Anti-American Marxist Pope 0 (0)
Anti-American Marxist Pope
by Bill Lockwood
Pope Francis follows the script of Karl Marx as he criticizes Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall of protection on the American southern border. As with all socialists, Francis’s hypocrisy runs deep and was correctly highlighted by Trump himself who called world attention to the high walls and guards that protect The Vatican City. Free market capitalism is to blame for the world’s ills, according to the Pope, but he wants our free market system to build bridges for the world’s poor to enter that the free market might care for these people. In this dispute between Francis and Trump the central power-structure and philosophy of Catholic dictatorship is clear.
This is not the first time the Pope mounted an anti-American crusade. The entire structure of our free society has come under Francis’s condemnation. The absolutism of The Vatican can never come to terms with American freedom. When Pope Francis visited Marxist-run Bolivia in 2015, communist Evo Morales, wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt, spoke before Francis. Guevara was the Argentine-born Marxist guerilla revolutionary who figured prominently in the communist takeover of South American countries as well as Cuba. Morales handed the Pope a sculpted wooden hammer and sickle—the symbol of communism. A figure of a crucified Christ rested on the hammer.
Since his election in 2013, the first pope from Latin America has often spoken out in defense of the poor by blaming free market capitalism. Seeking illogically to draw the conclusion that poverty is caused by our free markets, the pope strikes the same notes as do all dictators around the world. The most notable incident of his challenge to America came when he spoke to Congress in 2015. Francis called for “structural change” to our economic system. His call sent thrills up Socialist Bernie Sanders’ legs who later gushed that the Pope would speak positively of Dorothy Day, a tireless apologist for socialistic and communistic regimes.
“Sustainable Development,” which philosophy means nothing less than rationing of the world’s resources beneath the aegis of the United Nations, has received enthusiastic endorsement from Pope Francis. Global taxation to fund this global government is also recommended by the Pope who is joined by other fellow travelers such as Francis Fox Piven, Jeffrey Sachs, the infamous Van Jones, and communist Noam Chomsky.
Francis’s official encyclical, issued last year, entitled “Laudato Si,” or “Praised Be,” gave Vatican sanction to the UN globalist agenda of curtailing America’s productivity in the name of cutting out “climate emissions.” The United Nations’ Agenda 21 directive from 1992 calls for the change of individual American life-styles to bring them more in line with the rest of the poverty-stricken world. One has dubbed Francis’s “Praised Be” encyclical “Agenda 21 On Steroids.” Francis believes in a Global Political Authority with teeth to force American compliance.
This brings up the issue of encyclicals. According to The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, “Encyclicals are circular letters written by the pope to convey timely teachings on matters of faith and morals. The New Testament example of an encyclical is 1 Peter”— the canonical book. They are “an exercise of the pope’s authority as the ‘chief Shepherd and teacher of the whole Church.’” In other words, the Roman Church un-scripturally and pompously elevates an encyclical to the level of Scripture.
Catholicism classifies two types of encyclicals. (1) “Only if the pope clearly expresses that he is defining ex cathedra is the encyclical an exercise of his solemn and infallible magisterium, …” In other words, Pope must classify it as ex cathedra if it is to be considered “infallible” (without error). (2) “Otherwise encyclicals are an expression of the ordinary papal magisterium, i.e. an authentic (authoritative) teaching safeguarding faith and morals, to which …assent, reverence, due respect, obedience, submission is to be given …” Note that both types of encyclicals represent authoritative teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The differentiation is apparently to leave an escape hatch for a Pope’s possible blunders by claiming the statements within the encyclical are not “inspired of God.”
Another item needs here be addressed. Not known to most persons is the fact that The Vatican is actually a secular political entity with physical boundaries and governmental officers to which all Catholics owe primary allegiance. This is the result of papal authority that has blasphemously arrogated to itself a highly-exaggerated view of its own authority, even declaring that the pope is “as God Himself.”
Pope Leo XIII said, “We (the Pope) hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty” (Great Encyclical Letters, 304). “But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff as to God Himself” (Ibid., 193). Pope Pius XI, who reigned over Vatican City from 1922-1929, in his encyclical, Light of Truth, said the “Roman Pontiff has from on high an authority which is supreme, above all others and subject to none.”
According to the Roman Catholic Church, therefore, the following is clear. First, The Vatican City is a sovereign foreign secular political entity ruled by Pope as the Supreme Pontiff. The papacy assumes authority over all other governments in the world. Faithful Roman Catholics therefore owe their first earthly allegiance to the political government of The Vatican before they owe allegiance to any other government.
Second, the encyclical is an official pronouncement from the papacy which has, according to Roman Catholicism, the same authority as the New Testament itself. By these circular letters the papacy commands Roman Catholics around the world. The Pope asserts that he himself speaks infallibly and authoritatively in these encyclicals.
The question therefore becomes to Marco Rubio, the Roman Catholic running for the Republican nomination for president: Are you planning on obeying Pope Francis in these matters or the Constitution of the United States? Will you follow the law of the United States of America by protecting our southern border or the dictates of the Marxist Pope who suggests that we have open borders with bridges to allow the influx of the masses from Central and South America? Would you honor the Constitution, or the papal-endorsed United Nations “Sustainable Development”? To be a faithful Catholic one must obey Francis—not the Constitution. Which is it?