapulars are an extension of that cloak.  If you can explain Elijah's cloak, then you can explain the Brown Scapular.

In review, Sacred Scripture itself states, "Henceforth, all generations will call me blessed, because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name."  Gospel of Luke, 1:48-49.  Therefore, if you do NOT call Mary blessed, then you are anti-biblical, anti-gospel, and anti-Christ, no matter how saved you arrogantly think you are.  After all, it was Christ who chose to become man in the Virgin Mary, and he was not required to first obtain the approval of Protestants to do so.  Thus, the truth posted below triggers outrage & seething hatred in the individuals who call themselves "saved:" 

 The blood of Christ came from the blood of Mary.  

In order for that to have happened, Mary needed to have already been pure.  The Second Person of the Holy Trinity was not going to inhabit a trash bin.  So, to deny Mary's purity is to deny that Christ came in the flesh and dwelt among us.  It's also to deny that Christ was pure, from Day 1.  All in all, to deny Mary is to simultaneously deny Christ ... and visa versa.  So, if you despise Mary, then you are less than a Big Nothing.  You're not even a Zero.  You're Negative Digits.

Part 1: Defense against Catholic Bashers, for the summarily misinformed

Hell is filled with people who never thought they'd go there.

Take just one pill, brethren, and you'll instantly become born-again and forever saved!!!!!!!  ... not  

Reality Check Time:  The caption above is the lazy man's doctrine, where you never prove your dedication to Christ, and where you never increase your capacity for love.  So, we need to begin with a general outline of the history of Protestantism, during its beginning decades.

Martin Luther was regarded as the pivotal founder of Protestantism.   He was presented as a strong, healthy, clear-mind advocate of Freedom-of-thought, with no mental illness within him.  He was the poster boy of bashing Catholics endlessly, being that he called the Roman Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon.  

Well, medical academia has written on Luther's "well documented medical condition."  It appeared to have been ignored by his modern-day propagandists.  It would be beneficial for humanity to be forewarned of this, in light of the mass media propaganda that "flies through the air with the greatest of ease," these days.  The Anti-Catholic propaganda of the 19th Century "Know-Nothing" Political Party is being perpetuated again today, at the speed of electrons.  You need to know about their mentor. 

Luther was also the mentor of the early Nazis, to the point of appearing in a 1933 Nazi Poster, as the great teacher of Germany.   The photo below is of the 1933 poster, itself.  It states:

                    “Hitler's Kampf und Luther's Lehr Des deutschen Volkes gute Wehr."                               "Hitler’s struggle and Luther’s teaching are the German people’s sure defense."

Above: The original Nazi of the Fatherland who called Jews "the Devil Incarnate" in a 1543 letter and who additionally stated in another writing that all the Jews should be deported from Germany ... by government officials ... and not by the common folk. Well, there was one German government who took Luther up on his directive, and you know the rest, in  photographic detail.

While Hitler's people were trying to be good Nazis, they regarded Luther as a damn good Nazi.   The link below is that of the abstract of "Martin Luther's Seizure Disorder."  It was written in German and published in 1989.   An abstract is a relatively brief intro to a peer-reviewed paper.

                                            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2529669/

The following link is of the abstract of the peer-reviewed medical paper written about Luther which was written in Japan and published in 2011.  It concurs with the previous paper.  And it can't be called a product of Roman Catholic prejudice, being that it comes from the opposite side of the world, in a country that sent Roman Catholicism underground from 1620 to 1873, making it invisible there for centuries.

                                         https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22586892/

Then comes the abstract of  Martin Luther's Attitude toward the Mentally Retarded, published in Volume 41, Issue 5, of Pediatrics Magazine, in 1968.  It should have stated, Martin Luther's "deadly" attitude.  We see why Luther was regarded as a damn good Nazi, to the point of being made a Nazi Party poster boy in 1933, directly before the rise of Adolph Hitler.  After the death of Hindenberg (August 2nd, 1934), Hitler pressed the "top floor" button on his political elevator, and you know the rest.

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/41/5/944/44482/MARTIN-LUTHER-S-ATTITUDE-TOWARD-THE-MENTALLY?redirectedFrom=fulltext

It is written in Sacred Scripture that "there is nothing hidden that will not become visible, and nothing secret that will not be known and come to light."  Luke 8:17. 

Enter Reality, Stage Center

At the outset, know this:  [1] Martin Luther added the word, ALONE, to the phrase, "Faith suffices."  The specific scriptural passage that Luther misrepresented was the one which stated that those who believe in Christ no longer have to follow the Law of Moses and all of its animal sacrifices.  Jesus ended the law for animal sacrifices.  And then Titus ended the ability for animal sacrifice, when he leveled Jerusalem to the ground.

