The Christmas Message for all Generations

Whereas Jesus was born in the poverty of Bethlehem, he is born into the poverty of your heart.  And he doesn't mind.  

Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.  Okay.  But, what does it mean to be poor?  ANS: To be poor means to be constantly dependent upon God.

Mary is not a clueless airhead who stands there, saying, 'Duuuuh, do whatever he tells you.'  An inanimate road sign can perform the same mindless task.   Rather, Mary spiritually takes Jesus out of the manger and places him into your arms.  And remember, your spirit is more real than is the material realm which rusts and corrodes.

The Eternally Begotten Son of God infinitely honors his own mom.  After all, honoring your mother is a pivotal part of a commandment that Moses chiseled on to stone.  So, if you do not honor what Jesus does, then you are a complete stranger to him,  and he knows you not.   He who avoids devotion to Mary avoids Christ, himself.

As a quick lesson, Christ is defined a the "only begotten" Son of God, even though his divinity, his consciousness, and his ability to act upon his consciousness never had a beginning.  So, what does it mean to be the "eternally begotten of the Father" ???

ANS:  It means that the second person of the Trinity was always INTERACTING with the first person of the same Trinity, while the first person simultaneously accepted the second person as his own.  That is to say, the First Person of the Trinity recognized the Second Person as being in accordance with the first person's own will, own mindset, and own view about existence.  They were always on the same page, and they could always finish each other's sentences.  Therefore ...

   "having always INTERACTED with God the Father"  =  "Eternally Begotten Son of God."

So, what about the Holy Spirit?   ANS:  The Holy Spirit is the Interaction, itself.  More specifically, the Holy Spirit is the love being eternally exchanged between the Father and Son.  Within this love is the love of all virtue.  Thus, the Holy Spirit is the composite of All Virtue.  

          Now comes the definition of God the Holy Trinity 

   {1}  the infinite perfection of every virtue in existence simultaneously occurring all at once,

       {2}  and equally interacting between three distinct & identifiable persons 

           {3}  who equally share in the exact same existential essence with each other.

The Crossfire of Love

When you pray the Rosary for someone, Mary places that person between

you and her.  As soon as you start,  you radiate currents of love to Mary.  

She instantaneously responds, by sending currents of her love to you.

Currents of love simultaneously radiat from the both of you, and the person for

whom you are praying gets caught in the crossfire of your love.  If that person's 

a wilted plant, currents will prop him/her up.

The Rosary can bring life out of persons drained, chagrined, and disheveled.

Yet, it will not result in a manic state, or anything that resembles a temporary

coffee high.  It will certainly not result in a Kool-Aid drinker's religious fanatic

state which is nothing more than the sin of spiritual and emotional gluttony.  In

as much, all extremists are gluttons.  Moreover, extremists dehumanize others,

resulting in the fanatic finally dehumanizing himself in the abusive process.

For those unfamiliar, Kool-Aid refers to cult members, being that some com-

mitted mass suicide via poisoned Kool-Aid in decades past.  Suicide is idiotic.  

You are gonna to eventually die anyway.   The trick is to be ready to take with

you into the state of forever the most meaningful and life-flourishing things you 

possibly can.

So, cool it with the death thing as much as you can, for as long as you can,

while always being ready to take the one-way voyage into eternity.

The Rosary, due to its meditative feature, will show you that, even when you're

standing in front of an ocean, there is more expansive room on the inside of you

than on the outside.  Despite the size of an ocean outside, the interior life is far

more expansive.  You can soar through the interior life without the need of brakes.

The Virgin Mary was known to have relayed promises to Saint Dominic Guzma

and Blessed Alan of La Roche, concerning those who pray the Rosary.  They are

actually line items of a pact that Mary makes with the devotee, due to her protec-

tive personality.  The promises are insurance benefits ... an heir's inheritance.

They are the effect in the Cause & Effect of praying the Rosary.   Plus, the 

Rosary is for all seasons of human emotion and all circumstances in

which one may find him/herself. 

Keep in mind the wilted vs generated bandwidths of human existence.

__________________________________________________________________

The following is what you get for radiating currents of love to Mary:

1. Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary,  shall 

    receive powerful graces.   2. I promise my special protection and the great-

    est graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.

