The Vatican supports NWO...

[xFiFtyOnE]

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/52809--vatican-wants-reform-of-world-financial-system-creation-of-authority-to-manage-world-economy

This just scares the crap out of me.

[FrankRep]

http://thenewamerican.com/images/stories2011/03aOctober/vaticanf.001.jpg



A Vatican council issued a document calling for a global political authority and a central world bank as the solution to the worldwide financial crisis.


Vatican Council Calls for World Government, Central Bank (http://thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/9530-vatican-council-calls-for-world-government-central-bank)


Michael Tennant | The New American (http://thenewamerican.com/)
26 October 2011


A “global political authority” and a “central world bank”: These are the solutions that the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace recommends for the worldwide financial crisis. “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority (http://www.news.va/en/news/full-text-note-on-financial-reform-from-the-pontif),” the document outlining the council’s recommendations, is, in the words of author and Roman Catholic Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods181.html), “deeply confused,” at once recognizing that central bank-driven inflation and easy credit are at the root of the world’s financial woes and prescribing even bigger government and more highly centralized banking as the cure.

There is some debate over whether the document presents the church’s official position on the matter. While press accounts have often referred to it as if it were a papal pronouncement, National Review’s George Weigel (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281140/pope-chaplain-ows-rubbish-george-weigel) insists that such attribution is “rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.” “The document is a ‘Note’ from a rather small office in the Roman Curia,” Weigel maintains, adding that it “doesn’t speak for the Pope, it doesn’t speak for ‘the Vatican,’ and it doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church.”

Woods, responding to similar criticism from a reader of his blog, argued: “I’m supposed to distinguish between the Pontifical Council and the Pope, you say. Fair enough. But did those people appoint themselves? Is Rome consistently surprised by how liberal its appointees turn out to be? Fewer and fewer people believe this anymore.” Indeed, the council’s recommendations mirror those of Pope Benedict XVI, who in a 2009 encyclical called (http://takimag.com/article/truth_charity#axzz1bkcbrwMB) for “a true world political authority” to, among other things, “manage the global economy.”

As noted above, the council appears to have a good grasp of the underlying cause of the present financial distress:



In recent decades, it was the banks that extended credit, which generated money, which in turn sought a further expansion of credit. In this way, the economic system was driven towards an inflationary spiral that inevitably encountered a limit in the risk that credit institutions could accept. They faced the ultimate danger of bankruptcy, with negative consequences for the entire economic and financial system….

Since the 1990s, we have seen that money and credit instruments worldwide have grown more rapidly than revenue, even adjusting for current prices. From this came the formation of pockets of excessive liquidity and speculative bubbles which later turned into a series of solvency and confidence crises that have spread and followed one another over the years.


As Jeffrey Tucker (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/right-diagnosis-deadly-cure) put it, “Some people at the Vatican have gotten the message about the dangers of the fiat money system that generates unlimited amount[s] of credit, and even traced it all to the monetary reforms of 40 years ago.” Those “reforms” were the dissolution of the Bretton Woods system and the end of the dollar’s convertibility into gold under President Richard M. Nixon, turning the dollar into a purely fiat currency to be manipulated by the Federal Reserve. “Every problem we’ve had since — inflation, bubbles, credit addiction, bank racketeering — can be traced to this one act,” Tucker avers.

The council, however, does not seem to understand that governments and their central banks were behind the inflation and credit expansion. Instead, the document blames “an economic liberalism that spurns rules and controls,” which is to say laissez-faire capitalism, and recommends even bigger, more centralized government and banking to prevent a recurrence. “This,” Woods remarks, “is a delusion, albeit a common one.”



In the United States we have 115 agencies that regulate the financial sector, and the Securities and Exchange Commission never had a bigger budget or staff than under George W. Bush. There has been a threefold (inflation-adjusted) increase in funding for financial regulation since 1980…. There is no repealed regulation that would have prevented the crisis consuming the world right now.

The banking industry is by far the least laissez-faire sector of the U.S. economy; it is a cartel arrangement overseen by the Federal Reserve and shot through with monopoly privilege, bailout protection, and moral hazard.


Having misdiagnosed the problem as too little regulation, the council then draws the faulty conclusion that it “seems obvious” that “a world political authority” is needed to prevent future economic meltdowns. The council goes on to describe its utopian vision of this global government. It “cannot be imposed by force, coercion or violence.” It must be “impartial” in its decision-making. It “should put itself at the service of the various member countries.” It should step in “only when individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them.”

In other words, the council expects humans, given the opportunity to rule the world, to adopt selfless behavior entirely at variance with that which they display when put in charge of much smaller fiefdoms. Government, by its very nature, employs force. It is never impartial but always bends to the will of interest groups. It seeks not to serve but to be served unquestioningly. And it always finds ways to blame “market failure” or other perceived private-sector deficiencies for its continual interventions.

The document also calls for “some form of global monetary management.” “In fact,” it says, “one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of ‘central world bank’ that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks.”

“This is beyond naïve,” observes Tucker. “It seems to illustrate a near total absence of clear thinking. Centralization of money and credit caused this problem. Centralization of political authority caused this problem. Why would anyone imagine that more centralization is therefore the answer? This approach takes a terrible situation and makes it much worse.”

Needless to say, such a governing body as the council envisions would necessarily erode the sovereignty of existing nation-states. The council suggests using the United Nations as a “reference” for setting up this world authority and is positively giddy with the thought that “this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world Authority and to regional Authorities.” The dangers of such a system are obvious.

