Breaking Luther: Bishop Bruskewitz corrects the nostalgia for the so called reform movement

Chaos in Christianity: an interview

Bishop Bruskewitz reflects on the Reformation, need for prayer

By S.L. Hansen

(SNR) - With the 500th anniversary of the Protestant movement coming at the end of this October, it is important for Catholic Christians to understand some of the facts behind that movement.

It is also a good idea to prepare for the inevitable conversations that might result as Protestant friends and family members mark the occasion. Related item: Coffee House series to focus on Reformation

In a recent conversation with the Southern Nebraska Register, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, the emeritus Bishop of Lincoln, spoke about some of the effects of Protestantism on Christianity and offered some advice for Catholics who may have an opportunity to correct misunderstandings and perhaps help to rebuild unity in Christianity.

Q. How would you describe the Reformation itself?

A. I would first say that the very word seems to be flawed and inaccurate, since nothing was “reformed.” Basically what happened was that large numbers of people left the Catholic Church and formed and invented numerous new man-made churches, denominations, religions, sects, and cults, which continue even to this day to multiply in number, making chaos of what had been once a generally traditionally unified Christianity.

Q. What is the effect of that chaos?

A. In the Western World, religion in general has fallen out of favor in large part because of the divisions in Christianity, which are viewed as appalling and embarrassing. Christianity is often held in disdain by the wider secular world. Also, centuries of scandalous Christian disunity, with the accompanied history of quarrels and wars, frequently form a serious impediment to the ability to present to our modern world the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Meanwhile non-Christian religions are currently advancing.

Read the whole interview HERE, it is excellent

Breaking Luther: St. Bellarmine rebukes Luther's idea of the Rock being the confession of faith

The following excerpt is taken from the book "On the Roman Pontiff (De Controversiis Book 1)" by St. Robert Bellarmine.  Until only a couple years ago this text had not been translated into English, but thanks be to God Ryan Grant, the founder of Mediatrix Press has translated many of the great saints works.  Please support Ryan and his company, it is a great gift to the church!


“Therefore, four questions must be explained to us. First: whether Peter might be that rock upon which the Church shall be founded. Second: whether that foundation might be the ruler of the whole Church. Third: whether Peter might be the one to whom the keys are given. Fourth: whether the full power to govern the Church should be understood through the keys. On the first question there are four opinions...

The fourth is of Luther and the Centuriators, that faith or the confession of faith is the rock, concerning which the Lord spoke in this place...

The fourth opinion remains, which is common among nearly all Lutherans, and at first glance appears to be confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers. Accordingly Hillary teaches: “The building of the Church is the rock of confession . . . This faith of the Church is the foundation: through this faith the gates of hell are weak against it: this faith of the kingdom of heaven holds the keys.” St. Ambrose says: “The foundation of the Church is faith.” St. John Chrysostom: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, that is faith and confession.” Likewise Cyril, explaining this citation: “I reckon he called the rock is nothing other than unshaken and firm faith of the disciple.”

Illyricus adds: “If it is founded upon Peter, and rather not upon the confession of Faith of the Church, then immediately it would have fallen. For Peter soon ran at the point of the Lord’s passion, and he fell. Moreover in the same Chapter of St. Matthew, it is said to him: ‘Get behind me Satan, you are a scandal to me, because you do not have a sense of what is of God.’ Thereupon he denied Christ a third time, and not without a great curse.”

I respond: Faith, or confession, is considered in two ways. In one way it absolutely followed itself, and without any relation to the person of Peter: in the second way with relation to Peter. In the first way it appears our adversaries would have it that faith is the foundation of the Church, but certainly they are deceived. If it were so, why didn’t the Lord say, instead of: “I will build upon this rock,” “I am building,” or “I have built my Church”? Many had already believed that he was the son of the living God, as early as the prophets, the Blessed Virgin, Simeon, Zachariah, John the Baptist, the apostles and remaining disciples.

Next, faith taken up absolutely is rightly called the foundation of justification and of all strength, as Augustine says: “The house of God is founded by belief, erected by hope, perfected by love.” But the foundation of the Church is not properly faith. There ought to be a foundation of the same kind, as well as the rest of the building. The Church is a congregation of men, just as of living stones, therefore the stone, which is the foundation, ought to be also some man, not some virtue.

