David Horowitz Delivers ‘America Betrayed’-How a Christian monk created America and why the Left is determined to destroy her

Frontpagemagazine ^ | May 17, 2024 | Bruce Bawer

[SJackson]

During the last few years, while the American left and its media minions have been presenting clueless consumers with a narrative that’s well-nigh unprecedented in the degree to which it deviates from the truth, David Horowitz, in a series of model books, has been busy setting the record straight. Was Donald Trump’s presidency an exercise in authoritarianism and a threat to our democracy? No, it was an attempt – foiled by his enemies in the deep state – to return the country to its constitutional roots. Was George Floyd a martyr in a nation founded on white supremacism? No, he was a thug who’s been deified by race hustlers out to divide Americans along racial lines. Are corporate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs a necessary measure to redress longtime prejudices and inequities? No, they’re part of a cynical Maoist attempt to compel universal acceptance of an ideology that’s utterly at odds with core American values.

I’ve compared these short volumes – which form a distinctive sequence in Horowitz’s large, storied, and wide-ranging oeuvre – to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and other pamphlets which, in the lead-up to the Declaration of Independence, played a crucial role in setting before the American public the argument for breaking from Britain. Now, in America Betrayed, Horowitz steps back from the present historical moment and from the left’s current menu of mischievous machinations in order to elucidate the origins and essence of the American project – and the long history of malevolent efforts to derail it. Those efforts, as it happens, have repeatedly centered on race, hence Horowitz’s declaration, in his preface, that he “wrote this book to provide a concise, easily digested and accurate history of race in America to serve as an antidote to the hateful lies progressives have promoted about their own country.”

To achieve this end, Horowitz first takes us back to the Protestant Reformation. His subtitle is How a Christian Monk Created America & Why the Left Is Determined to Destroy Her; the monk in question is none other than Martin Luther, whom, despite the fierce antisemitism of Luther’s later years, he has come to admire as a key figure in the back story of America’s founding. I should mention that fans of Horowitz who are also devout Catholics may find this part of the book problematic; but he’s quite simply correct when he describes the Roman Catholic Church of Luther’s time as a deeply corrupt authoritarian institution that, with no biblical warrant, and in defiance of the plain fact that all human beings (even priests, pontiffs, and prophets) are capable of evil, had “elevated the priesthood and the Church to superhuman heights.”

Among other things, the Catholic clergy, in their arrogance, claimed to possess the power to sell salvation itself in the form of “indulgences” – a practice that Horowitz rightly condemns as an “unholy scam.” Taking on this nasty business, Luther “brought the Church to its knees” – an accomplishment that Horowitz compares to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s role in bringing down the Soviet Union – and, translating the Bible into German so that his followers could read the Word of God for themselves, accustomed them to the notions of freedom of conscience, the sanctity of the individual soul, and “the priesthood of all believers.” As Horowitz explains, the United States of America could never have been established – at least in the form that we know it – without a basis in these principles of Luther’s, which by the mid-18th century had come to be embraced by most Christians in northern Europe. To quote from America Betrayed: “The sanctity of the human soul: this is the foundation of all democracy and the nemesis of human tyranny.”

Of course, a generation of young Americans are now being taught – thanks in large part to more recent unholy scams like the New York Times’ mendacious 1619 Project – that their country was, uniquely, built not on the sanctity of the individual but on the evil of slavery, and that the enslavement of Africans was, from the outset, justified by its defenders entirely on the basis of racial superiority. Horowitz shoots down these falsehoods with bullets of truth. For example:

• The institution of slavery, far from being distinctively American, has existed in every time and nation since the dawn of history.

• America inherited slavery from the British, and, in recognition of its inherent evil, banned the slave trade in 1808 – only 21 years after the signing of the Constitution.

• The people who came to America as slaves were captured not by Americans but by their fellow Africans, who then sold them to Europeans.

• Only a tiny percentage of the slaves transported to the Western hemisphere – to say nothing of the even more massive number of slaves who were shipped eastward from Africa – ended up in what is now the United States.

• Slavery in America was “relatively benign,” as demonstrated by the rapid growth (even after the slave trade ended) in America’s slave population.

• At the time of the Civil War there were 500,000 free blacks in the U.S., 3,000 of whom owned slaves – which belies the notion that it was “all about race.”