“In a world on its way to rapid globalization,” the council concludes, “the reference to a world Authority becomes the only horizon compatible with the new realities of our time and the needs of humankind.” It then goes on to caution readers of the lesson of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), which the council claims is “how the ‘diversity’ of peoples can turn into a vehicle for selfishness and an instrument of division.”

A fairer reading of that passage would, however, indicate that the lesson is not that “diversity” is dangerous but rather that centralized power is. God, after all, caused the diversity of language specifically to frustrate a unified humanity’s attempts to set itself up as a god. Had the council drawn the correct conclusion from Scripture, it would have thought twice before recommending that humans attempt once more to usurp the Lord’s role as ruler of the Earth.


SOURCE:
http://thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/9530-vatican-council-calls-for-world-government-central-bank

[swissaustrian]

The Vatican Bank is the primary money launderer for the mafia, so this call for a global central bank doesn´t come as a surprise.

[Sola_Fide]

This is just the theology of Roman Catholicism applied to politics. The history of the Roman Catholic church-state has been centralization, oppression, and control. For this reason, the Protestants of the founding generations sought to decentralize everything and keep the church and state seperate.

Many people wonder why in the early colonies, it was forbidden for Roman Catholics to hold office. It wasn't blind religious bigotry, it was because the Protestants of the colonies had just a generation ago been the victims of the tyranny of the Roman Catholic church-state. They didn't want that type of thinking to take hold again. They failed in that task:(

[Cutlerzzz]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods182.html

[vodalian]

Goverment begats organized religion
Organized religion begats government

[Sola_Fide]

Goverment begats organized religion
Organized religion begats government

Can't argue with you there. And organized atheism begats absolute totalitarianiism.

[Jingles]

Since when hasn't the Vatican had interest in the consolidation of power? The Church has had little influence on the western world in modern times. Keep in mind they have pretty much been the central final authority in Europe for a long time (Picking leaders, starting wars, funding wars, etc...)

While its a horrible idea, this is probably the least surprising news I have ever heard.

[Sola_Fide]

“In a world on its way to rapid globalization,” the council concludes, “the reference to a world Authority becomes the only horizon compatible with the new realities of our time and the needs of humankind.” It then goes on to caution readers of the lesson of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1- 9), which the council claims is “how the ‘diversity’ of peoples can turn into a vehicle for selfishness and an instrument of division.”

A fairer reading of that passage would, however, indicate that the lesson is not that “diversity” is dangerous but rather that centralized power is. God, after all, caused the diversity of language specifically to frustrate a unified humanity’s attempts to set itself up as a god. Had the council drawn the correct conclusion from Scripture, it would have thought twice before recommending that humans attempt once more to usurp the Lord’s role as ruler of the Earth.

Whoever wrote this article is exactly right. It was God who confused the languages and caused diversity.

The entire theological power structure of Rome is anti-biblical and authoritarian. This is why Catholic cultures have been the most susceptible to centralization and authoritarianism. This is why every person, believer and unbeliever, should understand Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, and how it influenced our founding generation in the cause of Liberty.

The Scripture teaches free markets, property, and freedom of conscience in temporal things. The history of Rome has been to fight against the Scriptures at every turn.

[Jingles]

And you say NWO, but this sounds more like a return to and old world order. This is one of the main things we fought against in the revolution (freedom from the King's church).

[Liberty74]

This NWO and one world currency crap should scare everyone but unfortunately it doesn't.

China, Russia, Geithner, etc have called for the end of the dollar. Hillary came out earlier this year and said she wanted to be head of the world bank. She of course the next day retracted such statement.

Listen, Europe is going under. It's just time they are buying themselves with all these stupid bailouts. Once they do, the US could be next if we haven't already collapsed ourselves. Once both go, watch there be a call for a new world currency. Trust me, it's all in the plans.

Another great reason to support RP.

[Nathaniel1984]

The Lutheran and Reformed states of Europe could be very totalitarian in many instances. You can bring up the issue of Sweden for example, or the Prussians, or the theocracy run by John Calvin in Geneva. However, in the middle ages, the Italian city-states were relativley independent, and free societies, by the standards of Calvinist Geneva, or similar Protestant examples, yet, they these city-states were not Protestant.

The only religious groups that tend to have a relatively good track record as regards not being highly involved with authoritarian states are people like the Mennonites, Quakers, Assyrians church, and a few others. That being said, I think the Vatican laments the fact that its influence has greatly waned due to the predominance of clergy abuse scandals, detheologizing of their seminaries (they become more like social workers in suits), and a general deemphasis on matters of salvation and tending to things like social influence (not that some of these tendencies couldn't be found in previous periods). However, it does appear that his document was actually not approved by the Vatican itself (which is a giant and tangled beauracracy of multitudes of competing factions with wildly different theological and political views), but, from a group within one of their Pontifical councils, and it was apparently brushed aside as non-authoritiative recently.

I am not a Roman Catholic, by way of disclaimer.

[asurfaholic]

Vatican hasnt read 1 Samual... they stopped in the first book...

[Sola_Fide]

The Lutheran and Reformed states of Europe could be very totalitarian in many instances. You can bring up the issue of Sweden for example, or the Prussians, or the theocracy run by John Calvin in Geneva. However, in the middle ages, the Italian city-states were relativley independent, and free societies, by the standards of Calvinist Geneva, or similar Protestant examples, yet, they these city-states were not Protestant.

The only religious groups that tend to have a relatively good track record as regards not being highly involved with authoritarian states are people like the Mennonites, Quakers, Assyrians church, and a few others.


Where on earth do you get this? What has ever been "Reformed" about Sweden??? Since when did Calvin ever "run" Geneva? And even so, what argument do you have against the economic liberties that were birthed in Geneva?

