Popes Calling for a New World Order?

[MarkThompson]

Originally Posted by codephined

@JharekCarnelian: I've heard that too... when was it allegedly forged? It almost seems that conclave has been picking vicars to coincide with the "prophecy"

I've written about this a couple of times, such as here:

Well, St. Malachy was an actual person, who lived from 1094 to 1148. The first historical appearance of the prophecy comes four and a half centuries later, in 1595. St. Bernard of Clairvaux knew Malachy personally and even wrote a biography of him, but neither he nor anybody else ever mentioned Malachy's prophecy. Presumably, the "prophecy" was all written at the same time, around 1595 when it was suddenly "discovered." That means that it was written after the earlier of the papacies it discusses, and before everything afterward.

So the entries from Malachy's time to about 1595 are in many cases quite good, like "Suburran abbot" for Anastasius IV, who, although not an abbot, was at least from Suburra, and "Jerusalem of Champagne" for Urban IV, who was from Champagne in France and served as Patriarch of Jerusalem. This accuracy is what you would expect if the prophecy were written afterward. Like I said, it would be like if I wrote a "prophecy" today about the presidents from Washington to Obama -- it would be pretty close, wouldn't it, since after all it is a hoax and I'm writing it with the benefit of historical knowledge about the presidents and their attributes.

... and here:

The "prophecies" are moderately accurate up to the time the prophecy was written (the late 16th century), because, of course, those things had already happened. It would be like me writing a "prophecy" about the presidents from Washington to Obama: "Plantation-owning general," "Statesman from Quincy" and so on.

After that point (when the writer actually was writing about the future), for every one "prophecy" that rounds right, there are about ten that fall into one of these categories:

1. So vague they could be about anyone: "Angelic shepherd," "Intrepid faith," "Religious man," etc. Gee, you don't say! A pope being a religious man! And actually, although some popes were professed religious, Pius VIII was not a member of any religious order, making him technically a secular man.

2. Just wrong. Benedict XIII gets "Soldier in war," but he was neither a soldier nor involved in any war. Clement IX gets "Star of the swans," with the explanation, "The Italian word for swan, 'Cigni,' rhymes with Pope Alexander's last name, 'Chigi'." Uh, no it doesn't. Cigni is pronounced "Chee-nyee"; Chigi is pronounced "Kee-jee."

3. Prophecies that are "verified" with reasoning like, "well, his brother's best friend's mother-in-law knew a guy who came from a family that had a flower on its coat of arms." So, for example, Gregory XVI gets "From the baths of Tuscany," even though he was not from Tuscany, never lived there and had nothing to do with it, but he belonged to an order one of whose monastic houses (which he did not live in, btw) was called "Fonte Buono," which means "good fountain" in Italian -- and fountains and baths both contain water, right? Totally the same thing. Likewise, Leo IX gets "Wavy man," and the best explanation anyone can think of it that he was very briefly (1602-05) cardinal-bishop (an honorary post for a top curial official, not the actual ruling bishop) of Palestrina, a city whose founding was legendarily attributed to Ulysses, who was a sailor (and thus went on the waves). Right, that totally makes Pope Leo a Wavy Man. And Clement XII gets "Lofty column" -- although his name was Lorenzo, he was one priest of a church dedicated to St. Peter, and "Peter" come from the Greek word petros which means "rock," and columns are made of rock, aren't they?

[MarcoPolo]

Originally Posted by codephined

@Marco: Thanks, I'll do that

Of course. Also, and I'm not an expert on every papal quote, but the concept of unity among governments does not have to mean a singular power as is often thought of by the concept of a New World Order, or some other such label. For example:

Thus, as even in the kingdom of heaven He hath willed that the choirs of angels be distinct and some subject to others, and also in the Church has instituted various orders and a diversity of offices, so that all are not apostles or doctors or pastors, so also has He appointed that there should be various orders in civil society, differing indignity, rights, and power, whereby the State, like the Church, should be one body, consisting of many members, some nobler than others, but all necessary to each other and solicitous for the common good. (Pope Leo XIII, On Socialism, 6)

So above, Pope Leo is calling for "one body" and yet at the same time calling for diversity in power. In other words, the Catholic idea of "oneness" does not have to equal a singular government superpower.