Last, that pronoun this most clearly showed that through the rock faith cannot be understood absolutely: for it is referred more closely to the one named rock: next, it had been said to Simon: “You are rock,” not to faith; therefore it behooves us to accept faith in the second way is the foundation, and to say not any faith you please, but the faith of Peter, and not of Peter as a private man, but as the shepherd of the Church. It coincides with that, which we said in this regard, that Peter is the foundation.

Therefore the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church for a two-fold reasoning. First, that on account of the merit of his faith Peter attained that he should be the foundation of the Church, as Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and others show on this place. Secondly, because Peter is chiefly in the very matter the foundation of the Church, that since his faith cannot fail, he ought to confirm and hold up all the others in faith. Thus, the Lord said to him: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith should not fail, and when thou hast converted strengthen thy brethren.”

Therefore, by reasoning of his indefectible faith, Peter should be the firmest rock, sustaining the whole Church; it is the same thing to say “upon Peter” and “upon his faith” the Church was founded, and the Fathers cited speak in this manner. For St. Hilary, after he had said the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, and receives the keys of the kingdom, he adds on Peter himself: “He merited a preeminent place by the confession of his blessed Faith,” and a little after: “Hence, he holds the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence, his earthly judgments are heavenly, etc.”

Therefore, as he had said, “faith is the foundation and holds the keys,” so now he says Peter by reason of his faith merited a preeminent place, that is, that he should be the head, or foundation, and should hold the keys. And he says the same thing most beautifully about Peter: “O happy foundation of the Church by the solemn decree of a new name.”

For equal reasoning St. Ambrose, where he says the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, he notes the same thing: “He did not refuse to his disciple the favor of this word, that he should also be Peter, who as the rock should have solidity of steadfastness and firmness of faith.”

Chrysostom explaining in both citations, why it is that the Church is built upon the confession of Peter, introduces the Lord speaking thus: I will build my Church upon you.”

Next, Cyril also says the foundation is not any faith, but that unconquerable and most firm faith of St. Peter; and he writes that Peter himself is the rock, upon which the Church is founded.

Now I respond to the objection of Illyricus, firstly with the commentary of Jerome for this chapter: when Peter was told: “Get behind me Satan” and when he denied Christ, he was not yet the foundation. Therefore the place Christ promised him, he had intended to give to him after the resurrection. Add, that Peter did not err on the faith, but was merely ignorant of something, when he was told, “Get behind me Satan,” and he was lacking in charity, not in faith, when he denied Christ. That we will teach in its proper place in the treatise on the Church.”

KTMT: Part I Sex and the Church: The March for Life bows to protestants

These videos are not apologetics but appeals to the people putting on the March to tighten the reigns before the whole thing falls apart because of indifference to fundimental issues, the first of which being the protestant error of welcoming contraception

Voris does a great job in both so I wont comment further.  The next part of the series will focus on the apologetical approaches to the issue of contraception

Leithart (Eye's will bleed): What I Want from Catholics: Become More Protestant

Saw this in Patrick Madrid's twitter feed and I just had to go line by line on this one (my comments in red). The article is HERE:

What I Want from Catholics: Become More Protestant

By Peter J. Leithart | October 28, 2015

My wish list for Catholics is terribly old-fashioned and terribly assertive. There’s hardly space here to defend my positions or thoroughly critique the Catholic position, so this may end up sounding like a drive-by shooting or a childish tantrum. I trust that I can formulate my wish list with enough calmness that it doesn’t turn it into a bitch list.

Who in their right mind thought it a good idea to give protestants and other dissadents the right to make demands of the Church?  #Synod15… I’m just …well sort of kidding.

I want the Pope to give up his claim to infallibility. In our day, the Papacy stands as a global symbol of Christian faith, and popes of recent decades have been among the greatest Christian leaders of recent history. The Pope is a universal teacher, a stout defender of Christian morals, a living icon of charity, a father to princes and presidents.

Wait so you like him acting as a universal teacher, but to teach what?  When you don’t agree then its just up to each individual to dissent?  So when the Holy Spirit revealed that they would be lead into all truths… I guess Baptists and Lutherans are ok in disagreeing on the importance and necessity of Baptism.  But then again who am I to judge. Plus, in regards to morals, who is standing for morals when they are changing?  Lets be real protestants only stand for morals when they can be seen in the public square.  They frown on bolemia but are giddy to support contraception.  Note both are disorders with obvious ends that are not founded in truth.  And I’m not going to get into the Anglicans/Episcapalians that run from the abortion issue (Can anyone say “first among equals” for Welby? How’s that working out?)

 None of that makes him a definer of dogma.

He knows that is not an argument used but the praxis employed.