3. The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, de-

    stroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies.      4. It will cause virtue and 

    good works to flourish, and obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God.  

    It will withdraw the hearts of people from the love of the world and its 

    vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things.  Oh, that souls 

    would sanctify themselves by this means. 

5. The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, 

    shall not perish.    6. Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying 

    himself to the consideration of its sacred mysteries shall never be con-

    quered by misfortune.  God will not chastise him in his justice, and he 

    will not perish by an unprovided death.  If he be just, he shall remain in 

    the grace of God and become worthy of eternal life.

7. Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without 

     the Sacraments of the Church.     8. Those who are faithful to recite the 

     Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God 

     and the plenitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall par-

     ticipate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise.    9. I shall deliver from 

     purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary.  10. The faithful 

     children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven.

  11. You shall obtain all you ask of me through the recitation of the Holy 

        Rosary.  12. All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided

        by me in their necessities. 

  13. I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary 

        shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and 

        at the hour of death.   14. All who recite the Rosary are my children, and 

        brothers and sisters of my only Son, Jesus Christ.      15. Devotion to my 

        Rosary is a great sign of predestination.

        For more on this devotion advocated by saints, Successors of Peter, and very

        nice people, as well as brazen sinners who didn't deny the beauty of  Mary,

        despite the delay in their eventual conversions, take a look at:

 http://www.theheartofmary.com/2013/12/the-rosary-of-mary.html

Symbolic of the Fountain of Grace, where the Holy Spirit is the actual water.

Envy is why a 1/3 of the angels rebelled and targeted humanity for eternal destruction.

Author's Preliminary Note:   The prime
reference of the following text is a teach-
ing of the early church martyr, St Ignatius
of Antioch.  A concurrence of this text
comes from 18th Century Dominican
priest, St. Louis of Montfort.  It was
St. Ignatius, in the Year 100, who
coined the title, Catholic Church.

The title commonly used to define the only church that Jesus Christ ever

founded is not a Medieval invention.  The title traces itself to the original
apostles, their immediate successors, and the early church fathers.  As far
as concerns Louis of Montfort, he accentuated the phenomenon where the
Archangel Gabriel was actually making reparation for the Sin of Satan, on
behalf of all the angels, by saluting Mary the way in which Gabriel saluted
her.

The First Creation

Before time began, it was resolved in the mind of God that there would be be-
ings created with intellect and free will.  There would be two general species
created, so that one species would compliment the other one.  It was simulta-
neously resolved that the created beings would possess everlasting existence.
Now, before the creation of time, space, and physical matter, there was the
creation of beings of pure spirit.  This was the first species created in the
image and likeness of God.

These were beautifully created people with extreme agility and talent.  None
the less, a problem was presented by these creatures' existence.  They were
made to exist forever, but each one had to show commitment to the creator,
in order for each one to exist in a state of everlasting of life.  Within the
commitment would be expressions of gratitude and charity.  This was im-
portant, because the alternative for any spirit not transacting in gratitude
and charity was everlasting death. 

The Test

God would reveal to the newly created spirits God's Will, in order to see if
they consented in it, in order to see if they marveled in it, and in order to see
if they looked forward to its completion with anticipation.  Within the divine
will was the intention of God to become a member of God's own creation.
However, it was not a member of the newly created spirit community that
God willed to become.  Rather, God willed to become a member of the next
species to be made.  It was to be a species comprising material existence and
spirit.  It was humanity.

God was already pure spirit and had no desire to be redundant in becoming a
member of a species which was also pure spirit.  God was going to become
man.   In God's will to become man, there was the matter of providing for a
mother.   Being that God would need a mother, one specific woman, yet to
come, was chosen to be the mother of God.  This woman was the central fo-
cal point of God's will.

This woman was the spirits' test, in order to enable them to show fidelity to
God.  All spirits who would be overcome with a sense of delight and/or won-
der and/or compassion over the idea that God would become a member of a
new and foreign creation will have proven their commitment to, and therefore
charity toward, God.  They would have also shown their assent to honoring the
woman destined to be the mother of God.  They would then become instantan-
eously glorified and endowed with eternal life.