Elsewhere, Pope Leo goes against the idea that there must be some ultimate "correct" form of government:

Again, it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power. Of the various forms of government, the Church does not reject any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject; she wishes only -- and this nature itself requires -- that they should be constituted without involving wrong to any one, and especially without violating the rights of the Church. (Pope Leo XIII, On the Nature of Human Liberty, 44)

Additionally, he stated that a country may strive for independence:

Neither does the Church condemn those who, if it can be done without violation of justice, wish to make their country independent of any foreign or despotic power. Nor does she blame those who wish to assign to the State the power of self-government, and to its citizens the greatest possible measure of prosperity. (46)

There are a number of papal quotes specific to the powers of government in condemnation of overbearing power that is not consistent with the "superpower" notion of a NWO. For example, I think these quotes are related when you consider the concept behind the comments:

While it has been rightly emphasized that increasing per capita income cannot be the ultimate goal of political and economic activity, it is still an important means of attaining the objective of the fight against hunger and absolute poverty. Hence, the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. In a modern economy, the value of assets is utterly dependent on the capacity to generate revenue in the present and the future. Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty, which must be kept in mind if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term. (Pope Benedict XVI, December 8, 2008)

To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community. (Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 4)

So anyway, when someone produces some "pro-one-world-superpower" quote from a Pope, make sure that the Pope is using the terms "unified" or "oneness" or whatever in the same way the claimant is using the term. Sometimes, the Pope may well be using such terms in a different way.

[Vouthon]

"...Although the hostility to world organizations is at least as widespread among conservative Catholics as among conservative Protestants, it really does not fit very well with Catholic tradition or the current understanding of doctrine. Since the Holy Roman Empire proved to be something of a disappointment, the Church has been slow to support particular schemes for universal government. However, the notion of some sort of secular international authority, one that would not detract from the sovereignty of independent states but serve to facilitate their interaction, does fit rather neatly into Catholic social teaching.

Reference to the new Catechism of the Catholic Church can quickly illustrate this point. The general rationale for government is given by section 1927. As we can easily see, this rationale in principle invites universal application:


"It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on an international level."

The Catechism is careful, however, to point out that even an authority which is universal in jurisdiction is not therefore necessarily universal in power. Indeed, as Section 1884 explains, the situation is quite the opposite:


"God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard to human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence."

What we are talking about here, of course, is the principle of subsidiarity. In political theory, it takes the form of the axiom that the most local level of an organization which is capable of handling a certain issue should have the authority to handle that issue. Subsidiarity is the guiding constitutional principle of the Church. It is the reason why bishops have such wide discretion over matters of discipline and liturgy in their own dioceses. Indeed, it is part of the secret of the Church's longevity: if the Church really were the centralized autocracy of Protestant mythology, it would have strangled in red tape many centuries ago.

Subsidiarity has applications far beyond ecclesiology. It is closely akin to the principle of federalism in American constitutional theory, under which the states are supposed to retain primary jurisdiction over government functions that are local by their nature...What we should note here is that the principle does not just protect the rights of local jurisdictions. It also strongly implies that hierarchy, properly understood, is a positive good. Section 1885 suggests, in fact, that good government naturally seeks to make the tranquility of order universal:


"The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order."..."

- John J. Reilly

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by codephined

My question is why are our Popes calling for and supporting a new socialist world government? and Please don't respond with "the New World Order is conspiracy-theory" ... it's out in the open and in our faces -- if you haven't heard of it, you haven't been paying attention.

Well, you kind of cut off discussion by ruling out a particular response.

You keep saying "we know" this and that. I don't know these things. And it's not for lack of paying attention or lack of exposure to this perspective. I grew up believing what you believe about the "new world order." I now believe that yes, it's mostly a conspiracy theory, though there are folks out there who probably would like to impose some kind of authoritarian world government (some radical environmentalists, for instance, do seem to think that democracy is inadequate to deal with global warming).

You need to pay attention to what exactly the Popes are calling for instead of assuming that it's all code for some vast conspiracy.

Edwin

[codephined]

Wow, interesting. Thanks for the information, I'm going to research this guy some more.

