Posted on 07/07/2009 10:30:02 AM PDT by TheRiverNile
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict called on Tuesday for a "world political authority" to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.
The pope made his call for a re-think of the way the world economy is run in a new encyclical which touched on a number of social issues but whose main connecting thread was how the current crisis has affected both rich and poor nations.
Parts of the encyclical, titled "Charity in Truth," seemed bound to upset free marketeers because of its underlying rejection of unbridled capitalism and unregulated market forces, which he said had led to "thoroughly destructive" abuse of the system.
The pope said every economic decision had a moral consequence and called for "forms of redistribution" of wealth overseen by governments to help those most affected by crises.
Benedict said "there is an urgent need of a true world political authority" whose task would be "to manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
“There is exactly one authority they respect: POWER.”
They do respect one power and that is the god of this world, Satan.
That is the power the Globalists are trying to bring forward. Make no mistake about it.
Suffice it to say, your deference to the Pope appears to be blinding you to the radical nature of this Encyclical. It's the most socialist document ever written by a Pope. George Weigel, by the way, disagrees with you that the Pope is responsible for every word in the document. He blames some shady bunch called "The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace" for the stuff about world government and the forcible redistribution of wealth.
A great Pope has been followed by a severely flawed one. One of the many serious problems with the RCC is that Catholics are required to respect the Pope no matter what a dimwit he may be.
>> “the god of this world, Satan.”
Agreed.
Daniel 11:
37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
38But in his estate shall he honour the god of FORCES: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Why do you have to call the Pope a bastard? Is that really necessary?
I think protestants forefathers had it right....
Martin Luther (Lutheran)
“We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2., pg. 121 by Froom. (In response to a papal bull [official decree]): “I despise and attack it, as impious, false... It is Christ Himself who is condemned therein... I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself.” —D’Aubigné, b.6, ch. 9.
Cotton Mather (Congregational Theologian)
“The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them.” Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom’s book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.
John Wesley (Methodist)
Speaking of the Papacy he said, “He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Taken from Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms by John Wesley, pg. 110.
Ellen G. White: Seven Day Adventists
“This compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the development of “the man of sin” foretold in prophecy as opposing and exalting himself above God. That gigantic system of false religion is a masterpiece of Satan’s power—a monument of his efforts to seat himself upon the throne to rule the earth according to his will.
Thomas Cranmer (Anglican)
“Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Taken from Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.
Roger Williams (First Baptist Pastor in America)
He spoke of the Pope as “the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2).” Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.
1689 London Baptist Confession
Chapter 26: Of the Church. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. ( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 )
John Knox (Scotch Presbyterian)
Knox wrote to abolish “that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church” and that the pope should be recognized as “the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.” Taken from The Zurich Letters, pg. 199 by John Knox.
John Calvin (Presbyterian)
“Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” Taken from Institutes by John Calvin.
"render unto thy Pope , the things that are Caesars'"
Revelation chapter 17 commentary by Don Koenig
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/The%20book%20of%20Revelation/Revelation%20Chapter%2017.htm
EXCERPTS (Much much more at link. I implore you to read the whole thing)
“...John is taken to see much more detail about the life, deeds and end fate of the religious and political systems that had control over the world since the rebellion against God became formal at Babylon in the days of Nimrod...
Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
...the woman on the scarlet colored beast is being carried along by Satan... ...We are told the harlot woman rides this Beast, meaning she has some control over the direction of all seven world governments. There is only one entity that fits that description and that entity is “world religion”. Man rebelled against the God of heaven when he started worshiping created beings rather than the creator (Satan is the chief of created beings). This paganism became a formal mystery religion at the tower of Babel under the rule of Nimrod. Most of mankind remains under the influence of Babylonian pagan practices today.
Rev 17:4-5 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
The woman has the name “Mystery Babylon”. Mystery Babylon is not the same as the physical place of Babylon in Iraq. Mystery Babylon is the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. She is a seen as a harlot because she has a relationship with someone other than God. She is the mother of all abominations because she is playing the harlot with Satan who is the prime source of all evil on the earth. The clothing the woman wears and the wealth she displays reflects that she thinks that she is a queen instead of a whore. The priests of formal religions often wear similar colors today. Many of them also use golden cups for the practice of their religious rituals. In her hand is a cup that is full of abominations that comes from her fornication with Satan.
