Quix's Commentary On Pope Paul VI's 1967 Populorum Progressio RE: Globalism Implications

Quix's mysterious thought processes and the Vatican URL link given ^ | 26 MARCH 1967 AND 23 MAY 2009 | Pope Paul VI & Quix

[Quix]

Quix’s commentary on Pope Paul VI-th’s:

POPULORUM PROGRESSIO

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLES

MARCH 26, 1967

FROM:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html

paragraph 13:

. . . But since the Church does dwell among men, she has the duty "of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel." (14) Sharing the noblest aspirations of men and suffering when she sees these aspirations not satisfied, she wishes to help them attain their full realization. So she offers man her distinctive contribution: a global perspective on man and human realities.

.

Qx:
A couple of things stand out to me in this paragraph. “. . . signs of the times.” That’s a rather Pentecostal phrase! LOL. I wonder what his thinking was as he chose that phrase. Or does it mean something different in Latin than it does to Pentecostals in English?

In English, to Pentecostals it equals “END TIMES” and the Biblical signs thereof. I’d think, HOPE, that the Vatican translators would KNOW that. If they didn’t and it slipped through, then their scholarship is not very impressive.

This term: “. . . a global perspective on man and human realities” is a bit fascinating . . . Certainly the Pope would have reason to consider his turf of global reach—quite reasonably, plausibly.

However, it also certainly fits globalism’s goals, wording and purview, as well. Whether this was deliberately done or not, the globalist puppet masters had to be pleased with that wording.

A New Humanism Needed

20. If development calls for an ever-growing number of technical experts, even more necessary still is the deep thought and reflection of wise men in search of a new humanism, one which will enable our contemporaries to enjoy the higher values of love and friendship, of prayer and contemplation, (17) and thus find themselves. This is what will guarantee man's authentic development—his transition from less than human conditions to truly human ones.

.

Hmmmmm “. . . a new humanism, . . .” Doesn’t sound that different than the Georgia Guidestones—the globalist’s ‘Ten Commandments.’

http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

I’m not really that thrilled with the term “humanism.” Why would a Pope ‘need’ to use it. Humanism is NOT the objective of Believers in Christ. If anything, it should be “God-ism.” We are being conformed to HIS LIKENESS—if we are truly His Children.

“Humanism” is a satanic term in virtually all its modern uses. It is a seductive deception from hell. It pleases the flesh and flatters pride. It exalts man above or at least equal to God. I’m saddened to see the Pope use it.

The Use of Private Property

23. "He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?" (21) Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." (22) These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional.

.

I’ve long pondered this issue. Biblically, in terms of Christian thought and practice, I mostly agree with the Pope. And, I believe that authentic Christians in most places in these END TIMES will end up sharing all things in common as they did 2000 years ago. And that those proudly, selfishly unwilling to do so will suddenly find themselves WITHOUT their goods and wealth AND HIGHLY LIKELY, without--outside the camp of God’s people.

HOWEVER, we can observe in the story of Peter and Ananias and Sapphira, that there was NO COMPULSION FROM the Disciples. It was VOLUNTARY.

I don’t see IN SCRIPTURE, per se, the “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his.”

Scripture indicates that—essentially—IN GENERAL—that Godly people are blessed of God. That can end up creating a false ‘vending machine’ mentality about God. However, the Promises of God are clear in Scripture and include being blessed materially for those who walk close to God. King David and Solomon are but two examples. Kenneth Hagin was Biblical in his teachings and practices on that score. Most of his ‘disciples’ have jumped off the cliff with it but he was not that far off, himself.

Yet, God does also seem to call some individuals to a life of material poverty and spiritual wealth. And, many believers would bankrupt their souls if God blessed them materially—idolizing things.

In fact, SCRIPTURE IS CLEAR that whether by the work of one’s hands or as manna from Heaven—ALL BLESSINGS COME FROM GOD. The rich man AND the poor man who construes it otherwise are both on thin ice, from God’s perspective.

And, I CERTAINLY BELIEVE that IF Christians had applied the—‘if you have two, give your brother one’ Biblical principle, the horrendous welfare system would never have gotten off the ground short of a globalist forced strong-armed thing. CHRISTIANS TOO have been far too materialistic in every Christian group and flavor. And the Church Universal and individual Believers have suffered great loss because of that.