[1b] There were 616 coded regulations in the Law of Moses, and Paul simply stated in writing that you don't have to follow them any longer.  That codification was put to rest, by the coming of the Messiah.  Luther completely distorted that scriptural passage, by adding one word which changed the entire meaning of it.  That word did NOT appear in the Vulgate (which see.) 

Of course, when telling people about how wrong Catholic doctrine is, the Evangelicals - Baptists - Pentecostals heavily quote the Epistles of St. Paul.  Well, St. Peter had wisdom about this, 1,421 years before Martin Luther was even born.

 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,  16  speaking of these things as he does in all his letters.  In them, there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.  2 Peter, Ch. 3, v. 15 - 16.

In addition, Luther wanted to ban the Epistle of James from of the Bible, as much as the Nazis wanted to ban Einstein's book on Special & General Relativity.  That is the epistle which states, "So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:17  And also . . .  

"For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." James 2:26.   

In response to the claim that Catholics buried the Bible, never used it, and hid it from humanity:

[2a] Catholics officially use the Bible and teach the Bible far more often during any one day & any one year than do Protestants, ~as in the Divine Office (aka the Liturgy of the Hours) 8 times daily, ~at Sunday Mass 3 times each Mass, ~ at weekday Mass, 2 times per Mass, and in ~classroom instruction, being that there are far more Catholic schools in all levels of academia than there are Protestant ones, throughout the world.  

[2b] The Catholic Church preserved the Bible, to the point of making handwritten copies of it throughout the centuries.  Catholics were regularly doing this long before the word, Protestant, was ever spoken.  You don't spend 2,000 years making copies of the Bible just so that you can suppress it and hide it from humanity.  If the Catholic Church wanted to hide the Bible from the People, it would have simply stopped making copies of the Bible. 

[2c] All in all, if it were not for the Catholic Church, there would be no New Testament, in the first place. After all, there was no such thing as Protestantism for the first 1,450  years of Christianity.  Yet, the Bible was in full use throughout that entire time ... even with stained-glass window illustrations of Bible passages, on chapels, churches, and cathedrals.

[2d] Furthermore, Protestants are the ultimate Bible Frauds and Bible Hypocrites who refuse to follow the teachings of the Bible whenever the Bible infringes upon their lusts.  The ultimate example is in the Biblical teaching on the Indissolubility of Marriage.   Observe:

Christ expressly said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;  and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Mark 10:11 ... Matthew 19:9 ... Luke 16:18   

Plus, the Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, at 7:10-11, states: To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord):  A wife should not separate from her husband.   11 — and if she does separate, she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband — and a husband should not divorce his wife.

There is also the Book of the Prophet Malachi, Chapter 2, verses 15 to 16:::   "... and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.  16 For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel"

Despite the undeniable proof that the Indissolubility of Marriage is completely Biblical, the Protestants have "divorce & remarriage," to their eternal detriment.  There are other examples that were cited in other discourses, at the Heart of the Virgin Mary, concerning Protestant Biblical Hypocrisy.   The lesson here is that, despite their centuries of sanctimonious Sola Scriptura Bible-only centrality  ======>

Protestants aren't the Sola Scriptura, Bible-only people they make themselves out to be.  Protestants are "the Bible-only-when-it's-convenient" people.

Now for the big, pivotal, and decisive question:  The Big Q:  What did Martin Luther himself say about Marriage?  ANS:  "Marriage is a contract.  You can always get out of a contract."

The truth is that Marriage is a COVENANT.  It's the living image of Christ's indissoluble covenant with the only church he has ever founded.  There is only one Jesus Christ.  There can only be one bride of Christ.  And there can only be one doctrine of the one and only Jesus Christ.   

It is never a matter of picking and choosing what you please amongst the Bible passages.  It's a matter of defining who the one Christ is.  Christ is changeless.  He's not going to change himself for Martin Luther.  Martin Luther has no power over him.  You should not act as if he does.  The Jesus Christ of 1521 CE was the Christ of 1221 and 821 and 421 CE.  Martin Luther described a Christ who was not defined that way by the Church magisterium in 1221 CE, 821, 421, or even in the Year 41. 

[3] In the 1520s & 1530s, Lutheranism was only established by law ... by edict ... by decree, and not by popular demand.  After all, it was too new of a religion to win a popularity contest.  Wherever Lutheranism was established by law, Catholicism was made illegal.  Thus, there was no freedom of thought with Lutheranism, at all.   Calvinism was the same.

