Protestantism, Modernism, Atheism

“The reality of the apostasy of faith in our time rightly and profoundly frightens us,” said Cardinal Burke in honor of Fatima’s centenary.

In 1903, Pope St. Pius X declared himself “terrified” by humanity’s self-destructive apostasy from God: “For behold they that go far from Thee shall perish” (Ps. 72:27). How much more “daunting,” said Cardinal Burke, is today’s “widespread apostasy.”

In 1910, St. Pius X condemned the movement for a “One-World Church” without dogmas, hierarchy, or “curb for the passions”—a church which, “under the pretext of freedom,” would impose “legalized cunning and force.” How much more, said Cardinal Burke, do today’s “movements for a single government of the world” and “certain movements with the Church herself” disregard sin and salvation?

In Pascendi, St. Pius X named the trajectory toward the “annihilation of all religion”: “The first step … was taken by Protestantism; the second … by [the heresy of] Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.”

So let us, said Cardinal Burke, heed Fatima’s call for prayer, penance, and reparation. Let us be “agents” of the triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart.

A few weeks after that speech, the Vatican announced its shining tribute to the Protestant revolution: a golden stamp with Luther and Melanchthon at the foot of the cross, triumphantly supplanting the Blessed Virgin and St. John.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has asked how the Vatican can call Luther a “witness to the gospel” when he “called the Mass … a blasphemy” and “the papacy an invention of Satan.” The signatories of the filial correction have expressed “wonderment and sorrow” at a statue of Luther in the Vatican—and documented the “affinity” between “Luther’s ideas on law, justification, and marriage” and Pope Francis’s statements.

At a 2016 joint “commemoration” of the Protestant revolution, Pope Francis expressed “joy” for its myriad “gifts.” He and pro-abortion Lutherans with female clergy jointly declared that “what unites us is greater than what divides us.” Together they “raise[d]” their “voices” against “violence.” They prayed for the conversion of those who exploit the earth. They declared the “goal” of receiving the Eucharist “at one table” to express their “full unity.”

In Martin Luther: An Ecumenical Perspective, Cardinal Kasper confirms that the excommunicated, apostate monk is now a “common church father,” a new St. Francis of Assisi. This prophet of the “new evangelization” was “forced” into calling the pope the Antichrist after his “call for repentance was not heard.” But Kasper finds ecumenical hope in Luther’s “statement that he would…kiss the feet of a pope who allows and acknowledges his gospel.”

Kasper says Pope Francis’s Evangelii Gaudium, “without mentioning him by name,” makes Luther’s concerns “stand in the center.”

So it’s Luther’s “gospel of grace and mercy” behind, apparently, the high disdain for “self-absorbed promethean neopelagianis[ts]” plagued by a “soundness of doctrine” that’s “narcissistic and authoritarian” (EG 94).

So it’s Luther—the bizarre protagonist of “ecumenical unity”—behind the demand for a “conversion of the papacy” that gives “genuine doctrinal authority” to episcopal conferences (EG 32). Sandro Magister says the pope is already creating a “federation of national Churches endowed with extensive autonomy” through liturgical decentralization.

So it’s Luther behind the demand to “accept the unruly freedom of the word, which accomplishes what it wills in ways that surpass our…ways of thinking” (EG 22). Kasper says Luther’s faith in the “self-implementation of the word of God” gave him a heroic “openness to the future.”

Ultimately, Kasper’s Luther—a prophet of “openness” to futurity, a “Catholic reformer” waiting for a sympathetic pope—emerges as a symbolic father for Modernism’s struggle to change the Church from within. Modernism falsely claims that God evolves with history—making truth utterly mutable. So Kasper the Modernist says dogmas can be “stupid” and Church structures can spring from “ideology” and denying the Eucharist to adulterers because of “one phrase” from Christ is “ideological,” too.

Kasper baldly calls the “changeless” God an “offense to man”:

One must deny him for man’s sake, because he claims for himself the dignity and honor that belong by right to man….

We must resist this God … also for God’s sake. He is not the true God at all, but rather a wretched idol. For a God … who is not himself history is a finite God. If we call such a being God, then for the sake of the Absolute we must become absolute atheists. Such a God springs from a rigid worldview; he is the guarantor of the status quo and the enemy of the new.