Purple was the color of Roman imperialism and scarlet is the main color adopted by Roman Catholicism. The Vatican is the chief entity that speaks for religion on the earth and that is not just a coincidence. The Vatican is the only religious state and it has embassies in most nations of the world and has a non-voting seat at the UN as a consultant to this world body. In the end times, she will be the head of the harlot world religion when she and many other religions merge into a one-world religion with its headquarters being at the Vatican in Rome.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
The woman is drunk with the blood of the saints and with the martyrs of Jesus. The saints are Old Testament people who were put to death by the religious whore. They include all the prophets and Old Testament believers who were persecuted and killed by the religions system (Judaism) that fornicated with Babylonian demonic gods. Most members of the leadership of Israel’s religious system were controlled by “their father the Devil” according to Jesus (Joh 8:44). This proves that the harlot was in existence and was well established in Judaism even at that time. These satanic leaders of Israel killed the husbandmen of the vineyard (the prophets) and even the Son of the owner of the vineyard (Jesus) so that God would get nothing out of His field (Luk 20:13).
The martyrs of Jesus are the followers of Jesus who died for their faith in Him. Martyrdom of the true followers of Jesus will continue to take place under the hand of the whore until the day the great whore is devoured by the Beast she rides. After Judaism, most of martyrdom was by the hands of satanic leaders that rose to the top of Christian and later Islamic religion. In the future, martyrdom will be by the hands of the World Church. Finally, the whore herself will be devoured and burned with fire by the Babylonian pagan Beast she prostituted herself with.
Why did John marvel about her? John marveled because until the angel explains it to him, the woman and the beast she rides is a hidden mystery. Maybe John also marveled because God’s plan that allows Satan to play God through the religions of the world is simply astounding. John must have realized that through death, these martyrs actually won victory over the Devil and obtained eternal life and glory. Thus, the satanically inspired desire of the harlot to kill the children of the promise actually brought the elect children to eternal salvation and rewards. The plan of God is a mystery simply beyond human understanding.
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
...The angel tells John that the woman that rides the Beast will sit on seven mountains (mountains, mounts or hills). Rome sits on seven hills. The harlot woman that becomes the World Church will rule from the Vatican....
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
...The phrase “sitting upon many waters” means the whore sits over many nations or peoples of the earth... ...the waters where the whore sits actually represents the people she has influenced that come from many nations and languages. Only religion fills that role.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
This is a key passage that tells us the identity of the “woman that rides the beast”. “Mystery Babylon” is the great city that is ruling over the earth. Rome was ruling over the earth in the time of John and fits the bill but Mystery Babylon could not be the city of Rome or the Roman Empire. “The woman rides the beast”, so the woman could not at the same time “be the beast”. The woman could not be the church at Rome at the time of John because the church was not ruling over the earth at that time. The religious system reigning over the earth in the time of John was Babylonian paganism and Caesar worship. The city in this passage is a city that reigns over the earth. At the time of John, that city was Rome. The city may also be a city that reigns over the earth at the end time judgment of the woman. That also is likely to be fulfilled by Rome. For these reasons, the woman in this prophecy can only be identified as a world religion that has also been infiltrated by Babylonian paganism and that is located at Rome.
So we can be sure of the true identity of the woman we will examine this a little closer. We are told the woman sits on a seven hilled city (Rome) and is drunk with the blood of the martyred saints and from that we can determined that “Mystery Babylon” is a religious system that claims to worship God but has incorporated Babylonian religious practices (that is why she is described as a harlot). She has to be at a physical location that not only had Babylonian practices in the time of John but the religious system “must martyr all the saints” (verse 6). The Roman Empire did kill saints but all the blood of the saints and martyrs cannot be placed at the hands of the political and religious powers of the Roman Empire. The harlot was obviously born before Rome (in Babylon) and she did not die in Rome in 312AD when the Church joined with the political system of the Roman Empire. After the Jewish and then the Roman Empire persecutions ended, only the religion that identified with Christianity could be blamed for true Christians being martyred (e.g. the inquisitions). That remained true until Islam took over the leadership role of the slaughter of true Christians.
There is only one location and religious entity on earth that makes sense of this prophecy and its greater fulfillment in the last days. The harlot woman of the last days has to be all organized religion that at the fulfillment of this prophecy will be headquartered in Rome. It should be obvious that I am not saying the present Roman Catholic Church can be named as the denomination that fulfills the end time role of the woman. All Babylonian influenced world religion makes up this woman on the Beast. The world religion that will become headquartered at the Vatican may take on an entirely different name from Roman Catholicism in the last days. However, there is little doubt in my mind that this woman who rides the Antichrist Beast will be a pagan Babylonian infiltrated harlot headquartered at the location that is now called the Vatican in Rome.