[4] Moreover, a notable number of Catholic priests and non-ordained "religious" were martyred by Calvinists, even to the tune of 40 Jesuit seminarians and priests in Brazil, in one fell swoop ... and also by Dutch Calvinist pirates in Europe.  [5] In addition, at the end of the 19th Century, the cause for canonization was underway for 359 Roman Catholic martyrs under the reign of Henry VIII.   There's more.  There's much more, such as this reality:  The super epic Church Reformer of all time was . . .  Saint Francis of Assisi.  He was a very gentle person who accomplished all he did before bone cancer took him away, at the age of 43 ... or 44.  He did NOT rant and get violent, as did Luther.

In as much, if you don't have a fear of the truth, and if you don't have a resentment for the Truth, then let's go to it.   Q:  Go to what, actually?  ANS:  The summit of truth.

First Truth:  The greatest & most epic Church Reformer of all time was Saint Francis of Assisi, and he was a very gentle person, as was his companion in Faith, Claire of Assisi.  This too was the case with his personal friend, Saint Dominic de Guzmán, an Olympic Class reformer of the Church, in his own right.  The Catholic Church is arrayed with reformers.  Evil enters into society and someone counters the evil.  Are you still able to "handle it" and not go into an anti-Catholic freak-out?   Then go to Part 2.   If not, then go to a psychiatrist before you hurt someone.

 

                   *****************************************************************

                Part 2 of 7 parts ==>  http://www.theheartofmary.com/2023/02/summit-of-truth2.html

                   *****************************************************************

Part 2: Defense against Catholic Bashers. Protestants are only Biblical, when it's convenient for them. They pick & choose only parts of the Bible.

Creation at a distance, far far away.  Wisdom comes when you step back and take a look at your situation.

There's a general rule of historical studies & life itself:  Always look for the motive

Do not be deceived.  At its 16th Century inception, Protestantism was a political power play, in the attempt to grab as many jurisdictions as possible from the jigsaw puzzle known as the Holy Roman Empire.  In defining the political structure of that empire, you can interchangeably call it a "political quilt."  This is because it was a patchwork of duchies, hochstifts (each managed by a bishop), countships, principalities, and imperial free cities.   Note: A hochstift is a bishopric with added acreage.

This Protestant acquisition of the various jurisdictions would translate into the acquisition of Catholic Church real estate and financial assets.  The names on the effected real estate deeds would all be changed, of course.  None the less, Protestantism was originally a north-central European phenomenon, and the Holy Roman Empire became mostly a north-central political confederation, by 1378.  That was 143 years before Martin Luther made his mark.   The Year 1378 is mentioned, because it's recognized as the start of the Great Western Schism, when anti-popes arrayed the European political landscape.

None the less, the late 1300s and early 1400s are regarded as the precursor years of the Protestant take-over of Catholic Church property, particularly in the persons of John Wycliffe and Jan Hus (It's pronounced a lot like "Yawn Hoose").  Concerning these two individuals, propagandists made a sport out of false light presentations of them, to the point of making both individuals martyrs of the evil evil, Bible-hating, Whore of Babylon Church.  Therefore, a brief background is needed:

Before anything else, take note that, within the documents of Vatican II, the travesty known as 16th Century Europe was a time when "both sides were at fault."  This included the Catholics there at the time, too.   Next:

[1a] John Wycliffe was NOT executed.  He suffered his second stroke on December 28, 1384,  during Mass.  Three days later, he died.  This occurred in Lutterworth England.  No one executed him. 

[1b] It suffices to state that, 44 years after 1384, Wyclyffe's bodily remains were exhumed and removed from consecrated land ... tossed out.  His followers were Lollards, (which see.)  His most famous financial supporter was John of Gaunt (Ghent), Duke of Lancaster (which see.) . 

[2] Jan Hus was in the middle of a power-play.  He lived in Bohemia (Czech Republic) during an ongoing tug-of-war between two simultaneous anti-popes, a prior anti-pope, and a papal claimant eventually recognized as the valid pope. However, it looked like Hus was trying to become a type of pope unto himself.

Hus was cited as having taught 30 heretical "propositions."  He obstinately refused to retract any of them.  Those doctrinal assertions were silly, to be honest with you.  Well actually, they were goofy.  For example, Hus claimed that, as soon as a priest commits a mortal sin, he is no longer a priest.  

****** Roman Catholic Doctrine about the priesthood generally goes as follows ******

The truth is that it's only Christ's power that makes a priest a priest.  Not any amount of holiness, on the part of the priest achieves this.  Therefore, even if a priest loses holiness, he doesn't lose his priesthood.  The only way in which a priest can lose his priesthood is if Jesus Christ suddenly stops existing.  Authentic Church Teaching is that a validly ordained priest is a priest forever, even if he goes to Hell.  And yes, priests are NOT immune to Eternal Damnation, simply because they're priests. 

