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).
But not his name.
AMAZING!
Oh?
Then how did he BECOME a saint?
If it weren’t for all the darned ‘exceptions’ the Bible would be a very good rule book!
DUH!
All your languages are belong to us!
Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Of course! (more refined than 'duh!'; doncha think!)
Just looky here:
27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet. 29 The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [37] [c] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.
(Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”)
But... what if he is trusting in CHRIST's righteousness?
It's never a waste to learn another language, especially one associated with The Faith. With your knowledge of Aramaic you'll be right at home at a Maronite Liturgy or for that matter, at any liturgy which uses West Syriac which are mostly those of the Non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox, though I sincerely doubt you'll like what you hear. :) Aramaic, btw, like Slavonic, Arabic, Coptic and Ge'ez accurately translates the Greek the NT was written in. Western Latin and Anglo Saxon based languages generally do not.
Indeed. It's becoming an increasing problem in this country, kids shooting their mouths off about things they don't understand, even children otherwise "bien élevé" (though that's a term used everyday in this part of the country, I suppose I should translate it anyway, right? It means "well raised" or "well brought up".). It may be the result of children watching some of our trailer trash politicians and wannabe presidents on the idiot box.
Yes St. Dismas’ name is known through tradition.
Tradition is good, as long as it doesn’t contradict my personal interpretation of the Word of God.
No, wait,....Tradition is good as long as it doesn’t contradict the Word of God.
No, wait that’s not fully accurate... True Tradition is the unwritten portion of the Word of God, therefore can never can contradict the Written Word. (but it might contradict my personal interpretation thereof)
There we go. That must be right, or else we need to doubt what the name of the “good thief” was.
Or maybe it’s not that important, or else it would’ve been written down. I guess that’s one way to live in Christianity.
But we sure do give up a lot of knowledge if we throw out the unwritten Word of God. Which I guess could be a good thing too. ...
...if one is lazy and doesn’t wish to learn all God has revealed.
Compatriots, yes, though not coreligionists as they have reminded us. Orthodox men, especially Balkan Orthodox men, are not like that. I'm going to do something lawyers never do, mm; I'm going to give you a guarantee. I guarantee that I have never and will never post anything, prayer, phrase or comment, which is derogatory of or curses any poster here in a foreign tongue. I guarantee that I'll do it in English since calling down the wrath of heaven on someone, or putting "the mati" or evil eye on anyone is no fun at all unless the object of the curse knows what is happening and who is doing it! :)
Yes.
Another example of contradiction between Catholics, and of your supremacy:
Cardinal Belarmine, one of the most learned, able, and famous of Roman Catholic divines (canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1930, and declared a Doctor of the Universal Church in 1931), disagrees:
"No one can be certain, with the certainty of faith, that he receives a true sacrament, because the sacrament cannot be valid without the intention of the minister, and no man can see another's intention " (" Disput. Controv. De Justine." III. Viii. 5).
"More than i can be certain that Rome is the infallible interpreter..."
How? What makes your interpretations more accurate than 90%+ of Protestantism and 100% of Catholicism?
If you read you should know i claimed infallibility on a very basic level which Rome could exercise as well. To again explain, whatever certitude i have of my infallibility is based upon clear attestation, by God's grace, such as in that God is real and has communicated to certain souls in the Bible. Or that Jesus Christ died and rose again, and other like basic truths based upon clear Scriptural attestation. And which ability is not exclusive to me, but if Rome or whoever affirms such then they are speaking infallibly, being exempt from the possibility of error in this. We hold these truths to be self-evident.
However, i find no such Scriptural assurance that perpetually whatever the Roman Catholic magisterium speaks on faith and morals will always be infallible when she speaks in accordance with her content and scope-based criteria. Instead, i see God preserving the faith by raising up men to reprove by Scripture those who sat in Moses seat who presumed to teach doctrines that did not rest on Scriptural warrant and conflation. (Mk. 7:6-13) And that apostolic authority in the kingdom of God was not established by self-declaration but by demonstrable Scriptural conformity and attestation, and who persuaded souls by “manifestation of the truth.” (Acts 17:2,11; 28:23; 2Cor. 4:2; 6:1-10; 12:12)
Your premise is that an infallible book is little to no use without an infallible interpreter, though Scripture affirms those who subjected apostolic teaching to the test of it to determine its veracity, but you failed to answer if your understandings of Rome's infallible definitions are infallible, while your judgment on which parts of Rome's pronouncements are infallible, as well as how many there are, apparently is not.
