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).
- food and the access to water are a universal right of all humans,as he did in his recent encyclical Caritas in veritate, you'll be expected to step aside and let the centralists and socialists take over. Your eternal salvation is in jeopardy if you don't go along with whatever he says, whenever he says it.
- abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution will hinder the achievement of lasting development
- technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption
- labor unions should expand their influence over those outside their membership, and beyond national boundaries,
- a reform of the United Nations Organization is necessary, likewise a reform of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the "family of nations" can acquire real teeth.
-- Alex Murphy, October 31, 2009
===================================================
One thing I am infallibly certain is that your knowledge of Catholic doctrine is incomplete and highly flawed.
Popes, as members of the Episcopacy of the Church, participate in the infallible declarations of the Magisterium, but there have only been two ex cathedra statements by Popes.
If you are serious about educating yourself on Catholic doctrines I would advise you to stay away from the internet and seek out a priest or enroll in theology classes at a Catholic college or university. I can't think of any priest who would reject a sincere inquiry or deny admittance into an educational program even on the conditions that the exercise is not for the purposes of conversion.
Your tendency is to reject substantiation and substitute your opinion instead. If it is I who has showed more ignorance of Catholic doctrine than you, who is sure of what prominent RC apologists and scholars such as i have quoted in my posts are not, then it must be shared by them. When you find the infallible list of all infallible statements then tell them. They will appreciate it.
So now the issue of the filique is ho-hum? Do you have an "official" Church comment that states this?
I will say the more I mulled over your comment the more perplex I became. (Yes, I do meditate on your words while cutting the grass.) I hear a great deal about the "authority" of the church, and yet you chided a priest for not knowing the Church's stance on the filique. In fact you are saying that the priest writing is completely wrong and I should know better.
What you are essentially saying is that priest does not know what is the correct doctrine of the Orthodox Church and, presumably, you do. It is possible that some rogue priest is out there spreading all sorts of things that are contrary to the Church. This is what you're saying. 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 hear the Catholics and Orthodox complain that Protestants interpret their own writings and have no authority to submit to. Yet this is precisely what you are doing. There isn't really any different. You are saying this priest is wrong and ignore his article as "predestrian". This is your interpretation. Not any different then us Protestants.
You have danced all around the issue, and have blown a lot of smoke about the superiority of your interpretations, but you have never answered the core question as to the authority of your interpretations.
If you are contending that you have the ability or gift to infallibly interpret Scripture then say so. If you don't, simply admit it.
Actually the beauty of the Internet is that I can go out onto various Church websites and look at the explanation of how they arrive at their doctrine. My quotes are almost exclusively from the Church sites such as New Advent. I find most Catholics simply do not understand their own doctrine.
Since you "give your sources" please cite the Catholic source that approved the "get out of purgatory" payments.
This isn't hard. For my source I'll use, in part, the Catholic's Council of Trent:
Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,--whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,--be wholly abolished.
Take your time, the internet is an awfully big place.
Yes. But Goggle sure saves time.
Does that include Peter?
Does that include Peter?
Oops, sorry for the double post. Peter made me do it.
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.
This seems to happen a LOT!
Job is refusing to take any more Medicare patients.
And yet history records the failings of that Catholic church at times; even while it has claimed to be the only TRUE interpretation.
How can this be?
You seem to know a lot about the oddball Protestants out there.
I don't mind if you guys want to speak in tongues; but the Scripture says there must be an interpreter, also.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
What a concept!
searching the Scriptures!
(I guess they hadn't learned yet to rely on the traditions of the Fathers yet.)
Wonder how many works are required for salvation?
So many folks think they have kept the law or most of it, too.
Another common error.
I think I will just heed 2 Timothy 2:23 and pass on this one.
Does Job have to eat?
You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? - James 2:20
How many works must you do to earn your salvation?
I certainly did answer that, as well as show you that your charge of ignorance is on your part. You seem to have firewall that prevents you from reading or comprehending what answers and refutes your premise and statements, including when it is from RC sources, and from understanding the deeper implications of a theological issue.
On the contrary. The Council of Trent "abolished" the practice. So it had to be Church policy at one time whether officially or unofficially. At least it was enough to cause a ruckus. Instead of telling Luther, "Hey, look we're sorry. You're right."; they kicked him out and excommunicated him. Only years later through the Council of Trent did they try to clean up the mess. I guess by then Leo had enough to pay for the Vatican.
Sorry, the Catholic Church owes Luther an apology.
That is known only to God. To whom more has been given more will be expected. I pray I am found worthy.
Swedenborg
__________________________________
Isnt this the guy Joey Smith borrowed from ???
You are found worthy by the completed (It is finished!) work of Jesus Christ. He paid your sin bill (and mine) in full.
This is the Grace of God, the Gift by which we are Saved. We can add nothing to it.
Those of us who believe He is the Son of God, was raised from the dead by God and is Lord of all are Saved.
Works, however, are evaluated at the Judgement Seat of Christ, and even the man whose works were burned up was he himself Saved.
