The Pope’s Plans on Organizing Political, Economic, and Religious Activities Worldwid

[ReformedBaptist]

This is an important review by Mr. Bennett. You can google the encyclical if you would rather read that first. I pulled up the document and fact checked Bennett's comments.

I would like to believe that the papacy is going to go no where with this. Sadly, I think I might be playing wishful thinking. I hope I am wrong.

Dear Friend,

The Pope’s latest encyclical can read like an ideological bombshell. However, when we study papal history with its obsession for global power, it is not so shocking. The Pa-pacy has an agenda for the United Nations, economic institutions, and international fi-nance organizations. The Pope has called for the crafting of a new governmental body above these groups and intends that the new body be equipped with enforcement power on a startling scale. Much more sobering is the detailed body of Roman Catholic social doctrine on which the encyclical is built and which the Papacy is in the process of insti-tuting secularly.

These documents need to be analyzed and rejected before nations and peoples unwittingly concede both temporal and religious control to the Vatican. We have outlined the heart of the major tactics found in the body of Roman Catholic social doctrine, which includes the Pope’s latest encyclical. Our article is called; “The Pope’s Plans on Organizing Political, Economic, and Religious Activities Worldwide.” We consider this to be one of the more important analyzes we have done. I ask therefore that you forward the article to many Christians who need to take heed. I request also, if possible, that you post it on your Website or blog. The article is below.

Trusting in the Lord’s grace and mighty power,
Richard Bennett

http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/The_Popes_Plans_on_Organizing.pdf

 

[Matt Black]

Do you mean the encyclical Caritas in veritate? I thought it was rather good, actually. I don't read into it any desire for global domination by the Vatican, merely an exhortation for existing supra-national organisations to work properly in the interests of mankind, to relieve poverty, reduce injustice and abortion, and increase religious freedom. In a globalised age, international responses to international problems make sense; the banking industry, if proof be needed, has amply demonstrated that in the last 2 years. Only a tin-foil hat wearer could object to that.

 

[Alive in Christ]

This is no surprise. You can read all about it in the book of Revelation.

The Great Whore is alive and well, and going about that which has been pre-ordained.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Do you mean the encyclical Caritas in veritate? I thought it was rather good, actually. I don't read into it any desire for global domination by the Vatican, merely an exhortation for existing supra-national organisations to work properly in the interests of mankind, to relieve poverty, reduce injustice and abortion, and increase religious freedom. In a globalised age, international responses to international problems make sense; the banking industry, if proof be needed, has amply demonstrated that in the last 2 years. Only a tin-foil hat wearer could object to that.

I assume that you read the encyclical. Take a look at the article I posted and let me know what you think.

There are clear places in that document that shows the papacy seeks global dominance. But that would be nothing new. They had it before, they lost it, and are seeking to gain it back.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, I did read the article and have read the encyclical. It seems to me that the article (amongst other errors it makes) makes the primary error of conflating two strands within the encyclical:

1. The need for a co-ordinated global response to global problems through supra-national institutions. As I've said, this seems eminently sensible given the international dimension of present major problems eg: the crisis in global capitalism, clilmate change etc

2. The need for Christians to engage with those supra-national institutions.

Taken together, #1 and #2 do not amount to "the Vatican wants to run supra-national institutions", any more than Kennedy being elected as President in 1960 meant that Pope John XXIII started ruling the USA. That conclusion is the fundamental flaw of the article.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yes, I did read the article and have read the encyclical. It seems to me that the article (amongst other errors it makes) makes the primary error of conflating two strands within the encyclical:

1. The need for a co-ordinated global response to global problems through supra-national institutions. As I've said, this seems eminently sensible given the international dimension of present major problems eg: the crisis in global capitalism, clilmate change etc

2. The need for Christians to engage with those supra-national institutions.

Taken together, #1 and #2 do not amount to "the Vatican wants to run supra-national institutions", any more than Kennedy being elected as President in 1960 meant that Pope John XXIII started ruling the USA. That conclusion is the fundamental flaw of the article.

You'll have to try again. What are you responding to in the article?

