Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Protestantism, Modernism, Atheism
Crisis Magazine ^ | November 28, 2017 | Julia Meloni

Posted on 11/28/2017 12:09:34 PM PST by ebb tide

“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.



TOPICS: Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: francischurch; oneworldchurch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,541-1,543 next last
To: ebb tide; unlearner; Luircin; RegulatorCountry

Truth is God’s word.

What you posted is just another Prot bashing screed by a Protestant hating Catholic.


61 posted on 11/28/2017 4:35:56 PM PST by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

> Modernism started when chrstianity declared the Torah “fulfilled” (ie, repealed).

There are no conservative christians. Christians are revolutionaries by definition.


62 posted on 11/28/2017 4:36:56 PM PST by Hrvatski Noahid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
OK, I may be taking it a little further than Finney expressed, but it is clear he intentionally appealed to the emotions, believing that men and women could will themselves into belief.”

37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Acts 2:37 NASB

You mean like these people?

63 posted on 11/28/2017 4:37:04 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Luircin

X


64 posted on 11/28/2017 4:38:55 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

“Paul disagrees with you...”

Not one bit.

“but I think you know that.”

Nope. St. Paul never once advocated Sola fide - hence he emphasized “obedience of faith”. St. Paul never once advocated Sola scriptura - hence the NIV editors replaced the word “tradition” with “teaching” in St. Paul 2 Thessalonians 2:15 but they admit it in the footnote. What’s really weird is they have “traditions” in 1 Corinthians 11:2. If they have it there, why not 1 Thess.?

None of the verse you posted in any way go against what I said.


65 posted on 11/28/2017 4:39:56 PM PST by vladimir998 (Apparently I'm still living in your head rent free. At least now it isn't empty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
There were no altar calls until recent Evangelical Protestantism - since it is a Evangelical concept.

Peter and the people at Pentecost and all of the others who responded to the Gospel message would disagree with you.

[Roman] Catholic calls for repentance (in the Bible, early Christian era, Medieval Christian era, modern times) use some of the same language but are not an appeal to easy belief nor Once Saved Always Saved nor anything else that Protestant.

I'm not aware of a call to "an easy belief" in my church. I've never held the view that you just say, "I believe" and that's it. I've understood once you decide to believe in Him...you believed in Him and followed Him.You do what He says.

Regarding the security of your salvation.

13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. Ephesians 1:13-14 NASB

66 posted on 11/28/2017 4:43:43 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

I have never done so. I merely report abuse when there are violations of a caucus.

This is not a caucused thread.


67 posted on 11/28/2017 4:45:15 PM PST by ebb tide (We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

“You mean like these people?”

Are you suggesting that the people of Acts 2:37 were “believing that [they] could will themselves into belief”?

Maybe you should just honestly deal with the quote rather than try to make it say something it never did or deny what it actually said when applying it to Acts 2:37. Can you do that?


68 posted on 11/28/2017 4:46:09 PM PST by vladimir998 (Apparently I'm still living in your head rent free. At least now it isn't empty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

“Peter and the people at Pentecost and all of the others who responded to the Gospel message would disagree with you.”

Not in the slightest.

1) You’ll keep saying it even though we all know the “Altar Call” is a modern Protestant invention.

2) So what you’ll do is you’ll keep insisting that something that didn’t exist actually did so - even though you have no proof whatsoever.

3) You’ll claim - falsely - that the preaching of the Apostles was the same thing as an “Altar Call” even though it wasn’t and there are Protestants who admit it wasn’t.

4) You’ll try to draw parallels to the ancient Catholic practice of preaching in the New Testament and the completely modern invention of the “Altar Call” as if that makes them one in the same - which it doesn’t because of the complete, total absence of latter-day Protestant doctrines like OSAS.


69 posted on 11/28/2017 4:52:05 PM PST by vladimir998 (Apparently I'm still living in your head rent free. At least now it isn't empty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
>>“You mean like these people?”<<

Are you suggesting that the people of Acts 2:37 were “believing that [they] could will themselves into belief”?

All I know is what the text says...they heard the message from Peter and their hearts were pierced.

Cornelius heard the message and believed.

I don't care how other people define an altar call.

All I care about is people hearing the word of God, believing in Christ and becoming His followers.

You can call it whatever makes you happy.

70 posted on 11/28/2017 4:58:48 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Nope. St. Paul never once advocated Sola fide - hence he emphasized “obedience of faith”.