The War

Among the newly created spirits were some exceptionally gifted ones.  In fact,
some were created to burn with a white incandescent charity.   These were the
Seraphim.  Now, being exceptionally gifted has a danger to it.   The danger con-
sists in the fact that, the more that is given to you, the more that is expected from
you.

Among the spirits was an exceptionally gifted one of great beauty.   His name
was Light Bearer.   This can be translated into the name, Lucifer.   Lucifer re-
garded his species of creation as the most magnificent thing that anyone could
image.   In fact, Lucifer considered his species to be so magnificent that it would
only be right for God to want to become a member of it  ....  so thought Lucifer.

All that Lucifer had to do was be compassionately moved over the idea of a for-
eign species coming into existence which would include the woman destined to
be the mother of God.  Lucifer did nothing other than become envious over God
wanting to be made human instead of being made spirit all over again.  He simul-
taneously became filled with a seething hatred over the woman destined to come.

Lucifer resolved to rise to glory on his own power.   In sequence, he began a
rebellion within the spirit world, in the attempt to overthrow the Will of God.
However, within the spirit world was another spirit who also was exceptionally
gifted.  His conclusion was a rhetorical question by which he stated, "Who is
like the Lord?"   Translated into Hebrew, "Who is like the Lord" is mi cha el.
The mi - cha - el spirit made a stance to defend the Heaven which God had cre-
ated.   Other spirits joined him.   This resulted in the first and only World War
of the spirit world. 

The result of that war was that the army of the mi-cha-el spirit won.   In fact, the
result of the spirit war is summarized in the words of Jesus of Nazareth when he
said, "I saw Satan fall from Heaven like a bolt of lightning."

Lucifer, the magnificent creation who comprises pure spirit, had now became the
impure spirit.   A third of the spirit world did also.  In sequence, his lightning style
expulsion from Heaven resulted in of all the lights going out in him who was once
called Light Bearer.   He then became the Prince of Darkness.   The spirit capable
of doing great good had now become the Evil One.  He had now become the Devil. 

The Original Sin

Equal to the former beauty of the Prince of Darkness was his hatred for mankind ...
... even before mankind was created.   No sooner was mankind created than was
the Devil scheming to destroy it.   He started by targeting the first generation
woman whom God created as a gift to the first generation man.

The Devil, symbolically referred to as the ancient serpent, set off to target the
first generation woman.   His quest was to trick her into committing spiritual
suicide.   He figured that,  if he could get mankind to sin,  then God would dis-
own humanity and destroy it.   The Devil would then prevail in his hatred of
mankind, he thought.   This meant that he would never have to see the lady
chosen to one day come into existence and be the mother of God Incarnate.

Now, whatever the exact act was, know that the original sin is something that

can never be done again.   The sin could only be committed while in the pre-
ternatural state;  in the state of man before the original sin rendered him in the
state of vulnerability and mortality.   The eating of the forbidden fruit was sym-
bolic of partaking in something already produced through the knowledge of
good and evil.   The woman was deceived into thinking that she was being
given the path to everlasting life.   She was told that God was an envious liar
who was deliberately keeping her away from glory.

The man for whom the woman was created partook in her sin solely out of a
sense of peer pressure.   He wanted to please his mate.   In addition, mention
that they saw themselves naked, after having committed the original sin, was
symbolic that they had realized that they were stripped of grace.

When God intervened, after mankind's fall from grace, guarantee was made
that there would be an enmity between the offspring of the woman and the
diabolical serpent;  that the offspring would crush his head when he would
strike for the offspring's heal.   The very act that the Evil One orchestrated,
in the hope of having mankind destroyed, assured that mankind would have
a savior.   It would now be guaranteed that the woman destined to be the
mother of God would come into existence.    The Devil couldn't thwart the
Will of God.

Take note on how the symbolic image of serpent accentuates the reality of
crushing the Evil One's head.   Thus, the intercepting of the serpent, when the
serpent lunged to inject deadly venom, is the operative image upon which to
reflect.   Holding down the serpent's head is symbolic of keeping evil at bay;
of keeping evil constrained.

