Pope Francis: Toward a New Religion for the forward thinking

La Salette Journey ^ | January 3, 2015 | Paul Melanson

[cleghornboy]

During the Jubilee Year (on March 6, 2000), Cardinal Giacomo Biffi asserted what I had been saying since the mid 1990s, that the Antichrist is walking among us.

Cardinal Biffi said the Antichrist was not the beast with seven heads described in the Book of Revelation but a "fascinating personality" whose outward charm and plausibility had deceived his enemies. The cardinal said the Antichrist espoused vegetarianism, pacifism, environmentalism and animal rights.

He also identified the Antichrist as an expert on the Bible who nonetheless promotes "vague and fashionable spiritual values" rather than the Scriptures. He advocates ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations, including Anglicanism and the Orthodox Church. This appeared to be a worthy aim, but was in fact being used by the Antichrist in an attempt to water down and undermine Catholicism to the point where it collapsed.

[.45 Long Colt]

All...that’s the historic Protestant position held by nearly every major Protestant figure up until the early 20th century and held by many today. That position was held by many Christians before the Reformation as well.

[mjp]

The globalists who are behind the Earth Charter seek to promote a New Age religion which will neutralize the supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism.

New age worldview states that truth resides within each individual and, therefore, no one can claim a corner on the truth or dictate truth to another. New age is the ultimate eclectic religion of self: whatever you decide is right for you is what's right, as long as you don't get narrow-minded and exclusive about it. New age thinking can be characterized as a form of utopianism, the desire to create a better society, a new age in which humanity lies in harmony with itself, nature, and the cosmos.

Christians know that the Bible's promise of a future kingdom ushered in by Jesus Christ is far more hopeful than any utopian schemes dreamed up by sinful mortal humans.

[.45 Long Colt]

By the way, if you are interested in understanding why Protestants held that belief, follow that link I posted and read what Wylie had to say. It can be read in one sitting because it’s more of a paper than book.

[Always A Marine]

40 threads since your last response to a comment. All threads by the same author and the same blog. (You.) All posts excerpted. One might almost think you were using this forum to pimp your blog.

Relax there, Domer! If people didn't "pimp" new blogs, FreeRepublic would devolve into a stale echo chamber - and this one just might prove interesting. By the way, I got a kick out of your reference to Tamerlane, as very few modern Westerners know who he was. Harold Lamb's 1928 biography, Tamerlane, remains one of my favorite history reads.

[exnavy]

I understand born of the spirit. The Christians I encountered in the middle east qualify. That isn’t my point. The American people are ignorant of God’s word and history. I am thinking that would be a more accurate statement. Sorry for not making that more clear. And, .45 colt is my most favorite cartridge.

[Wuli]

In re: “I am not a Catholic, but found this blog interesting......The author agrees with most evangelicals that the one world religion movement is just a disguise for the elimination of serious Christianity.”

Some non-Catholic Christians believe that’s what the “Catholic” (the plain meaning from the Greek is “universal; broad and diverse; eclectic; all encompassing; all embracing; all inclusive”) church of Roman origin has always been about - a pretense that it was the reigning orthodoxy while simultaneously embracing many religious ideas totally unfamiliar and unsupported by the 1st Century Christians it claimed some descent from.

[Dr. Thorne]

There is a lot of truth in this blog post, but you miss the foundational problem regarding the Pope - he shouldn’t exist. True religion is between the believer and the Lord Jesus Christ without the corrupting influence of self-serving priests and the utter lie of praying to or through dead humans.

[GBA]

Thanks for the quotes and background info. I appreciate your opinions.

We have seen that "false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect" and we do indeed live in an age of technological and scientific wonders, medical miracle cures, etc. All of which tells me it's best to be on guard and be steady.

I started paying attention and seeking in earnest, thanks in large part to Barry obama's rise to power and the transformation of our Republic, a better relationship with, and understanding of, the Holy Trinity.

Now, thanks to what I've learned so far, in my prayers I try to remember to thank the Father, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, Mother Mary, St. Micheal, the Archangel and all the guardian angels for what they do for us now and will do in the end.

That probably sounds insane to some or many, and it's all new to me, but now this expressing gratitude makes sense to me and all of what I've learned and these prayers have been a source of great comfort and peace in these "interesting times" we find ourselves.

I think all of which could also mean that I have no organized branch of the Christian faith that I can call home or if any would welcome me as one of them.

I've never been much of a group joining kinda guy anyway and even less a follower, so I guess that's okay. Like what Groucho said: "Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member."

[shibumi]

Relax there, Gunny.

And while you're relaxing, you might want to read post number #64 at this link:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3109294/posts?page=64#64

You might also want to take note of who authored that post. and make special note of the following passage:

"I have no complaint if a good conservative blogger posts his own material to FR, not as an excerpt to drive hits and discussion back to his blog, but rather to impart useful information to OUR readers and to promote and join in on the discussion and conservative activism HERE on FR."

