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).
Which is what?
So Metmom is claiming to have the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture. How do you explain the many errors you have made in your posts and the significant doctrinal differences you have not only with the Church, but with nearly all of Protestantism?
If, as you claim, everyone has the ability, why do you deny it to the Catholics?
An exorcism prayer is said for someone, not said against anyone but Satan. Was that a Freudian slip?
I think it’s the “or something”. ;o)
That SHOULD be a huge clue for people, yet, I don't see many looking that deep.
Not yet...
DUH!
I can never get these people to answer a question. Whether it was PD or this guy. I wanted to see how he was going to explain it..... and of course, they never do.
I didn't say Trent outlaw indulgences. What I said was Trent abolished the practice of collecting money for indulgences. The Catholic Church still has indulgences. They just no longer allow the practice of collecting money for them.
As as far as New Advent not being an "official" Catholic source, this is the acknowledgment New Advent has on their site:
If there is something that is in error, I'm sure they would love to be the first to hear about it.
BTW-As a non-Catholic I do kindly encourage New Advent to publish more of the Catholic faith. It's very much an eye opener.
Insightful, Sorry for not pinging you, the archiver on the LDS.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8)
He fits the MO as does Muhammad. The devil is a master counterfeiter.
Alien Abduction Indeed
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.
The plagiarized excerpt itself contains a properly cited quote from " Disput. Controv. De Justine." III. Viii. 5.
Natural, you can again resort to false charges, and your usual unwarranted dismissals and complaints about pasting that which refutes you, while refusing to answer pertinent questions, but the more you post the more you are avoid the implication of your lack of certitude, and that statements by you are are contradicted by your brethren, and now other sources as well.
Beginning with the latter, you
1.You charge me with plagiarism and copyright infringement for citing Bellarmine, which is absolutely ludicrous and potentially libelous. The fact is that plagiarism is defined as “the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person,” (Merriam-Webster) though as WP substantiates, “the notion remains problematic with nebulous boundaries.” And as said before, your argument as represented in your list of questions is not original, nor are some of my arguments (while many are), though i do not see using either as plagiarism.
But far from using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person, instead i carefully cited Bellarmine as the original source, having directly copied the quote from here some time ago, and saving it before posting here, while my research has not found its authenticity being challenged, even in Catholic sources where it is quoted.
2. As for copyright infringement, this “occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.” In contrast, “a work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.” (U.S. Copyright Office)
Ideas and facts themselves are not copyrighted, though patents can apply, and compilations can be copyrighted. However, the “fair use” clause provides some allowance of portions of copyrighted works in general, such as said here, in “limited purpose of teaching, reviewing, literary criticism and the like.”
As WP informs, works published before 1923 are almost always public domain in the U.S., such as the works of Shakespeare and Beethoven, and the patents on powered flight. Besides the 1923 date, the expiration of a copyright is normally based on a number of years following the death of the last surviving creator, (50 years and 70 years being the most common. Public domain works can also be freely used for derivative works without permission. See more referenced info from WP here, and from the USC here, and dates from Cornell here.
As Robert Bellarmine died September 1621, works by him would be Public Domain, and even if they were not then my quote would surely be allowed under fair use, as credited.
Nor are any of the other quotes i provided without references and links, unlike what is advised by one of your apologists, at least as regards private correspondence:
"What I would suggest, if you wish to cut down on your response time, is to steal stuff from other folks. Steal things from my newsletters. Go to Catholic.com (Catholic Answers website) and use their search engine to look for articles on whatever topic you're discussing. Don't hesitate to lift verbiage from an article here and an article there.
If you want to cite your source fine, but if you want to leave that out- I don't see any problem, as long as you're doing it in private correspondence." (Apologetics for The Masses by John Martignoni, http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2550)
Text for the day: “let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.” (Ja. 1:19b)
3. Despite all your bluster about copyright infringement,, the fact is that your assertion that you can be certain, with the certainty of faith, that you have received a true sacrament through Rome's clergy, is contradicted by Bellarmine. This is due to the inability to know with certainty the intent of the administer grace, and relates to what Trent also teaches regarding the heart of the recipient as regards knowing you have salvation, that while “no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.”
While what is properly called certitude, as the Catholic Encyclopedia sees it, is such “assent to the truth of a proposition as excludes all real doubt,” and which i affirm one can speak as regards clear truths of Scripture, more than that you have received a true sacrament. Yet as regards the latter it is held such as by the Society of Saint Pius X, that you may have moral certitude, which is subject to occasional exceptions. They state, “In effect, Saint Robert Bellarmine points out that we can never have a certitude of Faith concerning the reception of a true sacrament, since no-one can see the intention of another. However, in truth we can never have such a certitude concerning human events. The greatest certitude that we can have is a moral certitude, which is also the certitude that we can have about any contingent, singular reality.” (http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__sacramental.htm)
And as stated before, Trent does allow for knowing by special revelation that you are assuredly in the number of the predestinate, (Chapters IX, XII. http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct06.html) while John offers assurance that one has eternal life.