Yet, it is NOT the stuff that’s evil—but the LOVE of the stuff that is damning idolatry.

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, "as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good." When "private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another," it is for the public authorities "to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups." (23)

.

This begins to feel, again, like globalist tyrannical group-think, forced, coerced ‘charity’ a la the looming globalist Gestapo--forced conformity etc. As Shrillery said, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THINGS FROM YOU, FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

SCRIPTURE is quite different—GOD LOVES A CHEERFUL GIVER—NOT out of compulsion, social pressure [perhaps we could say—nor out of law]—but freely AS UNTO GOD. 2 Cor 9:7

.

The Common Good

24. If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.

.

Hmmmmm . . . that phrase again “The Common Good.” “LIBERATION THEOLOGY” . . . that ended up deepening the enslavement of the serfs—quite along globalist lines and agenda. “. . . demands their expropriation.” Perhaps morally. To do it as government fiat is tyranny.

Vatican II affirms this emphatically. (24) At the same time it clearly teaches that income thus derived is not for man's capricious use, and that the exclusive pursuit of personal gain is prohibited. Consequently, it is not permissible for citizens who have garnered sizeable income from the resources and activities of their own nation to deposit a large portion of their income in foreign countries for the sake of their own private gain alone, taking no account of their country's interests; in doing this, they clearly wrong their country. (25)

.

True enough. They do wrong their own country. And likely they wrong their own souls. However, freedom at some point and for quite a distance, still requires that they be accountable to God and His Body of Believers vs to government tyrannical fiat—imho. And, I think the Believers as a group in every group have let evil hearted fat cats get off with horrific stuff because we were respecters of persons in violation of scripture. This is evident in the RC delivery of The Lord’s Supper to the likes of Scuba Teddy et al.

Unbridled Liberalism

26. However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.

.

While I might technically agree with him from a Biblical perspective . . . the limits must arise out of each individual’s relationship with God and NOT be a result of government fiat inserting itself between the individual and God.

Yet, the Pope seems to be setting up a kind of foundation for LIBERATION THEOLOGY GLOBALIST mandate for confiscating private property. That’s more than a little disturbing.

This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the "international imperialism of money."(26)

.

This is indeed a paradox. Liberalism as currently practiced and, actually, as practiced for many decades . . . has been mostly about CONFISCATION of private property for WASTEFUL government bureaucracy and globalist tyranny types of programs.

And, it is the globalists and their tyrannical world government that will be the ultimate most intense imperialism—with a very deified materialism morphing into satan worship. It is more than a little odd that the Pope comes off speaking such memes, such phrasing, such themes.

Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)

.

That’s a lofty ideal. Though I can’t think of a Scripture, per se, that espouses it. “. . . can never be condemned enough ;” sounds like Communistic tyranny, to me.

I don’t recall a single Scripture condemning riches, per se. Riches can easily keep a rich man out of Heaven. A rich man who shuts up his heart to the needs of the poor is in trouble with God. However, we are talking about heart attitudes first and foremost and deeds secondarily. The idolatry is the root issue.

However, Christians of all flavors have demonstrated far too much [any is too much] of such idolatry—shutting up their hearts against the poor . . . Being given far too much to selfishness. Ignoring God to work extra hours for a bigger TV screen, a flashier car, more expensive Nike’s etc.

Reform, Not Revolution

30. The injustice of certain situations cries out for God's attention. Lacking the bare necessities of life, whole nations are under the thumb of others; they cannot act on their own initiative; they cannot exercise personal responsibility; they cannot work toward a higher degree of cultural refinement or a greater participation in social and public life. They are sorely tempted to redress these insults to their human nature by violent means.

.

QUITE SO. However, most such situations have been and are set up by the globalists over the last century plus. Siding with their priorities, motivations, goals will only worsen such things. The globalists are collecting to themselves MORE of the world’s wealth at the expense of the poor and are determined to not just leave folks poor—but to exterminate them--massively.

31. Everyone knows, however, that revolutionary uprisings—except where there is manifest, longstanding tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country—engender new injustices, introduce new inequities and bring new disasters. The evil situation that exists, and it surely is evil, may not be dealt with in such a way that an even worse situation results.

.

Thankfully, he does see the truth of that! Praise God for that!

Programs and Planning

33. Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for "directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating" (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.

.

