Anyone outside of the Catholic Church is damned to Hell.
That's a non-sequitur. Early Church Martyrs were martyred specifically because they REFUSED to submit to their State Authority. I linked to some stuff about the Early Church Martyrs at the end of my article. You should read about them, and learn a thing or 2. Spoiler alert: They were the EXCAT OPPOSITE of submissive cucks.
Unfortunately, accurate.
Did you read my 14 part article series on the Jews? My views are directly endorsed by the Catholic Church, even though the Modernists in the Church these days lie and distort these orthodox views.
https://thecatholicstate.com/what-the-catholic-church-teaches-about-the-jews-part-1/
No hate here, only truth!
Thanks, and God bless!
I will copy and paste the article for you guys again:
Vatican II On The Jews This next article on the Jews may be a bit controversial for some, since I know some of my audience is made up of sedevacantists and SSPXers.
However, I think it’s going to be an important article for our side, since the Modernists in the Catholic Church claim that Vatican II changed the Church teaching on the Jews.
Moreover, if I can show that Vatican II didn’t change Catholic teaching on the Jews, and I believe I can, it would advantageous for all people that call themselves Catholic to be in solidarity in this issue, would it not?
So did Vatican II change the Catholic teaching on Jews? Short answer: No.
Long answer… Keep reading.
Nostra Aetate is the Vatican II document that deals with the relation of the Church to non-Catholic “religions”.
It’s a short document, and the part that deals with Jews is even shorter, so let’s go through the whole thing.
The part of Nostra Aetate that addresses the Jews begins in Section 4:
As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock.
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ – Abraham’s sons according to faith [Galatians 3:7] – are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles [Romans 11:17-24]. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself [Ephesians 2:14-16].
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation [Luke 19:44], nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading [Romans 11:28]. Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle [Romans 11:28-29]. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9). [Cf. Isaias (Isaiah) 66:23, Psalms 65:4, Romans 11:11-32]
I think every Christian would assent to what the document is saying so far.
That is to say, it’s just pretty straightforward Biblical exegesis.
Nostra Aetate continues:
Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.
This is certainly the biggest “change” in Vatican II right here.
Nothing substantial about the Faith changes here, but what does change is the tone.
In contrast, all the previous Magisterium, as I have covered in previous sections, has an antagonistic tone.
The tone of Vatican II is more “welcoming” and “nice”, to be charitable, but personally, I think it sounds weak and effeminate.
I think the cheerleaders of Vatican II will say that the reason for this language was to make it so that we could better our relationship with the Jews, and this could lead to more conversions.
However, 60 years later and we know that Vatican II hasn’t lead to more people entering the Church, even after being “nice”:
jews Thus, using “nice” language hasn’t really been working out for the Church, has it?
However, this kind of language isn’t a substantial change in the Faith anyways. Moving on…
Nostra Aetate continues:
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ [John 19:6];
Yes, this is certainly what the Church has always taught.
Nostra Aetate continues:
still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.
So this is where the people reading this might think there is a contradiction with previous Church teaching (Acts 7:51-52, 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15).
However, there isn’t. Let me explain.
The Church certainly never taught that the death of Christ was charged against all Jews.
On the other hand, what the Church always taught was that the death of Christ was charged against the Jews that rejected Him.
So Our Lord, Blessed Mother, 11 of the 12 Apostles, His disciples… All Jews, and none of them committed Deicide.
The vast majority of original Christians were Jews, and many Jews still convert up to this very day!
Certainly, those Jews that accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Lord and Savior aren’t guilty of Deicide.
On the other hand, those Jews that reject Him are guilty of Deicide. Thus, that is the distinction!
Nostra Aetate continues:
Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.
So this would again seem to contradict previous Church teaching (Matthew 27:25).
But it doesn’t. Let me explain. God never rejected or cursed the Jews! It was, in fact, quite the opposite!
The Jews cursed themselves in Matthew 27:25 because they rejected Christ.
Above all, Romans 11 is key to understanding what the Church has always taught about the Jews.
The Jews certainly rejected Christ and cursed themselves, breaking themselves off of God’s Covenant with them (Romans 11:20).
But this is all of their own doing. God has always kept the door opened for them to come back (Romans 11:23).
Therefore, all the Jews have to do is accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah, Lord and Savior to be back in the Covenant with God. Moving on…
Nostra Aetate continues:
All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
Agreed. On this site, I am certainly all about teaching the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. Moving on…
Nostra Aetate continues:
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.