No matter how narrowly tailored papal infallibility may be, it is theologically and historically unfounded, as Lord Acton knew.

So Lord Acton was infallible in his defining of the papacy not being infallible?  Puleeze…

I want the Pope to give up his claim to exclusive primacy. Why not be content with being primus inter pares among the ancient sees?

Note: The office was not made by man and therefore cannot be changed in its essence by man.  And again see Welby, hows that working again?

Suppose Peter was the first Bishop of Rome: Didn’t he leave it to Paul to lead the mission to the Gentiles?

So Peter refused to speak with Gentiles?  Isn’t that going beyond scripture?  What of Luke?  Peter was not a theologian like Paul was, and the Pope does not have a guarantee that knowledge of theology will just be foisted upon him when he takes the chair.  Plus Peter and Paul worked together because Rome was the metropolis of its day. Plenty of room for Cephas to oversee with the help of a great Apostle like Paul, who both founded the Roman Church and both Choose Linus to succeed Cephas.

 Besides, should we not be open to the possibility that the center of Christian gravity will shift dramatically in the future? In 3000 years, might not the Bishop of Beijing or Lagos or Brasilia be the actual primate of the Church? In 10,000 years, will Vatican-centered Christendom be anything more than a distant memory?

Note that was and continues to be the argument of the Eastern Orthodox where Power is in constant flux with Constantinople still claiming authority while Moscow references itself as the third Rome.  As a side note, the Creed was not read in the Latin rite for a long time because the Roman See was the only one that never feel into formal heresy unlike the other Sees.

Catholics Should Give Up

I want Catholics to give up their sectarian exclusiveness. Jesus and His Spirit are present in the suburban Bible church, the Chinese house group, the Pentecostal assembly at one of Rio’s garbage dumps.

Well, your bread is still bread and your wine/grape juice/ water (Mormon joke) is still such.  Sure you have warm feelings but that’s noting objective to hang your hat on.

 The Son and Spirit have promised to be wherever word is preached and bread broken, where disciples strive together toward maturity in Christ.

Presuming that as Our Lord wished, “That they all might be one”.  Plus who decides what a mature Christian is or believes?  Again empty words.

These assemblies are no less churches than the congregation of St. Patrick’s.

Well someone missed out on reading the CDF letter on this which you can find HERE. Basically, you don’t have all seven sacraments, and you have no authority to speak on behalf of Christ, no matter how warm your words make others feel.

 Fellowship with Rome is not the same as fellowship with Jesus;

“He who hears you hears me, he who despises you despises me.” Christ and his Church are one.  When there is an argument among the faithful the final means are to take it to the Church (I’m confused do we take it to any street corner preacher to give us his interpretation of scripture?). If Christ founded His Church on Blessed Peter when to Peters successors go the power of the keys.  “The eye cannot say to the hand I don’t need you.” Christ prayed singularly for Peter to confirm his brothers, he made Peter the chief Shepard and changed his name as he did with the other leaders throughout salvation history.

 submission to Rome is not the same as catholicity. Jesus and His Spirit do not observe Vatican protocols.

“Whatever you bind on Earth is Bound in Heaven, whatever you loose is loosed.”  By the way what protocals do you reference?  This is a weak attack using nonsense.

I want Catholics to stop spreading pious falsehoods about Mary. Protestants have unjustly neglected Mary’s central role in the Bible and redemption, but Catholic Marian dogmas are a cure worse than the disease. I want Catholics to honor Mary by giving up inventions like the immaculate conception and the assumption.

So you decide what is a falsehood?  Who gave you authority to speak for this catholic community that you and CS Lewis are so fond of? There are reasons to believe in those dogmas, just as there are reasons to call her “Mother of God”, a perpetual virgin and even – dare I say it – Mediatrix of All graces. We only recognize what God makes known, it is not for us to poo-poo Our Lady since she is our Mother in the faith and the First and greatest Christian.  And if you do not cease speaking ill of our Lady it will not look good for you on the last day for no Son will put up with evil being spoken of with his mother.

Failing that, I would be content if these speculations were treated as speculative opinions rather than dogmas.

And who makes the decision what is opinion and is dogma?  You?  Perhaps the Arians? 

I want a Catholic to explain how Mary, a Jewish woman of the first-century A.D., can simultaneously hear the appeals of millions of people who speak dozens of languages that she never learned.