Sounds like Shrillery, Biden, Puhlousey, Scuba Teddy and OThuga again. Bring Heaven to earth by government fiat. Won’t happen. Would NEVER succeed. Heart change is required else all other systems and means descend into hell. And ONLY Christ engineers heart changes.

It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man's basic human rights.

.

Is this a milk-sop in behalf of “private initiative?” Sounds rather weak along-side the other assertions.

Basic Education

35. We can even say that economic growth is dependent on social progress, the goal to which it aspires; and that basic education is the first objective for any nation seeking to develop itself. Lack of education is as serious as lack of food; the illiterate is a starved spirit. When someone learns how to read and write, he is equipped to do a job and to shoulder a profession, to develop selfconfidence and realize that he can progress along with others. As We said in Our message to the UNESCO meeting at Teheran, literacy is the "first and most basic tool for personal enrichment and social integration; and it is society's most valuable tool for furthering development and economic progress." (36)

.

Sounds lofty. HOWEVER, UNESCO is a globalist organization that has been tirelessly seducing the world in behalf of globalism and globalist goals for many decades.

AND, EDUCATION was designed more than 100 years ago as a primary way of destroying the family and delivering the new Gestapo to the globalist masters untainted by God, religion and parental influences. Certainly I’m for education—God fearing education. I assume the Pope was, too. Yet, why this praise, seemingly, for UNESCO. Was he that ignorant of UNESCO’S aims? I doubt that.

We also rejoice at the good work accomplished in this field by private initiative, by the public authorities, and by international organizations. These are the primary agents of development, because they enable man to act for himself.

.

Thankfully, he included “private initiative.” HOWEVER, he seemed to give the lion’s share of support for ‘public authorities and INTERNATIONAL organizations.’ International organizations have been main tools of globalism for many decades. The Pope MUST have known that. If he was too ignorant to know that, then the Vatican information gathering and analyzing apparatus was still in kindergarten or chronically drunk on their rears.

IF he knew that—as he should have—and still ended up supporting INTERNATIOINAL ORGS, more or less carte blanche--then he’s complicit in globalism plain and simple.

Population Growth

37. There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate.

There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.

Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God's law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him. (39)

.

This whole section is MOST CURIOUS. He seems—SEEMS to tread a thin line here. He doesn’t actually violate RC dogma—but he sure seems to come close. He sure seems to walk as close as possible to globalist constructions on population and to globalist goals, aims and methods. Disturbing.

A Full-Bodied Humanism

42. The ultimate goal is a fullbodied humanism. (44) And does this not mean the fulfillment of the whole man and of every man? A narrow humanism, closed in on itself and not open to the values of the spirit and to God who is their source, could achieve apparent success, for man can set about organizing terrestrial realities without God. But "closed off from God, they will end up being directed against man. A humanism closed off from other realities becomes inhuman." (45)

.

I was glad to see this paragraph. However, along-side all the others, it comes across as a bit of a weak milk-sop.

True humanism points the way toward God and acknowledges the task to which we are called, the task which offers us the real meaning of human life. Man is not the ultimate measure of man. Man becomes truly man only by passing beyond himself. In the words of Pascal: "Man infinitely surpasses man." (46)

.

This, comes across to me as an upside-down way of putting it. GOD in Christ-redeemed RELATIONSHIP WITH MAN results in individuals becoming TRULY HUMAN as God designed them to be. Humanism—even “True Humanism” doesn’t point to God, imho. Humanism as a term, as a concept is still tainted—to me--with its origins in hell.

Three Major Duties

44. This duty concerns first and foremost the wealthier nations. Their obligations stem from the human and supernatural brotherhood of man, and present a three-fold obligation: 1) mutual solidarity—the aid that the richer nations must give to developing nations; 2) social justice—the rectification of trade relations between strong and weak nations; 3) universal charity—the effort to build a more humane world community, where all can give and receive, and where the progress of some is not bought at the expense of others. The matter is urgent, for on it depends the future of world civilization.

.

This sounds quite lofty. However, it’s almost straight globalist dogma. It’s full of globalist euphemisms—beginning with ‘the brotherhood of man.” “ . . . to build a more humane world community.”

Who could be against that? Any thinking person aware of THE MEANS and the eventual structure of the purported ‘HUMANE” WORLD community. There’s that emphasis on HUMANISM and WORLD again. Disturbing.

