Some Observations on the Major Heretics
who Created Protestantism
(First in a series being published on Judeo-Protestant Imperialism)
By Horacio Bonfiglio
Taken from: http://lascadenasdeobligado.blogspot.mx/2016/08/algunas-observacionessobre-los.html
Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope
It happened in a certain historical time, which Belloc called the “Dark age” because it was the preparation for the luminous splendor of the Middle Ages ― so maliciously denigrated by the enemies of Catholicism ― in which God Our Lord, maybe to test the religious integrity of men, allowed certain hurtful words to be cast to the wind, which offended human reason, mumbled by spurious philosophers and Talmudic theologians, affirming the pretension of 'deifying' man; uttered in almost unnoticed conventicles, against Aristotle's and Saint Thomas' philosophy based on the reality and the truth of beings and on human nature, in order to desacralize theology.
Luther, the friar who separated man from God:Many years later, Luther, standing on the stump of an enormous fallen tree, in the clearing of a forest surrounding Wittenberg, casting his habit to the wind, was anointed by the furies of pride, as all around him a coven of the cursed of all times, his inspirers and servers: heretics, satanic, Talmudic, gnostics and Manichaeans, and the reneged nun, exalted with lust, gamboled at the cry of Master and lord! Then Luther, the new prophet which embodied the resentment and pride accumulated throughout the centuries, in the middle of the rabble, looking at the distance, in the valley, the towers of the Wittenberg Cathedral, began bellowing his imprecation: I am the one who is predestined to demolish them! I will put an end to the prostitute of Rome!
(This is the way I imagined this scene, as close to reality as if I had contemplated it with my own eyes, and even though, as it is to be assumed, there are no historical records to testify to that, it could have happened in no other way.)
In Si Si No No of the Summer of 2015, 'Speculator' described perfectly and definitively Luther's true personality, commenting on Professor Georg May's excellent book, “The Trap of Ecumenism”, written when 'progressive' Vaticanists began aggrandizing Luther to satisfy their ecumenical infatuation: “First of all, the initiative that the ecumenists have been pushing for a long time already, to re-evaluate Luther as though he had not been properly understood or interpreted, should be rejected. There are pious and exemplary men in Lutheranism, but its founder is not among them.” His moral and intellectual defects are very well known: a friar who broke his vows, who yielded to sensuality, to pride, to rage, and to hatred. He idolized himself (he had an astute and aggressive personality, he was a violent and very skilled polemizer and at the same time, subtle and self-confident in his hermeneutical sophistry). He would incite hatred against the Pope on the masses, making use of a mean lampoonery. It is unjust to treat him as a 'reformer'. He was a destroyer of the faith, of the Church, a sower of discord, a true Attila. He made use of the mischiefs that afflicted the militant Church of his time, as an excuse to reject the sane doctrine and substitute it with a personal interpretation of Scripture (interpretation which tried to achieve the squaring of the circle; that is, to reconcile salvation with the liberty of an individual who wishes to go on following the impulses of the flesh and of pride)”
Free examination', the foundation of the heretic Lutheran theology, in addition to being the wellspring of all kinds of philosophical nonsense, has very grave political implications. I consider it necessary to reproduce a few paragraphs of an enlightening conference titled: “Free examination and Communism” [which we will reproduce separately in its entirety] delivered in the Hall of the Huemul Bookstore [in Buenos Aires] on April 2, 1960. in which professor Jordán Bruno Genta, with his metaphysical profundity, related the political consequences of Protestant free examination:
“What does Luther's rebellion consist of? ― Professor Genta would ask ― The true sense of the rebellion is to disintegrate Christ in the conviction of thought, it is to divide Christ, because that is the secret, the key to every heresy. Luther says: “Only faith justifies, without works, ... The only agent of salvation is God... Man is absolutely not free to do good... whatever you do in life, if you are among the called and justified, you will be saved, if you are among the damned, you will be lost.