If more clarification of the woman is still necessary let me further explain. The Babylonian harlot was born in the time of Nimrod in Babylon and eventually corrupted Judaism. The pagan Babylonian religious practices actually moved from Babylon to Pergamos. (where Satan’s throne is — Rev 2:13). After the church merged with the state in 312 AD, the harlot took residence in the top ranks of the Christian church. At this point, the Babylon priest system had already joined with the Roman system. By approximately 600 AD, the Christian institutional church became what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church. During this period of Christianity mingled with pagan practices the inquisitions took place and killed many more true Christians than did any prior persecution of God’s people. After the inquisitions, the woman can be seen within the Protestant churches who had their own persecutions and witch-hunts in which many took part in their own holocausts against God’s people. Today the woman’s attributes are seen in Islam as the primary murderer of God’s people. In the end time, the woman will ride a one world religious system. The woman actually never leaves Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism or Islam because the woman is in fact all harlot religion of all eras. However, the woman rides the Beast as the religion that has the most influence on the governmental empire that happens to control the earth. Today the Vatican represents the religion that has the most influence on the earth but Protestantism also has world influence and Islam is rapidly coming to the forefront. All harlot religion will play a part and complete the fulfillment of the prophecy about the woman who rides the beast.
When the rapture of the true Church of Jesus Christ takes place, true Christians from many different denominations including faithful Catholics will be taken to be with Jesus. The apostate Christians left behind in all denominations will form a world religion led at the headquarters of the largest Christian denomination.
I want to make one thing clear here: By mentioning the Vatican as the future headquarters of the world harlot, I am not Catholic bashing. There are many practices in the Catholic Church that I believe are heresies but there are just as many or more heresies in most mainline Protestant Churches today. For a thousand years, there was only one church government on earth and that was the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is still the largest Christian denomination in the world by far. Therefore, if there is going to be harlotry throughout history since Babylon and the harlotry is among those who claim to know the God of creation, it has to be among the only organized Christian Church that exists during this period.
The harlot woman was among this organized body called Catholics, but so were true Christians as wheat among the tares. Today Islam has taken over the role of the chief harlot religion that persecutes the saints. Islam is founded on paganism and in our time has actively martyred millions of Christians. The end time harlot religious system that John is seeing is headed in Rome in the last days and it was founded in Babylon, but all major organized world religions in the last days that reject true Christianity are part of the harlot. Even Islam in the end will join with this world religion leadership in Rome although it may take a great religious war first.
The church that identifies with Christianity, like ancient Israel, has true believers and phonies. That is why Paul said that not all Israel is true Israel, and that is why not all named Christians are true Christians. The new covenant promise to Israel and the Church is to believers but a large part of the Church like Israel is in unbelief. In the eyes of God, she has committed harlotry with the world of paganism.
The tale of two nations or two women. The struggle between the woman from the flesh (harlot woman) and the woman from the promise (those who believe and trust God) can be followed in the following timeline (This is only a sample to help you understand and it is not meant to be all conclusive):
* The Babylonian rebellion against God by Nimrod - the mystery religion and the Babylonian priesthood is founded at Babylon.
* Abraham is taken out to be the father of all who live by faith in the true Creator. He believes God’s promise.
* Ishmael is born of the flesh from Abraham’s slave girl - Ishmael mingles with the pagans of Babylon.
* Isaac is born of the promise and follows the God of his father (Abraham).
* Esau is the first son of Isaac but Esau puts no value on the promise of his birthright and sells it to Jacob for a meal.
* Jacob becomes Israel and becomes a nation that is to keep the oracles and promise of God for the benefit of all the people of the promise.
* Israel’s son Joseph speaks of the vision God gave him for the people of promise.
* Joseph is sold into slavery to Egypt by jealous half brothers.
* Joseph becomes prime minister of Egypt with the help of God and saves the descendents of Israel from physical starvation.
* The Egyptian world government forgets Joseph, becomes totally corrupted by Babylonian pagan practices, and enslaves and persecutes the descendents of Israel.
* God raises up Moses to deliver Israel from Egypt and the Law is given to Israel to lead them to the promised Savior.
* Judaism becomes corrupted by harlotry with pagan gods.