• Of 2.7 million Union soldiers, 360,000 died in the Civil War. In all history, there is no other example of one race making such sacrifices to free another.

• Slavery still exists today – not in any majority-white country, but in black Africa and the Muslim world.

No, far from being rooted in America’s founding principles, black slavery was, from the beginning, an affront to them. Most of America’s founders recognized this, and knew that one day the slavery question would have to be decided once and for all, probably on the field of battle. Given the number of soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice to end slavery, the 1619 Project’s lies are, as Horowitz puts it, “as malicious as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

To be sure, as in any society where multiple ethnic groups have lived side by side, there have always been ethnic frictions in the U.S. And yes, there has been terrible racism. But it wasn’t as prevalent in the colonial era as it was in the antebellum Republic – especially in the Southern states – in the decades leading up to the Civil War, where defenders of the “peculiar institution,” living in a country founded on freedom and equality, had no argument for their position other than that those principles didn’t apply to black slaves. And why? Because, they maintained, those slaves, by virtue of their race, were by definition unequal, and thus unentitled to freedom. Needless to say, they had a weak case – and an un-American one. What was “distinctly American,” in other words, in the prewar arguments over slavery “was the declaration of equality embraced by the American majority, not the racist defense of slavery by the soon-to-be-defeated slaveholding majority.” Alas, the notion that blacks were naturally subordinate to whites persevered in the South for a century following the Civil War, providing a justification for Jim Crow and, during the presidency of the Virginia-born Woodrow Wilson, for the introduction of Dixie-style racial segregation into the federal government – a policy that was not reversed until World War II.

If the civil-rights movement of the mid-20th century won so much support – and accomplished so much reform so quickly – it was, affirms Horowitz, because the message of freedom and equality preached by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., was consistent with, and indeed firmly rooted in, America’s founding values – and, in turn, in the teachings of Martin Luther. One wonderful detail that Horowitz mentions here came as news to me: King’s father, who, like him, was a Baptist minister, was actually born Michael King, but, after he learned at a conference in Germany about the life and teachings of Martin Luther, he changed his name to Martin Luther King.

Thanks to Dr. King’s approach, the transformation of race relations in America during the second half of the 20th century was nothing short of miraculous. Dr. King had called for America to “live out the full meaning of its creed” – and it did. Yet in the 1960s and afterwards, even as racial prejudice was steadily diminishing on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line, race hustlers were stepping up their efforts to sow division. Jews had played an outsized role in the civil-rights movement, but hatemongers like Stokely Carmichael (aka Kwame Ture) and Louis Farrakhan depicted Jews as devils. And in the 21st century, the Democratic Party, which had been the home of the KKK, reaffirmed its role as the “party of racial divisions” (Horowitz’s apt phrase) by embracing the tribalist – and explicitly Marxist – movement known as Black Lives Matter.

It goes without saying that Barack Obama would never have been elected (and re-elected) president if America had not overcome the blight of racism. But once ensconced in the Oval Office, he spoke of racism as America’s founding sin and of black slavery as if it had been a uniquely American evil. No surprise there: Obama was a devout disciple of the pernicious political theorist Saul Alinsky, who in books like Rules for Radicals preached that mankind is divided into oppressors and oppressed, and that the radical’s job is to drag down the former and empower the latter. During Obama’s presidency, the toxic notion of America as a “white supremacist” nation in which the oppressors had always been white and the oppressed always black became nothing less than establishment orthodoxy. So it is that those of us who reject this premise are now faced with the daunting task of somehow returning America to its senses, to its values – to itself.

By turns infuriating and inspiring, America Betrayed is a masterpiece of concision, tracing the American idea – the real American idea – from its Protestant roots to the present day with remarkable precision and clarity. Horowitz’s preface alone is full of sentences that should be carved in stone somewhere:

• “Given the prejudices and bigotries that are endemic to human beings of all races, Americans can be proud of their racial past and its contribution to human freedom, and especially the freedom of African Americans.”

• “Three hundred and sixty thousand mainly white Union soldiers sacrificed their lives to free black Africans enslaved by their brothers.”