4. Despite your scorn for pasted quotes which substantiates my argument (not substitutes for it), and your assertion of ignorance of Catholic doctrine on my part, the fact is and remains that your contention that the pope has only spoken from the chair twice is also contradicted by known Roman Catholic apologists and scholars. Which, along with your lack of certainty of faith as regards your understanding of infallible declarations (which need varying degrees of interpretation), and the sparsity of its interpretations of verses of Scripture, and that it is held that most of what Catholics believe and practice has not been stated infallibly (being from the Ordinary magisterium), testifies to the lack of certainty Catholics face despite having a (claimed) infallible interpreter, which is invoked as the answer to having an infallible Scripture without an infallible interpreter.
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.
The good thing is that despite your previous charges, you now find my claim, while your statement that infallibility is a binary property does not solve the problem of the basis for this claim. As every good gift is from above, I also assert that one can have the ability to understand and teach infallible truths, but your condition for assurance that Rome has thus spoken is that it is according to a certain infallibly (at least as regards the pope, from which conciliar infallibility is derived) defined content (faith and morals) and scope (to the Church universal) criteria, whereas mine is clear Scriptural warrant and attestation.
You continue to tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on the Catholic Church,
Rather, i actually affirmed that Rome and others can speak infallible truth, which even a donkey can. But that fulling its own formula does not make it so.
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.
A distinction that fails to make a critical difference. She is not merely preaching the wholly inspired Scriptures, but claims to uniquely define what Truth is, rendering such extra Biblical traditions such as the Assumption as dogma, and to infallible teach as dogma matters of interpretation, while it makes Tradition equal to Scripture, effectively adding to the canon. The authority of men like the apostles to teach historical events as dogmatic fact, as well as interpretations of Scripture, and to add to it, was established by their level of Scriptural attestation, with its Scriptural corroboration and “signs of an apostle,” (2Cor. 12:12) not due to conformity to Rome's criteria, or formal decent, as useful as that may be. And she has gone beyond the apostles to claiming direct temporal power over those without, and physical means of coercive punishment over church members. (cf. 1Cor. 5:12; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12)
So let's just agree to disagree. Now go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
I do agree we disagree, and intend to do the latter. Thanks
Excellent, of course.
Are you threatening me with a law suit? Well, counselor, I would be willing to go to court with the facts as presented, would you? (note: FR frowns on threats of law suits)
You really ought to be more careful with what you cut and paste and when you screw up a 1500 word post (that no one, including me will read) blaming everyone else doesn't exonerate you. The fact is that I am not accusing you of plagiarizing Bellarmine, the plagiarized text was copied directly from "Plain reasons against joining the church of Rome" by Richard Frederick Littledale. (That source is very telling of the "objectivity" of your research).
Now run along and annoy someone else.
That is a gross mischaracterization of the Papal Bull (not to be confused with the bull you regularly issue). Clarifications were made to further reduce the susceptability of indulgencs to corruption by individuals.
The Council of Trent sticks in the craw of Protestants because it organized the counter reformation and illuminated the corrupt motives behing much of what is wrongly revered today.
The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4, Dec., 1563) declared: "Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them (Enchridion, 989). It is therefore of faith (de fide):
•that the Church has received from Christ the power to grant indulgences, and
•that the use of indulgences is salutary for the faithful.
As long as you are rummaging around in Catholic archives why don't you wander over to the section containing the Council of Constance which condemned among the errors of Wyclif the proposition: "It is foolish to believe in the indulgences granted by the pope and the bishops" (Sess. VIII, 4 May, 1415; see Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", 622).
Additionally, in the Bull "Exsurge Domine", 15 June, 1520, Leo X condemned Luther's assertions that "Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful"; and that "Indulgences do not avail those who really gain them for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of God's justice" (Enchiridion, 75S, 759),
If you didn’t read it, how do you know it’s plagiarized?
Pay attention, I pointed out that his earlier post was plagiarized, not the 1500 word screed he posted in defense which even you obviously didn't bother to read.
Thanks. Can do, and usually do, as one that has written many encyclopedia articles, by God’s grace.
You have eyes to see, and what Scripture teaches is that of believers “knowing” the Father, and the Son, and knowing that you are saved, and that believing is not doubt, and can be had from the Scriptures.
The issue of degrees of certitude is a valid one, and that the magisterium has a valid function in leading souls to truth and assurance should not be disputed (and some need such more than others) nor that the early church did teach infallible truth. But we know this because it is in the wholly inspired Scriptures, and bcz it had and has manifest Scriptural corroboration and attestation, not bcz they spoke on faith and morals to all the church.
Nor does Scripture teach an office will perpetually be infallible when it speaks to all the church on faith and morals, but which the Bible does affirm of itself, while its claim to be Divine is established by manifest Divine power.
As the Bible needs interpretation, so it is claimed that man needs an infallible interpreter, but that also needs interpretation, as you perceive.
What is behind this is the idea that Christians are to place implicit faith in the definitions of the IM, and that is how God leads us into all truth (though the IM itself has evidently been led into very little, if some substantive ones), but it has not the attestation of a Moses or Elijah (1Kg. 17:24) or the apostles, and it was not through a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium as that of Rome that God preserved His truth.
But it is only as the church manifests that it is the church of the living God, corroborated by the Scriptures and the witness to the truth we see in it, that it is able to persuade souls by “the manifestation of the Truth.” (2Cor. 4:2) And in that we and i need to seek Him more for, with repentance and consecration.
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.