Aid to Developing Nations

45. "If a brother or a sister be naked and in want of daily food," says St. James, "and one of you say to them, 'Go in peace, be warm and filled,' yet you do not give them what is necessary for the body, what does it profit?" (48) Today no one can be unaware of the fact that on some continents countless men and women are ravished by hunger and countless children are undernourished. Many children die at an early age; many more of them find their physical and mental growth retarded. Thus whole populations are immersed in pitiable circumstances and lose heart.

.

Quite so. And, it IS the Body of Christ’s duty and privilege to help rectify such situations, conditions etc. And we have failed far too much at that task.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE ALSO SUCCEEDED at correcting such, FAR MORE THAN globalist government efforts have.

Joya is still working on getting me the 2nd half. So I’m going to go ahead and post this much. I’ll add the 2nd half later or tomorrow, Lord willing and the Creek Indians don’t rise up.

Joya’s impression of the last half is that it’s much MORE full of globalism than this half. God have mercy.

Satan’s seductions have been very skillful and comprehensive for millennia. And, he no doubt targeted the Vatican from early on. . . . as he has and does any even possibly authentic expression of Christianity. Sigh.

[impimp]

“Was that a factor in his premature departure?”

Huh? JPII is John Paul II - he wrote Centesimus Annus. He hardly departed prematurely.

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind words and amplifications and clarifications. Am happy to have read them. I’m encouraged by them.

Take your time.

I’m only half through with the document, myself.

I don’t think I’m going to get to any more of it tonight! LOL.

Prayers for your healing sleep toward wholeness and rejuvenation and a blessed Sunday to you and yours.

[Quix]

Sorry, I mix them up. My fault.

[Quix]

Welllll in terms of going through the doc . . .

LOL.

Someone sort of tossed it derisively-to-me in my lap. And, accused me of making things up about it.

And, I had posted a quote from it. So, it was only fitting that I go through it. Not done yet. LOL.

[markomalley]

Someone sort of tossed it derisively-to-me in my lap. And, accused me of making things up about it.

Well, I seem to remember a thread where you quoted something about it.

And, frankly, it is really good to read these documents. There's a lot of good information in them. You may accept some and reject other parts but still...

Let me give you a couple of other suggestions, considering your interest in these types of things:

• Quo Graviora (On Secret Societies), by Leo XII (1826)
• Humanum Genus (On Freemasonry), by Leo XIII (1884)
• Dall'alto Dell'apostolico Seggio (On Freemasonry in Italy), by Leo XIII (1890)
• Inimica Vis (On Freemasonry), by Leo XIII (1892) (written to the bishops of Italy)
• Custodi Di Quella Fede (On Freemasonry), by Leo XIII (1892) (written to the people of Italy)
• Spesse Volte (On the Suppression of Catholic Institutions), by Leo XIII (1898)

Hopefully the above might give you some information that you might not have otherwise been aware of.

[Joya]

Here’s a link to what I found on the Net about that phrase

http://ngeorgia.com/history/creek.html

[Quix]

Have been aware of the Vatican’s wise antipathy toward such groups . . . it’s evidently a complex . . . set of stuff on all sides.

Thanks for the links.

That . . . aspect of the whole ball of wax is one of the more distasteful sides of it, to me. So I avoid it as much as I can.

Counseling clients dabbling in such were always the most troublesome to help get beyond demonic junk.

Bless you for your kind replies.

[Quix]

Thanks.

Interesting.

I wonder how long ago they were in the Southwest.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Was that a factor in his premature departure?”

What? Paul VI was just six weeks shy of his 81st birthday when he died. 81 is premature in 1978? How do you figure that?

Do you mean John Paul II? He lived as pope from 1978 to 2005. How’s is that premature?

Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about?

[wolfcreek]

My Wife’s family (mother’s side) have Creek blood.

The *creek* in Wolfcreek. is a reference to the tribe.

(I kind of snatched my Wife’s screen name when she quit spending much time online.) and (cause my middle name means Wolf)

[Quix]

IIRC There was a LOT of intrigue around the death of one of the John Paul’s. Wasn’t there one . . . or maybe . . . one of them was Pope a relatively short time?

[Quix]

Cute.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“IIRC There was a LOT of intrigue around the death of one of the John Paul’s. Wasn’t there one . . . or maybe . . . one of them was Pope a relatively short time?”

