The Progressive Plague

screen capture
Home to Progressive Rome

After a decade of living within an intense Protestant faith, I decided to convert to the Roman Catholic Church. I have doubts concerning some of its doctrines, dislike many of the things Pope Francis has said as well as the ambiguous way the Church says things, and still harken for a type of hedonistic atheism that would allow me to do what the hell I want, but at the end of the day, I believe having a structured religion is the best way to express my faith. There is no more structured Christianity than what is found in the Roman Catholic Church.

But I am discovering that the Catholic Church has its own fair share of the Progresive sickness. During Mass, prayers are offered to end racism, sexism, and bigotry. Prayers are offered in remembrance of our Muslim brothers and sisters who are seeking a better life in Europe. All war is evil, etc., etc.

As I go through the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults), I am constantly reminded to take scripture as myth, look for the “real Jesus,” and to stand against racism, sexism, militarism, and nationalism (those are actual terms used). While some discussion is given over to the sacraments, the main purpose is to be on a “faith journey” that may take years while I try to “know Jesus.”

Of course, it all is ambiguous language masking the true intent. I am expected to be a Progressive who attends Catholic Mass. In fact, I learned my local parish is actually working to hinder orthodox / traditionalist Catholics in its midst. After being with my parish for two years and studying the church for that long, I am being denied Confirmation this Easter because the leader of the RCIA feels I am in a different place in my faith journey. I would say there is too much conservatism in me for their tastes.

It might seem a better option to join a conservative denomination, like Southern Baptist or Calvinist Presbyterian or Missouri Synod Lutheran. However, the evangelical Baptists are infected as well as the Calvinists and the Lutherans. Every church has, in small ways, adopted some aspects of the Progressive zeitgeist.

The best thing to do in these dark ages is to take a stand and weather the storm. I am continuing my push for Confirmation as well as repairing other aspects of my life in preparation for the day. Such is the plight of a man in the modern world. I’ve been fighting the Progressive Juggernaut for over a decade and this is just another battle ground.


Progressive Christians Should Call Themselves Atheists

Progressive Christianity

The idea of a Progressive Christian is an oxymoron. One of the main goals of Progressive thought is to leave behind the history and culture of Western Christianity for a superior culture, a more “evolved” culture. Claiming both Christianity and Progress is to claim allegiance to two ideas, one old, the other new.

One of the undercurrents of this new, progressive culture, this emerging civilization, is a soft atheism. It does not directly deny the existence of God, but it finds that God is not truly necessary for human progress. There are two things that are required and these take precedent over any gods. First is the elevation of humans through scientific knowledge and improvement. Second is the elimination of human suffering through universal charity. These two pillars of science and “love” are keys to eliminating war, disease, and difference.

What is not needed in the Progressive movement is a belief in a creator, sin, or the need of salvation by transcendent powers, core tenants of a Christian faith. If a man believes in such things, fine and dandy, but he should understand that such ideas should be kept private because they are not considered established facts in scientific circles. They are merely subjective beliefs and nothing more. Religion is allowed as long as it aligns with the goals of the Progressive movement.

This is where Progressives who claim to be Christians deviate from Christianity and become atheist. Their attendance at church services and religious practices are not reflective of belief in Christianity as revealed reality, but belief in religion as an expendable means to achieve the Progressive ends.

In church services, the symbolic facets of the worship do not point toward the existence of God or the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as factual truth. Rather, they are symbolic of what Jesus symbolizes to them. For the Progressive Christian, Jesus was a mere man whose death is a symbol for universal pacifism and charity (God so loved the world). His death, burial, and resurrection are merely symbols to teach congregants that the old world of superstition and racism and sexism is dying and new world is emerging, a world of science and love.

Should there come a day where there are no more churches, bibles are relegated to museums, Jesus is a footnote in history, and God is a quaint thing vaguely remembered, the Progressive faith will continue strong. Their faith is not in God or Christ, but in man and man’s evolution toward utopia.

For all intents and purposes, they are atheists.

They just need to renounce Christ and be done with it.

One Final Look At The Marian Idea

Jesus and Mary
Glory be to The Father, The Son, The Mother, and The Holy Ghost.

In my previous two articles, I examined what I saw were the pros and cons of Roman Catholicism and directly challenged the veneration of Mary that is a major part of the Roman Catholic faith. In this third article, I want to lay out my reasoning behind my rejection of the Marian doctrines. I am coming at this from a position of observations I have made over the years, which frees me from the box of Protestant thought.

According to scripture, in the beginning there is Adam and Eve in Eden. There is the command from God. There is the disobedience. There is the fall.

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17 NKJV).

So the curse of the material world, sin, came through Adam. Paul confirms this idea:

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous (Romans 5:19 NKJV).

What I see is that inherited sin is a particularly male attribute. It is passed from father to child. The sin nature of king David was inherited from his father and he passed on the sin nature to his son, Solomon, and so on and so on.

Now we come to Joseph and Mary. In keeping with biblical history, Joseph had inherited the curse of Adam through his father and Mary through her father. But – and this is the big ‘but’ – only Joseph was culpable for passing on the sin to any children he might have. Though Mary was a sinner she nonetheless could not pass on sin to any children she might have.

So it makes sense that God interrupted the male lineage by supernaturally impregnating Mary with male seed, but not interrupted the female lineage through Mary. For Jesus to be born sinless, it was only necessary to remove Joseph from the process, but not Mary.

With this, the entire concept of the Immaculate Conception and the thought behind it looks unnecessary and unfounded. In fact, there is no biblical basis for the dogma. It is purely grounded in the tradition of the Church.

The core idea is that original sin infects both sexes and is passed on by both sexes. Jesus’ perfection had to be protected from both Joseph and Mary. So while the biblical account records a supernatural conception, church tradition holds the Immaculate Conception, which states that Mary was supernaturally born perfect and without sin.

But this raises questions. If Mary was born without sin to protect Jesus, why wasn’t Joseph also born without sin? Why didn’t God just give a special grace to a child conceived by Joseph and Mary so that Jesus was immaculately conceived? From the Catholic view, Joseph was dismissed as a sinful father and Mary was placed on a supernatural pedestal as the perfect mother.

As I revisit this doctrine, I cannot but help conclude that the Roman Church is in error and has tacked on the heavy weight of an unnecessary teaching that has very questionable foundations. And in this age of feminism, where the deception that befell Eve is spreading en mass, the Marian doctrine is feminism officially sanctioned by tradition, as it elevates Mary to equality to Jesus.

It makes a mere woman equal to God, which is the great temptation that struck Eve in Eden.

it pains me because I really admire the Roman Church in all its greatness. That admiration, however, does not nullify what I see as a serious and grevious error.