“The eternal has been severed from the temporal; this temporal life has nothing to do with the eternal. Man's world has nothing to do with the world of God; God will have to do with Man after this life but not in this life; what is going to happen in eternity has already been resolved. Man's liberty is divided from Grace. Christ has been split, it has been divided in Luther's thought and this is the true origin of communism because communism is pure nihilism.
“Communism is the confusion of everything with everything, it is the confusion of all hierarchies and of all distinctions, it is the levelling at the insubstantial in the indeterminate and formless matter. All of these consequences are entailed at the moment we reject Christ, we reject Him the same way as Luther began rejecting him, letting what is human entirely freed to itself.
“This division was reflected afterwards in the philosophical realm with Descartes, the father of modern philosophy. Descartes separates the truths of Faith, that is, the truths revealed about the mysteries of God, from the truths of reason. But the purpose of Faith is to understand. Faith is a grace given by God to enhance human intelligence on things that are essential ― professor Genta continues his dissertation ― which are fundamental, which are the thngs about God, the things about the soul and the things about the destiny of man. Faith is something to make the mind more powerful for the end to which he was created. And, logically, once human intelligence has been severed from faith, under the pretext that reason had been the servant of the Faith and of Religion ― as though being subordinated to what comes from God Himself were not its proper place ― the contemplative life of intelligence had to become extinguished little by little, and the intelligence had to be promoted ever more exclusively in the handling of temporal things... [and thus] the sense of the question of man and his destiny has been lost, that which even pagans had had.
“And so, what happened after this division of the truths of faith and the truths of reason? It happened that theology and metaphysics were eliminated from civil life ... and man, freed to himself began to disown ― already by the Eighteenth Century ― the existence of original sin, when the idea of the Natural Goodness of Man emerges, and selfishness is made the law of nature.
“It is in this manner that such a monstrous thing as is the true revolution against Christ and against the natural order which reflects Him, is proposed; in place of the sense of natural societies, of societies which meet the demands of human nature, confirmed by divine law, as is the family, and the state itself; the political society, the perfect society in the temporal realm is reduced to such a contrived, conventional and histrionic thing which is what it means to convert it into a free association, in the product of a contract and of a convention.”
“Little by little, everything has been subordinated to the human will; little by little, man has set himself up as the starting point, as the absolute beginning, even in the order of the religious, thus the infinite variations of Protestantism; in the philosophical order, the infinite variations of subjectivism, of idealism, of immanentism in all of its forms; and, in the political order, everything is to be subjected to that liberty, to that absolute principle which man has proclaimed himself to be. The family is to become a contract, social classes to become conventions of interests, of coincidences, of group interests, of parties, and so on. Little by little, all things which refer to God, which signify the Divine Word, Creator, and Redeemer, are being torn down, all distinctions, all hierarchies, are being suppressed. And then comes the confusion of all creeds, all creeds become equally and relatively valid, all thoughts and all opinions become equally valid or invalid, and the societies where man has to conduct his life and develop his personality are also conventions and arbitrarinesses...”
Then Professor Genta quotes the famous tract “On the Community of Goods”, written in 1535 by the great Spanish humanist, Juan Luis Vives: “In other times, in Germany, matters of piety were constituted in such a manner that they maintained themselves stable in the most agreeable quietude. But someone turned up who dared to discuss some of those matters, moderately and timidly at first, but very soon openly, not only to dispute about them but to deny them, suppress them or reject them, displaying so much security with respect to many of them as though the objector had descended from heaven knowing God's secret designs or as though it was just a matter of sewing a shoe or a dress.... From the discrepancy of opinions, discord of life arose, and then, those who had aroused the war in the false name of liberty and most unjust equality of inferiors with superiors were succeeded by those that requested and demanded no longer such equality but the community of all goods”
When the barbarous notion of the Bible's free examination, and this began to apply to all orders of life ― in accordance with Vives' words quoted by Professor Genta ― many bloody popular mutinies arose among the sectarians, with most cruelty on both sides, which terrified Luther, since even though he had first incited the common people with his free examination, he then retracted himself, inciting the Princes to impose a very violent bloody repression.