• “From America’s inception there was always a white movement of dedicated abolitionists, many of whom were willing to give their lives to win freedom for all blacks. There never was a successful revolt by the slaves themselves. If white Americans had been universally racist as leftists maintain, blacks in America would still be slaves. Instead, thanks to the sacrifices of white Americans, they are the most prosperous, most privileged, and free-est blacks in the world today, including all of black Africa and the West Indies.”

It’s fascinating, moreover, to learn about what the author refers to as his own youthful “flirtations” with Christianity. A lifelong secular Jew, Horowitz was nonetheless, for a time, a “Christian romantic.” During his second year of college, he was permitted to deliver a sermon at a Lutheran church in which he discussed Oscar Wilde’s short story “The Happy Prince,” which, in Horowitz’s view, “captured the Christian message.” Horowitz calls Wilde’s story “poignant,” and I found this anecdote itself quite poignant, because it captures something of what makes Horowitz stand out from all other conservative intellectuals of his generation. Which of them, after all, can you imagine as a 1950s college kid, preaching from a Lutheran pulpit about a story by Oscar Wilde, of all people? This passage, along with a handful of other autobiographical references, imbue America Betrayed with an affecting personal touch that makes it seem at times less similar to one of his potent political jeremiads of recent vintage and more reminiscent of his pithy meditative volumes with titles like A Point in Time. It is, in any event, a gem of a book, and should be read by everyone who’s been swayed by the left’s loathsome lies about race in America.

[vladimir998]

“Did you read it? It said claimed.”

And that’s still a lie from the author of the above article. The Church never once claimed such a thing. You’re helping prove my point.

[ifinnegan]

“ And that’s still a lie from the author of the above article. The Church never once claimed such a thing. You’re helping prove my point.”

That’s a separate question.

[vladimir998]

“Suggested reading:”

Right back at ya’ :

https://www.catholic.com/tract/myths-about-indulgences

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Guide-Indulgences-Rediscovering-Often-Misinterpreted/dp/1595250247

And unless you’ve read this, you really have no idea of what you’re talking about: https://archive.org/details/MN42034ucmf_5/page/n1/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater

I read it nearly 30 years ago. Made me realize how many lies we’re told in a Protestant country.

[vladimir998]

“That’s a separate question.”

Separate question or not - it still shows the author is wrong. It also shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[metmom]

I figured this thread would bring out the Protestant haters.
Luther = *the most evil men of all time*?

Talk about eye rolling.

There are far too many popes in Catholic history that make him look like a rank amateur for allegedly practicing evil. Exposing the wrongs and abuses of a tyrannical religious organization is not *evil*. Neither is translating Scripture into the common language. Or calling for the cleaning up the corruption and immorality of the clergy.

The thing Catholics hate him for is exposing the evil and corruption of their religion.

The Catholic fall back excuse or explanation for everything wrong the Catholic religion does is that it was already technically prohibited, condemned, whatever by the church while completely ignoring the fact that was was going on in practice makes the technicality of *official position* meaningless.

It’s irrelevant that the church *officially* condemned the selling of indulgences when they still do it.

It’s irrelevant that Catholicism *officially* condemns homosexuality and will not *officially* ordain homosexuals as priests with they do it anyway.

It’s irrelevant that Catholicism condemns abortion and support of it and refuses to ex-communicate those who do.

If they refuse to act in accordance with *official* teaching or policy then they don’t really believe it.

[ealgeone]

Vlad, ol’buddy.....how ya been?

[Elsie]

I tried to stay outta this thread...

the monk in question is none other than Martin Luther

---

Well, if ya gotta hate someone, might as well latch onto the last guy to poke a stick at you!

---

Before Martin Luther and John Calvin, some leaders tried to reform Christianity. The main forerunners of the Protestant Reformation were Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe and Jan Hus.^[4] 

Martin Luther himself saw it important to have forerunners of his views, and thus he praised people like Girolamo Savonarola, Lorenzo Valla, Wessel Gansfort and other groups as prefiguring some of his views.^{[5][6][7][8][9]}

 

Proto-Protestantism - Wikipedia

[Elsie]

“Among other things, the Catholic clergy, in their arrogance, claimed to possess the power to sell salvation itself in the form of “indulgences”

I, like you, just HATE it when stuff like this is exposed for the world to see!

 

Ambrose: …constantly pray ‘Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its KEYS.