Yes...we are to be obedient...but we come to Christ through faith and faith alone.

You cannot earn your way to salvation.

Your works don't lead to salvation....your salvation leads to fruit (works).

But the fruit isn't what keeps you saved. Your faith in Him does as noted in Ephesians 1:13-14.....you are sealed by the Holy Spirit. He keeps you.

//hence the NIV editors replaced the word “tradition” with “teaching” in St. Paul 2 Thessalonians 2:15 but they admit it in the footnote. What’s really weird is they have “traditions” in 1 Corinthians 11:2. If they have it there, why not 1 Thess.?

I cannot explain the editors of the NIV.

But regarding 2 Thess 2:15 the Greek indicates παραδόσεις.

3862 parádosis (from 3844 /pará, "from close-beside" and 1325 /dídōmi, "give over") – properly, give (hand over) from close-beside, referring to tradition as passed on from one generation to the next.

Now, the question is....what were those things that Paul taught them?

Context is the key to understanding that question.

And it isn't all of the other stuff that's been claimed by Roman Catholicism.

71 posted on 11/28/2017 5:01:13 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; ealgeone

Don’t be lazy.

If you make a claim, back it up yourself and don’t expect everyone to take what you say simply on your say so or do your work for you, chasing down stuff they don’t even believe.

If you refuse to provide sources, everyone has every reason to dismiss what you say as nonsense and nothing more than your opinion.


72 posted on 11/28/2017 5:02:11 PM PST by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

You made the statement...you back it up. Vlad’s Rules of Internet debate are in play.


73 posted on 11/28/2017 5:06:01 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

Vlad’s Rules of Internet Debate?

I get the feeling I’m missing something.


74 posted on 11/28/2017 5:12:02 PM PST by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

That there you did..... that there settles it. Yep.

Wikeepeedeeah is the final authority. Lol


75 posted on 11/28/2017 5:13:42 PM PST by Zuriel (Acts 2:38,39....Do you believe it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Luircin

A little fun I have with Vlad.


76 posted on 11/28/2017 5:17:01 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

“I don’t care how other people define an altar call.”

Of course not. That would have to mean caring about facts and the truth.

“All I care about is people hearing the word of God, believing in Christ and becoming His followers.”

And on that I agree with you - although we’ll disagree on what it means to be a disciple of Christ. I’ll agree with scripture and the Church. You agree with Altar Calls.


77 posted on 11/28/2017 5:17:13 PM PST by vladimir998 (Apparently I'm still living in your head rent free. At least now it isn't empty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I’ve been one posting scripture to prove my points......you’ve offered.......Wikipedia.


78 posted on 11/28/2017 5:22:52 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

“You cannot earn your way to salvation.”

No one here is claiming you can. But you have to use straw men like that don’t you?

“Your works don’t lead to salvation....your salvation leads to fruit (works).”

Grace leads to your salvation and we receive grace for both our faith in Christ and the works He begins in us that we cooperate with.

“But the fruit isn’t what keeps you saved.”

Only grace saves.

“Your faith in Him does as noted in Ephesians 1:13-14.....you are sealed by the Holy Spirit. He keeps you.”

Grace keeps you. Please note that the passage you just cited contradicts you. It never says, “Faith saves you.” It says, “When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal...” That seal is a gift of grace which is opened with faith. Faith can only save in that it opens the way for grace. We are saved by GRACE ALONE. We receive grace for both our faith in Christ and the works He begins in us that we cooperate with.

“parádosis” = “tradition” - that’s what the word means. It’s what is handed down to the next generation. TRADITION.

“Now, the question is....what were those things that Paul taught them? Context is the key to understanding that question. And it isn’t all of the other stuff that’s been claimed by Roman Catholicism.”

“Roman Catholicism” is a Protestant traditional term.


79 posted on 11/28/2017 5:29:55 PM PST by vladimir998 (Apparently I'm still living in your head rent free. At least now it isn't empty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

“I’ve been one posting scripture to prove my points......you’ve offered.......Wikipedia.”

No. You have yet to post even a single verse that proves the recent Evangelical invention of “Altar Calls” are anything other than a recent Evangelical invention. Wikipedia simply supports the obvious truth that “Altar Calls” are a recent Evangelical invention.


80 posted on 11/28/2017 5:31:44 PM PST by vladimir998 (Apparently I'm still living in your head rent free. At least now it isn't empty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,541-1,543 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson