it is important to remember that, in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1984 Instruction on Certain Aspects of Theology of Liberation, perhaps the central error of “certain forms of liberation theology” is this:
The only true consciousness, then, is the partisan consciousness. It is clear that the concept of truth itself is in question here, and it is totally subverted: there is no truth, they pretend, except in and through the partisan praxis (VIII.4).
I would commend to the readers of this interest group two articles from today’s electronic edition of First Things. One is on Cuba, and would (should) prick the conscience of the Left, and the other is on Archbishop Romero’ beautification, which would 9should0 prick the conscience of the Right. Firstthings.com
as early as 2015 I also broke the news on Cuba lifting its generation long ban on the Bible and asked a similar question in another topic. Do you think that this is related to some sort of Social Gospel / Liberation Theology experiment applicable to the whole NAFTA region? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/gutierrezs-book-a-theology-of-liberation-designed-by-kgb/
I fiercely dislike liberation theology, but it still contains some gospel, and it may be used by the HS to bring some Cubans into the Kingdom where they can ge a better understanding of the Gospel. In any case people in Cuba are truly fed up with marxism and its false promises, so liberation theology is a temptation for persons who live outside of marxist states.
Has Gutiérrez’s Mysticism Created an Open Door for Dialogue?
Is Gutiérrez’s incorporation of mysticism a theological portal through which dialogue with Pentecostalism might commence? Given the chasm that has historically separated them, the answer to such a question is at best tentative. First, while the accentuation of mysticism is without question an elaboration of Gutiérrez’s latent spirituality, the translation from mysticism to Pentecostal- ism is not a seamless transition from either side. Yet, there are voices within Pentecostalism who believe that the chasm is not too deep and that a latent commonality abides between the two. Miroslav Volf is one who implores these two theologies to come together. He states, “It is of ecumenical importance for
Totalitarians do love their ‘Brownshirts.’
The Globalists and the KGB (formerly the FBI) have almost completely eliminated the right to peacefully assemble to protest our corrupt government in this country. Agencies like the Injustice Department (formerly the DOJ) and the KGB no longer concern themselves with the civil rights of the citizenry. They are owned by the Globalists and their religious advisors.
These agencies infiltrate any group of people who stand up for Godliness or freedom, permeate these groups with paid thugs, cause discord within these groups, and then falsely prosecute its peaceful participants for ‘insurrection.’
We can now expect severe repercussions for protesters who are not controlled by the government.
All civil rights will be removed from Western countries, as they do not exist in most other countries, by using corrupt law enforcement agencies and the judiciary. These corrupt law enforcement agencies will begin by using their ‘Brownshirts’ in the form of mobs to remove our civil rights. Once the citizenry begins to adjust to them, they will form a new ‘Ustashi’ who will engage in unspeakable acts of barbarity against their political opponents.
Was Latin American liberation theology an invention of the Soviet KGB? So argues Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former intelligence official under Romania’s communist regime, first in an essay published on National Review Online, and later in an interview at Catholic News Agency. Pacepa’s account is almost certainly false, but it feeds into many Catholics’ knee-jerk hostility to liberation theology, as a result of its troubles with the Vatican, ignoring the two’s quite complicated relationship. At dotCommonweal, David Gibson rightly takes the CNA interviewer to task for letting Pacepa make his claims evidence-free, but it is also necessary to set the historical record straight. Pacepa weaves together indisputable facts about Soviet efforts to manipulate religion with a profound ignorance of liberation theology to create a wildly implausible account of the movement’s origins, and in the process ironically demonstrates an understanding of the human person and history similar to that of the most extreme forms of liberation theology, rightly condemned by the Vatican.
According to Pacepa, liberation theology had its beginnings in 1959-60, with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev’s plans to export Soviet communism to Latin America, and to infiltrate and co-opt worldwide Christianity. For this latter purpose, in 1968 the KGB created the Christian Peace Conference, based in Prague, Czechoslovakia, and later that same year, he claims, “the KGB-created Christian Peace Conference, supported by the world-wide World Peace Council, was able to maneuver a group of leftist South American bishops into holding a Conference of Latin American Bishops at Medellin, Colombia.” In Pacepa’s telling, the Medellin conference launched liberation theology.