On November 24, 1959, in one of his private philosophy classes, Professor Genta said: “There is a perfect continuity between Luther, Descartes, and Kant, the philosopher of secularism, of the secularization of life... Luther begins by saying that “reason does not truly grasp the spiritual”, proposition continued one century later by Descartes, who was a Catholic but molded in the Suarist spirit, reaching the conclusion of the total uselessness of speculative reason; to reconcile his catholicism with Lutheranism, he would say that he was not so bold as to think about God....and that it was necessary to substitute scholastic speculation with a practice that makes it possible to know the functions of the soul through the body ... in other words, that everything has sprung forth from mathematical physics... In consequence, in the realm of science and of praxis we have the progression of secularism and modernism both derived from Protestantism. This idea, that everything ends in the use of things, this exaltation of the praxis is nothing but the ultimate consequence of the religious rebellion against the fixedness and unity of Truth. Shattered this unity of the Truth, from which all other truths derive, we would arrive at materialism.
“Luther severed reason from faith, radically denigrating human reason (that thing which makes us be in the likeness of our Creator). He then despised Church authority...but “The doctrine of Truth requires the Cathedra of Unity”, said Saint Augustine. Disregarding this Cathedra, Luther did away with the unity of reason, of interpretation. Luther is an opinion giver and behind him are a multitude of opinion givers... throwing himself into the multiplicity. Dionysius said that multiplicity always participates in unity for being to occur. Where that multiplicity cannot refer itself to the unity of being, chaos results. The character of the multiple is participating of the one... Free examination applied to divine matters is communism ... Luther put himself above Peter´s Cathedra. What equality is not to be reclaimed after this one? What is interesting is the levelling of judgment in the interpretation of God´s Word; the latter disappears amidst the opinions.
This is how the learned English historian, R. H. Tawney, (Religion in the Origin of Capitalism) commented: “Above all,the peasant war, with its emotive appeal to the Gospel and its tremendous catastrophe, not only terrified Luther, moving him to declare: 'To him one who can in this way attack, bite, strangle or stab, in secret or in public... so marvellous are these times, that a prince can make himself worthy of heaven, better by shedding blood than by elevating his prayers to God...' and in one of his public writings, inciting the mob: 'it is licit to use all kinds of arms against the Pope and the Cardinals, and wash our hands in their blood' (cited by Father Hartmann Grisar in a book which is indispensable to understand Protestantism; 'Martín Lutero, su vida y su obra' ed. Victoriano Suárez, Madrid.― English edition: 'Martin Luther, his life and work' Arthur Preuss, editor,
Luther's hate of the Pope broke out like a plague when his pride rejected the just condemnatory sentence of his work and his polemics. In one of his writings he says “(Catholic) hierarchy should be suppressed, and civil power (the Protestant German princes) has power over her... such secular authority power should be exercised against the priests, the bishops, and the Pope”... in that way instituting the right of the State to act against the Church... So much is this so, that “in reality, the Prince Elector, John of Saxony, has been the true patron of Lutheranism,and the true promoter of the progress of Protestantism...” (page 235)
It happened then that Luther could only rest on the power of the princes, the State church becoming a necessity.
“Ín the early Sixteenth Century”, wrote Father Castellani in a tremendous book, Cristo y los Fariseos (Jauja ed. page 20) [Christ and the Pharisees] “If half of Europe ended up following and embracing the religious rebellion it was because all Europe was sunk in the greatest religious crisis in world's history ― the one before last. Phariseeism was about to drown religion. Externalities devoured the faith... But Protestantism did not remedy the wrong but made it worse.” Protestantism took on popular indignation against 'indugences´, protested, handed the sects over to the public power, kept on protesting, and left it at that; “to live protesting is not a religious ideal”. It is a negative way of trying to survive. Handing the sects over to the princes became graver to such a degree, that Protestantism is nowadays a religion manipulated by the State.