Ugh… I most certainly hate the word “antisemitism” because the Jews always use it today to refer to the act of criticizing them.
Of course, criticizing the Jews cannot be what the Church means here because Christ criticized them (John 8:44, Revelation 2:9, Revelation 3:9).
And we know Christ is without sin (1 Peter 2:22). Therefore, criticizing the Jews is okay.
So after looking at the context of what Nostra Aetate is talking about, it is clear that it is condemning hatred against the Jews.
We also know that the Church teaches that hatred is the willing of the bad towards another.
Moreover, Christ condemns hatred, even of our enemies (Luke 6:27-28).
Moreover, the Church has always taught through Sicut Judaeis to never harm the Jews.
Thus, this is still consistent with Catholic Tradition. Moving on…
Nostra Aetate concludes its section on the Jews with:
Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.
Amen! I certainly don’t think any Christian will argue with this part, at all.
Thus, it is clear that Vatican II did not change the Church teachings on the Jews (whether you assent to Vatican II or not).
However, I won’t deny that Modernists, like Cardinal Bea, conspired with the Jews to try to change Church teaching.
But they failed miserably, thanks be to God!
For more information on the Jewish conspiracy involving Vatican II, read The Plot Against the Church.
And after this article, I certainly hope that all that call themselves Catholics, be they Novus Ordo, Eastern Rite, Latin Mass, SSPXers, sedevacantists, or whatever, can stand in solidarity on this issue!
Stay tuned for Part 13 of this series, where we will go over what the Jews have done to receive so much condemnation from the Church.
In conclusion, I will leave you with this quote from Our Lord:
These are all different articles. It's an article series.
It's a different article every time... It's an article series. today was part 9...
You keep conflating "settling issues" with "fraternal rebuking". Those 2 things are not the same. You may want to look up what each of those things actually means.
Yeah, well, tell that to Pope St. Leo the Great who flatly rejected Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon. Your beloved Patriarch of Constantinople was put in his place. Cope.
We agree on something! Amen!
Popes are human too and make mistakes. Neither papal supremacy nor the Dogma of papal infallibility suggest that the pope is incapable of making mistakes. All popes have made mistakes at one time or another. Even St. Peter made mistakes: He denied Christ 3 times, plunged into the water because he doubted Christ, dared to rebuke Christ, cut off a guy's ear after being told to stand down, refused to eat with gentiles... And he is not only the first Pope but also a Saint!
Someone in the Church has to settle disagreements. This was the role that Christ gave to Peter alone.
What The Catholic Church Teaches About The Jews – Part 6 What The Catholic Church Teaches About The Jews: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five.
Usury Is Forbidden, And This Is Especially Directed Towards The Jews The Catholic Church had many councils regarding how to handle the Jews, in the middle ages.
Moreover, the Popes issued many papal bulls regarding how to handle the Jews, in the middle ages.
These councils and bulls dealt with topics like usury and other issues.
The Catholic dictionary defines usury as such:
Taking of excessive interest for the loan of money is the modern understanding of usury. In essence, however, usury is the acceptance of a premium for the mere use of a thing given in loan. Objectively it is the premium paid for a pure loan. The word has come to mean taking advantage of another who is in need. As such, it is forbidden by the natural law, because it is contrary to commutative justice. In the case of the poor, it is also a sin against charity.
The Catholic Dictionary Thus, modern money lending with compound interest, and especially approving these loans for the poor, is considered usury.
Usury is a grave sin.
The Old Testament condemns usury in Exodus:
If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor, that dwelleth with thee, thou shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner, nor oppress them with usuries.
Exodus 22:25 jews Also, Deuteronomy condemns usury:
Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury, nor corn, nor any other thing: But to the stranger. To thy brother thou shalt lend that which he wanteth, without usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all thy works in the land, which thou shalt go in to possess.
Deuteronomy 23:19-20
Moreover, in the New Testament, Christ condemns usury:
And if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thanks are to you? for sinners also lend to sinners, for to receive as much. But love ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby: and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the sons of the Highest; for he is kind to the unthankful, and to the evil.