Your history is completely wrong...I don't even know why you would type something like this. You are arguing that medieval Europe was more economically free than Protestant England or Protestant America? That is just insanely wrong.

Protestantism led to the Bloodless Revolution in England in 1689 which peacefully deposed the monarchy and gave unprecedented liberty to individuals. The American founding was almost entirely a Protestant revolution against the same idea of centralization and monarchy.

EDIT: you are also wrong about Mennon and the Anabaptist movement. They were radical socialists, more akin to early Marxists in Europe. In America, sadly the theological liberalism of the Quakers was a direct corollary to the rise of statism.

A great book that goes into all of these theological movements and how they affected the centralization or decentralization of societies is a Theological Interpretation Of American History by C. Gregg Singer. I can't recommend it enough.

[BattleFlag1776]

I tend to not comment in the religion-tinged threads but in this case I have two words for the Vatican: Thomas Becket.

[Nathaniel1984]

My dear sir, I think you misunderstand me partially. I didn't say that Sweden was a Reformed country. I said that the other Western and Central European nations were examples of Lutheran and Reformed countries. Sweden was a Lutheran country, but, it was very despotic.

I shouldn't have said Calvin 'ran' Geneva, but, he was undoubtedly influential in the city, to the point where he was able to have people arrested for heresy, and executed (as in the case of Servetus. who was burnt at the stake, though Calvin did request he be behead instead). Ofcourse, he confirms such sentiments as executing heretics in his works (http://books.google.com/books?id=sto5AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA354&dq=is+unjust+to+put+heretics+and+blasphemers+to+de ath,+will+knowingly+and+willingly+incur+their+very +guilt.+This+is+not+laid+down+on+human+authority;+ it+is+God+himself+who+speaks,+and+prescribes+a+per petual+rule+for+his&hl=en&ei=Ta6oTrHUCNDD0AG4-eGNDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=is%20unjust%20to%20put%20heretics%20and%20blasph emers%20to%20death%2C%20will%20knowingly%20and%20w illingly%20incur%20their%20very%20guilt.%20This%20 is%20not%20laid%20down%20on%20human%20authority%3B %20it%20is%20God%20himself%20who%20speaks%2C%20and %20prescribes%20a%20perpetual%20rule%20for%20his&f=false).

Does the teachings of the Reformation leaders that you can executed heretics mean that Protestants didn't make advances in the field of economic liberty? Certainly not, but, it does mean that they cannot exclusively accuse the Papist authorities of having the monopoly on such thoughts and activities.

Where you have de-centralized state power structures, you will ultimately have a freer society.

[BlackTerrel]

What's with all the anti-Catholic threads the last couple days? Are we trying to hurt Ron Paul?


The Vatican Bank is the primary money launderer for the mafia, so this call for a global central bank doesn´t come as a surprise.

Based on what evidence?



Many people wonder why in the early colonies, it was forbidden for Roman Catholics to hold office. It wasn't blind religious bigotry, it was because the Protestants of the colonies had just a generation ago been the victims of the tyranny of the Roman Catholic church-state. They didn't want that type of thinking to take hold again. They failed in that task:(

So basically what you're saying is barring Catholics from certain jobs is actually logical? Or was logical? Seriously?

The early colonies also thought it was logical for people with too much melanin to pick cotton all day. Guess that wasn't just blind bigotry either.

[Sola_Fide]

What's with all the anti-Catholic threads the last couple days? Are we trying to hurt Ron Paul?

No, definitely not. To me, this discussion is in the realm of philosophy and theology, not politics.




So basically what you're saying is barring Catholics from certain jobs is actually logical? Or was logical? Seriously?

The early colonies also thought it was logical for people with too much melanin to pick cotton all day. Guess that wasn't just blind bigotry either.

Some people in the colonies tried out radical collectivism too. I'm not arguing that the colonies were perfect...I'm not even arguing that religious test were a good idea. I'm just arguing for the truth of history and everything I said can be verified, especially about the early colonial religious tests: http://kevincraig.us/protestant.htm

Also, to say that the early colonies were unified in their position on the slave trade is extremely wrong. I mean, ever heard of Samuel Adams? What about England...Ever heard of William Wilberforce in England? You know, the Christian who ended slavery there?

[BlackTerrel]

Some people in the colonies tried out radical collectivism too. I'm not arguing that the colonies were perfect...I'm not even arguing that religious test were a good idea. I'm just arguing for the truth of history and everything I said can be verified, especially about the early colonial religious tests: http://kevincraig.us/protestant.htm

Also, to say that the early colonies were unified in their position on the slave trade is extremely wrong. I mean, ever heard of Samuel Adams? What about England...Ever heard of William Wilberforce in England? You know, the Christian who ended slavery there?

Point being owning slaves is just about as stupid as denying Catholics the ability to serve in office. There was no justification for it as you claimed.

[Cutlerzzz]

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

[Sola_Fide]

Point being owning slaves is just about as stupid as denying Catholics the ability to serve in office. There was no justification for it as you claimed.

Read the article I posted before you say there was no justification. Whether you agree or not, they seemed to have a justification (like not being ruthlessly slaughtered like their ancestors had been in Europe for generations).

[Sola_Fide]

Here is the article again. It's one of the best I've read explaining the religious history of America. You won't get this history anywhere else:

http://kevincraig.us/protestant.htm

[swissaustrian]

Based on what evidence?

