I just went back and read the first one more thouroughly, I will post those paragraphs which contain the words Protestant, Protestants and Protestantism. If you actually read it you will know that he is talking about all non-Catholics, not just Protestants. So technically, it doesn’t count.
I’d read the other ones but I have a bunch of work to do today. I may do it later though.
It is no longer considered prudent or necessary to actively “proselytize” Protestants or the Orthodox, to say nothing of the Jews. The conciliar church thus demonstrates itself as defiant of the very purposes for which Our Lord shed His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and contemptuous of the missionary zeal for souls exhibited by Catholics from Pentecost Sunday to the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
The Devil and his minions seek to convince us that it is all right to make little concessions here and there to the spirit of the world and to show “other religions” that the Catholic Church has no “special claim” to make on them, that it is not necessary for infidels (such as the Jews and Mohammedans) and heretics (such as Protestants) and schismatics and heretics (such as the Orthodox) to convert to the true Faith to be saved. It is no one other than the devil himself who wants us to believe that one can be a Catholic while carrying around within us just a little bit of the infection of this world and its ephemeral allurements. It is the devil who wants us to believe that the “needs” of the “modern age” require us to refuse to seek with urgency the conversion of others to the Catholic Faith so as to be “sensitive” to the needs of name of religious “diversity” without blaspheming God or His holy martyrs.
Does this zeal for souls characterize or contradict the ethos of conciliarism? Anyone who can claim that the mandate given by Our Lord to the Apostles on Ascension Thursday can be changed is no “centrist” or “realist.” Anyone who can claim that there no longer remains an urgent necessity to convert Protestants and Jews and the Orthodox and Mohammedans and all others, including Hindus and Buddhists, to the true Faith is an enemy of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, a veritable blasphemer who contends that God and His truths are immutable and that His Holy Church is not the one and only means of human salvation.
The American Missions, from their very beginnings, attracted great numbers from the Society of Jesus. Jesuits were the early explorers of New France and given to it its first martyrs. “The history of their labors,” says a Protestant writer, “is connected with the origin of every celebrated town in the annals of French America: not a cape was turned, nor a river entered, but a Jesuit led the way.” While Fathers Jogues, de Brebeuf, and Lalemant shed their blood upon the shores of the St. Lawrence, Father Marquette in a bark canoe explored the course of the Mississippi as far as the Arkansas.
Who, precisely, did Roger Schutz, the Protestant syncretist who was placed in Heaven by Benedict XVI last year, make his confession to on a regular basis? Ah, I forgot. “Brother” Roger never converted. He is in Heaven, though. Why in the world should Father De Smet have left the comforts of Belgium if the Indians of North America could be saved without being converted to the true Church? Well, the answer, as readers of this site now, is that Father De Smet took seriously the consistent, defined, dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the necessity of seeking with urgency the conversion of souls to her maternal bosom. This teaching his well summarized in the words of Pope Eugene IV in the Papal Bull Cantate Domino, issued in 1441 during the Council of Florence:
Understanding the lies of Protestantism, which is no means of salvation whatsoever, Father De Smet sought to battle for souls against the heretical sects of Luther’s and Calvin’s and Cranmer’s and Wesley’s progeny, who were endeavoring to do the devil’s work by snatching the souls of the Indians for their own false religions:
I see no hate sites. I see one guy. Being told that I am quibbling does not persaude me that I am wrong. It just shows that my question is avoided and that somebody disagrees with me.
To my way of thinking, if someone has a site and ONE article on it seems to be firmly against Catholicism, I don't consider that a hate site. I consider it a site with, quess what, an article by someone firmly against Catholicism.
And if it's not important that there are 4, why did YOU bring it up?