Luke 6:34-35
Over a millennia later, in 1179 AD, the Third Lateran Council, consistent with Scripture, condemned usury:
Nearly everywhere the crime of usury has become so firmly rooted that many, omitting other business, practice usury as if it were permitted, and in no way observe how it is forbidden in both the Old and New Testament. We therefore declare that notorious usurers should not be admitted to communion of the altar or receive Christian burial if they die in this sin. Whoever receives them or gives them Christian burial should be compelled to give back what he has received, and let him remain suspended from the performance of his office until he has made satisfaction according to the judgment of his own bishop.
Third Lateran Council, Canon 25
But usury was still a problem in Christendom because most of the money lenders in the middle ages were Jews.
And since the Jews don’t follow Christian morality, they became the main usurers.
Thus, the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215 AD, specifically condemned Jewish usury:
Jews and excessive Usury
The more the Christian religion is restrained from usurious practices, so much the more does the perfidy of the Jews grow in these matters, so that within a short time they are exhausting the resources of Christians. Wishing therefore to see that Christians are not savagely oppressed by Jews in this matter, we ordain by this synodal decree that if Jews in future, on any pretext, extort oppressive and excessive interest from Christians, then they are to be removed from contact with Christians until they have made adequate satisfaction for the immoderate burden. Christians too, if need be, shall be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, without the possibility of an appeal, to abstain from commerce with them. We enjoin upon princes not to be hostile to Christians on this account, but rather to be zealous in restraining Jews from so great oppression. We decree, under the same penalty, that Jews shall be compelled to make satisfaction to churches for tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the churches were accustomed to receive from Christians for houses and other possessions, before they passed by whatever title to the Jews, so that the churches may thus be preserved from loss.
Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 67
Of course, the Jews didn’t really care that the Christian Church ordered them to stop their usurious ways.
The Jews hate Christ and the Christian Church, as we already know.
Therefore, the Popes had to make sure the law was enforced, in order to keep the peace in Christendom.
For example, Pope Innocent III admonished the French King Philip II to enforce the Canon:
Although it be not displeasing to the Lord, but rather acceptable to Him, that the Jewish Dispersion should live and serve under Christian princes …they greatly offend in the sight of God’s Divine Majesty who prefer the offspring of the Crucifiers before those who are the heirs of Christ. …It has come to our knowledge that in the kingdom of France Jews have so much liberty that, under a species of usury—by which they not only extort interest, but interest from interest—they obtain control of the goods of the churches and the possessions of the Christians….
We warn and exhort Your Serene Majesty in the Lord (adding the remission of your sins) that you force the Jews from their presumption … and see to it that due punishment be meted out to all such blasphemers, and that an easy pardon be not given to delinquents!
Etsi non displiceat jews Another interesting fact of the Middle Ages is that Popes ordered Jews to remit interest for crusaders:
If any of those setting out are bound by oath to pay interest, we ordain that their creditors shall be compelled by the same punishment to release them from their oath and to desist from exacting the interest; if any of the creditors does force them to pay the interest, we command that he be forced by similar punishment to restore it. We order that Jews be compelled by the secular power to remit interest, and that until they do so all intercourse shall be denied them by all Christ’s faithful under pain of excommunication. Secular princes shall provide a suitable deferral for those who cannot now pay their debts to Jews, so that after they have undertaken the journey and until there is certain knowledge of their death or of their return, they shall not incur the inconvenience of paying interest. The Jews shall be compelled to add to the capital, after they have deducted their necessary expenses, the revenues which they are meanwhile receiving from property held by them on security. For, such a benefit seems to entail not much loss, inasmuch as it postpones the repayment but does not cancel the debt. Prelates of churches who are negligent in showing justice to crusaders and their families should know that they will be severely punished.
Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 71
The First Council of Lyons repeated this canon.
Of course, this didn’t stop Jews from accumulating wealth through lending and banking.
And many prominent banking families of the present are Jewish, like the Rothschilds, Goldmans, Sachses, Lehmans, etc.
In a Catholic State, usury would be a crime, and thus compound interest would no longer be a thing.
Stay tuned for Part 7 of this series, where we will go over how the Church commands that Jews must appear in public in a Catholic State.
In conclusion, I will leave you with this quote from Our Lord:
If you click the link, you might actually learn a thing or 2...
No, he was anathematized for allowing Sergius's heresy.
Monothelitism was never formally taught by Rome.
Yeah, I talk to you schizos "born again" types all the time... You refuse to call yourself Protestant, even though that's technically what you are. I hope Christ brings you home to the Church He founded. God bless!
You're welcome!
Historically, the Inquisition would turnover those they found guilty of heresy to the State, who would then administer the punishment.