Anselm: It suffices, O Lady, that thou willest it, and our SALVATION is certain.

Antoninus: …souls protected by Mary, and on which she casts her eyes, are NECESSARILY JUSTIFIED AND SAVED. 

Athanasius: …And, thou, O Lady, wast filled with grace, that thou mightiest be the way of our SALVATION and the means of ascent to the heavenly Kingdom.

Bernadine: …all gifts, all virtues, and all graces are dispensed by the hands of Mary to whomsoever, when, and as she pleases. O Lady, since thou art the dispenser of all graces, and since the grace of salvation can ONLY come through thy hands, OUR SALVATION DEPENDS ON THEE.

(Leo XIII: Adiutricem populi, September 5, 1895) — [p. 19, no. 44]

Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.

Bonaventure: …the gates of heaven will open to all who confide in the protection of Mary. Blessed are they who know thee, O Mother of God, for the knowledge of THEE is the high road to everlasting life, and the publication of thy virtues is the way of ETERNAL SALVATION . Give ear, O ye nations; and all you who desire heaven , serve, honor Mary, and certainly you will find ETERNAL LIFE.

She says, "He that shall find Me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord.   "Qui me invenerit, inveniet vitam, et hauriet salutem a Domino."

Listen," exclaims St. Bonaventure on these words, "listen, all you who desire the kingdom of God: honor the most Blessed Virgin Mary, and you will find life and eternal salvation."  "Audite qui ingredi cupitis regnum Dei: Virginem Mariam honorate, et invenietis vitam et salutem perpetuam."-psalt. B.V.ps.48.

 

Ephem: …devotion to the divine Mother…is the unlocking of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Fulgetius: …by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by HER man might ascend from earth to Heaven.

Guerric: …he who serves Mary and for whom she intercedes, is as CERTAIN of heaven as if he were already there…and those who DO NOT serve Mary will NOT BE SAVED.

Richard of Laurence: Mary, in fine, is the mistress of heaven; for there she commands as she wills, and ADMITS whom she wills.

 

“The Catholic Church has always and with justice put all her hope and trust in the Mother of God.”

(Leo XIII: Encyclical, Supreme Apostolatus, September 1, 1883.) — [p. 32, no. 104]

“... Yet our manner of praying to the Blessed Virgin has something in common with our worship of God so that the Church even addressed to her the words with which we pray to God: ‘Have mercy on sinners.’”

(Leo XIII: Encyclical, Augustissimae, September 12, 1897.) [p. 68; no. 302]

---

---

"Only She Can Help You"
by Father Nicholas Gruner, S.T.L., S.T.D. (Cand.)
In this letter introducing The Fatima Crusader Issue 38, Father Gruner discusses the growing lies and deception about Russia's errors and the consecration of that nation. He also reminds us that, while it is urgent that we be informed about and fight for Our Lady's cause, we must ask for Her help and intercession.

 

Mary Leads Her Servants to Heaven
by St. Alphonsus de Liguori
In this article taken from The Glories of Mary, Saint Alphonsus explains that there are countless souls in Heaven who are there now only because Mary, by Her powerful intercession, led them there. If a soul persists in true devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, She will certainly lead that soul to Heaven.

 

---

---

The Rosary
by Father Stefano Manelli, S.T.D.
It is greatly important that Our Lady insisted on the Rosary. When at Fatima She spoke of the salvation of sinners, of the ruin of souls in hell, of wars and peace, and of the future of our age. Our Lady indicated and recommended the Rosary as the prayer that saves, that brings peace, that preserves the faith.

Hail Mary, Full of Grace
by Father Stefano Manelli, S.T.D.
It is truly a treasure to have a strong devotion to Our Lady, for it is She who unites us to Jesus and brings us to Heaven, as this article explains.

Mary, Our Life, Our Sweetness, Our Hope
by St. Alphonsus de Liguori
St. Alphonsus de Liguori explains how Mary is our life, how She is our sweetness, and how She is our hope.