*************************************************************************

Moreover, Wycliffe's statements were on the side of defamatory.  In addition, there is a huge difference between a translating the Bible into English, and a deliberately mistranslating it  However, it could be assumed that Wycliff was referring to priests of his era, as opposed to the nature of the priesthood, when writing the damning things he wrote.  None the less, Wycliffe died from a stroke, as opposed to dying from rope-induced strangulation or an enthusiastically lit bonfire.   None the less . . . 

. . . at a modern Catholic college, if you make such assertions as did Hus, the honor students will silently roll their eyes and a professor will flunk you, followed by you changing your major to Journalism, Sociology, or Political Science.  No big deal.  Hus, however, was riling up the lesser-educated people with a sky-is-falling hype.  Yes, there was the matter of speaking out against clergy corruption, but a person can't exaggerate.

Furthermore, Hus was an ordained priest (as of 1401) and he did teach at one of the Prague universities.  So, he was seen as a "steward" of Church teaching and even property.  All that he had to do was not be so stubborn over those 30 doctrinal assertions which were contrary to the textbooks he agreed to follow, in order to become a professor.  He was in breech of contract, for starters.  He needed to go out and start his own religion, without using church property, in the process thereof.

Moreover, a Renaissance era priest was not declared a "heretic" unless he refused to be corrected in erroneous doctrinal statements.  Being obstinate, while being in doctrinal error, is Renaissance Era heresy.  Today, you have to go out and start your own religion, with your own congregation, to be declared a heretic or a schismatic.

Well, in the middle of the Council of Constance (Konstanz), in 1415, Hus was declared a heretic.  Okay.  Fine.  He was then handed over to civil authority who ended up executing him in an anarchic fashion.  Yet, they did it in way that enabled Hus to retract his heresies, all the way to the "place of immolation" where they set the hay on fire.   Okay.  NOT fine.  Now, here is the outrage of it all:

Jan Hus's Execution:  The civil authorities went out of bounds.

Show me the name of the civil authority who had jurisdiction over Hus.   Show me that authority's sentencing document.  In fact, where was the trial?  Where was the due process of the law by civil authority?  The church clergy took its time with Hus, and then all of sudden, whoooosh.  It was instant doom, when it came the civil leaders.  That wasn't very civilized of them.  Was it, now?

Plus, a rule needed to observe, in order to keep the peace ... and prevent rioting ... is to NEVER make your enemy look like a martyr.  I mentioned this in my Military Science Reference Guide, concerning the treatment of POW's.  I assume that it can still be found online.  Next:

In fairness to the ruling class at the time, there was a motivation for a speedy execution.  ANS:  The 1414 Oldcastle's Revolt ... in England.  It started with followers of the late John Wycliffe being sent to the Tower of London.  It ended in a battle on Sr. Giles Field.  John Oldcastle fled early in the battle.  In the end, 80 of John Wycliffe's followers (Lollards) were captured.  Seventy-nine of them were put to death ... by burning or hanging.

Shortly after the Hus lynching of 1415 came another lynching in 1431:  that of Joan of Arc, during the Hundred Years War which actually lasted for 116 years.   She was a prisoner of war, and the treatment of her would not have passed the Geneva Convention's code of conduct.

The war was a long one, but her execution was a quick process.  It was a kangaroo court. It was a War Crime, quite frankly.  That lynching occurred outside of the Holy Roman Empire's border, though.  There was a reason for the burning at the stake form of execution, by the way.  I'm not going to get into it right now.  It will require too much print space.

The bottom line is that Hus was executed in the midst of anarchy, toward the end of the Great Western Schism.  He contributed to the anarchy.  Quite frankly, certain individuals were posturing themselves for the next election for the office of Holy Roman Emperor.  So, putting a heretic quickly to death was seen as credit points, in their political campaign. 

The irony is that there was not going be another imperial election for another 23 years ... March of 1438.  It was a matter of all that fanfare for nothing.  For the record, the Holy Roman Emperor was elected by an electoral college, just like the President of the United States. 

Old Testament Executions and 16th Century rationalization for execution

Q:  From where came the 15th, 16th, & 17th Century idea of executing people for false doctrine?  ANS: The Old Testament.  Let's go a step further:

In 11th Century Roman Catholic England ... and Danish Viking England ... William the Conqueror abolished the Death Penalty completely . . . except in times of war.  Henry VIII repealed that law.  As time advanced, England would have the death penalty for 220 crimes, including "keeping the company of gypsies for at least one month."  Under Hammurabi, 25 crimes got the death penalty.  In Dracon's Athens (621 to 594 BC) the death penalty was given out as commonly as modern-day traffic tickets.