Timur The Lame has spoken.

[Always A Marine]

Of course that’s Jim’s rule to enforce if he chooses, but blog links don’t offend me in the least. I actually enjoy checking out new sites and making my own informed judgments about them. A few have turned out to be excellent sources. Hope your good leg holds up, Timur.

[shibumi]

I was as you are - open to new sites and new experiences.

That was until those experiences started including malware, Trojans, beacons and the like.

Any more I don’t even visit Breitbart.
You ever check how many cookies they dump on you over there? And at least one pop-under on each and every visit.

That’s the kind of stuff that killed Horowitz’s “NewsReal Blog” and it’s going to do the same to Breitbart before long.

Tell you what. You can explore for the both of us.
You can be Recondo and let me know if you find anything interesting that I don’t have to take a cyberbath for.

[Zionist Conspirator]

New age worldview states that truth resides within each individual and, therefore, no one can claim a corner on the truth or dictate truth to another. New age is the ultimate eclectic religion of self: whatever you decide is right for you is what's right, as long as you don't get narrow-minded and exclusive about it.

And yet it doesn't seem to ever conflict with "science," which is very strict about just what constitutes truth and doesn't grant everyone the right to make up his own.

[GBA]

Mary is highly revered in Islam as well, perhaps more so than Jesus, not to mention the New Agers, who regard her as the Christian face of their earth goddess. Pretty interesting that such a huge chuck of the world's population is ready to accept those apparitions without ever questioning their true source.

I've been thinking about the above while working through my day's chores.

If I understand islam's reverence for Mary, it's because they believe that Jesus is a prophet and thus revere Mary as the mother of a prophet.

Judaism, however, to my understanding, doesn't accept Jesus as anything more than being a Rabbi and Mary is "just" a Rabbi's mom.

If my understanding is correct, as far as it goes, then islam is closer to the truth Christians believe than Judaism, which is interesting to me.

While looking for an Orthodox view of Mary, I found the following quoted from: Who is the Blessed Virgin Mary?, which you probably already knew, but is new to me:

The Assumption of Mary

According to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition, between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension, in either Jerusalem or Ephesus, Mary died while surrounded by the apostles. Later when the apostles opened her tomb, they found it empty and concluded that she had been bodily assumed into Heaven.

This doctrine was present in apocryphal works since the end of the fourth century, and was formally taught by St. Gregory of Tours in the sixth century. The bodily Assumption of Mary seems to have been accepted in both Western and Eastern Churches from the sixth century onwards, and went virtually uncontested until the Reformation.

In 1950, speaking ex cathedra (infallibly) in his encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII proclaimed the Dogma of the Assumption, in which he stated that "at the end of her earthly course, Mary was assumed into heavenly glory, body and soul."

I didn't know that. So, my initial impression is that both the Catholics and the Orthodox have more info than the average Protestant, whichever of the many, many different versions out there you might ask.

This confusion between the branches of Christianity about Mary, along with all the arguments about words, translations, practices, who's right/who's wrong and why, which Bible is best or should be avoided, which form of worship is best and what isn't true worship, music or no music, rock concert or quiet contemplation, etc., etc., etc., along with the hostility, persecution and calumniation among and toward brethren followers of the God of Peace and Love is why I think the messages in True Life In God are such an incredible gift to us now.

We are confused and in our confusion we are being picked off one by one and in mass by the enemy. In fact, the three branches of Christianity can't even agree to agree on the day to celebrate Easter!

As an outsider, an observer watching the show, it is really hard for me to take anyone seriously when so few remind me of the One you/we all claim to follow. It's more like watching a never-ending WWF sanctioned mud wrestling championship.

This is why I say, "Thank God for the messages in True Life In God!!!" I've gotten to know our Holy Family, including Mother Mary, through them and now the Bible makes sense to me.

This result I recognize as good fruit, not a bad apple.

[.45 Long Colt]

Agree on all points.

I enjoy a number of cartridges, but .45 Colt is far and away my favorite.

[Springfield Reformer]

I didn't know that. So, my initial impression is that both the Catholics and the Orthodox have more info than the average Protestant, whichever of the many, many different versions out there you might ask.