John Paul I was pope for all of about one month in 1978. There was exactly ZERO intrigue surrounding his death. ZERO. He stopped taking his heart medication and died. It was that simple. Since then, however, hundreds of authors have made up phony stories about his death to sell books. To me it’s the Catholic version of Loose Change or all the other 911 Truthers trying to sell books and DVDs. I guess it is much sexier to say a pope was murdered by [fill-in-the-blank] than to say a quiet, old Italian pope died of heart failure in his bed because he had been too pre-occupied to refill his prescription.

[dangus]

Quix,

I hope you’ll understand that I write this as a Catholic trying to acknowledge shortcomings of an historically important person, not to disparage him.

If ever there was a time when a pope needed more than holiness, but incredible intellectual talents, it was the time immediately following Vatican II. For whatever His purposes were, we got Pope Paul VI, instead. He was not a heretic, but seemed oblivious to the theat of all stripes of heretics. Like popes before him, he wrote in a style to establish truths for 1000 years. Unfortunately, the world was changing very rapidly, and his present-day audience needed guidance they did not receive.

>> In English, to Pentecostals it equals “END TIMES” and the Biblical signs thereof. I’d think, HOPE, that the Vatican translators would KNOW that. If they didn’t and it slipped through, then their scholarship is not very impressive. <<

Pope Paul VI is writing to a Catholic audience, who will read such phases with a Catholic understanding.

>> Hmmm... A new humanism. <<

Humanism, in the Catholic tradition, does not mean what secualr humanists use it to mean, meaning humans as opposed to God. We use it to refer to humanity as opposed to materialism.

>> [about private property ]

The weight of papal encyclicals in opposition to socialism is staggering, arguing precisely your points. However, this encylical was historically problemmatic. Offered to provide a little context and balance to other encyclicals which focused on the inalienable right to the rewards of one’s own labor, this did get seen as a shift towards socialism. What Paul VI did not foresee was that, in the context of the reforms following of Vatican II, the media would present this not as providing marginal qualification for the Church’s support of private ownership, but as a reversal of it. His following statements were ignored.

>> Population growth

This is another classic case of Paul being tone deaf to the fact that his audience is already confused by the post-Vatican reforms and drastic social upheaval. He worte that birth control was immoral, and the world exploded with rage at him, complaining that the Catholic Church was dooming the entire world to poverty and environmental devestation. Many Protestant authors insisted the real intent was to out-breed the rest of Christiandom. Here, Paul VI is only trying to correct the notion that Catholics are morally bound to be perpetually bearing kids. Abstinence can be virtuous. And so long as one is open to God giving them a child, family planning techniques which reduced birth rates are also permitted.

[dangus]

>> I recommend you look at Centessimus Annus which was the most recent social justice encyclical (circa 1990 Pope JPII). This document embraces capitalism and condemns socialism more than any other previous encyclical. It is a good read. <<

I have to disagree with the statement that it condemns socialism more than any other previous encyclical. Populorum Progressio (”Forward People”) puts some slight qualification on the explicit condemnation of socialism which previous encyclicals had made. Unfortunately, many liberals reported that Rerum Novarum (”New Things”), for instance, was written before Vatican II “changed everything.” In fact, Vatican II changed nothing. Rerum Novarum was in ways the most influential encyclical ever, forming the intellectual foundation of counter-socialism in Europe.

Centessimus Annus (”100 Years [since Rerum Novarum]”) restated Rerum Novarum’s criticism of socialism. If anything, it tried to strike a bit more balanced of a tone, to remind the middle classes of Europe and America (which scarcely existed when Rerum Novarum was published) that capitalism hasn’t fully addressed yet. But impimp is very correct when he asserts that Centessimus Annus boldly reasserted the Catholic Church’s opposition to socialism. Unfortunately, the mainstream media’s spin machine largely ignored that opposition.

Pope John Paul II: Capitalism isn’t perfect, but socialism is an unspeakable evil!
Socialist mainstream media: The Pope criticized capitalism!

Unfortunately Pope Paul VI’s intellectual failings helped foster within the American church a leftish presbyterate which did little to correct the MSM.

[Quix]

Much appreciate your contextual perspective.

I really have long recognized that the Vatican is . . .

a complex lot of things . . .

. . . bureaucratic, political, theological, sociological . . .

over a long period of time . . . in a changing world context . . .

with changing yet tradition . . . influenced personalities at the top.

