At this time, the American public is afflicted with papal awe because of Pope Francis' visit to New York, Washington D. C., and Philadelphia. In D. C., the thousands who greeted him were "energetic" and "jubilant," according to MSNBC.
According to the Pew Research Center, "Pope Francis is scheduled to celebrate Mass
on an enormous scale Sunday, with 2 million people expected to gather
on a mile-long parkway in downtown Philadelphia. And nearly 1,500
priests and deacons will be on hand to help distribute Holy Communion."
Pope Francis will speak to the United Nations General Assembly on September 25th, and when all is said and done, he will have made 18 speeches in America, 14 of which will be in Spanish.
The crowds in D. C. were comparable to a presidential inauguration. His visit shut down much of downtown Washington.
He will come, he will see, he will conquer.
THE SLAP
All those awe-struck, obsequious sycophants, staring in wide-eyed reverence and listening to a man as if listening to a god, have they no idea that his very presence in America is a slap in the face to the Founders of their nation? Have they no concept that this man is a false teacher? The answer is, "No concept at all."
How is this man slapping our Founders in the face, albeit with a velvet glove? One speech, one partial sentence of nine words show us, words he said on May 9, 2014, in a speech to the world leaders of the United Nations where he called for "the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State." What is that? It's what socialists and Marxists call "wealth redistribution."
THE REDISTRIBUTORS
Who's to do the redistributing? The government, of course. How? "Legitimately," which, being interpreted, means to take it from the rich (by force, of course) and giving it to the poor. To the minds of the unwashed herd, the woefully and willfully ignorant of American history, even the educated and refined, this is "charity." But there are two things wrong with this. The first is that anything taken by force (i. e. taxes) from someone and given to someone else isn't charity because charity, to be charity, must be voluntary.
THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T GOODWILL INDUSTRIES
The second thing wrong with this was pointed out by one of our Founders over 200 years ago when James Madison wrote: "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." Madison wasn't a hypocrite; in 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Thomas Jefferson had the same thought: "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
A BIBLE, A BIBLE, WHO'S GOT A BIBLE?
Can the Pope show us a text from the Bible, the book he's supposed to know which would call for "the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits?" Yes, he says that he can and would ask us to turn to Luke 19:1-10 in which we find the account of Jesus' encounter with Zaccheus.
Pope Francis explains the text:
"It is the encounter between Jesus Christ and the rich tax collector Zaccheus, as a result of which Zaccheus made a radical decision of sharing and justice, because his conscience had been awakened by the gaze of Jesus. This same spirit should be at the beginning and end of all political and economic activity. The gaze, often silent, of that part of the human family which is cast off, left behind, ought to awaken the conscience of political and economic agents and lead them to generous and courageous decisions with immediate results, like the decision of Zaccheus. Does this spirit of solidarity and sharing guide all our thoughts and actions?" (From "Vatican Radio," September 5, 2014)
WAIT. SAY WHAT?
One with no papal education, no seminary degree, not even a certificate of perfect Sunday school attendance can read that text and see the fallacy of such a ridiculous explanation--there is no demand from Jesus for Zacchaeus to share his wealth with anyone. There is no command from Christ that the government take money from Zacchaeus and redistribute to the poor. Zacchaeus' radical and good decision was his own, uncommanded, and uncoerced, which came about, not because of being "awakened by the gaze of Jesus," (a vague and confusing choice of words) but because of his trust he placed in Christ alone. Jesus said to him, "Today has salvation come to your house," implying, "It has been here previously.
Pope Francis admits that what Zachaeus did was voluntary later in the address: "Jesus does not ask Zaccheus to change jobs nor does he condemn his financial activity; he simply inspires him to put everything, freely yet immediately and indisputably, at the service of others." But how does he logically jump from a voluntary, uncommanded, and uncoerced action by Zacchaeus to a state- enforced redistribution of wealth? He just does. He's the Pope. Nobody seems to notice the logical fallacy. Deal with it.
GOT ONE MORE TEXT?
Does anybody else have one more proof text for wealth redistribution? Yes, others cite the story of Jesus' feeding the 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish. Wait. What? Somehow that miracle morphs into a command for the state to take from the rich and give to the multitude? Such an explanation is ridiculous prima facie. What Jesus did wasn't to take from the rich. He took nothing. What Jesus did wasn't to tax the rich. He had no power to tax in the eyes of the state. He came to seek and to save, not to tax. What Jesus did didn't involve the existing government.
DON'T CRY FOR ME, ARGENTINA
Pope Francis is from Argentina, a once-wealthy country now in ruins: "The Argentine government has regularly cycled among grotesquely corrupt elites who cared nothing at all for the poor and socialist governments trying to redress the damage caused by the elites, who would then spend the country into bankruptcy and social disintegration, followed by a military junta that tried to clean up the mess, and that would then reinstall the corrupt elites. This cycle effectively defines Argentina's history." (Mike Konrad, Oct. 22, 2012)
His economics are socialistic. He was raised that way.
HE DOESN'T KNOW THE BIBLE: ONE MORE EXAMPLE
The millions of people who will see, greet, and listen to Pope Francis will be awe-struck by one who, when he speaks to vast crowds, the leaders of nations, the poor, and the oppressed, has never once presented the gospel to anybody. And that's because he's rejected it, as have all the popes before him.
How do we know that? From the "Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church" which offers the Roman Catholicism's teaching on who will be saved and how:
"135. How will Christ judge the living and the dead?
"Christ will judge with the power he has gained as the Redeemer of the world who came to bring salvation to all. The secrets of hearts will be brought to light as well as the conduct of each one toward God and toward his neighbor. Everyone, according to how he has lived, will either be filled with life or damned for eternity. In this way, “the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13) will come about in which “God will be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28)."
SAY THAT AGAIN
There it is: "Everyone, according to how he has lived, will either be filled with life or damned for eternity." That's works for salvation. In contrast to this Compendium, we have John's gospel saying 99 times that faith alone in Christ alone saves and we have Paul writing, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."(See also, John 3:16 and the entire book of Galatians as well as Romans.)
To paraphrase a famous saying about someone else; "I find the Pope appalling, but Paul appealing."
No comments:
Post a Comment