Let me help you.

Whatever papal Rome teaches on economics, re-distribution of wealth, and social justice, it does so even while seated as a primary player in international industry and banking. Being in-ternational itself, the Papacy wants increasing influence on an international level.

Clearly Roman Catholic social doctrine envisions neither a communist nor a welfare state because it holds that all goods, including private property, are to be at the service of civil authorities.

Given the papacy's track record and what they are saying today, I'd say Bennett is right on target.

 

[Matt Black]

That's an example (what you quoted above) of what I meant. Please show me what in the encyclical Bennett is responding to and show how that doesn't amount to a conflation.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

That's an example (what you quoted above) of what I meant. Please show me what in the encyclical Bennett is responding to and show how that doesn't amount to a conflation.

I gotta run. I think Bennett made his case. Are you asking me to restate it?

 

[Matt Black]

That's the whole point: I don't think he has made his case; he's conflated statements from the encyclical, I suspect to fit his own prejudices.

 

[saturneptune]

That's the whole point: I don't think he has made his case; he's conflated statements from the encyclical, I suspect to fit his own prejudices.

How can it be prejediced to oppose a cult that is the greatest internal threat to the Gospel and the New Testement churches that exists today?

 

[Matt Black]

Because such a view is deeply mistaken.

 

[saturneptune]

Because such a view is deeply mistaken.

No, the view is quite clear, clearer than most issues in this life. All one has to do is read the Bible, then read catholic doctrine, and the issue is quite clear.

If it were not for the harm pope baby and the catholic church were doing to the Lord's work today, I could care less what he did. He can be a skin diver for rotor rooter for all I care.

 

[lori4dogs]

No, the view is quite clear, clearer than most issues in this life. All one has to do is read the Bible, then read catholic doctrine, and the issue is quite clear.

If it were not for the harm pope baby and the catholic church were doing to the Lord's work today, I could care less what he did. He can be a skin diver for rotor rooter for all I care.

Actually, Catholic doctrine is derived from Holy Scripture. You just interpret it with 'Baptist colored glasses' to make your conclusions.

When you and others like DHK make statements like 'Catholics are not Christians' and 'former Baptist that are now Catholic are apostates' and 'the Catholic Church is a cult, you do so based on your interpretations of Holy Scripture.

You would never dream of going to a Catholic apologetics board and debating with them. You would be way over your head and you know it. It is much easier for you to stay here in 'Baptist Land' where Catholics are not allowed and hurl accusations and insults where you don't have to worry too much about opposition or debate. Fortunately there are those from other Christian faiths and some other Baptists that don't let you get away with it.

 

[saturneptune]

Actually, Catholic doctrine is derived from Holy Scripture. You just interpret it with 'Baptist colored glasses' to make your conclusions.

When you and others like DHK make statements like 'Catholics are not Christians' and 'former Baptist that are now Catholic are apostates' and 'the Catholic Church is a cult, you do so based on your interpretations of Holy Scripture.

You would never dream of going to a Catholic apologetics board and debating with them. You would be way over your head and you know it. It is much easier for you to stay here in 'Baptist Land' where Catholics are not allowed and hurl accusations and insults where you don't have to worry too much about opposition or debate. Fortunately there are those from other Christian faiths and some other Baptists that don't let you get away with it.

Way over my head? I doubt it. Myth and fantasy is not that hard to understand. You are right, I would not think of going to a Catholic board to throw in monkey wrenches. Why are you here? Not a one of your posts has had one Scriptural or valid point.

 

[BobRyan]

Lori -

First of all - I would not agree that "Catholics are not Christians".

However - your post above needs some correction.

1. Catholic documents themselves will often distinguish between "Catholics" and "Christians" as two different groups. Not sure why they think that is a good idea - but I have seen them do it.

2. I have gone to a number of Catholic-run discussion boards and the most common reaction to arguments that are not favorable to Catholic doctrine is to attack the "sola scriptura" basis for testing doctrine -- and then to quote almost exclusively from ECF's and also from nothing-but-RC sources in a "we are right because we always say we are right" kind of format. (Not saying every member has done that - but it is quite common to find that form of "response" to hard questions on those boards).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MrJim]

How can it be prejediced to oppose a cult that is the greatest internal threat to the Gospel and the New Testement churches that exists today?