There was a time when decimating a tobacco crop in Protestant America (in Colonial America) got the death penalty.  And why?  ANS:  Because tobacco was monetary currency, at one time.  In colonial America, horse-theft got the death penalty, along with numerous other acts.  Then came branding.  If you were convicted of burglary, you would get the letter, B, burned into your right hand ... and into your left hand, for the second offense.  

The death penalty was not isolated to the evil evil Whore of Babylon Catholic Church.  It is a part of the human condition, dating  back to the beginning of civilization, as was war.  And it was very easy for the archeologists to discern the pattern of warfare.  It dealt with the fact that men went to war and women stayed in the villages ... camps ... fortresses.  

A small population of male bodily remains in the archeological sites indicated warfare, and it was found that warfare was as early as civilization.  There was no Utopia in the beginning of civilization.  Actually, the history of human civilization was quite uncivilized.  It definitely enforces a believer's belief in Original Sin, meaning that man is not an evolved monkey.  Man is a fallen angel.  Monkeys can't read Shakespeare.

No one in civil authority decided to exile Hus ... or to send him to counseling.  In fact, the common church practice through the centuries was that of telling the impenitent sinner that he needed to spend his remaining days in a monastery, doing penance ... unless he were far to stubborn to comply in any capacity.

None the less, the execution of Hus resulted in outraged citizens.  This resulted in a fifteen-year long series of wars that didn't even begin until four years after Hus was executed.  And it didn't begin until a handful of Hussites tossed a judge out of a second story window. 

For some reason, tossing people out of a window was a custom in Europe, during the Little Ice Age.  If you wanted to start a war in Europe, you would first throw a guy out of a window.  It's kind of like the glove-slap-in-the-face thing you see in the movies, when one 18th Century guy is challenging another one to a duel.

Here was the fear:  It's simple.  The fear was that Hus would start at least a local revolt and take some Church property with him.  The very thing they tried to prevent ended up happening.  None the less, this "rash misuse" of civil power resulted in a series of ecumenical councils dedicated to cleaning up the clergy, being that the clergy was very negligent in what happened to a priest "handed-over to civil authority."

An institution as large as the Catholic Church will attract power-grabbers and the greedy.  All power-grabbers are power-abusers.  A weeding-out process is needed in large institutions.  These abuses of power throughout history were not the result of the Catholic Church being the evil evil "Whore of Babylon."  They came about because the Catholic Church was so large ... so powerful ... and so rich.  Thieves sneak-up behind the rich ... not the poor.    Thieves break-in to the rich house ... not the poor one.

It is much easier to hide in a large city than in a small village.  It is also easier to sneak around a large church than a small one.  And there is much more to steal from a large city ... a large church ... a large anything.  So, the Catholic Church needs to be on guard for the infiltration of the wolves.   It's that simple.  The Corruption Factor of any institution is equal to its Size.

 *********************************************************************  

Part 3 of  7 parts ===>   http://www.theheartofmary.com/2023/02/summit-of-truth3.html

 *********************************************************************

You sometimes have to clean a temple of its money-changers.

Part 4: Defense against Catholic Bashers. It wasn't the Protestant Reformation. It was the Protestant Confiscation of Catholic Property.

Remember, Hell is filled with people who arrogantly thought that they'd never go there.

We review:  Lutheranism did NOT begin by a popular movement of people leaving the Catholic Church, and building new churches for their new religion.  It began by King Christian III and King Gustav I CONFISCATING all CATHOLIC CHURCH PROPERTY in Scandinavia and ordering it to be turned into Lutheran church property in a couple nations ... and "national churches," in other Scandinavian lands.  Bishops were arrested in the process.  The Protestant Confiscation was fueled by the Elector of Saxony, in 1520-21.  Then in 1577, the Elector of Brandenburg joined the Protestant Confiscation.  

Luther also advocated the eviction of the Jews from all of Germany, during a time before Germany was even called Germany.  This is why he literally became a Nazi German poster boy in 1933.  Luther was used by the Nazis, to prove to the German people that everything Hitler said about the Jews was true --- that Martin Luther gave his endorsement of Hitler's answer to the "Jewish Question."  

Here is where the Seed of the Antichrist was planted, as in the Undoing of Christ.

If it were not for Martin Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric in the 16th Century, the Nazis would never have gotten away with killing anywhere near the 6 million Jews they killed in the 20th Century.  The German people chipped in, and helped their Fuhrer exterminate millions of Jews.  Adolph could not have done it alone.  All credit goes to the German People who did Hitler's dirty work for him.  And Luther was literally an inspiration.  The lesson here is to be careful about the writings you leave behind for future generations to read.  The other lesson here is that evil is attracted to evil, as in Hitler and Luther.

