The Borg, a recurring antagonist in Star Trek the Next Generation, was a group of cyborgs linked in a hive mind called “the Collective.” The Wikipedia entry on the Borg tells us that the goal of the Borg was to absorb the technology and knowledge of other species through the process of assimilation with the ultimate aim of achieving perfection.
One could think of the Borg as the ultimate expression of collectivism, an idea that stands in opposition to the historic western, Protestant idea of individualism, which can be defined as “a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary).
Idol of Our Lady of Guadalupe on America’s southern border
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Ephesians 5:11
Is it logically possible to hold to Rome’s theology while at the same time rejecting her politics and economics? Many American Roman Catholics, some of whom may be more Protestant in their thinking than they realize, would answer yes.
Writing in his 1999 book Ecclesiastical Megalomania, John Robbins gave the opposite answer. In the Introduction of his book, Robbins noted that Rome’s pronouncements on politics and economics were not, “disjointed statements, but the logical conclusions of premises accepted in Roman theology.” Put another way, if someone accepts Rome’s theology, he logically must also accept Rome’s politics and economics.
Rome’s theology, politics, and economics are part of a “package deal” as Robbins put it, and one does not have the option of following Rome in its theology while at the same time rejecting its political and economic philosophy. “This,” Robbins commented, “flies in the face not only of the claims of the Church-State itself but of reason as well.
I bring up this point as today, December 12, marks the date on which the Church-State celebrates the Feast Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe. According to one article in the America Magazine, a Jesuit publication, Our Lady of Guadalupe (OLG) “remains a cherished part of Mexican national identity.” Another piece in America magazine gives several other titles OLG is known by: Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, La Virgen de Guadalupe, Empress of the Americas, and Our Lady of Tepeyac.
Here’s one interesting item of OLG trivia from one of the America Magazine articles. Juan Diego, the fellow to whom the demon in the form of Mary is said to have first revealed herself, may never have existed. Despite his possible non-existence, he was canonized anyway in 2002, “as part of a strategy to retain indigenous Catholics in Mexico and across Latin America who have been defecting in droves to Protestantism, especially Pentecostalism.”
In one way, this really isn’t surprising. Rome makes up stuff all the time and has done so for centuries. Still, to come right out and say that “there is no hard evidence St. Juan Diego ever existed” while at the same time canonizing him is a bit shocking. Apparently, the Church-State really is running scared that it’s losing its centuries-long grip on “indigenous Catholics in Mexico and across Latin America.”
And Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Take heed that no man deceive you.’”
Matthew 24:4
Several times in Scripture, believers are commanded not to be deceived. The quote at the top of this post is just one of them.
Unfortunately, many Christians, or at least those who claim to be Christians, are often deceived by the wiles of the devil. One of the greatest deceptions of our time is the increasing acceptance of the Roman Catholic Church-State (RCCS) as a Christian church and her laymen, priests, nuns, monks, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and popes as genuine Christians. This deception has its origin in the Antichrist RCCS and has been eagerly promoted by many leading Evangelicals since the end of WWII, with men such as Billy Graham and Charles Colson leading many astray.
The pro-life movement has been one of Rome’s most effective tools for deceiving Protestants and has led many astray. “After all,” so the thinking goes, “if the local archdiocese wants to organize a march against abortion or protest in front of an abortion clinic, why shouldn’t Protestants join their brothers and sisters in Christ in the protest? We’re stronger united than separated.”
But those who think this way go wrong right from the beginning, showing themselves to be deceived about the Church of Rome and its doctrines. The RCCS is not a Christian church, neither are Roman Catholics Christians. This is not something spoken out of spite, be a necessary conclusion drawn from the teachings of Rome herself. The gospel of justification by faith (belief) alone is essential to the Christian faith; Rome denies the gospel of justification by faith (belief) alone; therefore, Rome is not a Christian church. And what does the Bible teach Christians about ecumenical work with unbelievers? “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them” (Ephesians 5:11).
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on July 16, 2021 (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)
Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members of one another.
Ephesians 4:25
“There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.”
In the same speech, Obama went on to deny that he was calling for censorship, noting, “The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely abut facts and what we should do about it.”
Nearly five years later, it’s fair to say that quite obviously Obama and others of his political persuasion were talking about censorship, and this became clear enough last week that even the most ardent deniers of the big government/big tech censorship complex have not excuse for missing the Biden regime’s full-bore attack on the First Amendment.
In the same press conference, Psaki voiced her displeasure that Facebook was not deplatforming spreaders of “misinformation” fast enough for her, and presumably, for her boss’s tastes. She said, “there’s about 12 people who are producing 65 percent of the anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms. All of them remain active on Facebook, despite some even being banned on other platforms, including Facebook – ones that Facebook owns.”
If all that wasn’t enough, Psaki was at it again the next day. In a Friday 7/17 press conference she offered that, “You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not other if you – for providing misinformation out there.”
As the saying goes, I need new conspiracy theories, because all my old ones are coming true.
Seriously, people have speculated for years that the Deep State has been behind much, if not all, of the social media censorship. But this is right in your face government censorship. We have what is, in my opinion, an illegitimate government installed through election fraud stomping on the right of American’s to freely access information on a matter that affects all our lives.