We are our own worst enemies..

 

[lori4dogs]

Way over my head? I doubt it. Myth and fantasy is not that hard to understand. You are right, I would not think of going to a Catholic board to throw in monkey wrenches. Why are you here? Not a one of your posts has had one Scriptural or valid point.

Try it then! If they are as defenseless and as un-scriptural as you say they are you should have no problem and they will just ban you the way most Catholics on this board have been banned.

You know, Jehovah's Witnesses will not read any publications other than their own. Wonder why?

As far as why I'm here. Bet you wish I were not. I have posted scriptural support to my posts, you have just chose to make your own interpretation to those scriptures. Wouldn't it be nice if nobody posted on this board other than those who agree with your very narrow interpretations of the bible?

It has been said that Catholics were banned from this board because they were over running the board and coming here to proselytize. Actually, they came here to defend their beliefs. Consequently some of us became Catholic. DHK stated himself that this has caused him to wish they were never allowed to come here in the first place.

DHK stated that with over 1 billion Catholics they (Catholics) sent the 'best that they had to this board'. Hardly. They sent no one. Some came here (not sent by the Evil Empire) because of the ridiculous postings by some people on this board. Most that did come lived right here in the states and most of them not apologist.

You make the same inflammatory statements about Catholics over and over. Recently when someone challenged you to provide a proof to your allegations you said you had done enough that day and 'would punt to DHK'.

The way you post wouldn't attract a non-Christian to the faith. It is abusive and nasty. You should think about it. When asked to apologize for some of your nastier comments you have refused.

I'm glad you are not God, I don't think very many people other than Baptists would be welcome in heaven.

 

[lori4dogs]

Lori -

First of all - I would not agree that "Catholics are not Christians".

However - your post above needs some correction.

1. Catholic documents themselves will often distinguish between "Catholics" and "Christians" as two different groups. Not sure why they think that is a good idea - but I have seen them do it.

2. I have gone to a number of Catholic-run discussion boards and the most common reaction to arguments that are not favorable to Catholic doctrine is to attack the "sola scriptura" basis for testing doctrine -- and then to quote almost exclusively from ECF's and also from nothing-but-RC sources in a "we are right because we always say we are right" kind of format. (Not saying every member has done that - but it is quite common to find that form of "response" to hard questions on those boards).

in Christ,

Bob

Thank you for not labeling me an 'apostate' as some have recently on this board. I have read your posts for years and have learned a great deal from you.

I agree with you about church history. There have been some 'stinkers' down through history. Some of the popes have been 'stinkers'. I wish it were different too. There have been some protestant stinkers as well.

I appreciate the fact that you have bothered to visit some Catholic run discussion boards. Knowing how you post I'm sure you were treated with much respect. I doubt that you found the people there to be offensive and I doubt they mocked you beliefs. However, on this board there are some that need to clean up their act.

 

[saturneptune]

Thank you for not labeling me an 'apostate' as some have recently on this board. I have read your posts for years and have learned a great deal from you.

I agree with you about church history. There have been some 'stinkers' down through history. Some of the popes have been 'stinkers'. I wish it were different too. There have been some protestant stinkers as well.

I appreciate the fact that you have bothered to visit some Catholic run discussion boards. Knowing how you post I'm sure you were treated with much respect. I doubt that you found the people there to be offensive and I doubt they mocked you beliefs. However, on this board there are some that need to clean up their act.

No one is mocking your faith. You are mocking ours by coming to a Baptist forum and spreading a works Gospel. I do not go to Catholic forums looking to mock people, but when confronted with a false gospel, whatever needs to be said to put a stop to it is the order of the day. This section is for other denominations, not cults.

 

[billwald]

The wonders of Dispensationalism . . . Anyone who wants to make the world a better place for the grandkids must be in the pay of Satan. It is wonderful when sin increases because it will speed up the Rapture.