HISTORIC ROMAN CATHOLIC ANTAGONISM TOWARDS LIBERALISM

The historical record reveals that what the Church of Rome is (Dan. 7:1-8 & 11-12; Thess. 2:3-9; Rev. 13:1-4,) she accuses liberalism of being (demonic.) For what Rome has accomplished (degradation of the morals of the nations by destroying faith in the Bible,) she has attributed to liberalism. Astonishingly, she includes the Protestant Reformation in her diatribes against liberalism. From Rome's own declarations it is clear that for her own survival, and above all to achieve her objective of world domination liberalism, and Protestantism by association in Rome's terminology, must be destroyed:-

Catholic Social Teaching 101: What is Liberalism and What does the Church really say about it?

Leo XIII takes up the mantle of his predecessors

To begin, we must admit that the collision between liberalism and Catholic Social Teaching is present in the very founding document of the latter, which is generally taken to be Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum of 1891. If we meant to study Liberalism more completely, we’d have to go back even further to Popes Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos, 1832) and Pius IX (Quanta Cura, 1864). However, for the sake of brevity and in accordance with the plan of this work, which centers on the corpus of CST proper, we will reach back no further than Leo XIII. But precisely because Rerum Novarum is to be our starting point, we must briefly step outside of this document and take a look at the mind of the pontiff that produced it, and see how Leo XIII had been dealing with the problem of liberalism throughout his papacy. At the same time, this requires a few remarks on the nature of liberalism itself.

The three-fold expression of Liberalism

Liberalism appears on three fronts, corresponding to three different spheres of man’s social life: It is religious, political, and economic.

The religious form can be identified most clearly in the principles of the Protestant Reformation, personified by Martin Luther. The consequences of Luther’s religious liberalism were directly addressed by Leo XIII at various points, specifically in his Providentissimus Deus (1893) where he pointed to the proper principles for the study of Holy Scripture and identified the problems created by subjecting it to secular methods of criticism and private judgment.

The political form of liberalism, on the other hand, was condemned by Leo XIII even more thoroughly, through documents such as Diuturnum (1881), Immortale Dei (1885), and Libertas Praestantissimum (1888). It was within these encyclicals that he clearly identified his foes and summarized their errors:

“But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, ‘I will not serve’; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.” (Libertas, 14)

“…these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason.” (Libertas, 15)

All of this predates the writing of Rerum Novarum, which was itself addressed to the third form of liberalism—the economic. Economic liberalism is analogous to what today we call Capitalism, and centers on the ideology of free markets. This movement can be roughly identified with the person of Adam Smith, thereby completing our “trifecta” of liberal figureheads.

As Leo XIII saw, economic liberalism was simply another application of the principles he had seen carried out in every other area. Acknowledging this context, we can enter into the relationship between liberalism and Catholic Social Teaching, proceeding chronologically through the documents which go to form the main corpus of the latter. . . (Internal ellipsis in original; underscored emphasis added.)

The reader will recognize in the following statement which references Providentissimus Deus, "the proper principles for the study of Holy Scripture and identified the problems created by subjecting it to secular methods of criticism and private judgment," that this is not a reference to the Protestant principles of exegesis of the Bible, nor to Rome's own Higher Criticism. The Pope must have been referring to repudiation of Roman Catholic Magisterium.

Pope Leo's antagonism towards Liberalism targeted "Americanism" in the Catholic Church of America:

THE AMERICANISM HERESY

Leo XIII’s critique [of Americanism] is more substantial than apologists for Americanism care to admit. Much of it, in fact, is pertinent to conditions in American Catholicism today.

One set of condemned ideas concerns ranking natural virtues above supernatural ones, along with a division of virtues into “passive” and “active” that gives preference to the latter as more suited to modern times. The Pope says this fosters “contempt … for the religious life” and the disparagement of religious vows. Here, one might say, is a Victorian anticipation of the crisis that has afflicted religious life in the United States over the last half century.

Turning to the origins of Americanism, Leo XIII says it reflects a desire to attract to the Church “those who dissent.” Central to it, he adds, is the idea that the Church — “relaxing its old severity” — must “show indulgence” to new opinions, including even those that downplay “the doctrines in which the deposit of faith is contained.”

Leo XIII’s reply is that how flexible the Church can and should be is not up to individuals but rests with “the judgment of the Church.” Opposing this orthodox view, he notes, is the modern error that everyone could decide for himself, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit today gives individuals “more and richer gifts than in times past” — no less than “a kind of hidden instinct” in religious matters.

All this and more was the Americanism condemned by the Pope. (Underscored emphasis added.)

As strong as some of the statements made by Leo XIII are, other Roman Catholic publications have expressed themselves in unabashedly violent terms:

A LIBERAL OBJECTION TO ULTRAMONTANE METHODS

The Liberals tell us that our violent methods of warfare against them are not in conformity with the Pope's counsels to moderation and charity. Has he not exhorted Catholic writers to a love of peace and union; to avoid harsh, aggressive and personal polemics? How then can we Ultramontanes reconcile the Holy Father's wishes with our fierce methods? Let us consider the force of the Liberals' objection. To whom does the Holy Father address these repeated admonitions? Always to the Catholic press, to Catholic journalists, to those who are supposed to be worthy of the name. These counsels to moderation and charity, therefore, are always addressed to Catholics, discussing with other Catholics free questions, i.e., not involving established principles of faith and morality, and do not in any sense apply to Catholics waging a mortal combat with the declared enemies of the faith.