The Italian book "Vaticano S.p.A." (Vatican ltd) by Gianluigi Nuzzi condenses 5000 documents about the mafia connections of the Vatican Bank. It´s a bestseller in Italy. I don´t know whether there is an English version, couldn´t find one on Amazon.
English summary of the book here: http://www.alternet.org/story/140435/the_vatican's_dirty_secrets:_bribery,_money_launde ring_and_mafia_connections/

Italian trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glQVEv4eMKA

[phesoge]

No one said the Church is immune from stupid things, but wether you want to admit it or not the Church has done a lot for western Civilization and the cause of Liberty. Woods has written extensively on this.

[Nathaniel1984]

I was thinking when I mentioned the Italian city-states about the work of Rodney Stark in his books, how he demonstrates that it was all laid in the 12th century, and that by the time the structures were moved north, it was about 100 years before the Reformation (that is, the 'capitalist' structures). After all, Italy decreased in finance and importance once the Americas and other routes were discovered.

Also, a freer economy arose in those areas of Europe that had historically resisted centralizing monarchies (England, Scotland, for example). So, Dr. Stark points out that the conditions were a Christian society that believed in an Omnipotent God, who made laws of the universe that human reason could identify (thus, the scientific discoveries, the natural sciences, and then the economic theories that came out of Europe, like Salamanca), AS well as a decentralized political system, if not one that allowed a good degree of personal freedom. In the case of England, people had been fighting for their rights since Archbishop Stephen Langton and the Barons had enought (and Langton pointed out that by custom and law they didn't have to take that kind of abuse in taxes from the King, that is, it was already known.

Europe, after all, didn't come out of a vacuum in the 16th century.

The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (http://books.google.com/books?id=Q9j6OoeWqK4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Victory+of+Reason:+How+Christianity+Led+to+ Freedom,+Capitalism,+and+Western+Success&hl=en&ei=Jq2pTs3sA-Py0gHcrtXlBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

[CaptainAmerica]

pope=anti-christ figure in the fact that his "priest" position is not only contradiction to the new testament,its blaspheme.

[Nathaniel1984]

Yes, and even Confucianists can discover gun-powder and Greek pagan can make discoveries in Mathematics.

[jmdrake]

My dear sir, I think you misunderstand me partially. I didn't say that Sweden was a Reformed country. I said that the other Western and Central European nations were examples of Lutheran and Reformed countries. Sweden was a Lutheran country, but, it was very despotic.

I shouldn't have said Calvin 'ran' Geneva, but, he was undoubtedly influential in the city, to the point where he was able to have people arrested for heresy, and executed (as in the case of Servetus. who was burnt at the stake, though Calvin did request he be behead instead). Ofcourse, he confirms such sentiments as executing heretics in his works (http://books.google.com/books?id=sto5AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA354&dq=is+unjust+to+put+heretics+and+blasphemers+to+de ath,+will+knowingly+and+willingly+incur+their+very +guilt.+This+is+not+laid+down+on+human+authority;+ it+is+God+himself+who+speaks,+and+prescribes+a+per petual+rule+for+his&hl=en&ei=Ta6oTrHUCNDD0AG4-eGNDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=is%20unjust%20to%20put%20heretics%20and%20blasph emers%20to%20death%2C%20will%20knowingly%20and%20w illingly%20incur%20their%20very%20guilt.%20This%20 is%20not%20laid%20down%20on%20human%20authority%3B %20it%20is%20God%20himself%20who%20speaks%2C%20and %20prescribes%20a%20perpetual%20rule%20for%20his&f=false).

Does the teachings of the Reformation leaders that you can executed heretics mean that Protestants didn't make advances in the field of economic liberty? Certainly not, but, it does mean that they cannot exclusively accuse the Papist authorities of having the monopoly on such thoughts and activities.

Where you have de-centralized state power structures, you will ultimately have a freer society.

+rep. I'll take Mennonite "socialists" (as AB describes them) over John Calvin's persecution of "heretics" any day of the week. Jesus said "By this will all men know you are my disciples, that you have love one for the other." Burning people at the stake or asking that they be "beheaded" instead is not how you show love. Religious persecution whether it's done by Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Pagans or Atheists, is always wrong.

As for the OP, there's no doubt that the Vatican is joined at the hip to the NWO. But pointing that out doesn't make one anti Catholic. Even some Cardinals have been recently and publicly dissing the pope. That should tell you something.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?326250-Catholic-Cardinals-Bishops-Refuse-to-Shake-Pope-Benedicts-Hand

[jmdrake]

What's with all the anti-Catholic threads the last couple days? Are we trying to hurt Ron Paul?

1) There is a difference between being anti Vatican and anti Catholic. Or do you think the Catholic bishops who recently dissed the pope by refusing to shake his hand are somehow "anti Catholic"?

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?326250-Catholic-Cardinals-Bishops-Refuse-to-Shake-Pope-Benedicts-Hand

2) Recently the pope made some inflammatory statements regarding an economic new world order. Ignoring that just to avoid offending Catholics would be like ignoring similar statements from Barack Obama just to avoid offending blacks.



So basically what you're saying is barring Catholics from certain jobs is actually logical? Or was logical? Seriously?

I'm not speaking for AB but for myself. Understanding the motivations of why terrorists attacked us on 9/11 isn't the same as supporting terrorism. Similarly understanding the motivations of why people in the past were concerned about Catholics holding office isn't the same as agreeing with those decisions.



The early colonies also thought it was logical for people with too much melanin to pick cotton all day. Guess that wasn't just blind bigotry either.

That's an apples and orangutans of a comparison. If you want a more apt comparison it would be people today who are concerned about Muslim judges imposing Sharia law.

[robert68]

What made Christian Church decentralization possible was the printing press and personal bible ownership, not the “wisdom” of Martin Luther, John Calvin etc. No printing press, no Protestant Reformation.