The historical record of the worship of Mary accumulated by St. Alphonsus de Liguori who wrote “The Glories of Mary” in the year 1745, which has been since translated into English and printed again and again and again with the full affirmation and imprimatur of the official Roman Catholic Church.  In this book there is the sum of all the glories of Mary which has been vouchsafe to the Roman Catholic Church and the Church itself calls upon all its constituents to give Mary that honor she is due.  She is identified as Mary, our Queen; Mary, our mother; Mary, our life; Mary, our sweetness; Mary, our hope; Mary, our help; Mary, our Mediatress; Mary, our advocate; Mary, our guardian; and Mary, our salvation.  It is said that Mary delivers us from hell, Mary delivers us from purgatory, and Mary leads us to heaven.  And it should be said that de Liguori, who collected all the Marion dogma and devotion, was himself one of the most celebrated and revered authorities in the Roman Catholic Church.  De Liguori was himself a cardinal in life, and a saint in death.

 

Jesus said "Without Me you can do nothing". In this crisis which looms ahead of us, Our Lady has told us that we need Her help, Her intercession. We must ask for Her help with the Rosary and the Scapular.

At Fatima, Our Lady told us very plainly that "Only I can help you". Today more than ever is this so true.

Pray the Rosary and sacrifice yourself for Our Lady.

I urge you to also make some sacrifices as Our Lady of Fatima asked us. For those who are able, do some fasting. If you can, abstain from meat by eating meat only during one meal a day. Try to do this for two days, even ten days or 30 days. Of course we should abstain totally from meat every Friday.

 

 Jesus and Mary — Our Hope

It is so urgent that we reach as many souls as possible before it is too late. Let us be of good cheer and remember the words of Jesus to each of us, "It's never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary." That is why it is so important to reach the many millions of souls who do not know this, and who do not know the grave dangers lying in wait for their souls.

No, we must never lose hope. Mary is our hope. She can obtain for us what we cannot by ourselves. Read what St. Alphonsus has to say regarding confidence in Our Lady's intercession in "Mary Leads Her Servants to Heaven". Father Manelli also reminds us of the importance of devotion to Our Lady. (See "Hail Mary, Full of Grace"). Our Blessed Mother tells us to turn to Her in confidence. She tells us repeatedly to ask Her intercession through the frequent fervent praying of the Rosary. (See "The Rosary"). She tells us we must pray the Rosary every day. She wants us to pray it many times a day.

 

http://fatima.org/crusader/cr38/cr38pg2.asp

---

---

"Blessed is he whose interior offers the Blessed Virgin Mary a place of repose." Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin remains in all who are the inheritance of Our Lord; that is to say, in all who will praise Him eternally in Heaven.

O, how many blessed souls are now in Heaven who would never have been there had not Mary, by Her powerful intercession, led them thither. I made that in the heavens there should rise light that never faileth. Cardinal Hugo, in his commentary on the above text of Ecclesiasticus, says in the name of Mary, "I have caused as many saints in Heaven through Her intercession, who would never have been there but through Her ."

...in the words of St. Ambrose, "Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since Thou hast its keys." "Aperi nobis, O Virgo coelum, cujus claves habes." Nay more, the Church says, that "Thou art its gate." 

 

---

 

St. Antoninus tells us "that this divine Mother has already, by Her assistance and prayers, obtained Heaven for us, provided we put no obstacle in the way."23

Hence, says Abbot Guerric, "he who serves Mary, and for whom She intercedes, is as certain of Heaven as if he was already there."24

St. John Damascene also says, "that to serve Mary and be Her courtier is the greatest honor we can possibly possess; for to serve the Queen of Heaven is already to reign there, and live under Her commands is more than to govern."25

On the other hand, he adds, "that those who do not serve Mary will not be saved; for those who are deprived of the help of this great Mother are also deprived of that of Her Son and of the whole court of heaven."26

 23.  "Coeleste nobis regnum, suo interventu auxiliis, et precibus, impetravit."—Paciucch. Sup. Salve Reg. exc. I.
 24. "Qui Virgini famulatur, ita securus est de paradiso, ac si esset in paradiso."
 25. "Summus honor, servire Mariæ, et de ejus esse familia; etenim ei servire, regnare est; et ejus agi frænis, summa libertas."
 26. "Gens quæ non servierit illi, peribit; gentes destitutæ tantæ Matris auxilio, destituuntur auxilio Filii et totius curi’‘ coelestis."— De Laud. B. M. I. 4.

