Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
The ultimate intention of Catholicism is the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. That has always been the ambition, at least covertly, but now it is being promoted overtly and openly.
The purpose of this article is only to make that intention clear. It is not a criticism of Catholics or Catholicism (unless you happen to think a Catholic dictatorship is not a good thing).
The most important point is to understand that when a Catholic talks about liberty or freedom, it is not individual liberty that is meant, not the freedom to live one's life as a responsible individual with the freedom to believe as one chooses, not the freedom to pursue happiness, not the freedom to produce and keep what one has produced as their property. What Catholicism means by freedom, is freedom to be a Catholic, in obedience to the dictates of Rome.
The Intentions Made Plain
The following is from the book Revolution and Counter-Revolution:
|
"B. Catholic Culture and Civilization
"Therefore, the ideal of the Counter-Revolution is to restore and promote Catholic culture and civilization. This theme would not be sufficiently enunciated if it did not contain a definition of what we understand by Catholic culture and Catholic civilization. We realize that the terms civilization and culture are used in many different senses. Obviously, it is not our intention here to take a position on a question of terminology. We limit ourselves to using these words as relatively precise labels to indicate certain realities. We are more concerned with providing a sound idea of these realities than with debating terminology.
"A soul in the state of grace possesses all virtues to a greater or lesser degree. Illuminated by faith, it has the elements to form the only true vision of the universe.
"The fundamental element of Catholic culture is the vision of the universe elaborated according to the doctrine of the Church. This culture includes not only the learning, that is, the possession of the information needed for such an elaboration, but also the analysis and coordination of this information according to Catholic doctrine. This culture is not restricted to the theological, philosophical, or scientific field, but encompasses the breadth of human knowledge; it is reflected in the arts and implies the affirmation of values that permeate all aspects of life.
"Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church.
|
Got that? "Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church." The other name for this is called "totalitarianism," the complete rule of every aspect of life.
This book and WEB sites like that where it is found are spreading like wildfire. These people do not believe the hope of America is the restoration of the liberties the founders sought to guarantee, these people believe the only hope for America is Fatima. Really!
In Their Own Words
The following is from the site, "RealCatholicTV." It is a plain call for a "benevolent dictatorship, a Catholic monarch;" their own words. They even suggest that when the "Lord's Payer," is recited, it is just such a Catholic dictatorship that is being prayed for.
[View video in original here or on Youtube. Will not show in FR.]
Two Comments
First, in this country, freedom of speech means that anyone may express any view no matter how much anyone else disagrees with that view, or is offended by it. I totally defend that meaning of freedom of speech.
This is what Catholics believe, and quite frankly, I do not see how any consistent Catholic could disagree with it, though I suspect some may. I have no objection to their promoting those views, because it is what they believe. Quite frankly I am delighted they are expressing them openly. For one thing, it makes it much easier to understand Catholic dialog, and what they mean by the words they use.
Secondly, I think if their views were actually implemented, it would mean the end true freedom, of course, but I do not believe there is any such danger.
Are you saying implied to avoid saying presumed?
I think the author just means that we may reasonably infer from Paul in Rom. 8:28-30 that glorification is the last event. It seems clear that this author follows Sola Scriptura, and that includes what may be reasonably inferred from the text.
FTA: The apostle Paul put glorification as the last and final event in the process of salvation (Rom. 8:28-30).
But it doesn't say it has to be a life-long process! Grammatically, Paul is saying God already did that as a matter of fact, a finished, accomplished act (aorist, active, indicative).
As the articles cited indicate, the totality of scripture describes at least three uses of the concept of sanctification. All are correct for their purposes. Similarly, the concept of "saved" is used in more than one sense and tense. All of those uses are likewise correct. Citing one use in one passage in no way invalidates the others.
So, where are you getting this "life-long" process from?