Concerning the 95 Theses text, only 41 of those one-line statements were declared heretical.  The other 54 statements were declared fine --- "not contrary to the Catholic Faith."   Even at that, Luther was given 60 days to file a recant of those 41 heretical statements.  Then, he was given an extra 60 days to get a copy delivered to the Vatican.  Thus, Luther started out as only half a heretic --- actually 43% heretic .  He eventually got himself into quicksand, as in when he agreed to debate Erasmus. (which see.)  Luther then started the fad of book-burning, by burning Catholic Church notices that were sent to him.

His heresies started in 1517.  He wasn't excommunicated, until 1521.  Thus, he was given the needed time and process of the law.  Therefore, it is a great falsehood to claim that the Elector of Saxony gave Luther sanctuary, in order to finally give Luther a fair chance.  Luther was given YEARS of fair chances ... and papal patience.  

Even after Luther was excommunicated, Charles V allowed Luther to testify on his own behalf, directly to the assembly of leaders of the Holy Roman Empire.  Luther was given chance after chance after chance after chance.  Thus, it's a damnable lie to say that Luther was deprived of his rights ... and that the Elector of Saxony only gave Luther sanctuary, out of the kindness of his heart.

Do not be deceived.  Harboring Luther was a Las Vegas gamble, in betting that a young & relatively newly elected Hapsburg would be too thinned-out in imperial duties to order drastic measures against Luther and Saxony.   After all . . . 

... Charles V was already the King of Spain and also of Austria, meaning that he had to deal with the vast American holdings to the West and the threat of the Ottoman Turks to the East.  There was warfare in Italy ... against the French ... for Charles to monitor, while he was in Spain, dealing with the Comuneros Rebellion..  He was also in charge of the Netherlands, and he was King of Naples.   Let us not forget about the warfare in Protestant Switzerland. 

Plus, nearby Denmark had a bloodletting king ... Christian II ... who was shedding blood in Sweden.  Thus, Luther appeared to have a strong ally nearby.   Ironically, it wouldn't be until his son, Christian III, took the throne of Denmark that Norway would be ordered to become Lutheran.   None the less, the gamble of 1521 worked very successfully.

Martin Luther's protector & new employer, Frederich III, Elector of Saxony.

The word, Protestant, came into existence after the April 1529 Protestation at Speyer.  The Protestation was a response to the imperial assembly's repeal of a 1526 law which directed every jurisdiction in the empire to designate its own official religion.  Then, in 1529, it was decided that the empire would solely adhere to the one religion professed by its long line of emperors.   

More importantly, religion was regarded throughout human history as if it were a national language.  Now, the language spoken by the most people in any one nation officially becomes its national language.  Well, the spiritual language spoken the most throughout the existence of the Holy Roman Empire was Catholicism.  Therefore, designating a newly formed religion as a nation's official religion ... or a jurisdiction's official religion ... was entirely artificial, unnatural, and done without the consent of the citizenry.  Religion comes through the practice of custom & tradition.  A national religion takes time to actualize itself.  And of course, a government is supposed to reflect the will of its People.

Christianity did NOT appear overnight in the Ancient Roman Empire

Lutheranism, Anabaptism, and Calvinism were neither a part of the People's customs nor traditions.  They were too new to be any nation's most popular religion.  In fact, Christianity was practiced throughout the ancient Roman Empire well over 250 years before the Edict of Milan simply granted freedom of religion per se, along with restitution to the persecuted Christians whose assets were previously seized.  

Contrary to the propaganda, Christianity was NOT suddenly made the official religion of the Ancient Roman Empire.  Thus, in 1521, it would have been an act of usurpation and/or tyranny to have imposed any newly formed Protestant sect upon anyone in the Holy Roman Empire who practiced Catholicism as a part of a three hundred, six hundred, or even nine hundred year tradition.  So, the axiom at hand is . . .

[1] the People vote by means of the customs & traditions they follow.

[2] the People vote with their coin purses ... wallets ... checkbooks ... debit cards.

[3] the People vote on their state religion, by their church attendance.  Very simple.

There is one great irony here.  In Catholic doctrine, becoming Catholic required FULL CONSENT.  The same is the teaching on marriage.  Thus, "no shotgun wedding is valid" was a motto in Catholic Church teaching.  