Cardinal Hugo http://fatima.org/crusader/cr38/cr38pg3.asp 

 

 

 

[Elsie]

St. John Damascene also says,

"that to serve Mary and be Her courtier is the greatest honor we can possibly possess;
for to serve the Queen of Heaven is already to reign there,
and live under Her commands is more than to govern."

[Elsie]

“It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’

 

“It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’

 

 For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’

 

 

 

(I'm sensing a theme here...)

 

 

[JesusIsLord]

Back at ya

The following is from a reviewer of the Amazon book you cited. Unlike the book, the reviewer cites history not Catholic apologia:

"Based on Simple Historical Error Reviewed in the United States on September 11, 2010 Though many non-Catholics might well do a double-take when they see the words "Modern Guide" and "Indulgences" in the same title, it is well to consider that our cultural moment, vis-a-vis the billion or so Catholics in the world. cannot be understood without them. As with so many aspects of Catholic praxis historically, a lot of work by diligent intellectuals has gone into presenting it in the most palatable light in the modern world. The extent of that diligence may surprise some, but not those who watch the trends of Catholic intellectual life with a wary eye. One of the most salient trends has been what can only be called a historically fantastical one. No person of goodwill wants to limit others' beliefs per se. But in our shared cultural-intellectual world it is reasonable to expect a basic intellectual honesty in what purports to be serious scholarship. On one of the most central issues pertaining to indulgences this book contains simply false information. That is, it is false within the implied assumption of the book: Namely, that there is continuity between of modern beliefs on indulgences and their long history in Western culture. This is an important level of focus. Once again, if modern Catholics one to believe and define their ideas now in particular way it is no one else's business to stop them. But it is quite another thing to present their current understanding as if it were congruent with our long shared history of Western development, in which the Catholic Church of course played a very definitive role. Here is a crucial case in point that clinches this matter. After an introduction by a professor named Fastiggi treating the history of Indulgences and in every way evincing that there is such a continuity between current understanding and the past, the author Edward Peters really enters into the realm of sheer historical fantasy and revision. He says the following on p. 13, "Indulgences are applied only to sins that have been forgiven so that there should be no misunderstanding that indulgences "'let people off' without admitting that they have done something wrong and seeking forgiveness for it..." Now, I don't think that one even needs to be a devoted scholar of religious or even general cultural history to see the pure error in this when applied to the matter as part of the historical understanding of the Roman Catholic Church. Once again, if this is what Catholics want to believe now that is fine. But to present this idea as if it were the view that generally obtained historically -- and what other conclusion can one draw after the didactic historical introduction of Fastiggi- -is pure nonsense and an insult to even basically educated people. There is simply no question historically that, on the whole, the view of indulgences that obtained everywhere was the reverse. Indulgences were so enormously profitable precisely because, inter alia, they did forgive sins that had not officially been forgiven. This dovetails very well with the cultural phenomenon of rising scrupulosity in the general climate of the age leading up to the Reformation. People were simply worried about being condemned for sins they had simply forgotten to seek forgiveness for. One marvels that the author, Edward Peters, can assert this when it a simple fact of historical detail of the general history of the Reformation no less, either from a Catholic or Protestant perspective! And the wan mention by Fastiggi that there were "abuses' hardly gives anything like accurate focus. This matter is not a subject of debate amongst historians. This error is so great that one can only assume that it is part of a more sad general trend amongst Catholic intellectuals. The effort to simply rewrite their own history, and to do so by establishing their own quasi-intelligentsia to do it. But this is not a matter of religious freedom. It is a matter of historical responsibility. If books like these are to function at the same level as silly perfervid blogs, with sheer propagandistic intent then that should be an alert for those outside the Catholic world. The alert tells us that what is being undertaken is simple violence to the facts of our shared cultural history. That is simply an unforgeable sin in scholarship."

[vladimir998]

You’re ignorant about the subject and now you’re (once again) relying on someone else who is grossly ignorant about the subject. Let me show you.

You said: “The following is from a reviewer of the Amazon book you cited. Unlike the book, the reviewer cites history not Catholic apologia”

You either don’t know what “cites history” means or you’re outright gaslighting people here. If he’s citing history, then he should be actually citing documents, specific events, naming specific people, and citing dates of incidents. Does he do any of that? NO!

Here’s an example of just how ignorant and duplicitous the reviewer is. I’ll go through this long passage a few sentences at a time:

“Here is a crucial case in point that clinches this matter. After an introduction by a professor named Fastiggi treating the history of Indulgences and in every way evincing that there is such a continuity between current understanding and the past, the author Edward Peters really enters into the realm of sheer historical fantasy and revision. He says the following on p. 13, “Indulgences are applied only to sins that have been forgiven so that there should be no misunderstanding that indulgences “’let people off’ without admitting that they have done something wrong and seeking forgiveness for it...””

The reviewer makes a real blunder here and you apparently aren’t aware enough to notice. First of all, it is clear the reviewer has an agenda - and it has nothing to do with historical accuracy. Secondly, and this is my real point here, the reviewer makes the mistake of assuming that because there is historical continuity concerning indulgences in general (and there is) that that would mean historical continuity about a specific kind of abuse of indulgences (and there isn’t). I can understand why an ignorant person would make this mistake. An ignorant person would not only not know about history, but about clear thinking and logic as well.

The moron continued:

“Now, I don’t think that one even needs to be a devoted scholar of religious or even general cultural history to see the pure error in this when applied to the matter as part of the historical understanding of the Roman Catholic Church.”

The ignorant moron literally just undercut himself by insisting that someone didn’t have to be knowledgeable when he just made a blunder because he isn’t knowledgeable.

“Once again, if this is what Catholics want to believe now that is fine. But to present this idea as if it were the view that generally obtained historically...”

And it was “generally obtained historically precisely because that was what the arrangements were. In other words, when people preached what they should have, there was no issue. Were there unscrupulous people? Yes, on both sides even, but when what was supposed to be done was done it was clear what the teachings were.

“... — and what other conclusion can one draw after the didactic historical introduction of Fastiggi- -is pure nonsense and an insult to even basically educated people.”

But as we see, the reviewer doesn’t even have a basic education - at least he’s not showing it.

“There is simply no question historically that, on the whole, the view of indulgences that obtained everywhere was the reverse.”

Actually the historical evidence goes against what the moron just said there. All you have to do is read the historical records about indulgences being preached in towns and the huge number of confessions that took place so people could participate in those indulgences to know this is true. We see a similar thing in parishes that preach boldly about Divine Mercy Sunday - there are more confessions in the preceding week.

“Indulgences were so enormously profitable precisely because, inter alia, they did forgive sins that had not officially been forgiven.”

Except that that wasn’t case - and historical records make this plain. Indulgences were “profitable” because they were regarded as such a blessing. Remember, indulgences really got their start as a way to encourage people to go on crusade. There was no money involved whatsoever. Yet people heartily embraced the indulgence at risk of their own life because it was considered such a blessing. See Paulas, chapter 6. (In that one citation I literally cited more historians that prove my point than the moron reviewer that you’re relying on to fail at proving yours).

Remember, the moron doesn’t cite a single historical text, incident, or person in what you posted here while attacking those who did. Who is more believable.

[metmom]

The Queen of Heaven is mentioned twice in Scripture and both times in reference to Ashtoreth.

Who is the Queen of Heaven?

https://www.gotquestions.org/Queen-of-Heaven.html

Jeremiah 7:16-20 “As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you. Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. Is it I whom they provoke? declares the Lord. Is it not themselves, to their own shame? Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, my anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, upon man and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched.”

Jeremiah 44:16-25 “As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the Lord, we will not listen to you. But we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our officials, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no disaster. But since we left off making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.” And the women said, “When we made offerings to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands' approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?”

Then Jeremiah said to all the people, men and women, all the people who had given him this answer: “As for the offerings that you offered in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, you and your fathers, your kings and your officials, and the people of the land, did not the Lord remember them? Did it not come into his mind? The Lord could no longer bear your evil deeds and the abominations that you committed. Therefore your land has become a desolation and a waste and a curse, without inhabitant, as it is this day. It is because you made offerings and because you sinned against the Lord and did not obey the voice of the Lord or walk in his law and in his statutes and in his testimonies that this disaster has happened to you, as at this day.”