From other passages of scripture which describe it, such as the ones already posted. The "all or nothing" approach simply does not apply. If we claim "Ah-Ha", the Bible is wrong because it uses the concept of sanctification in more that one tense or sense, then we might as well say the same thing about the concept of love.
FTA: The greatest promise in the Scriptures is when Christ appears, “we shall be like Him.”
What does that mean to be like him? In what way will you be like him? Will you be perfect? Immortal? Holy? Glorified?
We will be restored to His image without the stain of sin. (Per your later question) see also:
The precise mechanics are not given but there will be some sort of transformation. And of course the image is not the thing so there is no pretense of any of us becoming Divine. God alone is Divine and always will be.
FK: I did not realize there was any controversy within Christianity on the concept of entering Heaven with glorified bodies and without the stain of sin. Do Latins or Orthodox dispute this?
.......... In this intermediate state, the souls of the saved are eventually "purified." and united to their new bodies at the Last (Dread) Judgment. I have never heard of them being referred to as "glorified."
That's interesting. I wonder what their interpretation is of verses like Rom. 8:30.
So if the "saved" will be "perfected," and shall "inherit the kingdom," and "glorified" then they will be divine!
I don't think that follows. The elect can all be saved, perfected, inheritors of the kingdom and glorified all still without having the eternal essence or Divine nature of God. For example, we know there is and will be worship in Heaven (e.g. Rev. 7:9-11) so we cannot be equal to God there.
I suppose the very essence of what salvation means is one of the major differences between the different Christian faiths. In any event, if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further? I would be very surprised if this was the case. I would say that once we had our glorified bodies there would be no potential for sin. And no, that would not make us Divine. It would make us finally changed.
Paul makes it abundantly clear that (in his mind) there is one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:6).
Paul gave full credit to Christ for being God:
FK, the "kingdom of God" or the "heavenly kingdom" refers to Israel, God's own kingdom on earth. Apocalyptic Judaism believed in the restored, perfected earth, new earth with the new Jerusalem, not a castle in the sky.
The Bible refers to more than one "kingdom". There is God's kingdom on earth and an extraterrestrial (not of this earth) eschatological kingdom. I was talking about the one the elect will spend eternity going forward in:
This kingdom is obviously not on earth.
What does "in presence of God" mean? besides, 2 Cor 5:8 doesn't say that. He says we prefer to be without the body but "at home with the Lord."
It means there is no weigh station after physical death in which we are tortured or otherwise purified by pain, subject to being bailed out by money or prayer. :) Since we often speak of the deceased as being at home with the Lord, I would use the two phrases you quote above synonymously.
Whether the elect sin or not is irrelevant concerning their salvation, but there are temporal consequences here on earth. I have no credible information that leads me to think that Andrea Yates is/was saved (elect) so I'm not sure why you would think Protestants make such an assumption about her. We do not take profession as proof of belief.
What is so preposterous about Protestantism is that what the "elect" do on this earth simply does not matter to God. It may matter to Paul, but not to the God he created.
Of course we would say that our sinning matters to God. God says He hates sin. We have to make the distinction that post-conversion sins do not cancel the salvation of the elect because of the promises of Christ. If Christ was a liar, then those sins could cost us our salvation. But this doesn't make those sins meaningless. They have consequences and God will definitely and many times painfully discipline those He loves.
Whether you are Andrea Yates or Adolf Hitler, as long as you believe, you are as holy as it gets in God's eyes. The Big Daddy in the sky simply does not see the terrible things his little monsters are doing.
Salvation is not earned by racking up enough points by doing works. Grace through faith is what matters.
Is there a religion more narcissistic than Protestantism?
I think most Bible-believing Protestants would say that their faith is not a religion at all but rather a relationship. That is an important distinguishing characteristic.
In and of Himself, no, there was never a time. However, it seems clear that the context is His being sanctified FOR our sakes. For example:
So, Jesus "became" sanctified so that He was our sanctification. That seems to match John 17:19 - "19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified."
I guess it depends on how one defines narcissism
I would say it is narcissistic to believe one can impress God enough that He would repay them by saving them
Psa 53:2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were [any] that did understand, that did seek God.
Psa 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.
Yes indeed, FK. The differences between what the Latin Church since the Great Schism (or even perhaps since the 4th century) and its offspring the Protestant communities since the Reformation believe and what Eastern Christians believe are extensive, even vast. This is why I on occasion remark that we worship different Gods. "In any event, if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further." Orthodoxy teaches that when we die, our souls experience the "particular Judgment" and go to the "Place of the Dead" to await the Last Judgment. The Last Judgment is just what you think it is. In neither event can the deceased sin anymore. In fact, the deceased can't do anything after death one way or the other to effect where he or she will spend eternity. As always, that depends 100% on the mercy of God. "It means there is no weigh station after physical death in which we are tortured or otherwise purified by pain, subject to being bailed out by money or prayer. :)" The Russians have a concept of weigh stations where the soul is examined after death and some sort of foretaste of what awaits in eternity, but it is not dogmatic at all. FK, to understand Eastern Christianity, one has to understand that for us all creation is full of God's immeasurable and boundless love. This is fundamental to our understanding of everything. Without understanding this, no one can understand Orthodox Christianity. As +Isaac the Syrian said, "'Among all His actions there is none which is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and the end of His dealings with us'" +Isaac goes on to say: "'Everyone has a single place in His purpose in the ranking of love, corresponding to the form He beheld in them before He created them and all the rest of created beings, that is, at the time before the eternal purpose for the delineation of the world was put into effect... He has a single ranking of complete and impassible love towards everyone, and He has a single caring concern for those who have fallen, just as much as for those who have not fallen'" On God's Mercy and Justice, +Isaac says this: "'Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves... Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God's use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures" Very different from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", isn't it!
“I suppose the very essence of what salvation means is one of the major differences between the different Christian faiths.”
Yes indeed, FK. The differences between what the Latin Church since the Great Schism (or even perhaps since the 4th century) and its offspring the Protestant communities since the Reformation believe and what Eastern Christians believe are extensive, even vast. This is why I on occasion remark that we worship different Gods.
"In any event, if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further."
Orthodoxy teaches that when we die, our souls experience the "particular Judgment" and go to the "Place of the Dead" to await the Last Judgment. The Last Judgment is just what you think it is. In neither event can the deceased sin anymore. In fact, the deceased can't do anything after death one way or the other to effect where he or she will spend eternity. As always, that depends 100% on the mercy of God.
"It means there is no weigh station after physical death in which we are tortured or otherwise purified by pain, subject to being bailed out by money or prayer. :)"
The Russians have a concept of weigh stations where the soul is examined after death and gets some sort of foretaste of what awaits in eternity, but it is not dogmatic at all.
FK, to understand Eastern Christianity, one has to understand that for us all creation is full of God's immeasurable and boundless love. This is fundamental to our understanding of everything. Without understanding this, no one can understand Orthodox Christianity. As +Isaac the Syrian said, "'Among all His actions there is none which is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and the end of His dealings with us'"
+Isaac goes on to say: "'Everyone has a single place in His purpose in the ranking of love, corresponding to the form He beheld in them before He created them and all the rest of created beings, that is, at the time before the eternal purpose for the delineation of the world was put into effect... He has a single ranking of complete and impassible love towards everyone, and He has a single caring concern for those who have fallen, just as much as for those who have not fallen'"
On God's Mercy and Justice, +Isaac says this: "'Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves... Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God's use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures"
Very different from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", isn't it!
We can reasonably conclude, based on grammar, that it is a done an accomplished package deal without regard what comes first or last.
As the articles cited indicate, the totality of scripture describes at least three uses of the concept of sanctification
So far I have seen only aorist used; not future tense.
If we claim "Ah-Ha", the Bible is wrong because it uses the concept of sanctification in more that one tense or sense, then we might as well say the same thing about the concept of love
I asked where does it say it is a life-long process, FK, not whether the Bible is at fault. But since you mentioned it, the veracity of the Bible is a matter of faith, not fact.
We will be restored to His image without the stain of sin...the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body. [Phil 3:20-21]
It is not the image but the likeness of God that man lost in the Fall. In other words, being, and not looking God-like. As for the Philippians, Christ never promised that to his hand-picked disciples. Why should I believe a self-appointed apostle on his word?
That's interesting. I wonder what their interpretation is of verses like Rom. 8:30.
In Slavonic, as in Greek, it has a slightly different "flavor": them whom he predefined, he also invited, and the ones he invited them he excused, and the ones he excused them he celebrated.
The elect can all be saved, perfected, inheritors of the kingdom and glorified all still without having the eternal essence or Divine nature of God.
I agree that what makes God God is his (presumed) eternal nature which obviously humans can never have. They will still fall short of God's glory, so what is there to glorify?
if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further? I would be very surprised if this was the case
I don't know. However, the pre-Fall Adam did have that potential. Only God can have free will and never commit sin. Which means, your perfected man will not have free will. How "perfect" (complete) is that?
So far, the "glorified" man will not share God's eternal nature and will not have free will. Doesn't sound very perfected or worthy of glory to me, FK. :)
He does, because he describes Christ as the demiurge, the firstborn of all creation...However, Paul refers only to the Father as God in no uncertain terms: "there is but one God, the Father.."
Phil 2:6- Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God...
Your NIV is misleading you, FK. The Greek text uses the word mophe which means "external appearance," not the nature or essence. But this wouldn't be the first NIV doctrinally motivated alteration of the scriptures, and probably not the last. :)
I was talking about the one the elect will spend eternity going forward in: Matt. 16:19
Having the keys to the kingdom in heaven does not say the "elect" will spend eternity [sic] there. It simply means the disciples will be given the means to act on God's behalf as his trusted servants (which seems a little ridiculous given that God is (1) omnipotent and omniscient, and (2) already has obligate servants—angels—specifically created for that purpose, who did just about all his work on earth in the Old Testament; why does he need a new set of proverbilal "elfs" is curious).
And eternity, FK, is something that applies to prehistory as well as the future, without the beginning and without the end. Those who have been created in time can never live in eternity because there was a time when they did nto exist.
It means there is no weigh station after physical death in which we are tortured or otherwise purified by pain, subject to being bailed out by money or prayer. :) Since we often speak of the deceased as being at home with the Lord, I would use the two phrases you quote above synonymously.
Prayer, the Orthodox Church believes, does not bail out the soul in unrepentant sin, but eases its discomfort (caused by shame) in the presence of God.
The memorial services (panikhidas) are not petitions for God to save the soul of the departed, but services of gratitude in hopes that he did.
Since we often speak of the deceased as being at home with the Lord, I would use the two phrases you quote above synonymously
You yourself said that one can not know if another person is saved or not. Saying that the deceased is "at home with the Lord" contradicts your statement by implying that one does know.
Whether the elect sin or not is irrelevant concerning their salvation, but there are temporal consequences here on earth.
Big deal. What can here on earth match the guaranteed limo ride to heaven to cause one to change his ways?
I have no credible information that leads me to think that Andrea Yates is/was saved (elect) so I'm not sure why you would think Protestants make such an assumption about her. We do not take profession as proof of belief.
Because they say that the departed is in a "better places" or "at home with God" or "in heaven" etc. And because Paul indented the idea that the spouse of a believer is automatically saved, along with children, even if the other spouse is not a believer.
Of course we would say that our sinning matters to God. God says He hates sin.
That's like a billionaire living in a dump and saying he hates it! Why doesn't he make the sin just go away?