* The world empire of Babylon enslaves Israel.
* The Mystical Brotherhood of the Babylonian order moves its headship to Pergamos after the fall of Babylon.
* Some of the Jews return to Israel and rebuild God’s temple.
* The Babylonian priesthood is moved to Rome by the last will of Attalus king of Pergamos.
* Julius Caesar becomes supreme Pontiff (high priest) of the Babylonian Order in BC 63.
* John the Baptist is born to restore Israel so they are ready to receive their promise.
* Jesus “is the promise” and comes to save all mankind.
* The Babylonian influenced Jewish priesthood and the Roman world system kill Jesus. The priests rejected the promise for adultery with Rome.
* Jesus rises from the dead and the promise is given to all who by faith trust in this risen Savior.
* There is a secession of Pontiffs from Julius Caesar to the year when the Babylonian Order becomes the ruler of the Roman Church in 378 AD (a very long story).
* The wheat grows in the same field (the institutional church) as the harlot tares and grows up with them.
* Islam is born and it teaches the sons of Ishmael and Esau to worship a single pagan God that persecutes those born of the promise.
* The tares in the institutional church choke to death many of the people of the promise in the inquisitions.
* The Protestant reformation is born by those who teach that salvation comes from trusting in the promise of Jesus alone.
* Most of Protestantism plays the harlot with philosophy, psychology, new age paganism, humanism, pragmatism and materialism.
* The people of the promise are now the wheat among the tares in the Catholic and Protestant Churches.
* The printed Bible becomes available to the public. Smaller fields grow so much wheat the tares find little room to root.
* Higher critical thinking philosophies war against those who believe the promise in God’s word.
* The people of the promise are removed in the rapture and all the wheat not entangled with the tares (harlot) is removed from the earth.
* All religions of the world unite after a great world religious war to form a world religion led by the Vatican at Rome. This woman will ride the Beast into her end time role.
* The Beast devours the woman that rode on his back (world religious institutions and leaders). The tares are burned.
* Satan through the lying wonders of His Beast and False Prophet sets himself up as God, declares the Kingdom of God has come, and he moves the political and religious capitol of the world to Babylon where he builds a city of gold for himself.
* The wheat bound with paganism is threshed during the great tribulation the Beast brings on the earth.
* All people of the promise that were in adultery return to her husband - the true God of heaven - and are gathered into His barn.
* God avenges all the people of promise by destroying the Beast and by setting up the real kingdom of God on the earth ruled by Jesus.
The woman who rides the Beast has actually existed since the days of Babylon but she will play her major role in the last days. She in the end will be eaten by the Beast she rides because he will claim to be God and will not tolerate the worship of anyone or anything other that himself. Many who were in harlotry will come to understand the truth in those days through the teaching and the judgments that take place in this time of trial for the whole world. These who come out of Babylon will not worship the Beast and these along with a remnant in Israel will return to the true God of heaven but it will cost many of them their mortal lives. In those days all who seek to save their lives by worshiping the Beast will lose their soul and those who lose their life for Jesus’ sake will gain eternal life.
Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
For a more detailed study on the history and future of the woman who rides the Beast I highly recommend the book “A Woman Rides the Beast” by Dave Hunt, Harvest House, 1994.”
Again, subsidiarity. Without that you simply can’t understand what Pope Benedict is saying. And you don’t.
You wrote:
“I doubt your Pope is being disingenuous. It’s more likely he’s just revealing his lack of understanding.”
Except you have nothing but your own opinion to demonstrate that - and that’s not enough.
“I realize it’s very hard for RC’s to criticize anything your Pope says or does and that anyone who does you perceive to be attacking your church and your faith.”
I’m sorry but you’re completely embarrassig yourself. I have absolutely no problem criticizing the pope when he deserves it. Most Catholics I have known have been traditionalists and we - as a group - have little or no difficulty criticizing the pope when he goofs up. Also, I’m not an RC. That’s a cola brand. I’m Catholic, not “RC”.
“However, this socialist drivel is naive and wrong and I suspect the conservative RC’s know it. The naivete is the idea that a large centralized bureaucracy with the power to enforce it’s decisions will let authority rest at the lowest levels.”
The pope is not naive. The “naivete” is your assumption that the pope - who has long worked in a bureaucracy - does not understand the pitfalls of bureaucracy. Did that idea even occur to you? No, apparently not.