Also, how many and which Bible verses have been infallibly interpreted?
Is your assent of faith to the magisterium's infallible teachings based upon an infallible judgment concerning her worthiness of this?
Is not your level of certitude in these things dependent upon interpretation, as is what the Bible means for us?
"And if you have certainty that the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra twice, do you claim greater ability than Roman Catholic apologists and clergy who disagree with you?"
Infallibility only applies to issues of faith and morals, not Church history so the Catholic apologists and clergy you are referring are inherently fallible> I cannot speak for them, I can only cite actual Church history.
A pope has only spoken "ex cathedra" two times. It was first formally invoked in 1854 by Pope Pius IX with the declaration of the Immaculate Conception. The second time was by Pope Pius XII when he affirmed the Assumption of Mary into Heaven in 1950.
This has something to do with faith and morals, as despite an infallible interpreter you are not infallibly certain in your understanding of her, which is what you charge is the problem with us as regards the Scriptures, most of which you have extensive liberty to interpret yourself using your own judgment.
More questions:
Is your understanding of infallibility infallible?
Do you deny we can have certitude, excluding all real doubt of a truth, by holding to the supremacy of Scripture (and which does not negate the need for the magisterium).
Does 1Jn. 5:13 offers knowing that you presently have eternal life, based upon Scriptural criteria? Can you affirm that the basic truth of the existence of God may be known with certainty apart from Rome?
Is assent to PI necessary to be a Christian, and saved?
How can a non-infallible Catholic have certitude that what Rome said is infallible in order to render the required assent of faith to all her definitions, when your own judgment as to how many instances the pope exercised PI disagrees with the judgment of men such as Cardinals Ratzinger and Bertone, Catholic theologian, church historian Klaus Schatz, Roman Catholic apologists such as Jimmy Akin and Phil Vaz, or Roman Catholic priest Leslie Rumble, among others who disagree with you in your interpretation of church history and pronouncements, which they also cite.
Therefore Rome's infallible interpreter does not solve the problem of varying interpretations, and of some uncertainty, nor is it necessary for certitude or salvation, even though cultic implicit faith in her is trumpeted as superior to any qualified certainty and assent, based on clear evidence, to certain truths explicitly expressed on Scripture.
His actual name is known only to God. He was given the name Dismas in the Gospel of Nicodemus, in the the 4th century. The name "Dismas" was adapted from a Greek word meaning "death". He is known as Titus in the Syriac Infancy Gospel.
AMAZING what one can learn if one opens his eyes.
He became a saint by the words of Jesus. Who are you to question that?
If you are going to continue to cut and paste your responses you need to cite the sources. Copyright infringement is a form of theft.
I find your claim of limited infallibility complete disingenuous. Infallibility is a binary property; you are either infallible or you are not, and clearly are not.
You continue to tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on the Catholic Church, yet you demand that I concede that ability to you as a condition of your preaching to me. While I will concede your motives may be inerrant your message isn't.
Catholics believe that when Jesus founded His Church he endowed it with the ability and the mission to compile canon, preserve, defend, and teach the Revealed Word. God, in former times, clothed his Apostles with power far more exalted. They were endowed with gifts of working miracles, of prophecy, and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God's revelation, of which the Church is merely the custodian. God made men the instrument of his revealed Word just as he made other the Church its infallible guardian and interpreter. So let's just agree to disagree.
Now go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
daniel1212, if you pull a sourced quote from a website, then also include the url or link.
And again, the problem with an infallible interpreter is that even if he makes an infallible pronouncement, everyone who hears it is just as likely to fallibly interpret it as they are likely to fallibly interpret infallible Scripture.
So adding more layers of infallibility doesn’t help any unless the hearer has the ability to infallibly interpret as well.
If the hearer can infallibly interpret, then he can infallibly interpret Scripture and doesn’t need someone to infallibly interpret for him.
I'm sorry, but that is not correct. The text is copied directly from "Plain reasons against joining the church of Rome" by Richard Frederick Littledale. The plagiarized excerpt itself contains a properly cited quote from " Disput. Controv. De Justine." III. Viii. 5.
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.