We have to make the distinction that post-conversion sins do not cancel the salvation of the elect because of the promises of Christ. If Christ was a liar, then those sins could cost us our salvation. But this doesn't make those sins meaningless. They have consequences and God will definitely and many times painfully discipline those He loves.
Baloney, FK. The Bible is full of examples that God ordered destruction of children. Religious nuts tell us that God sends hurricanes to tsunamis to "punish" the world. Even some Church Fathers believed these were 'pedagogic" punishments for a "greater" good. Killing innocents for a greater good...beginning with the Flood...and still no improvement.
Salvation is not earned by racking up enough points by doing works. Grace through faith is what matters.
Obviously because what we do doesn't matter. Whether you drown five children or kill six million Jews and three million Poles, and a few millions others, or whether you perform 1,000 fornications a day (the example given by Luther) it doth not matter as long as you believe. By the time you die you will be "glorified." In God's eyes Andrea Yates and Hitler could be as "innocent" as Mary.
I think most Bible-believing Protestants would say that their faith is not a religion at all but rather a relationship. That is an important distinguishing characteristic.
It is a religion because they share basic tenets common to all of them, namely the authority of the same Bible, same core beliefs, that one is saved by faith alone, "justified", glorified", etc. Saying it's a relationship does not describe Protestant mindset. Everything is a relationship, FK. It's how we deal with he world. Protestant mindset is defined and shared by other Protestants in an organized manner and shared tenets of faith. That make sit as religion.
Paul simply states that "we" have become righteous, holy and redeemed through him, not that he became holy, just or redeemed. It still doesn't answer: why did Jesus need to be sanctified?
So, Jesus "became" sanctified so that He was our sanctification. That seems to match John 17:19 - "19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified."
No it doesn't. God says to his people "be holy because I am holy." He doesn't say "I make myself holy so that you may be holy." Only someone who is not sanctified can become sanctified. And on another occasion, Jesus asks the Father to sanctify him...yet in John 17 he sanctifies himself..etc.
The Bible is full of these little inconsistencies. I love the one where Jesus says they can't touch him because his body was not glorified yet (!). When did his body become "profane"? LOL. They were shooting in the dark, FK. And once you realize that, the magic is gone.
Need we say more?
In the Greek and Arab Churches the Memorial Service asks for God's mercy on the soul of the deceased and is somewhat different from the Slavic panikhidas. Here's a small part of the text from a Greek/Arab Memorial service:
"Priest: May the Lord God place his soul where the righteous repose. Let us ask for the mercies of God, the kingdom of Heaven, and the forgiveness of his sins from Christ our immortal king and God.
People:Grant this, O Lord.
Priest:Let us pray to the Lord.
People:Lord, have mercy.
Priest:O God of spirits and of all flesh, You have trampled down death and have abolished the power of the devil, giving life to Your world. Give rest to the soul of Your departed servant in a place of light, in a place of repose, in a place of refreshment, where there is no pain, sorrow, and suffering. As a good and loving God, forgive every sin he has committed in thought, word or deed, for there is no one who lives and is sinless. You alone are without sin. Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your word is truth.
Priest:For You are the resurrection, the life and the repose of Your departed servant, Christ our God, and to You we give glory, with Your eternal Father and Your all holy, good and life giving Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages."
That would be narcissistic. That's why Orthodox and Catholics never think they have even come close. Unlike the Protestants, who adopt Jesus and "know" they have impressed God enough forever.
Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
We do not believe anyone impresses God with anything they do ...By His MERCY and GRACE
See we really do believe it is a gift and not wages earned.
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
Makes ya wonder why God even made a hell huh?
“Makes ya wonder why God even made a hell huh?”
Or if He actually did....
So the bible contains error?
“So the bible contains error?”
The English translations are riddled with errors. Give me a quote and I’ll let you know what I think. Beyond that, I think the simplest answer is yes, the bible contains error. Bats and locusts, for example, are clearly not birds and there is little or no reason to believe that 1 John 5:7-8 is anything other than spurious....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.