Despite that, Protestants and ´progressive´ Catholics hypocritically criticize these days what they call the ´Constantinian' Church since they argue that it was subjected to the State. This was not so, it is simply another lie with which they think they can satisfy their 'Jehova'; to lie for a 'lofty' cause as Luther asserted. What is fundamental of this attitude is that they intend to separate the State from the Church in a Catholic country, which is the same as to degrade the State to atheism, to atheistic humanism, leaving it defenseless, with no soul, a field propitious for them to appropriate it and to sow their discord... . This political manoeuvre to separate the Church from Catholic states, repudiating their religious traditions, is used by them to better introduce themselves in equal terms, by means of the promoted freedom of conscience and freedom of worship, creating spiritual chaos, and even, waiting for a propitious opportunity to assault the State and convert the country into a Protestant colony.
Paradoxically, it has been demonstrated historically that these Protestants without moral scruples, lacking seriousness, maintain their sects under the sponsorship of their respective governments; in the same way as Luther survived turning himself over to the ambitious and irreligious hands of John of Saxony, They rejected the spiritual power of the Pope, to surrender to the political power of the princes and of the oligarchy. Denying Christ´s reign over the souls, they promote the totalitarian, secular State, Marxist, or masonic, with the churches subjected, the same way as they are in the Protestant States.
The Corrupt Henry VIII, wielding greater religious powers than the Pope;
and Archbishop Cranmer´s hatred.The immorality into which Henry VIII fell is so well known, we think it is not necessary to repeat it here, but I must highlight some political and religious consequences of his reign, to refute some of the falsities which Protestants argue against the Church. Exactly the same thing happened in England as in Germany and in Geneva; Protestantism, separated from Rome, was converted into the State's religion; new, secular law was imposed, thanks to which Henry VIII (the king) was, without qualification, immediately designated Head of the Church of England, as later were all the succeeding kings, both in spiritual as well as temporal matters, and was the last resort to appeal on all ecclesiastical matters. In another article, we shall see the consequences of the airs of infallibility, on all orders of life, of the Yankee protestant pastors and theologians. The English Parliament, as is to be supposed, recorded this stunning innovation (in 1534) turning it into law within England. A sworn oath of loyalty to the royal supremacy was exacted from the bishops and members of monasteries. It was almost unanimously accepted” (H. Belloc, 'How the Reformation Happened')
Tawney in his quoted book denounces that Protestantism in England was saturated of an almost servile dependence on secular authorities, and that “in the Sixteenth Century the Church turned into an ecclesiastical department of the State (i.e. of the Crown), and religion was used to give moral sanction to secular policy... clerics were at the same time public officials, and the Parish was also subordinated to the King... canon law was nationalized, leaving it in the hands of citizens who acted under the Crown's authority”... and so on and so forth,
Despite the fact that Henry VIII “in his character and in his faith was deeply Catholic”, at least until defecting in front of skirts; Belloc affirms that he “broke with Rome influenced by Thomas Cromwell, a man indifferent to the national consequences as long as he could fill his pockets (Belloc 'Cómo Aconteció la Reforma” pág. 88 'How the Reformation Happened') He was a usurer and usurped a fortune which gave origin to his family´s predominance in politics until a century later emerged his descendant, the nefarious Oliver Cromwell.
Pillage, primordial characteristic of English policy, culminated, as is well known, stealing the property of the Church to enrich the noblemen and keep them under political power. W. Sombart, in “Lujo y Capitalismo” (ed. G. Dávalos ― in English: “Luxury and Capitalism”) narrates: “At the end of the War of the Two Roses, all but 29 of the houses of the ancient nobility had disappeared, and those that remained were impoverished and in a pitiful situation. The first thing that Henry VIII did was to reintegrate the power and the fortune to these stately houses, subjecting them in that way to the Crown, who from that moment on maintained its undisputed predominance over them.