[Nathaniel1984]

I was really refering to the Mennonites of the last few centuries (excluding the crazed initial anabpatist groups), the people we know as the Amish today. I don't agree with their theology, but, they still behave, largely (there are probably notable and bad exceptions and currents) in a non-aggressive manner. That's all I really meant.

[Sola_Fide]

What made Christian Church decentralization possible was the printing press and personal bible ownership, not the “wisdom” of Martin Luther, John Calvin etc. No printing press, no Protestant Reformation.

Do you think inventions happen in a vacuum? Do you think that necessity is the mother of invention or do you just think that inventions arise out of thin air for no reason at all?

The worldview of Reformation Christianity gave birth to that technology and the Reformers utilized it because it mirrored their own decentralized world view. Haven't you ever read any Marshal Macluhan? The medium is the message bro.



Learn about the Reformation doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers": http://kevincraig.info/priesthood.htm

The common man now understood that he was a king and a priest under God. The individual was the final authority under God, not any human institution. It shattered the medieval power structure and gave birth to liberty of conscience and democratic capitalism.

[Sola_Fide]

Bump.

[robert68]

Do you think inventions happen in a vacuum? Do you think that necessity is the mother of invention or do you just think that inventions arise out of thin air for no reason at all?

The worldview of Reformation Christianity gave birth to that technology and the Reformers utilized it because it mirrored their own decentralized world view. Haven't you ever read any Marshal Macluhan? The medium is the message bro...




Do you think maybe Martin Luther and John Calvin made it possible for the wheel to be invented too?

Some facts:


Gutenberg was the first European to use movable type printing, in around 1439. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg)


The Protestant Reformation, also known as the Protestant Revolt, was a 16th century split within Western Christianity, and was initiated by Martin Luther, John Calvin and other early Protestants. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation)

[Sola_Fide]

Do you think maybe Martin Luther and John Calvin made it possible for the wheel to be invented too?

Some facts:

Some facts: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe


John Wycliffe and Jan Huss were already busy leading what was called the pre-reformation. Wycliffe was the first to translate the Bible into English, a grievous offense. He was an outspoken opponent of the papacy. His followers were called Lollards. This was the mid 1300's. His followers were slaughtered and his body was exhumed from the grave and burned by the Roman Church state...just for good measure.

Jan Huss translated the Bible into Chech and led the Hussite wars against the Roman church-state in the early 1400's. He was burned at the stake and the Hussites were slaughtered. All before the printing press...and laid the foundation for the necessity of the printing press.

Like I said before which you didn't understand, THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE. TECHNOLOGY IS THE RESULT OF IDEAS. The printing press would have been useless to the Roman church-state power structure, who burned anyone at the stake who tried to translate the Bible into anything but Latin (which common people couldnt read).

The printing press was simply the individualism and decentralization of Reformation philosophy applied to technology.

[robert68]

There have always been different interpretations of scripture. That has no baring on the fact the invention of the printing press predates the Protestant Reformation.

[Sola_Fide]

There have always been different interpretations of scripture. That has no baring on the fact the invention of the printing press predates the Protestant Reformation.

The printing press does not pre-date the Reformation. I just showed you that. If you are going to be willfully ignorant, at least don't be so public about it, because you are showing everyone how unread you really are.

Secondly, no, there haven't always been different interpretations. The Roman church state actively supressed and terrorized anyone who opposed them for hundreds and hundreds of years. The Roman church then and now represents centralization and tyranny. I just showed that the printing press was the decentralized philosophy of the Reformers applied to technology. The Roman church would have had no use for either the technology or the theology of the Reformation because it cut at the heart of their entire ecclesiastical/statist power structure.

Please educate yourself. I'm not going to keep repeating it.

[Sola_Fide]

Further reading for you Robert:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?305221-Western-Civilization-Is-A-Result-Of-The-Protestant-Reformation&highlight=luther

And:

http://kevincraig.us/protestant.htm



What began as a debate over fundraising quickly turned to a more fundamental and serious issue: How is salvation obtained? Luther's answer--that men are saved by the righteousness of Christ alone ascribed to them through faith in Christ alone--shattered the entire medieval structure of ecclesiastical and political authority. Luther's appeal was to "Scripture and clear reason," not to the statements of church councils, nor to the decrees of popes, nor to the hierarchy of the church. Unless an idea or a practice is taught by Scripture, Luther argued, it has no authority and is anti-Christian.



The medieval structure of ecclesiastical authority could not withstand the Protestant idea of sola scriptura--the Bible alone. One Christian man with a Bible was superior to any pope or council or tradition without it. Luther translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into German so the people could read it in their own language and not be subject to an ecclesiastical ruling class. By translating the Bible into the common language, Luther freed the German people from ecclesiastical totalitarianism: The Bible was the written constitution of the church, which the people could now read for themselves. His second major contribution to Western political thought was the idea of a written constitution--the Bible--limiting the power and authority of church (and later political) leaders. There is a direct connection between the Reformation cry of sola scriptura and the American idea of the Constitution--not any man or body of men--as the supreme law of the land.


Harold Berman of Emory University has pointed out that "the key to the renewal of law in the West from the sixteenth century on was the Protestant concept of the power of the individual, by God's grace, to change nature and to create new social relations through the exercise of his will. The Protestant concept of the individual became central to the development of the modern law of property and contract...." This, along with Luther's idea that all callings--all labor, not just the labor of monks and nuns-could be done to the glory of God, led to the development of the free market economy. A free society and a free market were the political and economic expressions of the religious ideas of the Reformation. Capitalism was the economic practice of which Christianity was the theory.