“I have yet to see this happen on a national level let alone a global level. The socialist drivel that by redistributing wealth everyone will be better off has been shown throughout history to be a bitter failure. The USSR could never get their wheat to market and suffered severe famines as a result, yet the little plots of land that Russians were allowed to grow their own vegetables on flourished.”
And that was never a redistribution of wealth to the poor of Russia. They were the ones robbed of land (that’s wealth!) in the first place! Your understanding of the USSR is as abysmal as everything else.
“If he wants to see the poor nations improve he should embrace free markets not blame them for the consequences of govt incompetence and manipulation of them.”
And if you want to understand something it helps for you to know what you’re talking about. Study. Learn something.
You wrote:
“Again, read Acts 15:7-21. There was a debate. Debate means that some were on one side of the issue and some were on the other side. Peter spoke. Paul and Barnabas then spoke. Finally, after everyone had their say, James ruled:”
Yet scripture actually says:
“The apostles and presbyters met together TO SEE about the matter. AFTER MUCH DEBATE HAD TAKEN PLACE, PETER got up and said to them....”
In other words, as the following author pointed out, it happened just as I said it did:
However, whereas it does say (in verse 13) how Paul and Barnabas “fall silent,” allowing James to respond, this does not take away from the entire assembly “falling silent” after Peter’s teaching in verse 12. Why? Because we are dealing with 2 Greek words. In 13, the verb is “sigesai” (infinitive aorist: meaning that Paul and Barnabas finished talking). In verse 12, it’s “esigese” (past tense aorist usage — meaning that the assembly REMAINED SILENT after Peter’s address). And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled. http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_acts_15_james_and_peter.htm
It’s an interesting article you might want to read it.
Thanks for those insights into the discussion, diamond, all of them effective.
Since you mentioned the Douay-Rheims, here’s the old commentary on Galatians from the DRV:
Ver. 11. But when Cephas, &c.[1] In most Greek copies, we read Petrus, both here and ver. 13. Nor are there any sufficient, nor even probable grounds to judge, that Cephas here mentioned was different from Peter, the prince of the apostles, as one or two later authors would make us believe. Among those who fancied Cephas different from Peter, not one can be named in the first ages[centuries], except Clemens of Alexandria, whose works were rejected as apocryphal by Pope Gelasius. The next author is Dorotheus of Tyre, in his Catalogue of the seventy-two disciples, in the fourth or fifth age[century], and after him the like, or same catalogue, in the seventh age[century], in the Chronicle, called of Alexandria, neither of which are of any authority with the learned, so many evident faults and falsehoods being found in both. St. Jerome indeed on this place says, there were some (though he does not think fit to name them) who were of that opinion; but at the same time St. Jerome ridicules and rejects it as groundless. Now as to authors that make Cephas the same with St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, we have what may be called the unexceptionable and unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church, as of Tertullian, who calls this management of St. Peter, a fault of conversation, not of preaching or doctrine. Of St. Cyprian, of Origen, of the great doctors, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory the Great, of St. Cyril of Alexandria, of Theodoret, Pope Gelasius, Pelagius the second, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas. In later ages, of Bellarmine, Baronius, Binius, Spondan, of Salmeron, Estius, Gagneius, Tirinus, Menochius, Alex Natalis, and a great many more: so that Cornelius a Lapide on this place says, that the Church neither knows, nor celebrates any other Cephas but St. Peter. Tertullian and most interpreters take notice, that St. Peter’s fault was only a lesser or venial sin in his conduct and conversation. Did not St. Paul on several occasions do the like, as what is here laid to St. Peter’s charge? that is, practise the Jewish ceremonies: did not he circumcise Timothy after this, an. 52[A.D. 52]? did he not shave his head in Cenchrea, an. 54? did he not by the advice of St. James (an. 58.) purify himself with the Jews in the temple, not to offend them? St. Jerome, and also St. Chrysostom,[2] give another exposition of this passage. They looked upon all this to have been done by a contrivance and a collusion betwixt these two apostles, who had agreed beforehand that St. Peter should let himself be reprehended by St. Paul, (for this they take to be signified by the Greek text) and not that St. Peter was reprehensible;[3] so that the Jews seeing St. Peter publicly blamed, and not justifying himself, might for the future eat with the Gentiles. But St. Augustine vigorously opposed this exposition of St. Jerome, as less consistent with a Christian and apostolical sincerity, and with the text in this chapter, where it is called a dissimulation, and that Cephas or Peter walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel. After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, St. Jerome seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins. What we have to admire, is the humility of St. Peter on this occasion, as St. Cyprian observes,[4] who took the reprehension so mildly, without alleging the primacy, which our Lord had given him. Baronius held that St. Peter did not sin at all, which may be true, if we look upon his intention only, which was to give no offence to the Jewish converts; but if we examine the fact, he can scarce be excused from a venial indiscretion. (Witham) -— I withstood, &c. The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts: but this in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul’s reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for is such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior. (Challoner)
You also might want to read this: http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/10/does-st-pauls-rebuke-of-st-peter-prove.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c2a1.htm#1883
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
CHAPTER TWO
THE HUMAN COMMUNION
ARTICLE 1
THE PERSON AND SOCIETY
I. THE COMMUNAL CHARACTER OF THE HUMAN VOCATION
Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7
1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order
1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.