A shocking ultimatum from the man hailed as “the pope’s theologian”: either embrace a mutable God who’s not an “enemy of the new”—or profess “absolute,” unflinching, hardcore atheism.

Kasper says the Church must be led by a “spirit” that “is not primarily the third divine person.” That ominous “spirit,” says Thomas Stark, is apparently some Hegelian agent of creation’s self-perfection. Pope Francis, against all the “sourpusses” (EG 85), describes our “final cause” as “the utopian future” (EG 222). Because God wants us to be “happy” in this world, it’s “no longer possible to claim that religion … exists only to prepare souls for heaven” (EG 182).

But Christ said, “In the world you shall have distress” (Jn. 16:33). The 1907 dystopian novel The Lord of the World hauntingly imagines the travails of history’s last days, when humanity has heeded Kasper’s call to “resist” God with absolute atheism if necessary. By this point, “Protestantism is dead,” for men “recognize at last that a supernatural religion involves an absolute authority.” Those with “any supernatural belief left” are Catholic—persecuted by a world professing “no God but man, no priest but the politician.”

More and more clergy apostatize. Man “has learned his own divinity.” Yet Fr. Percy Franklin still adores the Eucharistic Lord, still believes that “the reconciling of a soul to God” is greater than the reconciling of nations. He secretly hears a dying woman’s confession before the “real priests”—the euthanizers—come.

Her daughter-in-law, Mabel, scoffs that the new atheism has perfected Catholicism:

Do you not understand that all which Jesus Christ promised has come true, though in another way? The reign of God has really begun; but we know now who God is. You said just now you wanted the forgiveness of Sins; well, you have that; we all have it, because there is no such thing as sin. There is only Crime.

And then Communion. You used to believe that that made you a partaker of God; well, we are all partakers of God, because we are all human beings.

Mabel and the rapt multitudes ritually worship Man. God was a “hideous nightmare.” Their spirits swoon before a politician promising “the universal brotherhood of man.”

That “savior of the world” is the Antichrist. All must deny God or die.

For history, like the novel itself, ends not with rapturous utopia but with tribulation, apostasy, martyrdoms, and “God’s triumph over the revolt of evil [in] the form of the Last Judgment” (CCC 677). In the throes of his own tribulation, Fr. Franklin calls us to cling to the faith and those refuges of old:

The mass, prayer, the rosary. These first and last. The world denies their power: it is on their power that Christians must throw all their weight.

You must not read the threads too often on how the canon of the OT and NT were formed and which books should be in each.

The only part of the Bible written by G-d Himself rather than inspired people is the Torah. The Torah never had to be canonized by a human authority.

The Prophets and Hagiographa, however, were canonized by the 'Anshei HaKeneset HaGedolah (the Men of the Great Assembly). They then closed the canon of scripture, but chrstianity added more books. The "new testament" was canonized by the churches.

Personally I have an excellent book on the history of the formation of the canon....The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce.

Not interested in the canon of a false religion.

The very group you criticize is the first one to admit the Scriptures are inspired by God...not a church. That's the position of the Roman Catholics.

And the Eastern Orthodox, and the Miaphysites, and the Nestorians. Unfortunately, you're very naive about chrstian history. The ancient churches everywhere had a priesthood, sacraments, monks, prayers to saints, etc. To reject them is to reject authentic historical chrstianity. I don't criticize you for doing this. I criticize you for turning to an a-historical made-up religion that never existed in the ancient world instead of merely accepting the Noachide Laws.

The Armenian Church became the state church of Armenia years before Constantine. The Ethiopian Church was the next church to be an official state church. Even the ancient churches of Kerala state in India, which claim to have been founded by the apostle Thomas were also not Protestant. When they were discovered by the western world in 1599 they had priests, "the holy sacrifice," praying to saints, etc. All that stuff you claim Constantine invented out of whole cloth in 313. I'm sorry. You're mistaken.

The ancient churches don't claim their canons were "inspired" by their churches, but merely canonized (that these same ancient churches are now all higher critics and evolutionists is quite maddening). The Great Assembly did not inspire the Prophets and Hagriographa, but decided the canon. There was much objection to Ezekiel and Esther, but the fact that they are accepted today (by you among others) shows you accept the decision of the Great Assembly. The Torah, on the other hand, was written directly by G-d and has never had to be canonized by a human authority. That's one reason it is the highest revelation that has ever existed.