The Ensuing State of Affairs

In all the spiritual world there is only one enmity;  one battle line.   It is between
the woman chosen to be the mother of God and the Devil.   To say that the great
enmity is between God and the Devil is to make the Devil an equal of God.   God
is infinite and incomparable.   The Devil is finite and he fools himself.   The apo-
calyptic enmity is between the Mother of God Incarnate and the Devil.   In fact,
she is also the Queen of Angels, meaning that she influences the actions and re-
solutions of those spirits who were created before she was.

The pertinence to this is that the Devil is the first person to commit blasphemy
against the woman destined to blossom with immaculate love for God.   Such a
thing is defamation.   In refusing to honor this woman, the Devil committed a sin
against God which required reparation.   That reparation would be made one day
by a spirit named Gabriel when he would say before the destined woman, "Hail, 
full of grace.   The Lord is with You.   You are the most blessed among women."   

The Archangel Gabriel is the Angel of Reparation.   The act of reparation made by 

Gabriel became the foundation stone of the New Testament.

Patrick Pontillo
_____________

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 3: Defense against Catholic Bashers, for those still being defamed

 

In 1648, after an exceptionally traumatizing war, the Holy Roman Empire's boders were entirely within the parameters of north-central Europe.  It was no longer in Italy.  None the less, within a few years after Lutheranism became established, the Lutheran doctrine expanded slightly beyond the Holy Roman Empire.  It did this, by means of  writ of law, and not by popular demand.  A few Scandinavian kings made the official religion of their nations, "Lutheranism."  So, the Protestant Movement remained a northern one, expanding into Scandinavia and Iceland, and only doing so, at the sharpened tips of Lutheran swords.

Ironically enough, one of Protestantism's most successful players vehemently condemned in written text the doctrines of Luther.  This same man condemned the Anabaptists whom even Luther condemned.  That person was King Henry VIII of the very northern nation of England.   And technically speaking, Henry was a schismatic and not a heretic.  But, he was ruthlessly bloody, none the less.

In the case of Henry VIII, he successfully imposed his will upon the higher-ups of England, and then he installed his new religion in the buildings and infrastructure of the old religion.  (Henry liquidated Catholic land.)  He even used the bishops of the old religion to proceed with his new religion.  However, in order for this to have worked so well, cowardice amongst the second and third levels of power had to prevail.   This happened in 1534, with the Supremacy Act.  This was when Catholics became ex-Catholics out of fear of death.

And of course, John Fisher was the only bishop in England who didn't comply with Henry Tudor.  The other bishops apparently didn't want to sacrifice the easy life appropriated by Renaissance technology.  John Fisher became a revered martyr.  Yet, he wasn't the only one.  Margaret Clitherow (vestment maker), Edmund Campion (priest), and Thomas More (chancellor) were also martyred under the Tudor dynasty.  Margaret was given a brutal execution.

Yes, Henry can be regarded more as a brutal schismatic than a brutal heretic, at the start of his acquisition of Catholic Church infrastructure.  A schismatic is one who keeps the doctrine, but denies the authority who upholds that doctrine.  A heretic actually edits and redacts existing doctrine.  He "picks and chooses" what he wants, and then tosses out the rest.  It's called "Cafeteria Catholicism," as in choosing certain foods in the cafeteria line, while passing-up the rest.  

Henry simply declared himself the managing administrator of the Christian Faith in England; not the author of a new doctrine.  Luther, on the other hand, redacted doctrine and even removed books from the Bible that were officially declared the inspired Word of God throughout the preceding 1,139 years.  None the less, both Luther & Tudor caused untold bloodshed.  Both of those two movers & shakers of Protestantism gained significant amounts of body weight in their latter years, as well.  Life was not burdensome for them.

Henry simply wanted a divorce that could not morally be given to him, by any pope who wanted to be free of the hypocrisy of betraying a mission that dated back to Peter, Paul, and a number of people who accepted death, in order to prolong that mission.   So, Henry made himself the pope of England, by starting the Church of England with Roman Catholic church property.  Many deaths of people faithful to the former religion transpired.  And of course, there is a huge difference between the church IN England and the Church OF England.

Bell Tower of London, where Thomas More & John Fisher were held, before their executions

.