Luther argued that Christians were free of the arbitrary control of either the church or the state. God alone is lord of the conscience. He wrote. "It is with the Word that we must fight, by the Word we must overthrow and destroy what has been set up by violence. I will not make use of force against the superstitious and unbelieving...No one must be constrained. Liberty is the very essence of faith...I will preach, discuss, and write; but I will constrain none, for faith is a voluntary act...I have stood up against the pope, indulgences, and papists, but without violence or tumult I put forward God's Word; I preached and wrote--this was all I did. The Word alone did all. If I had wished to appeal to force, the whole of Germany would perhaps have been deluged with blood."

Religious liberty, freedom of conscience, is an idea that Luther derived from the Bible's teaching about faith: Belief is a gift of God; it is not a work of man's free will. Men cannot believe the Gospel unless God causes them to. Luther wrote: "God's Word should be allowed to work alone, without our work or interference. Why? Because it is not in my power to fashion the hearts of men as the potter molds the clay...I can get no further than their ears; their hearts I cannot reach. And since I cannot pour faith into their hearts, I cannot nor should I, force anyone to have faith. That is God's work alone, who causes faith to live in the heart...We should preach the Word, but the results must be left solely to God's good pleasure. By articulating the Biblical doctrine of faith as wholly a gift of God, Luther undermined the Catholic inquisition and formulated the theological rationale for religious liberty.

[robert68]

The printing press does not pre-date the Reformation. I just showed you that.

No you didn't.


The protests against the corruption emanating from Rome began in earnest when Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk at the university of Wittenberg, called in 1517 for a reopening of the debate on the sale of indulgences and the authority to absolve sin and remit one from purgatory. Luther's dissent marked a sudden outbreak of a new and irresistible force of discontent. The Reformers made heavy use of inexpensive pamphlets (using the relatively new printing press invented by Johannes Gutenberg) so there was swift movement of both ideas and documents, including The Ninety-Five Theses. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation#Corruption)



Secondly, no, there haven't always been different interpretations.

To those either ignorant of much of Christian history or who have no respect for interpretations of scripture they don’t like.

[TER]

Secondly, no, there haven't always been different interpretations.

In fact, it wasn't until the Reformation when we really start seeing some widely differing interpretations. Ironic, isn't it, that the tradition of Sola Scriptura created the most amount of dogmatic and theological divisions and varying interpretations then ever known in the history of Christianity before it. When one idolizes a book and makes their own fallen mind the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures above the authority of the Church which wrote, compiled and selected the books of the Scriptures, then it is easy to see why tens of thousands of divisions have occurred in the past few centuries, straying wildly from the most fundamental practices of the Church, most notably the Holy Eucharist. In fact, such personal interpretations existed even in the early Church, even before there was a New Testament book, leading St. Paul to write entire epistles warning the believers to stay true to the teachings of the faith handed down to them and to go against any gospel that was different from the one they were given and explained to them. And yet, where is the Holy Eucharist in many of today's churches? To think that some here would attack the Catholic Church from which their own modern church is a child of and drew much of its beliefs from and not look into their own divisions and failings is the height of arrogance and blindness.

AB, you do a disservice to Christians and to this forum in general when you continue to make ignorant statements knowing next to nothing about the history of the Church, making accusation against the early saints and martyrs who did more to witness for Christ in a single quiet day in their lives then you will likely do your entire life. When you start referring to the early Church, your ignorance really shines through and you lose all credibility. Why don't you read a little more (preferably from sources other than the skewed ones you have been using that like to paint a false generalized history) and then you can make more informative and educational posts. If you wish, I can recommend some books, although I highly doubt you would make the effort to read them, being that you would only say that you have been predestined not too.

[Sola_Fide]

No you didn't.

I guess we will let the forum decide if I did or not.:)

You keep pulling up 1517 as a magical date. Yes, Luther nailed the 95 theses to the church door at Wittenburg in that year, but the Reformation ideas were springing up hundreds of years before that like I just showed you.

Do you think there were no ideas of American independence before 1776? Or did these ideas just spring up in that year?

Think about it bro.

[Sola_Fide]

In fact, it wasn't until the Reformation when we really start seeing some widely differing interpretations. Ironic, isn't it, that the tradition of Sola Scriptura created the most amount of dogmatic and theological divisions and varying interpretations then ever known in the history of Christianity before it. When one idolizes a book and makes their own fallen mind the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures above the authority of the Church which wrote, compiled and selected the books of the Scriptures, then it is easy to see why tens of thousands of divisions have occurred in the past few centuries, straying wildly from the most fundamental practices of the Church, most notably the Holy Eucharist. In fact, such personal interpretations existed even in the early Church, even before there was a New Testament book, leading St. Paul to write entire epistles warning the believers to stay true to the teachings of the faith handed down to them and to go against any gospel that was different from the one they were given and explained to them. And yet, where is the Holy Eucharist in many of today's churches? To think that some here would attack the Catholic Church from which their own modern church is a child of and drew much of its beliefs from and not look into their own divisions and failings is the height of arrogance and blindness.

Exactly. Paul wrote the entire book of Galatians against the heresy of salvation by faith+works, which both the EOC and the RCC (and many so-called Protestant denominiations) still teach today. This is why God raised up the Reformers...to proclaim the Biblical truth of faith alone.

Also, I as a Reformed Christian dont idolize my fallen mind, and I don't idolize a group of fallen minds in priest's robes either. The Scripture is the sole rule of faith and practice.