There is no doubt that the Pope here makes no allusion to the incessant battles between Catholics and Liberals, for the simple reason that Catholicity is truth and (119) Liberalism heresy, between which there can be no peace, but wear [war? to the death. It is certain by consequence, therefore, that the Pope intends his counsels to apply to our family quarrels, unhappily much too frequent; and that by no means does he seek to forbid us from waging an unrelenting stiff with the eternal enemies of the Church, whose hands, filled with deadly weapons, are ever lifted against the faith and its defenders.

Therefore there can be no contradiction between the doctrine we expound and that of the Briefs and Allocutions of the Holy Father on the subject, provided that logically both apply to the same matter under the same respect, which holds perfectly in this instance. For how can we interpret the words of the Holy Father in any other way? It is a rule of sound exegesis that any passage in Holy Scripture should always be interpreted according to the letter, unless such meaning be in opposition to the context; we can only have recourse to a free or figurative interpretation, when this opposition is obvious. This rule applies also to the interpretation of pontifical documents. How can we suppose the Pope in contradiction with all Catholic tradition from Jesus Christ to our own times? Is it for a (120) moment admissible that the style and method of most of the celebrated Catholic polemists and apologists from St. Paul to St Francis de Sales should be condemned by a stroke of the pen? Clearly not; for if we were to understand the Pope's counsels to moderation and calm, in the sense in which the Liberal conclusion would construe them, we should have to answer evidently yes. Consequently we must conclude that the Holy Father's words are not addressed to Catholics battling with the enemies of Catholicity, but only to Catholics controverting on free questions amongst themselves.

Enmity towards Liberalism was originally a uniquely Roman Catholic phenomenon. The following venomous attack is the work of a Pentecostal minister, and it brings to mind the convergence of interest between the papacy and Pentecostalism. There is here a further convergence with Rev. 16:13-16:

Liberalism: a Demonic Deception & Satanic Takeover in American Thinking

Summary: I am disgusted with large portions of the American political scene, including much that occurs on both sides of the political spectrum. For the record, I am a registered nonaffiliated voter. I have no party identity and haven’t for some years. That said, I see multiple positions currently embraced in American liberalism that defy biblical teachings. And that, not politics, is of the greatest importance to me. I have no interest in dealing with these issues politically. My focus is entirely on examining some of the pillars of American liberal thought from the standpoint of Scripture. That to me is the overriding, governing principle in this discussion. I am not interested in the names of candidates or of political parties. None will be named. My purpose is to examine from a biblical perspective current American liberalism (the term "progressives" has been embraced by many "liberals," although the two are not always identical). The conclusion I have drawn is that much of modern liberalism is based on demonic deception and represents a Satanic takeover of a large portion of present-day American thought.

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

Revelation 12:9, Amplified Bible …the age-old serpent who is called the devil and Satan, he who continually deceives and seduces the entire inhabited world…

Ephesians 6:12, New Living Translation For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.

Our battle is not against flesh-and-blood enemies. Rather, our ultimate opponents are in the unseen world, where Satan and his evil spirits “continually deceive.” The Bible warns prophetically that in these later times there will be many who will “follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.” It is many of those devilish teachings that have emerged as pillars of modern liberalism as it is widely practiced in America today. Let’s examine some of those liberal mainstays not from a political perspective, but in the light of God’s Word, the Bible. (Formatting as in the original; underscored emphasis added.)

There follows a list of the evils against which he and his allies battle, and it comes as no surprise that "abortion on demand" tops the list, with some of which undoubtedly there is no biblical reason to disagree. However, it is manifest that the label applied to Liberalism is precisely applicable to the author's Pentecostalism.

In 1943 the Southern Publishing Association published the book Facts of Faith by Christian Edwardson which is of inestimable spiritual value. Edwardson was an Evangelist-Pastor and author of several books including Facts of Faith. Of him The Adventist Heritage Center writes "The last years of his life were spent at Hutchinson, Minnesota, where he engaged in writing and research. His library numbered about 3,000 books . . ." In a Ministry Magazine dated November, 1944, and titled "The Power of an Informed Ministry" Roy Allan Anderson wrote concerning Facts of Faith, "Another excellent compilation is Christian Edwardson's recently published and newly revised volume, Facts of Faith. No worker can afford to be without this book, which represents nearly half a century of research." This recommendation is now relevant for the Seventh-day Adventist laity who believe Jesus Christ's message to Laodicea (Rev. 3:16, 20.) Roy Allan Anderson was one of the leaders in the compromise with the Evangelicals; but on this recommendation he can be trusted. Had the ministry followed his recommendation, and not his example, more of them would have stood up against the Church's backsliding towards Rome. The ministry as a whole now spurn "heavy theology"; but note Ellen G. White's definition of the righteousness of Christ as "pure, unadulterated truth."