Since she is not in time and space she is not limited as such.  Plus why would it be impossible for her to be told by God in some way what people are asking prayers for?  She desires one thing, God’s will, therefore all she would need to do is pray that those that seek her intercession and conform themselves to God’s will be granted such a grace… she is the Queen mother after all… see Solomon and David.

 I know Catholics don’t believe Mary has become God, but that looks like something only a God could manage.

But isn’t that a theological opinion and not founded in anything other then your feelings that God is not interested in having both the living and those that have passed to work together because we are one body?

I want Catholic theologians to give up the pretense that the dogma of the Church has never changed. When they try to explain that nothing substantive has changed between Trent and Vatican II, when they distinguish between unchangeable doctrine and changeable formulations of doctrine, they appear disingenuous. I prefer the old free church Independents, who eagerly expected the Spirit to break out fresh light from Scripture.

So you want warm feelings… try Mormonism. But as far as Vatican II, it didn’t proclaim anything new that was binding.  The texts are ambiguous, unlike Trent that is specific.

Worse, the premise of unchangeability makes it impossible for the Church to repent of mistakes. Catholics don’t think Vatican I, for example, will ever need to be overturned; it cannot be. But that means either that there will never be full reunion with Protestants and Orthodox, or that Catholic theologians must find a way to massage Vatican I so that it doesn’t say what it manifestly says. The possibility of saying “the church erred” is excluded in principle.

Or that you recognize your error and pride and repent by coming back into communion with the only Church Christ founded… just saying.

When I attend Mass, I want Catholic priests to let me share the Eucharist with my Catholic brothers. I want Catholics to accept my invitation to celebrate Eucharist with me and my Protestant brothers, and give up any doubts they might have that what we Protestants celebrate really is Eucharist.

The Eucharist is not a matter of warm feelings where you can feel like its something while it is still not.  Its like you support people saying that they are women when they are really men.  The feeling is not watch transubstantiates but the authority.  An authority you foolishly deny in your pride.

I want Catholics to give up veneration of the consecrated host and other sacred objects.

And worship the podium and the doctor behind it?  If that is Christ as he promised then adoration is the proper action to take because it IS God.  We venerate because some things are Holy and in doing so we glorify God.  Would DiVinci complain that you were honoring the Mona Lisa too much?  No, because it’s a part of his work that gives him the ultimate honor in the end.

 Jesus gave us His body and blood to eat and drink, not to admire.

So you cant even gaze upon the host?  Really, what is this a third grade author?  Puleeze you are looking foolish here.

Whatever Catholics think they are doing, to Protestants they appear to be indulging a form of liturgical idolatry.

Well, if protestants are disordered whos fault is that… other then the Bishops that refuse to help them see their error of course.

 At the very least, they are distracting from Jesus’ purpose for the Eucharist: “Take, eat; take, drink.”

Why is it an an either or case?  Why cant he spend time with the Actual presense of Christ.  Then go to Mass and Adoration.  Problem solved.

Everyone, Become More Catholic

My rants are typically directed against my own tribe of conservative Protestants, and typically I am urging them to become more Catholic: to acknowledge church authority, to cultivate sacramental piety, to embrace the glories of the whole Christian tradition, to honor Mary and the saints, to conform worship to the pattern of the ancient Church, which is essentially the pattern of Scripture.

But who gave you this scripture and what authority did they determine the canon by?

 Typically, I am urging Protestants to receive Catholics and Orthodox as Christian brothers, which they are.

I am not contradicting myself when I rant against Catholics and urge them to become Protestant. What I want above all, for both Catholics and Protestants, is full reunion and reconciliation in the truth.

But truth is definitive and doesn’t change based on warm feelings.  To reconcile in the truth we don’t run away from it but learn to humbly accept Gods will before our own. Oneness based on a ceasefire is no oneness but cowardice.

 What I want is a Church where the old names of Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or other, are discarded so that we can all wear the old/new baptismal name: Father, Son, and Spirit. And I want that because I am persuaded it is what Jesus wants.

So what of the oneness pentacostles then?  Or the Mormons.  Are you the authority to exclude them on the basis of their baptisms?

Peter J. Leithart is president of the Theopolis Institute in Birmingham, Alabama, and an adjunct senior fellow of New St. Andrew’s College in Moscow, Idaho. He is the author of many books, most recently Gratitude: An Intellectual History (Baylor) and Traces of the Trinity (Baker). An ordained minister, he is a member of Evangelical and Catholics Together.

7/13: New Father Hardon Videos

Below are a few new videos i put together last week.  More will be coming soon including a story of a meeting between Fr. Hardon and Cardinal Ratzinger.  Enjoy!