AB, you do a disservice to Christians and to this forum in general when you continue to make ignorant statements knowing next to nothing about the history of the Church, making accusation against the early saints and martyrs who did more to witness for Christ in a single quiet day in their lives then you will likely do your entire life. When you start referring to the early Church, your ignorance really shines through and you lose all credibility. Why don't you read a little more (preferably from sources other than the skewed ones you have been using that like to paint a false generalized history) and then you can make more informative and educational posts. If you wish, I can recommend some books, although I highly doubt you would make the effort to read them, being that you would only say that you have been predestined not too.

I am wrong about the tyranny and persecution of the Roman Catholic church-state? Are you sure you want to take that position?

Lastly, I surely don't want to discredit individuals who are my friends on this forum. I'm arguing against theology and statism, not any person. I love all my friends here at RPF.

[devil21]

I don't get why these threads turn into religious discussions. Haven't you guys learned anything yet? The Vatican is a CORPORATION, plain and simple. It is a financial institution and a landholder for rich white men that is not subject to taxation and is not subject to any oversight. It is the single largest landholder in the world. It is not a church and hasn't been a church for a very long time, other than the occasional going-through-the-motions religious ceremony aimed at maintaining a facade. The Vatican is a corporation and banking institution. The Pope is the CEO. Stop getting caught up in the minutae and recognize it's real function. When it calls for a global central bank it is only because that is part of the banker's (rich white men) agenda and the proles that think the Vatican is a church will put some faith into what it decrees.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't get why these threads turn into religious discussions. Haven't you guys learned anything yet? The Vatican is a CORPORATION, plain and simple. It is a financial institution and a landholder for rich white men that is not subject to taxation and is not subject to any oversight. It is the single largest landholder in the world. It is not a church and hasn't been a church for a very long time, other than the occasional going-through-the-motions religious ceremony aimed at maintaining a facade. The Vatican is a corporation and banking institution. The Pope is the CEO. Stop getting caught up in the minutae and recognize it's real function. When it calls for a global central bank it is only because that is part of the banker's (rich white men) agenda and the proles that think the Vatican is a church will put some faith into what it decrees.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. My only point would be that even if what you said were completely correct, then that would surely mean that there would need to be a theological debate about what the role of a church really is.

It's interesting that the same egregious materialism of Rome that we are talking about today is the same thing that Luther himself witnessed when he traveled to Rome to protest the sales of indulgences:


The old world, the medieval world, was a world controlled by an all- powerful monarchical church and state. It was a thoroughly corrupt system, rotten from the head down. In 1510 Luther had traveled to the center of the old world, the city of Rome, where he witnessed the moral squalor and material opulence of the papacy. Despite the decadence of the church. Luther's central concern was neither its materialism nor its immorality, but the teaching of the church on salvation. It was that teaching that was not only filling the papal treasury, but was sending souls to Hell. The central human question is: How can sinful men stand before a holy God and live? That question had become a consuming personal issue for Luther: How can I, Martin Luther, a sinful and miserable man, stand before God and live?

[robert68]

I guess we will let the forum decide if I did or not.:)

You keep pulling up 1517 as a magical date. Yes, Luther nailed the 95 theses to the church door at Wittenburg in that year, but the Reformation ideas were springing up hundreds of years before that like I just showed you.

Do you think there were no ideas of American independence before 1776? Or did these ideas just spring up in that year?

Think about it bro.

A Reformation needs more than ideas; it needs a means to spread those ideas. The printing press provided that. And personal Bible ownership made further difference of religious interpretation possible.

[Sola_Fide]

Great article detailing the merciless persecution perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church, then and now:

The Pattern Of Papal Persecutions
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/inquisit.htm

It's history bros. And very important history, because the ideas of American liberty and free markets can't be understood apart from this legacy of tyranny.

[jmdrake]

Well I see this thread's getting derailed. The bottom line is that anybody who does religious persecution be it pope or protestant, catholic or Calvinist, is going against the teachings of Christ. And yes atheists engage in religious persecution to. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Church + state = near absolute power. That doesn't mean religious people can't be in politics or that town squares can't have nativity scenes. But government interference in religion is just as harmful as government interference in business. Perhaps even more so.

[2young2vote]

My roommate is a hardcore conservative Catholic and basically said that what George Weigel said is true. That the Catholic church doesn't support it. He often tells me about the difference between the liberal Catholics and Conservative Catholics. This document was released by the liberal side, which we should expect from any liberal.

[TER]

Exactly. Paul wrote the entire book of Galatians against the heresy of salvation by faith+works, which both the EOC and the RCC (and many so-called Protestant denominiations) still teach today.

Except the entire history of the Church from the very beginning, from the very first sources, from those who taught St. Paul, is completely against what you just said. You quoted St. James above. Will you ignore what he said when he said that 'faith without works is dead'? Or will you try to invent new reasons as to why he said this while the entire historical recorded corpus of writings go squarely against the innovative reasons you will parrot. Am I supposed to suspend historical fact in order to agree with your explanation, even as it goes against the writings and consensus of the Church in addition to historical fact?

You, who value reason and the rational mind so much, how do you justify your belief of justification of faith alone? Because of a sentence in an epistle written to a specific Church in Galatia? Because of a couple of versus written in a time, in a circumstance, in a place, in a condition you have absolutely NO clue about, you then utterly ignore the entire gospel of Christ, the very words of Christ, teachings which are foundational to our salvation?

Sola Scriptura, my friend, is idolization of a book, in effect making the Holy Scriptures to become as God, but ONLY how YOU interpret it. Instead, we should humble ourself to the Church, to the understanding of the saints who ran the race and fought the good fight. Just as the Ethiopian eunuch, when he was given the correct interpretation of Isaiah by St. Phillip. Have you never understood the meaning of why this event was mentioned in Acts?