As I’ve noted, I have not, per se [contrary to some attitudes on your side], been a chronic Vatican basher insisting that THE POPE WOULD BE THE ANTI-CHRIST etc. etc. etc.

It just hasn’t fit my understanding of Scripture nor of the world.

However, I have assumed, based, I think—on good Scriptural foundation—that

The Vatican LIKE ALL CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS in the END TIMES, WILL definitely fall under the Anti-Christ’s sway, influence, !!!!CONTROL!!!!

And, I have watched, off and on, somewhat keenly for signs of such globalist oligarchy influences. Because, certainly, they will NOT just wake up on a Monday morning and decide to gain control of the Vatican by Friday. They really have been working toward such for a very long time—very VERY methodically . . . and stealthily.

Certainly, as such a large, old, broadly spread Christian organization, the Vatican is a prime target and a prime example for monitoring such influences. It used to be said that what was good for GM was good for the USA. It’s not a big stretch to construe that whatever the globalist oligarchy does to and through the Vatican will not leave the rest of Christendom unscathed for long.

Therefore, it is worthwhile to monitor such influences on the Vatican.

Frankly, when I first read the Paul VI th’s quote in the list of quotes I came across, I was shocked then annoyed. I was shocked that he was so clearly on the side of the globalists that long ago. Then I was annoyed that they’d succeeded in such influence at such levels with the Vatican that long ago.

Now, I’m in the process of analyzing this encyclical to see just how true that seems to be, from my perspective.

I recognize that there are multiple keyword meanings regarding critical keywords.

However, I do not think that so many keywords implicating globalism’s influence ought to be glibly ignored—even by this Pope even this long ago. The themes are there. The memes are there. The influence of the globalists is obviously there, in the first half of the encyclical.

It is conceivable that a percentage of such things could be rationalized away due to various other contextual pressures and issues. It is not conceivable to me that one could accurately, honestly, objectively white-wash all such away. The evidence is too significant.

By that, I mean, that it is conceivable to me that some wordings and nuances could be laid at the feet of other non-globalist pressures—SOME. It is not conceivable to me, so far, to believe that there’s not a shred of real, genuine globalism represented in the document.

What it all means—to me, I’ll have to wait until I finish the 2nd half to comment on. However, the first half is disturbing enough, to me.

Certainly one issue would be . . . to what degree did Paul VI th consciously give voice and approval to globalist aims knowing they were oligarchic globalist aims? And to what degree did he go along with the successfully engineered—at those international leadership levels even back then—the growing ‘world community’ gestalt in some sort of rosey colored farcical propaganda sense so carefully constructed by the globalists. Disney’s IT’S A SMALL WORLD had certainly been cheerily singing the praises of such a meme for a long time by then. I don’t know that the encyclical will be able to shed definitive light on that question. But perhaps some inferences can be made.

Let’s assume for a moment that my darkest concerns are borne out by more than the encyclical and other data . . . Therefore, what.

As a watchman on the wall, my concern would be that Roman Catholics who are truly in Love with Jesus, Father, Spirit would cleave all the more to God and loosen maybe !!!!TRADITION!!!! bound affections and death-grips on an edifice that DEFINITELY WILL BE consumed by the growing engulfment from hell.

That, as MarkOMalley has somewhat hinted at, such authentically faithful-TO-GOD RC’s will prepare their hearts etc. for whatever period of underground Christian life may be possible . . . that they not be caught asleep and clueless as the darkness descends.

I realize that there are RC’s hereon just as there are Penetcostals who think that their myopic constructions on Christian reality and the world at this time simply cannot conceive of such a thing being remotely possible. Some Pentecostals seem to think that nothing very significantly uncomfortable will occur to them prior to THE RAPTURE. Some RC’s are convinced that nothing will tarnish nor subsume the Vatican etc. etc. etc.

Scripture indicates otherwise.

I’m somewhat open to dialogue about a lot of this. However, a lot seems quite clearly set in Scripture—which for me equals set in stone. Certainly there is lack of specific clarity about a lot of things related thereto. However, the basic fact remains that the AC WILL BE in fairly thorough-going charge of the whole world—PARTICULARLY THE RELIGIOUS world for at least 3.5 years—and to some increasing degree for 7 years.

The degree of the oligarchy’s influence over the RELIGIOUS WORLD is already somewhat shocking when really looked at closely.

