Posted on 05/22/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by DaveMSmith
Last Judgment 28
V. THE LAST JUDGMENT IS TO BE WHERE ALL ARE TOGETHER, AND SO IN THE SPIRITUAL WORLD, NOT ON EARTH
The general belief about the Last Judgment is that the Lord accompanied by angels will appear in glory in the clouds of heaven, and He will then raise up from their graves all who have ever lived from the beginning of creation, clothe their souls with a body, and, when they have been summoned to meet, judge them, sending those who have lived good lives to everlasting life or heaven, and those who lived wicked lives to everlasting death or hell.
The churches have taken this belief from the literal sense of the Word, and there was no possibility of removing it so long as it remained unknown that everything mentioned in the Word has a spiritual sense; and this sense is the real Word, the literal sense serving as its basis or foundation. Without this kind of literal sense the Word could not have been Divine, and have served both heaven and the world as a means of instruction on how to live and what to believe, and as a means of conjunction. So if anyone knows the spiritual things corresponding to natural things in the Word, he can know that the Lord's coming in the clouds of heaven does not mean His appearance there, but His appearance in the Word. The Lord is the Word, because He is Divine truth. The clouds of heaven in which He is to come are the literal sense of the Word, and the glory is its spiritual sense. The angels are heaven, from which He appears, and they are also the Lord as regards Divine truths.# This makes plain the meaning of these words, namely, that when the church comes to an end the Lord will open up the spiritual sense of the Word, and thus reveal Divine truth such as it is in itself. This will be a sign that the Last Judgment is at hand.
That there is a spiritual sense within each thing and expression in the Word, and what it is may be seen in the Arcana Coelestia. This book expounds in full detail the contents of Genesis and Exodus in accordance with their spiritual sense. Some selected passages dealing with the Word and its spiritual sense may be found in the small work About the White Horse described in Revelation.
# The Lord is the Word, because He is Divine truth in heaven (AC 2533, 2813, 2859, 2894, 3397, 3712). The Lord is the Word because the Word comes from Him and is about Him (AC 2859). It is about nothing but the Lord, especially in its inmost sense about the glorification of His Humanity, so that the Lord Himself is contained in it (AC 1873, 9357). The Lord's coming is His presence in the Word and the revelation of this (AC 3900, 4060). A cloud in the Word means the letter of the Word, or its literal meaning (AC 4060, 4391, 5922, 6343, 6752, 8106, 8781, 9430, 10551, 10574). Glory in the Word means Divine truth such as it is in heaven and in the spiritual sense (AC 4809, 5922, 8267, 8427, 9429, 10574). Angels in the Word mean Divine truths coming from the Lord, since angels are the means by which they are received, and they do not utter them of themselves but from the Lord (AC 1925, 2821, 3039, 4085, 4295, 4402, 6280, 8192, 8301). The trumpets and horns then blown by angels mean Divine truths in heaven and revealed from heaven (AC 8815, 8823, 8915).
The filioque issue is not a doctrine but it is a doctrinal issue.
Now, no Orthodox priest in good standing with the Church will question the error of the filioque and be an Orthodox priest in good standing with his bishop. I didn't see his site and it really doesn't matter: as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, filioque is a canonical violation, which also happens to be doctrinally wrong: the Spirit, as regards his existence, does not originate "and from the Son".
But then again, aren't you suppose[d] to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching?
First of all the priest is a bishop's lieutenant and can act only on permission of his bishop to whom the priest owes absolute obedience. Catholic priest may, and I emphasize may, be different. An Orthodox priest may not even serve the liturgy unless she has a written permission to do so from his bishop.
As for the people of God, the "congregation", submitting to the Bishop, yes, only if he is orthodox. UNorthodox bishops are kicked out in Eastern churches. The tradition is guarded by the people and is in the hands of the people of God. If they see something new they will confront the clergy and demand an explanation, even physically attack them! Kolo has a good video of people stopping a bishop for changing the liturgical language from koine to modern Greek. If the people of God see innovation, they put their clergy in place. You are mixing up the Latin Church with Orthodoxy, HD.