From what I have seen, I think that the principle of subsidiarity is an excellent concept. I must add, that I believe that a "World Authority" will honor this principle only in the breach.
DG
Can the Pope be impeached?
The lesser groups should be assisted to achieve their legitimate objectives in their own fashion, rather than have one single straitjacket imposed on all. This presumption in favour of non-intervention is based upon a fundamental respect for the dignity or the worth of each individual citizen, very much along the lines of human rights theory. But it is easily recognized that an individual acting alone can in most cases do little: in the realms of health, education, transport infrastructure, etc., substantial achievements are only possible when individuals band together. In this process of banding together, there are inevitable compromises between the wishes of individuals and what become the collective wishes or aspirations of groups.
The wishes of some groups, and the impact of acting on those wishes, will be purely local. Some group decisions will impact upon many others who are not local. In thinking about the application of the principle of subsidiarity in this way, it can be used to determine which decisions are most fruitfully to be made by the mechanisms of local democracy and which are rather to be made by a more widely based collective (be it a state or a trans-national body). In the United States, for example, there is a strong tradition of very local democracy. The citizens of a township will typically vote on whether they wish to raise a specific local tax for the precise purpose of repairing the potholes in a local road. They sometimes vote not to. If the state of those local roads has little or no impact on others living outside the locality, this seems an appropriate level of decision-making: as close as possible to the citizens affected by the decision. Such a very local approach makes much less sense when the roads in question are used by a lot of travellers just passing through. And for this reason, interstate freeways, designed to facilitate travel through many localities and across great distances, are federally planned and financed out of federal taxes.
Note the portion in bold for a good example of how subsidiarity exists in the United States even now. The underlined portion is the key concept here. That is, no one (who's not an anarchist) could argue there's no role for some kind of higher form of government in some situations. Thus, proposing this on a global level hardly seems like an imposition onto our basic God given rights as human beings, or else one would be forced to conclude the citizens of the United States should be revolting against our local governments (much less state and Federal) right now.
IOW, to outright reject the concept Pope Benedict XVIth proposes in this latest Encyclical on a concern that his proposal would violate our national sovereignty is to reduce to the absurd notion that any government, no matter how local, that infringes on the free wishes of the individual is tyrannical. At least this is how I see it now.
I suppose one could argue, "Why go for even more levels of government? It only makes it easier for tyrannies to prosper!". In a sense this is a reasonable counter-argument, however the opposite of this is also true (as I implied above). After all, if the proposal of Benedict XVIth is intolerable due to its potential for abuse, then it stands to reason that our own Federal government is equally intolerable, as it is equally subject to abuse. Thus we would be forced to conclude we should revolt against the Federal government now. Then state governments. Then local governments. In other words this concern for "tyranny" reduces to absurdity, that is, reduces to an advocation of anarchy, IMHO.
Your inputs are greatly appreciated.
What do you expect from a liberal? Remember who this man is. This is the same man who, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was a major force in Vatican II and the destruction of the traditional liturgy of the Holy Mass. He was and still is a radical, who was quite open to every lame brained liberal fashion that compromised orthodox teachings of the Church. He was a prime architect in the false ecumenism that has all but emptied our churches, seminaries and convents. Many of his writings are outright heretical and anti-catholic. I am starting to believe that the sedivacantists are correct.
This statement, far from surprising me, further confirms those accusations I have long suspected to be true of the man.
AMEN AMEN AMEN!!
May God bless you Quix for the courageous and unwavering love you are trying to give to those you are talking to in that post. If it is His will that just one has ears to hear it, PRAISE BE TO GOD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.