Have only confidence in the Completed Work of Christ.
The Thief on the Cross had no works, other than to ask for Salvation, and that day, he was in Paradise with Christ.
:)
I dop not know if an expose of the imaginative heretic Swedenborg has been posted yet, but here is an exceprt from http://www.watchman.org/profile/swedenborgpro.htm
Emanuel Swedenborg was born in Stockholm in 1688. Most of his life was dedicated to science. After being educated at the University of Uppsala,1 he was credited with inventions and theories in many areas of study. He designed mining machinery, a glider aircraft and an airtight stove. It is claimed that he “investigated every known science of his times” and “wrote over seventy treatises on subjects such as: ‘fossils, earth’s revolution;’ and ‘fire and colors.’”2
At the age of fifty-five, Swedenborg turned his life’s efforts toward theology. He sought truth by way of meditations and “systematically opened his consciousness to inner influences.”3 Through opening himself up in this manner, Swedenborg was contacted by a being who claimed to be Jesus Christ. He learned much about the spirit world through such spiritual encounters, laying the basis for Swedenborgian theology.
Fifteen years after his death in 1772, the first sect of his followers were organized in England by a British printer named Robert Hindmarsh.4 In 1789 a conference met in the London church, and has met almost every year since.5 Swedenborg’s teachings reached the United States in the 1780’s.6
The below is from an analysis i did on Swendenborg in 2001, one of the first things of its kind that i wrote on a computer.
Swendenborg’s canon consisted of only 33 books of the Bible, eliminating significant portions of the Old Testament, and most everything past the 4 gospels of the New Testament. Perhaps most notably he disdained the writings of the apostle most used of GOD in declaring the transforming Gospel of CHRIST, that being the apostle Paul, whose writings the apostle Peter also authenticated as Scripture, (2Pt.3:16). and whose true apostleship was clearly manifest through doctrinal integrity and CHRIST-like life in the light of the previously established Scriptures, with signs following (according to the grace given them. (2Cor.6:1-10; 11,12; Mk.16:20; Rm.15:18,19; Mk. 16:20).
In contrast, Swedenborg supposed that he superseded the apostles, and eliminated Peter as well as Paul, etc., as an inspired writer of Sacred Scripture.
All of which arrogant censoring allowed him to more easily propagate his own visions of spiritual encounters; in which he professed to have supposedly conversed with such men as Luther, Calvin, Augustine, and St. Paul; debating issues of divine Truth (especially with the last named): And, (ego) triumphing over them, basically claimed to have put them to silence!
Therefore, in working to supplant “the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude v.3, as it is Biblically manifest), with his own revelations, he systematically relegated what he had left of the Bible to be largely (unwarranted) spiritual allegory:
The fall of Adam is said by him to be the apostasy of the church, which he came to replace with his own “church of the new Jerusalem”(circa 1788).
The statement by CHRIST; ”he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be dammed’(Mk.16;16) is rendered to mean that “unless a man is regenerated by the truths of faith (i.e. Swendenborg’s “truths”), and lives a life according to them, he cannot be saved.”
And the Second Coming of CHRIST is made to be an event that has already happened in 1775, when Swendenborg received his manifestly demonic “key to the interpretation of Scripture.”
Yet his primary (and progressive) doctrinal delusions were that he misconstrued the Scripturally evident doctrine of the Trinity to be polytheism; flatly denied the heart of CHRIST’s mission for man: His sacrificial atonement for our sins (by His own blood as being necessary to reconcile sinful man to a completely pure, holy, and perfectly just and true GOD); The eternal punishment in the Lake of fire, concerning which the LORD JESUS explicitly taught and died to save men from. As well as the bodily resurrection of the Redeemed which CHRIST’s resurrection previewed and prepared us for! (All this and more, not included here.)
The last analysis of his work is that we have in the professions of Swendenborg a combination of the work of “seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,” and a man “vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head (CHRIST)”, “having not the SPIRIT”, and, “which receiveth not the things of the SPIRIT of GOD,” (1Tim. 4:1; Jude V.29; Col.2:18,19; 1Cor.2:14) as he denied about half the Scriptures and the basically literal understanding of historical events. .
No, you didn't/ It doesn't require paragraphs of irrelevant clippings and portentously assembled blather, a simple yes or no will suffice. Do you have the gift of infallibility? I just need to know if you expect everyone to unconditionally believe you or to simply take your interpretations as an opinion.
Are you asserting your interpretations are infallible?
Ah, another one who is unlettered in the theological Mother Tongues of Christian theology, even second tier Latin! Elsie, had you not come into the conversation I was having with Harley, Kosta and Mark in media res, as they say, you'd know that I, in my post to Mark, was translating an English phrase, a prayer really, which in turn, and in conformity to the rules of the forum designed to set at ease the paranoia so rampant on these threads that we Orthodox or Latins might be saying something unflattering about the heterodox, was a translation of two beautiful and identical prayers in Greek and Church Slavonic. Follow my post which you were responding to back three posts and you'll see the English. :)
So does the RM.
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.