Roman Catholic and Orthodox (to a lesser extent) have accepted a number of things which have very poor historical support and virtually no Biblical support.  If one begins with Scripture, as Protestant theoretically do, there is no justification for the four Marian dogmas currently established by Rome, nor for the fifth that is hoped for among modern Marian devotees. They are:

1. Theotokus: Mary is the Mother of God
2. The Assumption: Mary was taken to Heaven
3. Immaculate Conception: Mary is sinless
4. Perpetual Virginity: Jesus was her only child
5. Co-Redemptrix: Mary is co-redeemer of humanity alongside Jesus

None of these doctrines is stated in Scripture.  The closest is theotokus, but not because Mary is the mother of the Trinity, but because she carried Jesus the Son of God in her womb.  You mentioned unnecessary and hurtful disputes, and in principle I agree with you.  The dispute over theotokus is a classic case of how the family of believers should NOT have conducted a dispute.  It was a time when people were arguing over whether Jesus was fully human or fully divine or both. To secure the idea that Jesus was God, some began describing Mary as Theotokus, God-bearer.  The purpose was noble, but there was a harmful side-effect, in that some were concerned that calling Mary the mother of God would lead to confusion, treating Mary like a deity, when she was NOT in fact the mother of the Trinity, but only the mother of Jesus with respect to the flesh, i.e., His human nature. The main representative of this view was a fellow named Nestorius.  This argument led to great confusion.  It turns out that the Chalcedon council which declared on this issue ended up using his teaching (that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine), but rejected him personally, because he used a different set of terms and was horrifically misunderstood.  It was truly tragic.  The decision was made in anger, the winning party being aided by his political skill and connections, and Nestorius nobly accepting his rejection if it meant the church could come to rest on this issue.

The point I'm making for our discussion is that the decision to use theotokus to describe Mary's relationship with Jesus was indeed a highly questionable decision, and while all who accept Christ's deity would agree that Mary was the God-bearer, calling her God's mother means something else, something quite wrong, and in Scripture no such statement is ever made.  She is ether called the mother of Jesus or the mother of our Lord, which was also a reference to the person of Jesus and so no different than the first.  As the Holy Spirit determined the wording of Scripture, I see no reason to disturb or challenge that, especially seeing how the later dispute over it caused so much harm.

As for the other doctrines, it isn't that the Roman church knows more than Protestants.  It's that evangelicals/Protestants have acknowledged the lack of Scriptural support for Rome's theological conclusions concerning Mary, and have found the supposed histories of her later years lacking authenticity.  In short, we have the same facts as Rome, but we have chosen to give the Scriptural data more weight.

In accordance, we will entertain any speculations about her life, as long as it can be supported by Scripture at some level.  There is simply no reason to think she was taken to Heaven bodily, and the stories reporting this were very late, quite possibly made up out of thin air.  It's hard to base a dogma, something one must believe to be a good Christian, on such a weak foundation.

As for the immaculate conception, again, this is done to supposedly protect Christ from being contaminated with sin at birth, but that was God's work through the Holy Spirit, and doesn't require us to invent a new doctrine He didn't give to us in Scripture.  All good Christians everywhere respect Mary for the great blessing God bestowed on her, and no doubt she was a good and very special woman.  But we are told by Paul that in Adam all have sinned.  Every man woman and child, with only one stated exception, has come into this world in sin and needing a Savior, which fact even Mary herself admits, in Scripture, calling Him her Savior.  No one born sinless would need a savior.  So we know the argument for the immaculate conception, but have rejected it because, among other thing, it turns the apostle Paul into a liar, which is impossible, because the Scripture, including what Paul wrote, cannot be broken, as Jesus said.

Whether she was a perpetual virgin is also much in doubt, as we know Jesus has brothers and sisters.  Some have argued these were mere cousins, but this is a weak and uncertain argument, as the Greek word for cousin is not used, but properly brother an sister.  In any event, the perpetual virginity theory apparently evolved in connection with the notion of her sinlessness, but sexual relations with her lawful human husband would not be sin, so the impulse there almost seems to stem from the gnostic influence rejecting sex as good even in marriage. This was because in gnostic belief women were a source of evil, simply because of the sensuality of sex, and to transcend that evil, they had to abandon their sexuality.  Hence Mary had to be celibate to be considered good.  The doctrine first surfaced in a Second Century forged document called the Protoevangelium of James.  I see no reason why faithful Christians should be required to accept any doctrine from so spurious a source.  Can it lead to anything but more heartache and schism?  These pages on FR bear sober testimony to how much division these apocryphal doctrines have sown among those who should be supporting one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.

As for being co-redemptrix, it hasn't been made a dogma yet.  But there are apocalyptic overtones to this one. Some of the apparitions have apparently let it be known that once this dogma is in place, Mary will become the ruler of human hearts. Some expression like that.  I don't have the quote in front of me.  The point is, this dogma, should it ever become such, would be a direct affront to the uniqueness of the Son of God in providing us all we need for our redemption.  Mary served God faithfully and carried Jesus into the world, and we are grateful for that.  But she is not my Redeemer, not even by half.  It was all God's work in Christ through the Holy Spirit from beginning to end.  Mary is my dear sister in Christ, whom I look forward to meeting someday in glory.  But there is no Queen of Heaven, only the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, my Savior, Mary's Savior, King Jesus.