Someone wrote me a poem

I appreciate the effort, but it was just more rhetoric without reasoning.  Weak kneed protestantism:

But they are Christians... and so are people that believe Jesus was a Unicorn, but taught the whole of the Catholic Church right?

Pope Francis against common Eucharistic celebrations with Protestants

Francis admonished for ad limina visit Swiss bishops: not blur difference between priests and laity!

 Vatican City (kath.net/KAP/red) Francis Pope has spoken out against a common celebration of the Eucharist by Catholics and Protestants. "If we have to hide our Eucharistic faith under the pretext of a certain accommodation by, then we take our own treasure neither nor our interlocutor seriously enough," he said on Monday in front of the Swiss bishops at the Vatican. In ecumenical dialogue, the bishops should make sure that the believers of all faiths could live their faith "unambiguous and free of confusion" and "without the differences at the expense of truth wegzuretuschieren".

At the same time, the Pope, the Swiss bishops called on the difference between priests and laity not to blur. It is good to acknowledge the dedication of the laity and support, but this must always be "in clear respect for the difference between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood." The bishops would have their followers the importance of the truths of faith for the liturgical, parochial, family and social life convey. For this purpose, they would have their employees select "carefully". In addition, the Pope warned against over-reliance of the Catholic Church in Switzerland by state institutions. If the church avoided to depend on organizations "that could impose through economic means a style of life, the little Christ" have to do that it would "make the gospel more visible" in their structures He called for further clarification of the ratio to between church and state.

Read the Rest HERE

h/t Matthew Olson

Ten Days of Davies: Vatican II talks (Part II)

Vatican II - Part 3 of 4 - The Protestant Connection
Progressives were eager to work together with Protestants. This meant that Protestant observers of the Council often played not only a role but even a determining role in its sessions. Michael Davies discusses the Protestants in question, their Catholic allies, and the specific influences they had. Taken from: My End is My Beginning: The Analogy of Contemporary Christianity





Vatican II - Part 4 of 4 - The Liturgical Revolution
Michael Davies is most known for his work on the liturgical revolution. Here, he summarizes how the movement for liturgical reform transmuted into the monster that it became, and then used Vatican II, the organs established to effect the reforms of Vatican II, and the "spirit of the Council" to create the new liturgy. Taken from: My End is My Beginning: The Analogy of Contemporary Christianity

 

 +JMJ+

Is it ok to be a good Protestant rather than a bad Catholic? St. Peter Eymard answers

St. Peter Julian Eymard

I know that people often say: "It is better to be a good Protestant than a bad Catholic." That is not true. That would mean, at bottom, that one could be saved without the true faith. No! A bad Catholic remains a child of the family although he is a prodigal, and, however great a sinner he may be, he still has right to mercy. Through his faith a bad Catholic is nearer to God than a Protestant is; for he is a member of the household whereas the heretic is not; and how hard it is to make him become one!

Read the rest HERE

New Fr. John Hardon videos for your enjoyment

Below I have posted a few more topics that Father Hardon addressed in some of his talks which you can find in their entirety on The Real Presence Website, which is involved with his canonization process.

Also take the time to read his works and support his cause for canonization if you feel called to.  The official page for this is: http://www.hardonsj.org/

On the issues with the modern ecumenical movement: On the Anglican hierarchy and the issues related On the Methodist/Pentacostal hierarchy and related issues:

+JMJ+

Part 3: In defense of Bashing Protestantism

I needed to bring this up before I forgot about it

Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong made a number of statements a while back about a Vortex that can be seen below.

One of his major points is that we cant really trace the things that are going on today to Protestantism, that is that modernism and the contraceptive ideology that flows through modern protestant ciricles, cant be said to come from the protestant heresy specifically.

Just today as I was rereading the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis written by Saint Pope Pius X in 1907, in which the Pope, the reigning Pontiff himself makes this statement as can be seen below:

Modernism and All the Heresies39. It may be, Venerable Brethren, that some may think We have dwelt too long on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary, both in order to refute their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories but in a perfectly organised body, all the parts of which are solidly joined so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give this exposition a somewhat didactic form and not to shrink from employing certain uncouth terms in use among the Modernists. And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies? Were one to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate the sap and substance of them all into one, he could not better succeed than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have done more than this, for, as we have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone but of all religion. With good reason do the rationalists applaud them, for the most sincere and the frankest among the rationalists warmly welcome the modernists as their most valuable allies.For let us return for a moment, Venerable Brethren, to that most disastrous doctrine of agnosticism. By it every avenue that leads the intellect to God is barred, but the Modernists would seek to open others available for sentiment and action. Vain efforts! For, after all, what is sentiment but the reaction of the soul on the action of the intelligence or the senses. Take away the intelligence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses, becomes their slave. Vain, too, from another point of view, for all these fantasias on the religious sentiment will never be able to destroy common sense, and common sense tells us that emotion and everything that leads the heart captive proves a hindrance instead of a help to the discovery of truth. We speak, of course, of truth in itself - as for that other purely subjectivetruth, the fruit of sentiment and action, if it serves its purpose for the jugglery of words, it is of no use to the man who wants to know above all things whether outside himself there is a God into whose hands he is one day to fall. True, the Modernists do call in experience to eke out their system, but what does this experience add to sentiment? Absolutely nothing beyond a certain intensity and a proportionate deepening of the conviction of the reality of the object. But these two will never make sentiment into anything but sentiment, nor deprive it of its characteristic which is to cause deception when the intelligence is not there to guide it; on the contrary, they but confirm and aggravate this characteristic, for the more intense sentiment is the more it is sentimental. In matters of religious sentiment and religious experience, you know, Venerable Brethren, how necessary is prudence and how necessary, too, the science which directs prudence. You know it from your own dealings with sounds, and especially with souls in whom sentiment predominates; you know it also from your reading of ascetical books - books for which the Modernists have but little esteem, but which testify to a science and a solidity very different from theirs, and to a refinement and subtlety of observation of which the Modernists give no evidence. Is it not really folly, or at least sovereign imprudence, to trust oneself without control to Modernist experiences? Let us for a moment put the question: if experiences have so much value in their eyes, why do they not attach equal weight to the experience that thousands upon thousands of Catholics have that the Modernists are on the wrong road? It is, perchance, that all experiences except those felt by the Modernists are false and deceptive? The vast majority of mankind holds and always will hold firmly that sentiment and experience alone, when not enlightened and guided by reason, do not lead to the knowledge of God. What remains, then, but the annihilation of all religion, - atheism? Certainly it is not the doctrine of symbolism - will save us from this. For if all the intellectual elements, as they call them, of religion are pure symbols, will not the very name of God or of divine personality be also a symbol, and if this be admitted will not the personality of God become a matter of doubt and the way opened to Pantheism? And to Pantheism that other doctrine of the divine immanence leads directly. For does it, We ask, leave God distinct from man or not? If yes, in what does it differ from Catholic doctrine, and why reject external revelation? If no, we are at once in Pantheism. Now the doctrine of immanence in the Modernist acceptation holds and professes that every phenomenon of conscience proceeds from man as man. The rigorous conclusion from this is the identity of man with God, which means Pantheism. The same conclusion follows from the distinction Modernists make between science and faith. The object of science they say is the reality of the knowable; the object of faith, on the contrary, is the reality of the unknowable. Now what makes the unknowable unknowable is its disproportion with the intelligible - a disproportion which nothing whatever, even in the doctrine of the Modernist, can suppress. Hence the unknowable remains and will eternally remain unknowable to the believer as well as to the man of science. Therefore if any religion at all is possible it can only be the religion of an unknowable reality. And why this religion might not be that universal soul of the universe, of which a rationalist speaks, is something We do see. Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.

Now one might object that the encyclical wasn't specifically written about contraception, to which we agree.  Yet it hits on the very principles that were used 25 years later at the Lambeth conference in making contraception an ok practice for the Anglicans.  Need more proof of that read CASTI CONNUBII.    

So the take away is simple, Protestantism is indeed identified by perhaps the greatest reigning Pontiff of the last 500 years as the root cause of modernism and the contraceptive mentality that follows.  Waiting for a sorry to Mr. Voris...this could take a while seeing as Voris is now locked in a fight with Fr. Longinecker.  Imagine that, a consecrated lay celebate, against a dispensed Catholic priest on the matter of Professional Catholisism... its actually fun to watch.  Oh and thanks for linking the last post Dave, I apprieciate it and thank you for the kind words.

+ Chip, Chip, Cheerio +

Oh and Dave the point of the vortex wasnt about money as he stated in his follow up.  Nor does it have to do with him having applied for CA as a host in the past.  All of those things are irrelevant to what he identified as the purpose of the vortex post.  And finally if you are so interested in what he makes for a talk why not just ask him?