Jeremiah said to all the people and all the women, “Hear the word of the Lord, all you of Judah who are in the land of Egypt. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: You and your wives have declared with your mouths, and have fulfilled it with your hands, saying, ‘We will surely perform our vows that we have made, to make offerings to the queen of heaven and to pour out drink offerings to her.’ Then confirm your vows and perform your vows!

God clearly condemns worship of the queen of heaven because it's worship to a demonic entity.

Catholics assigning this title to Mary are essentially admitting they are worshipping a demonic entity and thus putting themselves under God's judgment.

They need to think things through before running off willy-nilly with stuff they like the sound of.

[metmom]

He says the following on p. 13, "Indulgences are applied only to sins that have been forgiven so that there should be no misunderstanding that indulgences "'let people off' without admitting that they have done something wrong and seeking forgiveness for it..."

If the sin is already forgiven, then there is simply no need for an indulgence.

It's so absurd on the face that indulgences were for already forgiven sins, that nobody with two functioning brains cells could believe that claim.

[dangus]

Thanks. I used to write much more about this sort of stuff on FR. Check out my profile for my more extensive articles.

[dangus]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You just mindlessly parroted every left-wing revolutionary know-nothing!!!

>> puhleeze.... do you ever wonder how the Kennedys have had all their marriages “annulled” hahahahahaha... or how the pederasts and manipulators have tried to destroy the Roman Catholic Church.... <<

This sounds like “Well, if the Earth is round, why do balloons go up.” The existence of corruption says nothing about annulment... or just about any other theological issue.

>> The Vatican has more land and wealth than most countries but still shills for cash and is used by communists as a front to manipulate governments. <<

For this to make any sense, you have to be as stone-cold ignorant about the stucture of the Church as a 13th-century peasant, and the Church has to have the temporal power it had in the 13th century.

The sheer stupidity of the discourse about this is amazing. One source claims that the Church owns 177,000 acres. The next source citing this comes up with 177,000 square miles, which is the size of Texas. So now the estimate is off by SIX HUNDRED AND FOURTY TIMES from the original source.

BUT... the Catholic Church is comprised of 221,000 parishes in 2,300 dioceses. Each parish has a number of congregants that are equivalent in size on average to a Protestant megachurch. Each diocese is controlled by the Pope in the sense that the Bishop must be obedient to the Pope, but you’re combining 223,000 entities into one. Frankly, it makes the estimate of 177,000 acres seem way, way too small. I’d think that graveyards alone would take up that much land easily... but they’re nothing you can liquidate, as we’ve seen in Poltergeist. ;-)

>> still shills for cash << Translated: still has expenses. With a billion members... the $870 million budget comes to less than $1 per person.

[Dick Vomer]

With a billion members... the $870 million budget comes to less than $1 per person. plus all the settlements from lawsuits for child abuse and the other stuff that passes for expenses for the pederasts in the clergy.

[dangus]

There are five major falsehoods in the first sentences:

1) The medieval indulgence was a writ.

No, it had absolutely nothing to do with any writs or any documents of any kind. It was merely a claim with no earthly legal significance.

2) offered by the Church, for money,

No, the Church itself had absolutely, completely, emphatically, universally and irrevocably condemned the sale of indulgences before Luther.

3) guaranteeing

No, the basic theology of indulgences, in fact, required a sincerely contrite heart and resolve to avoid sin, without which, the indulgence is meaningless

4) guaranteeing

Does the author even know what “guarantee” means? Maybe he means “assuring” or “asserting?” How would anyone even fulfill such a guarantee?

5) the remission of sin,

No, Jesus’s sacrifice one the cross is sufficient for the remission of sin; an indulgence merely relieved certain consequences of sin, specifically, the need for purgartion.

Frankly, I’m wondering what your source here is; I thought maybe it was related to those old World Encyclopedias, but the article not only seems based purely on common misconceptions and no actual research, but is even sloppily written enough that as a former teacher, I’d’ve filled it with red pen and told the seventh-grade student who completed it to do a better job and maybe they could get better than a “C” this time.

[vladimir998]

Excellent post!

[dangus]

Ah, Protestants. Take the whole bible absolutely literally, EXCEPT when it has anything to do with any major doctrine.

12 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Maybe, just maybe we’re not supposed to offer any honor to FALSE GODS, but we are supposed to pay attention to the actual mother of Jesus?