So, in a sense, I’m bothering THIS MUCH about this encyclical because I think it’s a good benchmark . . . a good mile post to examine regarding the above.

And, I think that looking at the seductive phrases used—whether intended as such by Paul VI th or taken on from the global gestalt of the time . . . looking at those phrases can be instructive for watching similar wordings increasingly descend on all of Christendom with increasing speed and weight.

I realize that some do and will always, short of a miracle, see me as a Vatican/RC hating basher. That will have to be their problem before God. God knows the truth is quite different—as do quite a number of RC’s.

I realize that some Prottys may be inclined to look down haughty RELIGIOUS noses and say—’Yeah, well, what can one expect of the RC’s, but such.’ They would be grossly in error and on thin ice with God to cop such an attitude. The same horrors are coming soon to a congregation near and hopefully dear to them, as well.

Anyway—back to the encyclical.

BLESSED BE THE BLOOD, THE FORGIVENESS, THE NAME, THE RESURRECTION LIFE AND WORD OF THE LORD.

[humblegunner]

WHACKEDORUM FORMATESSIO

[Quix]

I think I understand.

Thanks.

[Quix]

Was that channeled from Mary or Joseph?

[Mad Dawg]

Quix, Thanks for this. Even though a lot of it is Blue, I read it! I'm even going to print it and try to issue my own interminable comment.

With respect to "humanism":

I think this is a case where popular usage has drowned out a more precise technical usage. The popular usage I mean includes "secular humanism" or even "atheistic humanism."

Largely because of cruddy edumication, people aren't aware of the use of "humanism" to describe a kind of thinking that could be said to have begun to blossom around the 12th or 13th centuries and in response to some very inhumane sorts of thinking.

I do not mean by what follows to be defining humanism or even to be hitting its high points.

But suppose you have a bunch of people who think that humans are intrinsically evil and the such things are eating and sexual intercourse can never be less than so dreadfully evil that to be "perfect" one should abstain from both.

Or suppose you have a religion threatening Catholic Christendom from the east, the south, and the west. And suppose it teaches that the righteousness of God is so unrelated to our perception of righteousness, that our minds are so desperately far from any perception of the True and the Just, that God could command that one give oneself up to disobedience of him and to the consequent damnation, and that one would have a duty to obey that command, because God willed it. And suppose that both these groups taught that the idea of the Incarnation of God in human flesh was not only blasphemous but preposterous.

One response to those lines of thought would be to assert that, as part of Creation, man was good ab initio, and the by the Incarnation and the work of Christ generally man and all of creation had a hope of a future righteousness, goodness, and even holiness in which they (or some of them) participated on a very small and derivative scale right now.

And the response might also affirm that there was a real, valid, informative, and useful connection between the mental functioning of humans and the Truth of God, so that even the gentiles have SOME clue about what truly is beautiful, just, and good.

All these contentions work toward asserting a fundamental as well as eschatological dignity to mankind. Therefore, they are called "humanistic," although they hang on not only the law and the prophets, but also on the revelation of God in Christ, and in His Most Holy Word.

-- Man has a dignity (which he has mostly squandered) because God made him to have it. --

Now I will "work a problem" on the basis of Christian humanism:
Some years ago I drove into Charlottesville. A few minutes after I entered the bustling metropolis, the car in front of me swerved, and then continued on its way. This caused a little adrenaline dump and I was very alert, which is good, because a split second later I looked to my right and saw a toddler in nothing but pampers walking in the middle of a side street.

The question is what should I do? What does that toddler "deserve" and why?

What would you think of me if I said I was busy and went about my business. Or maybe I stopped at a pay phone (I didn't have a cell phone in those days.) Or maybe I called 911 from my cell -- as I could have done if this had happened less than a decade ago.

And if the toddler had been run down, well hey, I called 911, didn't I? Wasn't that above and beyond? It wasn't MY kid, after all ...

I would say that, unlike a squirrel or chipmunk, the right thing for me to do was to pull over and get that kid out of the street. And it was right because that kid, being made in the image of God, was due a kind of reverence, a kind of honor, a kind of care that was of a higher level and more demanding of me than what a chipmunk's "due" would be.

But if you answer that I am a sinful SOB and worse if I don't pick up that kid and get him off the street, then we have ethical problems and political problems that make my head spin.