It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Vatican II affirms Catholic doctrine dating back to 1302, when Pope Boniface VIII asserted that “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” This was the inspiration for the papacy to create the United States of America that materialized in 1776 , by a process just as secret as the Reagan-Vatican production of Eastern Europe in 1989. What? American government Roman Catholic from the beginning?
In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
The title of the book has nothing to do with his profession, which was being a Presbyterian minister.
The title of the book demonstrates that he was not merely a Protestant historian, but that he was an anti-Catholic.
Here's how it works. Go read Hitchcock's book that I noted, and then we can talk about it. We can talk about the manner in which he portrays evils done by the Catholic Church, we can talk about how he treats the church's opponents, including Luther. But in the vacuum of you dismissing a highly acclaimed, comprehensive history of the church, simply because it was written by someone employed at St. Louis University, there is nothing to talk about.
I dismiss Wylie's work because I've read it and it's garbage, points of utter nonsense sourced from polemics and repeated to further an anti-Catholic agenda. Is the whole work worthless? Of course not, but when someone has a clear agenda, the text that serves that agenda needs to be dismissed in favour of less biased sources.
What he is quoting is yet another anti-Jesuit polemic.
A non-credible source does not gain credibility by citing other non-credible sources.
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
Hi Pot, So lovely of you to call one kind and gentle soul a piece of work for trying to take this thread to a higher level.
I appreciate my fellow poster's passion and can understand to some degree his hatred for the Church and the Jesuits. Apparently, that same passion has blinded him to what others are saying and what has been written here. It's unfortunate from my point of view, but as I said, understandable. Since the OP's charges have been sufficiently dealt with, unless another poster comes in who is willing to talk about this, may I suggest a slight change in topic to one of these:
I don't think you enjoyed the idea of losing your podium.
I offer you 2 thoughts I had a while back.
1) A heart that carries malice is not a suitable dwelling place for the God who loves all, but the demons will abide happily within it.
2) You don't know really know the meaning of love or the worth of it until you love your enemies.
What say you about these two ideas?
Signed, Kettle whose not afraid of spiritual warfare and knows the difference between that and intelligent discussion.
Pesky little critter, aren't I?
Hope this doesn't make it any worse for you, but I am praying that you are lifted into the midst of the Trinity where you will be filled with the awareness of the God who loves you.
Without knowing what the Jesuits are about, you get one picture, the one that is being deliberately crafted. I freely admit that had I not known the back story, I would be singing his praises. But, like those who are aware of the workings and history of the Church, especially since Vatican II, I find him quite troubling, the veritable wolf in sheep’s clothing.
People are hearing what they want to hear, which is the point, but a close examination brings out a different picture. Believe me, if you poke around, you will find many Catholics who find him deeply troubling, too, especially given the Petrus Romano and Fatima III narratives.
My discussion is not intelligent enough for you then enjoy my silence.
Sounds like the new world order richest jesuit pope has just announced himself as the new world order administrator - in his latest proclamations - he's embraced abortion, homosexuality, islam, athiest, satanist - and everyone else in the world
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
I denote them to be crackpots, because they don't have any valid evidence for their position, they just seem to be universally against the Jesuits.
If you have valid arguments for that position, you are welcome to present them. I am not a Jesuit, so I have no horse in the race.
Sad Eyed Lady,
Thanks for standing up for reason, logic, and the Christian tradition of fairness and respect for our Christian brothers, no matter what their faith.
reply to post by ElohimJD
The Seventh Day Adventists were formed out of the teachings of two failed 19th Century "prophets", William Miller and Ellen White. They have nothing to do with the Inquisition.