Confiscation of the property of the Church gave the King the means to carry out this restoration of the nobility.” But to attain better political control, Henry VIII creates numerous new titles; better said, he sells dignities; hundreds of titles were sold during the XVII and XVIII centuries. That is how from behind the counters of the bourgeois merchants emerged the English haughty nobility which considered itself predestined to govern the world. “It is at this time, then, that the power of money begins to make its influence be felt in a notorious way, influence which becomes decisive in the XVIII century”, Defoe says “Commerce is so far from being incompatible with the gentleman, that without circumventions commerce in England makes gentlemen: because after one or two generations the sons of merchants, or at least their grandsons, become as perfect gentlemen as those of the highest cradle or those of the most ancient families.” (page 28)
But in addition to subjecting Protestantism as State religion, which from then on it would be the characteristic relationship between the two, the substitution of the Holy Mass by the Protestant Meal was consummated by Archbishop Cramner. In Si Si No No of March 2014 I read an interesting article commenting Michael Davies' book “The Anglican Liturgical Reformation”, an important work because it makes us understand that the creation of the Anglican Meal was introduced in England in a stealthy way, with ambiguous texts and implicit heresies, so as not to frighten the faithful which passed inadvertently to the educated few. To achieve this end, Anglicanism imposed a book, insignificant in appearance, the Book of Common Prayer, the character of which was so prodigiously ambiguous that the 'conservatives' would accept it without the 'progressives' rejecting it.
The arguments adduced by Davies are impressing [...] Cramner was a crypto-Lutheran and already had been married under the reign of Henry VIII; the King named him Archbishop of Canterbury; the Pope excommunicated him for having declared Henry VIII´s marriage with Ann Boleyn valid [...] But as Henry VIII would not have permitted entry of heresy in his kingdom, Cramner waited until the reign of Eduard VI, “and began to protestantize the nation, transforming the cult in a Lutheran way” [...]; Cramner “conceived the audacious purpose of modifying the faith of the English people radically, resorting only to the transformation of the liturgy, In accordance with the lex orandi, lex credendi axiom, liturgy is, in effect, the faith prayed. If the way of praying is changed, the faith also mutates. In England the unforeseen and en masse change of an entire people had not as its principal cause the preaching of a reformer, as was the case of Luther in Germany or Calvin in Switzerland, because Cramner judged that through liturgy he would change mentalities with greater effectiveness than by means of any sermon [...]; but little by little he eliminated sixteen prayers from the Catholic Missal to erase the idea of satisfactory and propitiatory sacrifice [These omissions are perfectly described in Hugh Ross Williamson´s Historical Summary of the Introduction of Protestantism in England” “Resumen Histórico de la Introducción del Protestantismo en Inglaterra” published in Spanish in www.statveritas,com.ar] Cramner was successful, eliminated Catholicism in England in an inconceivable way, achieving an almost general apostasy, affirmed definitively during Elizabeth's reign: Catholics who perceived the heretical change and resisted were savagely martyred and murdered by the protestant Inquisition. Without the Church, without the Holy Mass, England was left in the impious hands of the 'predestined Jehova's saints', which went on building the imperialism that devastated the world.
A parenthesis: Davies article also demonstrates that the creation of the Novus Ordo Mass by Paul VI, the crypto Lutheran mass of 1969 was a masterful move, since it is similar to Cramner's Protestant Meal in a scandalous way, as was denounced by so many priests. Then the anti-modernist environment's erosion was secured with the indult given by John Paul II in 1984, and lastly, with Benedict XVI the Roman Apostolic Rite is intended to be bastardized by mixing it with the Novus Ordo, to attain a third most novel mass.” The method employed by Vatican II was similar: write ambiguous texts which may be interpreted in one way or another, creating confusion, bewilderment, and perplexity, which is how modernism enters.
Concluding this rough sketch I quote this paragraph from Vicente Sierra´s “Historia de la Argentina”, demonstrating that Anglicanism appealed to blood and fire against those who did not accept its heresy: “England's Henry VIII, in the space of thirty-eight years, sent to death two queens, two cardinals, two archbishops, eighteen bishops, thirteen abbots, five hundred priors and monks, thirty-eight doctors, twelve dukes and counts, hundred and sixty-four gentlemen, hundred and twenty-four plain citizens and hundred and ten plain women”
(To be continued)