Originally Posted by Vouthon

"After a world war will come a new period, in which two mighty ones will face each other. The wrangle between these two will begin in the second half of the twentieth century. It will overthrow mountains and silt up rivers. A great change will come to pass, such as no mortal man will have expected; Heaven and Hell will confront each other in this struggle, old states will perish and light and darkness will be pitted against each other with swords, but it will be swords of a different fashion. With these swords it will be possible to cut up the skies and split the earth. A great lament will come over all mankind...Neither of the two adversaries will conquer nor be vanquished. Both mighty ones will lie on the ground, and a new mankind will come into existence...When everything has been ruined by war...the Hand of Almighty God will work a marvelous change, something apparently impossible according to human understanding...Persecution will cease and justice shall rule. Religion seems to be suppressed, but by the changes of entire kingdoms it will be made more firm. He will destroy the rule of Moslemism. His dominion will extend from the East to the West. All nations will adore God their Lord according to Catholic teaching. There will be many wise and just men. The people will love justice, and peace will reign over the whole earth, for divine power will bind Satan for many years..."

^ Do you believe this is referring to the Millennial Kingdom?

[codephined]

Originally Posted by Contarini

Well, you kind of cut off discussion by ruling out a particular response.

You keep saying "we know" this and that. I don't know these things. And it's not for lack of paying attention or lack of exposure to this perspective. I grew up believing what you believe about the "new world order." I now believe that yes, it's mostly a conspiracy theory, though there are folks out there who probably would like to impose some kind of authoritarian world government (some radical environmentalists, for instance, do seem to think that democracy is inadequate to deal with global warming).

You need to pay attention to what exactly the Popes are calling for instead of assuming that it's all code for some vast conspiracy.

Edwin

Well...t's far from conspiracy theory now. I wasn't trying to quell the discussion...I was looking for sincere answers to my questions, not "it's the stuff of tin-foil hat conspiracy theory." World gov't is here, and is being flirted with on mainstream media. (CNBC: "We're all slaves to global government")

[JharekCarnelian]

Originally Posted by codephined

Well...t's far from conspiracy theory now. I wasn't trying to quell the discussion...I was looking for sincere answers to my questions, not "it's the stuff of tin-foil hat conspiracy theory." World gov't is here, and is being flirted with on mainstream media. (CNBC: "We're all slaves to global government")

Hey hup it's the return of the 'Jewish bankers cabal who run the world'. Haven't seen that one for oh, at least a week or so...

[codephined]

Originally Posted by MarkThompson

I've written about this a couple of times, such as here:

Mark, thanks for taking the time to lay that out for me. Looks like I came to the right place to ask my question(s)! I'm bookmarking your post on Malachy for further reading.

[codephined]

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

Hey hup it's the return of the 'Jewish bankers cabal who run the world'. Haven't seen that one for oh, at least a week or so...

Ehh I didn't say that. The guy who posted the video obviously put "Rothschild" on there because they're one of the families involved with international central banking... It's a consortium of banking families, or technocrats in their own words.

[codephined]

Originally Posted by MarcoPolo

...
To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community. (Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 4[/i]So anyway, when someone produces some "pro-one-world-superpower" quote from a Pope, make sure that the Pope is using the terms "unified" or "oneness" or whatever in the same way the claimant is using the term. Sometimes, the Pope may well be using such terms in a different way.

True, you're right. I think tradition has a lot to do with my interpretation of "new world order." That interpretation didn't come about until after Reformation when the Pope was suddenly referred to as the anti-Christ. While I don't think the Pope is "the" anti-Christ I obviously still I have a distrust for the office.

Thanks for those quotes, helped me understand the difference between how the Protestant and secular world interprets it as opposed to the Catholic. Again, I feel like I've come to the right place for answers

[codephined]

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

Hey hup it's the return of the 'Jewish bankers cabal who run the world'. Haven't seen that one for oh, at least a week or so...

Rise of the Technocrats (Economist) ... it really gets under my skin when people try to say it's all a bunch of evil Jews who're using the financial system to subjugate the world. Couldn't be further from the truth. Sure, throughout the years there's been Jewish people involved in several things that we would call today a conspiracy .. but world gov't/new world order isn't a "jewish conspiracy," ... it reminds me of the Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion, a very convincing piece that has been proven to be fake--all for the purpose of propaganda.

I almost find it insulting that you'd mention that knowing how silly it is, especially when world gov't in the form of banking servitude is in the news almost every day...

[codephined]

Thanks everyone for your honest input, I have a whole lot of reading to do. Glad I signed up for Catholic Answers forum! See you around

[Michael Francis]