Pope Francis, flanked by Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, waves to the crowd on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 24, 2015, as they stand on the Speaker’s Balcony on Capitol Hill, after the pope addressed a joint meeting of Congress inside. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
“I will venture to make some specific predictions…The alliance between neo-evangelicals and Romanists in the Culture Wars will…result in the election of our second Romanist president.”
In April 1927, The Atlantic ran a story titled “An Open Letter to the Honorable Alfred E. Smith.” It’s a remarkable letter, the sort of thing one would never see today from any publication of national note. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a supposedly Christian publication running such a piece in 2020.
The letter is remarkable in that it openly questions whether Al Smith, a leading contender for, and eventual winner of, the 1928 Democratic presidential nomination would be able to support and defend the Constitution of the United States in light of his Roman Catholic faith.
The open letter, written by attorney Charles C. Marshall, raised a number of important points, asking how Smith could reconcile the political and economic pronouncements of the Roman Church-State (RCS) with America’s Constitution.
Time does not permit me to go through all of Marshall’s arguments, but the following two paragraphs are representative.
It is indeed true that a loyal and conscientious Roman Catholic could and would discharge his oath of office with absolute fidelity to his moral standards. As to that in general, and as to you in particular, your fellow citizens entertain no doubt. But those moral standards differ essentially from the moral standards of all men not Roman Catholics. They are derived from the basic political doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, asserted against repeated challenges for fifteen hundred years, that God has divided all power over men between the secular State and that Church. Thus Pope Leo XIII, in 1885, in his encyclical letter on The Christian Constitution of States, says: ‘The Almighty has appointed the charge of the human race, between two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human things.’
The deduction is inevitable that, as all power over human affairs not given to the State by God, is given by God to the Roman Catholic Church, no other churches or religious or ethical societies have in theory any direct power from God and are without direct divine sanction, and therefore without natural right to function on the same basis as the Roman Catholic Church in the religious and moral affairs of the State. The result is that that Church, if true to her basic political doctrine, is hopelessly committed to that intolerance that has disfigured so much of her history. This is frankly admitted by Roman Catholic authorities.
As if 2020 weren’t already tumultuous enough, the death of Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has managed to stir things up even more.
Talk, not only of Ginsburg’s death, but also of her replacement, has dominated the news since her death on Friday, September 18. Perhaps the most notable feature of the discussion has been controversy about whether Donald Trump should name her replacement now or wait until after the November election.
This is a discussion that should not even come up. The president has the right to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court and the Senate has a right to hold confirmation hearings. About this there is no question. The Democrats don’t like it, but their not liking something is not the same as it being illegal or unconstitutional.
Noteworthy but unsurprising was the reaction of many Democrats to the possibility that Donald Trump would nominate a new justice to replace Ginsburg before the election. Not only did they argue that a nomination of a new justice must wait until after the election, but actually threatened violence should the President and the Senate attempt to carry out their constitutionally mandated duties.
And the threats of violence were not coming from some dark corner of the internet or from obscure people, but from several high-profile Democrats and progressives on Twitter and other high-profile platforms. Reza Aslan, a writer who has written numerous books, produced a series on world religions for CNN and is currently a professor of creative writing at University of California, Riverside, took to Twitter and threatened that, “If they [the Republicans] even TRY to replace RBG [Ginsburg] we burn the entire…thing down.”
Canadian professor of Political Science Emmett Macfarlane tweeted, “Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS.”
Scott Ross, a member of the Wisconsin Ethics Commission tweeted, “If you can’t shut it down [the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice], burn it down.”
Playwright Beau Willimon commented on Twitter, “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.”
In the pages of GQ, writer Laura Bassett threatened, “If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots.”
It’s tempting to say that such threats have become the modus operandi of Democrats and progressives in recent years. But in truth, Democrats and progressives have a longstanding tradition of using violence and threats of violence to get their way. It’s how they roll. Not for nothing did Samuel D. Burchard refer to the Democrats as, “the party whose antecedents are rum, Romanism, and rebellion.” Burchard made the comment in 1884. It was true then, and it is true today.
Since the matter of selecting a new justice is a matter of supreme importance both to Democrats and Republicans, and since the upcoming Senate confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg, promises to dominate the headlines in the coming weeks, perhaps overshadowing even the upcoming election, it seemed good to this author to take the opportunity to weigh in.
Drs. Anthony Fauci and Robert Redfield, two highly placed, Jesuit trained physicians who are key decision makers in America’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Patrick Semansky/AP Photo
Watching the news is a painful experience. I refer here not so much to the events that flash before us on the screens of our televisions or smart phones, but to the deliberately misleading explanations of those events that are fed to the public by the mainstream legacy media.
John Robbins has noted that events do not explain themselves but must themselves be explained. This may seem strange a first. It’s tempting for us to say that such and such is just self-evident. But is it? If events are self-evident, that is to say, if events explain themselves, why is it that two people can observe the same event and come to very different conclusions?
For example, some people praise Dr. Anthony Fauci’s social distancing, lockdown and mask recommendations. Others see the response by him and other public officials as, at best, unnecessary meddling. Some may even see the calls for masks – and now the calls for face shields! – as an example of tyranny. How is it that people, even intelligent well-informed people, can interpret the Covid regulations that have been imposed on America and other nations so differently? It all starts with one’s worldview, one’s philosophy.
Lux Lucet 