All in all, you cannot morally force a person into a religion.  This includes Lutheranism in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland.  Thus, no king can force religion on you.  A king can simply enforce a moral code of  conduct, derived from "natural law" and instinctive common sense.  He can order you to not throw elderly women on to subway tracks, but he can't order you to believe who created Planet Earth.

Now, this should instantly bring to your mind a question about Spain and the Jews.  Concerning the Jews of Spain, the bankers amongst them were funding the occupier Moors, for hundreds of years.  (See: Jizya.)

The invaders of the past 7 centuries were now conquered, and Queen Isabella was not going let Spain endure another "pernicious conquest" of Spain, again.  Being that it took a long time to get the occupiers out of their country, Isabella was going to make sure that they would not return as anything other than tourists.  So, the Muslims' favorite bankers were ousted.  They happened to be Jewish.

However, there was a loophole that Isabella had to honor.  Some of those Jews converted throughout the centuries.  After all, Jews did marry Spaniards.  Jews married Italians.  My Italian-Spanish-Jewish baselines of DNA, along with my J2 haplogroup YDNA indicates this to have been the case. (It's the same YDNA as possessed by the Rothchilds, Adam Sandler, Bernie Sanders, etc --- very common amongst Jews  So, Isabella couldn't rightfully toss out the Catholic Jews.)

This then created a second loophole.  Run out and get baptized, and you get to stay in Spain.  HOWEVER, Catholic baptism is not instantaneous.  There is the Rite of Christian Initiation, as in [1] tutorial classes on doctrine & the sacraments.  Also included is [2] "a baptismal sponsor," where any adult Catholic will do.  And then there is the matter of [3] being introduced to a parish ... or at a cathedral ... on a Palm Sunday mass.  {5}  Then comes the baptism, for those not yet baptized.  So, going through the Rite of Christian Initiation was a great way to delay your deportation.  In conclusion, the ousting of Jews from Spain was seen as the military tactic of "cutting off" the enemies' supply lines ... financial supply lines.   The Jews funded Muslim invader in 7th Century Jerusalem, also.

Now comes the two contradictions:  [1] Muslim Moors were allowed to stay in Spain, as Mudéjares.  They did NOT have to convert.  If they became Moorish converts to Catholicism, they were Moriscos.  However, at the end of the 16th Century, the Moriscos were accused by the chief royal financial officer of conspiring with Barbary pirates, for profit.  Finally, in 1609, the Moriscos were ordered out of Spain, despite the fact that they were Roman Catholic.  The majority of them took refuge in northwestern Africa.  At the time, that area was known as Maghreb.  The job was completed under Philip III, in 1614.  

[2] There were native Spaniards who gave-in to the Moors, too.  Why weren't they ousted?

The lesson here is that evil sometimes changes sides.  The eviction of Roman Catholic Moors was one of the more asinine debacles in public relations history, with the ill effects remaining for centuries to follow.  And concerning the Jews, all that was needed to be done was a seasonal audit of their financial assets.  

Even in Nazi Germany, when it came to German citizens having complaints against certain Jewish financial practices, all that had to be done was for them to file a complaint in civil court.  The Germans needed to take Jews to civil court ... to Judge Wapner's People's Court ... to Judge Judy's court ... not to concentration camps.  Hitler overacted one too many times in his life.  He also broke every treaty he ever signed.   Oh, and he also called the nuclear bomb the wunderwaffe - - -  the wonder weapon.  He was clueless about nuclear fallout.

Italy had its griefs during the 16th Century, too

In the 1520s, there was in progress one of the seven "Italian Wars."  (Only six of them were called "Italian Wars.)  It involved a sequence of three legitimate popes in a tightly knitted time span.  The middle one was the Dutchman, Adrian VI, personal friend of Belgian-born Charles V.  His reign was less than two years in length.  

None the less, he and his predecessor were friendly to the Hapsburg family member who held the position of Holy Roman Emperor in the early 1520s --- except during the Year 1524.  But, Adrian's immediate successor created an alliance that opposed the Hapsburg family member, Charles V.  It was called the Cognac League, and its creation resulted in a war that saw the Holy Roman Empire opposed by France, the Papal States, and eight other armies. 

That war began in 1526 and then continued until the Muslim Turks made their first attempt to conquer Vienna, in 1529.  Then, in 1530, the Papal States became an ally of Charles, being that Charles proved himself to be a defender of the Faith, in saving Vienna from the invading Ottoman Turks.  Only then was Charles V crowned emperor by a Clement VII whose papacy would come to be overloaded with political power plays and the accompanying wars.  And then, after his tragic papacy, things would only get worse in Europe.  For the record, Vienna was only the capital of Austria; not of the Holy Roman Empire.