We should seek wisdom from those whom God has enlightened and chosen as the bearers and protectors of His Church, His servants and guides whom He ordained as He did since the days of the Old Testament. You don't possibly put yourself greater than St. James, or St. John, do you? You don't really believe you have grown more in the knowledge of God than St. Anthony or St. Athanasios or St. Gregory, any of the early saints who saw Christ and by whose prayers performed miracles greater than Moses ever did, right? We, as students, must see the meaning of the words through the lens of the Church, the bulwark of the faith, the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit Who sustains it and protects it and sanctifies it and will continue to do so until the final day. Our question in life should be, where is this Church?

The Word of God is NOT a book. We are not Muslims. He is incarnate in the flesh, the living Son of God, Who offered Himself in divine Love, Who became Manna for the people, the Bread of Life, the Gate, the Truth, the Light, healing us and reconciling us with our Father in Heaven. He did not become a written piece of paper, which varies from translation to translation, written by man, in the end capable of confusion by the mind of the person reading it. He became a Man, the Son of Man, foretold by the prophets, by the womb of a virgin, He Who restores us heals us from our sin and estrangement from God the Father. Truth is NOT a what! Truth is a Person! Children understand this, and those who humble themselves as a child learn this as well. Our very reason of being is in relationship, the goal being communion with God our Creator, and through God, all of His creation, partaking of His Glory and of the Divine Nature. How we approach this relationship is essentially important. We have been told plainly by our Lord that we will be judged by how well we follow His commandments to forgive and have mercy, and to love one another, even our enemies, and to even give our very lives for the lives of enemies, witnessing to Christ Jesus, the Lamb of God and Savior of all of mankind.

Getting back on topic, the written word is an excellent means of transmitting recorded messages. It, however, is often times extremely poor in accurately conveying the meaning it intended to give as well as the true significance of what was written. Even greater, it does NOT have authority over God, as if the truth of God hinges upon the human mind's ability to formulate sentences, trying in effect to reveal the infinite depths of eternal truths, that by their divine nature makes human words and symbols insufficient before the power and glory of God. Words which can so easily be misunderstood and misinterpreted, especially in the mind of the sinner. Jesus Christ and His Body, the Church, is much greater than the words of (enter version and translation here), never once relying on them for existence, existing before the New Testament. For in fact, the Church came before the Scriptures, its members the ones who wrote them and finally compiled them in a council of bishops, under the guidance and authority of the Holy Spirit, resolving such issues which came up just as they were instructed to by Christ and evidenced to in the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts, all for the edification of the faithful who were coming together to worship in secret, even unto threat of death, communing in the Agape meal every Sunday, following the Lord's strict instructions to submit to one another, to serve one another, knowing as well that He said 'whosoever does not eat My flesh or drink My blood, they have no life in them'.

In addition, I never said you idolize your mind (as many atheists do), but that you idolize the Holy Bible as the sole ultimate authority. The problem is quite obvious. We should not idolize anything other than God, and God, in His lovingkindness, has created a Church, His Body of Christ in the world. We were not destined to become fellow robots in a book club, but rather living members of the Church, living members of the very Body of Christ in this world, communing, praying, and worshiping with each other in anticipation of the heavenly banquet we will share in the Kingdom of Heaven, proclaiming His Resurrection every Sunday, just as they did from the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit confirmed the Church.


This is why God raised up the Reformers...to proclaim the Biblical truth of faith alone.

Except the Reformers, who have made the Scriptures the sole authority of truth, can not find any evidence in the Scriptures proclaiming that very thing, that God would raise up reformers in the Church who would come one day and reveal the truth. This is neither biblical nor the historical witness of the Church. The notion that the Holy Bible is the only authority on truth is contrary to the belief of the Church if one looks at the historical, archeological, liturgical and recorded writings of the Christian Church. This is not about East or West, but rather the fundamental faith of the very Apostles. Those who when they layed hands on them and confirmed upon them the Holy Spirit, did not hold a book over their head or hand them a stack of parchments. The doctrine of Sola Fide is what is called a tradition in your faith, just as Sola Scriptura is a tradition. The problem, again, being that it isn't believed to be so until the second millenium after Christ. If I was to accept this as possible, then why shouldn't I accept Mormonism to be possible? They too believe that have been chosen by God to preach a new revelation of God, that they have come to proclaim the truth! And why would Jesus Christ need a new revelation? Did He not warn us about wolves in sheep's clothing?? And that what happens the more one strays from the truth. The rise of division against the truth rises up and attracts the most ambitious and vainglorious individuals.

In fact, the Scriptures and earliest Church writings are crystal clear that the gates of hell would never overcome the Church and that the Church would survive to the very last day. And indeed it has, and indeed it will continue, and neither the likes of Hitler, Stalin, nor the devil himself will destroy it. And for this, we give glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.

[BlackTerrel]

I'm not speaking for AB but for myself. Understanding the motivations of why terrorists attacked us on 9/11 isn't the same as supporting terrorism. Similarly understanding the motivations of why people in the past were concerned about Catholics holding office isn't the same as agreeing with those decisions.

Saying it was or is justified in any way to bar people from office because they are Catholic is not only idiotic it is suicide in a country that is 1/3 Catholic.


That's an apples and orangutans of a comparison. If you want a more apt comparison it would be people today who are concerned about Muslim judges imposing Sharia law.

Kind of like Herman Cain not wanting Muslims to hold office. Except no one on this forum said it was justified. But there is justification for barring Catholics from office apparently.