Anyway, that's how it is.  Hope this helps.  I urge you solemnly to consider dropping all those pseudo-prophetic murmurers and stick with God's own certified revelation to all His faithful children, namely Scripture.  It will save you a world of heartache in the long run.  It's really true.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

Error: This phrase was yours, and should have been italicized, as so:

I didn't know that. So, my initial impression is that both the Catholics and the Orthodox have more info than the average Protestant, whichever of the many, many different versions out there you might ask.

Peace,

SR

[GBA]

The dispute over theotokus is a classic case of how the family of believers should NOT have conducted a dispute.

Fwiw, your demeanor here suggests someone who has taken this understanding to heart and that responding to your posts would be helpful, as when you cite by example the universal law of politics and the truth that the victor records history:

The main representative of this view was a fellow named Nestorius. This argument led to great confusion. It turns out that the Chalcedon council which declared on this issue ended up using his teaching… and that The decision was made in anger, the winning party being aided by his political skill and connections…

Not long ago I saw The History Channel program BANNED FROM THE BIBLE The Stories That Were Deleted From Biblical History and it talked about The Protovangelion of James. Of course, I’d never heard of that either, so my perspective is perhaps somewhat less burdened by the assumptions and bias naturally gained from instruction in any of the organized denominations.

However, I am very biased/jaded regarding politics and group human nature, especially when truth/highest principles and goals are at odds. This bias has been continually strengthened, not just from a cursory study of the institution known as The Church, but by watching and studying our nation’s politics with a growing understanding of human nature and behavior.

The way (the how, what and why), we’ve recorded our nation’s and our time’s history has slowly unraveled my belief and trust in “accepted facts” and given me an interest in the potential time lag for the full truth to emerge, if it ever does.

As the Holy Spirit determined the wording of Scripture, I see no reason to disturb or challenge that, especially seeing how the later dispute over it caused so much harm.

The Holy Spirit does God’s Will and, as Job understood, God’s Will isn’t ours to understand. However, we were born into a story that is God’s Plan and it has been recorded and must be fulfilled.

While I try to maintain the mindset of an observer, not unlike a scientist observing and recording data, my speculation or theory is that the essence of what we need to know has been recorded and that these disputes are perhaps part of fulfilling the plan. Whatever our understanding, we know of the seven churches noted in Revelation and, somehow, we will end there.

The History Channel program speculated about several reasons and theories why The Protovangelion of James was not included. They mentioned two that make sense to me.

Assuming the history it recorded is accurate, we must also consider both the culture and times when it happened and The Father’s purpose by His Gift of Jesus to His creation. Jesus is the reason for the season and anything that gets that wrong or any truth which might contribute to misunderstanding Him, His Teachings and His Sacrifice would not be helpful.

The Hierarchy is another universal truth and the Triune God is THE most high. Whatever Mary may be beyond our human understanding, what and how came from the very top, the Source of all, The Creator. Assuming The Protovangelion of James is true raises Mary well above "ordinary" and we can see how confusing this can be, even now, causing some to focus on Mary instead of Jesus and the Trinity.

Another possibility is women’s stature in the cultural and political hierarchies of those times and, some will argue, in God’s design and plan, and the resistance “Mary, Mother of God” and would cause within those hierarchies, as well as for the uninitiated and the skeptical unbelievers. These clearly exist today and, as Ecclesiastes 1:9 reminds us, nothing new under the sun. What is now, was also then.

As for the immaculate conception, again, this is done to supposedly protect Christ from being contaminated with sin at birth,

This is an assumption my logic has trouble with. All I’ve read tells me that Jesus isn’t corruptible and that sin can’t enter Heaven. So, what happens when Heaven comes to earth, as when Jesus was placed in/conceived by (not sure the correct way to say this) Mary? I am trying to use what I know about God and the supernatural to understand the chemistry/physics/metaphysics/etc.(?) of such an occurrence and then the months of gestation.

I don’t know the answer, but I can’t get my head to accept that Mary was just Mary. Whatever is the answer, to me, the truth is still in the time lag.

Because I believe in the law of hierarchies, and I know of the Heavenly Hierarchy, I don’t have much trouble accepting that the one person who was the most intimately connected to Jesus, even from before His birth, and shared in His Ministry in life has been given things to do in “death” to continue that Mission to gather the lost souls.

I know that Archangels outrank angels and, from what I've read and tried to understand, I think only the Holy Trinity outranks Mary and, of course, all that Mary is, whatever that may be, comes from The Father. Obviously, it's best not get confused about THAT most important reason for even having this conversation: All comes from the Most High God.

Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but I hope that we all can agree and disagree peacefully, while those of us less informed, like me, struggle within ourselves to let in the Light and find our way Home.