The start of Protestantism (as a politically-supported structure) was 1521.  This was when the Elector of Saxony elected to give lodging and an academic dean post to the historical figure, Martin Luther of Eisleben.  The protection and deanship was in Wittenberg, 53 miles away from Luther's copper-mining hometown. 

Q:  What is the first red flag, here?  ANS:  A layman is assigning a theology post to the person of his choice.  Shouldn't a bishop, an abbot, a monsignor, or an ordained priest with university powers do the assigning?  The answer is, yes.  In as much, this was the first shot fired in the Protestant-Catholic Wars.   Moreover, you insult an educated person's intelligence by calling it a "reformation."  There was no reformation there.  There was merely the theft of Catholic Church property and the theft of Catholic administrators' rights.  Period. 

Martin Luther was the original Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde

Now, concerning Luther contradicting himself, propagandists of today let it be known the he wrote, Admonition to Peace Concerning the Twelve Articles of the Peasants.  Well, Luther also wrote, Against the Murderous and Robbing Hordes of the Peasants.  An insanely high number of peasants died between 1524-1525.  During such a rebellion, written texts can be more incendiary than shiploads of gunpowder. Plus, Luther was cited by witnesses as having an explosive temper.

Now, Luther is introduced in modern texts as a monk who nailed a page or two or three to a church door and then suffered repression.  Firstly, the hammer & nail story was as fictional as the George Washington Cherry Tree Story.   Secondly, he was an Augustinian friar, and there happens to be a huge difference between a friar and a monk.  Friars have more access to the public mind and the court of public opinion.  Friars can be more influential, depending on who operates the nearest printing presses.

The 95 Theses text was mailed to the bishop's administrators.  If you nail something to a 16th Century church door, it will get torn down and tossed out by the maintenance crew, because such a thing was NOT an element of protocol.  Only church bulletins were placed on church doors.  Thus, a courier delivered 95 Theses.  

Proof that the hammer and nail tale was bull crap exists in the fact that TWO envelopes accompany the 95 thesis statements.  A cover letter is included also, meaning that one envelope was for the 95 one-liners and one envelope was for the cover letter to the bishop.

The lesson here is that you get exaggerated sensationalism in tales about Luther, followed by him being portrayed as the ultimate caring being.  Yet, 100,000 peasants ever so coincidentally died after his condemnation of them was published.  Entire nations were told that their official religion was now going to be this new one invented by Martin Luther.  Yet, it was a religion that was never taken out for a test drive.  

The con artistry of one person does NOT summarize the entire organization for all time.

Moreover, the Indulgence thing was a super exaggeration.  Firstly, an indulgence is NOT the absolution from your sins.  It is are NOT a permission slip that allows you to go out and sin.  The only way to be free of your sins is by the absolution of any validly ordained priest.  If no priest is available, then either [1] a perfect act of contrition or [2] a perfect act of love renders a human in the state of grace ... provided that the person would have willingly gone to confession, if a priest were available.  There is also the matter of "baptism by blood," and "baptism of desire" (which see).

Now, an indulgence is the partial or complete remission of the TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT due to sin, AFTER THE SIN HAS BEEN FORGIVEN.   An indulgence diminishes or entirely erases your time in Purgatory.

An indulgence comes from "the merits of Christ," and an indulgence does NOT grant you absolution from your sins.  Indulgences are assigned by the presiding pope, by the Power of the Keys that Christ gave to Peter individually.  And the Power of the Papal Keys is 100% Biblical, appearing in the New Testament.  Peter being assigned as the first pope by Christ is equally Biblical.  Only a liar denies something so obviously stated in writing.  (See:  Enchiridion of Indulgences.)

Today, you can get an indulgence by doing the Stations of the Cross, even in silence.   You can get an indulgence by reciting the Rosary with other people. You can even get an indulgence for reading the Bible.  And of course, the Bible indulgence flies in the face of the Protestants who very falsely claim that Catholic Church never uses the Bible.

None the less, pious acts would be assigned "the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven."  And of course, donating money to a charity is a pious act, and doing such a thing used to be granted a "partial indulgence," lessening part of your time spent in Purgatory, before going to Heave for all eternity.  However, today that type of pious act does not get any indulgence, due to early 16th Century fund-raising con artistry.  