In order to bring a sacrifice, one should be worthy to approach that close to G-d, which is something that is very difficult to achieve in our time.

That must be a very small number...

#15

Temple Recommend Questions

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?

12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

Been busy on another forum and did not see this. Sorry.

First, as to the Bereans: this was in Pauline times, and "the Scriptures" meant in his case, the Hebrew Scriptures,

Irrelevant: the point is it was Scripture, a body of writings which has become established as being of God without an infallible magisterium, which Rome presumes is essential for this.

0) there are other verses about how he proved from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. This was closer to apologetics, and is not exactly the same thing as justifying a practice or not, depending on whether it is practiced or was recorded in Scripture (see below)

Which in now way counters my point, which is that the veracity of the Truth claims by the very apostles were subject to testing by Scripture as being the supreme standard, versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured veracity as per Rome. It is this that is to be the basis for assurance of doctrine for a faithful RC, not because he subjected them to testing by Scripture as the noble Bereans did.

You are right, there are aberrations: but in all fairness, there have *always* been aberrations, going all the way back to Aaron and the Golden Calf. And I'm not going to take the cheap shot of going after any number of Protestant aberrations...explicitly because there are Biblical admonitions (commands, really) to seek how to spur one another on to love and good works,

Which you are taking out of context. Spurring one another on to love and good works (And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: - Hebrews 10:24) is a general exhortation written to believers, and no dealing with contending with false doctrine, in which case the same word of God records,

Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. (Acts 17:16-17)

that the servant of the Lord must not strive,

This is valid,

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

But which is not opposed to disputing and contending for the faith which is commanded:

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend [epagōnizomai=struggle] for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 1:3)

And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. (Acts 19:8)

The word for strive is "machomai," likely involved in the etymology of the word "macho," and is used for fighting (Acts 7:26; James 4:2) and otherwise seems to denote emotional carnal striving, versus reasoned disputation (dialegomai, likely involved in the etymology of the word "dialog"), and is the opposite of "gentle," which i do too often fail in, though i try to be civil with the reasonable or just ignorant.

Yet this is a general exhortation, and in balance it does not exclude what i am sure was some heated reasoning in Acts 19:8, which concluded with,

But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. (Acts 19:9)

And I do not think Paul was out of line with his rebuke here:

And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? (Acts 23:2-3)

one should welcome one whose faith is weak, but not for disputation (the cool part about that verse, is that the more someone thinks "but I'm *RIGHT* drat it all" the more they are constrained to be patient; and, it applies to Catholics, and Protties, and Orthodox, too...

This is out of context also, for it refers to issues of personal liberty, with the weak being one who has scruples of conscience about an issue regarding such, not false doctrine.

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. (Romans 14:1-2)

1) The Catholics seem to take a rather skeptical view *officially*, often saying, if the believer finds private edification, OK, but we do not officially recognize nor compel acceptance. This is the "see below." The usefulness of Scripture is that it gives benchmarks for testing to see whether things are genuinely of God, and protecting against aberrations. 2) "The testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy" -- the visions (unless explicitly personal e.g. "rise, Peter, kill and eat" or "come to Macedonia and help us") should glorify God and point (even if indirectly through a saint) to Jesus (well, and / or the Father: the Spirit seems to direct our attention to Them, not Himself). 3) "Believe not every spirit etc. / every Spirit which confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" -- this is from 1 John and holds true. Finally, on a more personal note, and applying the tests above to a standard Catholic practice: 4) I was quite surprised, upon first reading the Rosary some time after converting to Catholicism, to discover that a) the meat of the Rosary was in fact *meditation* (thinking on, pondering) on episodes in the life of Jesus and/or the Apostles (including Mary) b) one of these was explicitly the Baptism in the Holy Spirit c) the Prayer after the Rosary, which reads, "O GOD, whose only begotten Son, by His life, death, and resurrection, has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life, grant, we beseech Thee, that meditating upon these mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise, through the same Christ Our Lord." Even when I tried, I couldn't find any thing objectionable in it.

The fact that the motive is good, and the practice and teaching contains good things (which was admitted of within Luther's works by Catholics though being condemned) simply cannot validate the whole.

Every cult has good qualities, excelling where basically sound churches fail or are weak, whereby they validate themselves, but as with Rome, they effectively make themselves the supreme authority on Truth, only consisting and meaning what they say it does. Which is not how the church began.

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.