?Our salvation is by grace alone, through faith in Jesus, and that faith comes from the Lord opening our minds to understand and receive the Word of God. Salvation is a gift of God.”
“Good works will follow living with the Spirit of Christ in you, but those works do not, never could, “earn” your salvation.”
“Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.””
Amen and if anyone preaches any other gospel, it is a false one.
See post #100.
Some things are worth repeating.
“Beware of FALSE prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are RAVENING wolves ... For such are FALSE apostles,
DECEITFUL workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.”
Jesus Christ, Matthew 7:15, The Apostle Paul, II Corinthians 11:13
INDEED.
I reckon we need to get rid of all that, "extra biblical, double predestination" stuff in the first chapter of Ephesians.
I guess its OK if you don't mind sacrificing accuracy for speed.
Indulgences exist to this day and the Church long ago recognized and forbade some corrupt practices as the . You alleged that they were sold by the Church to shorten ones time in purgatory. That has never been Church doctrine. So what was your point?
It would seem that reports of your recent demise were exaggerated a bit, (Or something Mark Twainish like that).
Oh no, not at all. It's hardly ho hum. What we don't care about is what other people believe within their own church or ecclesial group. It's up to them. We know what the correct, canonical wording of the Creed is. If other people pray it differently, then their bishops are not and cannot be in communion with our bishops. What we believe is well known (it has been in this case since the 380s) and available to everyone for the asking. If people don't want it, what are we supposed to do, get mad?
Now, as for the comments of the priest you quoted, as I said, his comments on the filioque are pedestrian (not "predestrian")in the sense that they are common and everyday...not incorrect. What is incorrect, HD, is that the filioque is a "stumbling block" to a reunion of Rome with the rest of The Church. The filioque is simply and completely unacceptable as a change to the Creed or the theology of The Church as expressed in the Creed, absent an ecumenical council making the change. As Kosta and I have said on many occasions here, unless Rome believes the exact same things as we do, there will be no communion among our bishops and theirs. The Laous tou Theou won't allow it.
"But then again, aren't you suppose to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching? "
I am under no authority to "submit" myself to the teaching of any priest except when he, as the representative of the bishop, teaches the dogma or canonical discipline of The Church. Whether or not the filioque is a merely a "stumbling block" to reunion of the Church of Rome with the rest of The Church is not a matter of the dogma or canonical discipline of Orthodoxy. Let me give you a more concrete example. Suppose my metropolitan and my parish priest were to teach that Panagia was bodily assumed into heaven ( I happen to believe that) and then demanded upon penalty of anathema that I believe that. I could and likely would publicly refuse to comply...and I would be within my rights, indeed I would be fulfilling my duty to The Church because the bodily assumption of the Theotokos is not dogma but rather theologoumennon which I may believe or not as I choose. I cannot, however, be ordered to believe it and if a bishop or priest were to order me to believe it, the appropriate penalty for them is removal from their office.
HD, our ecclesiology, and the relationships among the hierarchy, clergy, monastics and the laity within it, is very, very different from what you are used to, among Latins or protestants, in the West.
Well, bookies say that there is a 4 in 1461 chance he'll get the Julian date correct.
Luke 18:18-19
"Why do you call me good?", Jesus answered.
"No one is good - except God alone. That is a completely false statement. The way to salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ ALONE.
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
You FOOLISH Galatians!
Who has bewitched you?
Then you'd best pay attention to what PAUL has written: right?
They DO???
Wow!
The things one learns on FR!
Call me OBAMA!
I've listened to hundreds of sermons from Protestant pastors, and somehow I've failed to hear what you just claimed.
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
I guess it became more important later in Paul's travels.
HMMmm...
That PAUL fellow can REALLY be confusing! 1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one are a part of it.
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.