The typical anti-Catholic propagandist makes the indulgence thing sound link this type of reenactment: 

Wife: "Oh honey, I'm going down to the store.  Can I get you anything?"  Husband: "Can you pick me up a couple indulgences, dear?  They're sitting next to the produce section."  Wife: "Sure thing, babe."  . . .  It doesn't work that way.    

The anti-Catholic propagandists  ... liars that they are ... made it sound as if Catholics were buying the permission to sin.  Oh no.  In 16th Century Europe, if you did the wrong thing, you got punished.  Catholics are also instructed to "avoid the near occasion of sin," and NOT to go out and buy indulgences.

Therefore, it is 100,000% BULL CRAP to claim that Catholics were buying indulgences, to get absolution from their sins ... or to get permission to go out and commit any sin they wanted.  The great irony is that Luther said that it was okay to commit any sin you wanted and still get God's mercy, without paying anyone any money.   Luther claimed that you only had to "believe" and then do whatever you pleased.

Sinful people wouldn't waste their money on buying permission slips to sin ... or buying something as invisible as "absolution from sin."  They didn't care then.  They don't care now.  They instead spent their money on pleasure and power.  They spent their money on alcohol and women, as well as business investments.  And in the 16th Century, there was a new industry starting-up which would result in the Calvinist Dutch being the very rich investors of that trade.  It was called the Slave Trade.   Yes, Dutch Protestants would become masters of that trade ... pun sarcastically intended.

Once again, a true Catholic only sought "remission of the temporal punishment due to sins that have already been forgiven through the sacramental absolution of a priest."  That is to say, a Catholic sought to bypass Purgatory after death.  This meant that she/he still had to avoid sin and resist temptation while on Earth.  

Luther was only looking for an excuse to push through his new doctrine.  He used the indulgence thing as a diversionary tactic, evidenced by him changing the subject repeatedly, as soon as he got lodging from the Elector of Saxony.  Luther was a very predictable GAS-LIGHTER, no different than the politicians of today.  

Francis of Assisi was the great saint ... the great reformer.  Do not be deceived.  Luther had it easy.  Francis of Assisi was the one who did his share of aesthetic works, including a 40 day fast.  Saint Patrick did this, also. 

So, another lesson here is that even the indulgence thing was presented in a sophomorically false light, as much as is the Catholics-don't-read-the-Bible defamation.  (See: Council of Rome, 382 CE ... also the Council of Carthage ... and even a number of Councils of Toledo.)

Luther's doctrine was reminiscent of that of Jan Hus.  But in reality, there was a huge difference between the two.  None the less, the Hussite religion was NOT a national religion anywhere, including in Bohemia where it started.  It still did not reach the popularity of a national religion.  None the less, declaring a cult's religion a national religion was very unnatural.  Yet, this happened with Luther's semi-neo-Hussite religion.  War after war ensued after Luther's movement began moving through northern royal courts.   That religion became Dictator's Choice ... like a coffee brand.  It prevented freedom of thought.  Luther was a CONTROL FREAK, trying to impose his new doctrine on everyone else.

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."   

By the way, the author of this site had Jewish ancestry in Erfurt Germany; but only a small amount of it compared to his Greco-Roman & northern European ancestry which includes that of Danish Vikings.  Yet, this author's prevailing Y-DNA haplogroup is J2, and such a thing prevails amongst Jews such as Adam Sandler and Bernie Sanders.   As the author states, "I only have a cameo's appearance of Jewish DNA in me.  Yet, I assume that a few people in my bloodline walked with Moses, even as peasants ... and some other ones lived under the reigns Solomon, David, etc, even as peasants or whatever.  Yes, I have a few ancestors who prayed for the coming of the Messiah, long ago."

None the less, Erfurt is where the Nazis manufactured the infamous ovens.  In fact, Erfurt is less than an hour's drive from the Buchenwald Concentration Camp.  Well, it's more like a half-hour's drive.

 

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

To route to Part 4 of 7 parts:  http://www.theheartofmary.com/2023/02/summit-of-truth4.html

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

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

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