And yes, 34,000 imperial troops ignored Charles V's order to confront the Turks, and instead brutally sacked Rome, in the Spring of 1527.   This is what happens when you defeat your enemy (the French) and do NOT quickly pay your victorious soldiers any wage. 

None the less, in the 1520s Charles had to deal with [1] the attacks of the Ottoman Muslims ... [2] the violence surrounding the newly formed Lutherans of Germany who were no friends of the newly formed Anabaptists ... [3]  the armed Calvinists in Switzerland who were no friends of the exact same Anabaptists ... [4] warfare against France, even on Italian terrain ... [5] the distrust of (and military hostilities from) a legitimate pope and his legitimate papal states ... 

. . . and then, in the 1540s, there would be Calvinists in Meaux France, while Charles was trying to have the Treaty of Crepy bring peace ... at least with his great rival, France's Francis I.  Charles endured into the mid-1550s.  He then abdicated.  He was simply wracked and drained of strength.  Thirty-seven years as emperor was long enough.  All in all, whether you are a winner or a loser, war will cost you, in the end.  Attempts at Peace will simply drain you.

French Protestantism: a religion imported across the Eastern border

Even the French versions of Protestantism originated in northeastern France and in Calvinist Switzerland.  Then, during the reign of Louis XIV, the Calvinist Huguenots had to abandon their strongholds in Southern France, being that they were accused of soliciting political allies unfriendly toward the French monarchy.  Thus came the Edict of Fontainebleu, in 1685.  Louis XIV literally feared a coup d'etat from Protestants.  After all, Protestants made a long-term fad out of stealing acres of Catholic Church property throughout Europe.  However, in the case of France, outraged secular laymen would take hold of church property in the 1790s.

Ironically, Louis XVI would enact the Edict of Versailles, in 1787, extending a portion of tolerance to any and every Protestant sect.  It was all for nothing.  Two years later, he would be removed from power.  On March 21, 1804, Napoleon would grant complete religious liberty throughout his French empire.  

Napoleon was an Italian aristocrat from Corsica, and he did go to Sunday Mass, where he would respectfully hold his famous hat under his left arm.  In fact, a valet of his spoke of a time when atheists were mentioning how they only believed in matter and not in spirit.  Napoleon then pointed toward the starlit night and said, "You may talk as long as please, gentlemen.  But who made all of that?"

Despite this, Napoleon's great problem was that he needed moral theology lessons in [1] not pillaging a conquered nation, and [2] in discerning a just war.  Concerning this, Napoleon was in shock to find out how poor 19th Century Spain was.  There was not much pillaging and plundering to do there.  Napoleon concluded that he wasted his time invading Spain.

Napoleon did not believe in the separation of Church & State; only in limits of power between the two entities.  None the less, from 1685 until the end of the Holy Roman Empire, Protestantism resumed being the Northern European phenomenon that it was at the end of the 30 Years War.  In the end, Napoleon Bonaparte would accomplish in the early 19th Century that which the Protestants were trying to do, for 283 years --- dissolve the Holy Roman Empire.

Now that's what I call a dictator!                                                                                              Ordering the memory of St Thomas a Becket to be erased from every British mind

Who needs Orwell's 1984, when you have Henry VIII's 1534?  As far as went the Northwestern Isles of Europe during the Protestant Movement, Henry VIII would successfully steal Catholic Church real estate, in "dissolving" approximately or exactly 189 monasteries ... and in taking every other acre of Catholic Church property in England.  

Henry would then proceed with a fund-raising campaign which consisted in him selling church property to the British gentry.  In fact, he was dependent upon the British parliament throughout his reign.  After all, he was not a creative fund-raiser and he was not versed in any form of economics beyond standard "mercantilism."  So, he had need of the Parliament's treasury.  

His Protestant daughter, Elizabeth, would depend upon ship crews called "privateers," for economic relief.  A privateer is a pirate.  Yes, the British Crown gladly accepted stolen property from Spanish, French, and Portuguese ships.  After all, Protestantism did not have a concept of "making restitution for theft."  Nor did it have a concept of "restitution for damages caused by defamation."  The defamation against Catholic entities went beyond the level of ridiculous.  That topic is for another discourse ... due to time and print space.  None the less . . .

Ireland was a cash crop for England, in its emerald isle forests.  It is written, "The British Navy was built on Irish oak."  In as much, if you believed that Protestantism was a movement to make people moral, while the Catholics were being all so evil, then you are sadly mistaken.  The Irish were minding their own business.  The Catholics were the victims, for the most part.  But not always.  

******************************************************************

Part 5 of 8 parts:  http://www.theheartofmary.com/2023/02/summit-of-truth5.html

******************************************************************