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).
That's where you would be wrong because I have read it in the original Latin in college, not some cobbled together English version on an anti-Catholic website. If I recall, and its been a while, we also used a book written by a Protestant Theologian from Oxford as an English language reference. (Catholic Universities are very balanced in these things)
And, for the record, Orange didn't contradict Trent, as an official Ecumenical Council of the Church superseded and corrected Orange. The fact that the Church rejected Orange for 900+ years before Trent may drive up its market value amongst Protestants, but should really be an indication of its errors and fallibility. It also sheds some light on just how unremarkable and unoriginal Jean Calvin really was.
Do you realize how stupid you appear when you try to tell Catholics what we believe and teach. Why don't you just stick to the truth and tell us why you don't agree with it. I would respect that, but not the game you are trying to play.
There is a branch of a Chicago based megachurch here in town that has grown in less than 10 years to purchasing a department store and converting into a coffee bar, pizza bakery, meeting hall, and sometimes a church. The pastor is elevated on a very nice dance hall stage, with a state of the art microphone, Powerpoint presentations, singing, dancing, and a rock star approach. He is spoken of in awe, as a celebrity. So is his wife. The lesser pastors are lower on the rung and do not garner as much awe.
A large number of my friends and acquaintances hop from church to church following or going to certain pastors, regardless of denomination. As the pastor rises and falls, so does the congregation. The Catholic Church is set up with the priestly vestments (ad orientam of course) so as to make the priest less of a star and more of an instrument of Almighty God. Father Phleger in Chicago violates this completely, never mind what other sins he is committing. A priest says Mass. Not a star holds a concert.
I have. There are a few Anglican and Lutheran pastors that I have met that do not fit this mold, so I have to reiterate the 'generally' - which is not 'all'.
Usually not, but you used a BIG brush when you painted ALL the pastors.
I used the term 'generally', not 'all'.
So, I just HAD to look it up.
In John 19:20, Pilate wrote his sign for the cross in three languages, Hebrew, Latin and Greek. Certain Bible versions translate the "Hebrew" as "Aramaic", most notably the NIV; and while the NRSV translates it as “Hebrew,” it has “Aramaic” as a marginal note. The actual word being translated, Hebraisti, means “the Hebrew or Jewish language” which can technically mean either Hebrew or Aramaic.
Ooooh, now THAT'S reaching... :)
Well, this is a new one. A Catholic admitting the Creeds of the Church, past by a Holy Council is in error and fallible.
Do you realize how stupid you appear when you try to tell Catholics what we believe and teach.
Wow, this comment reminds me of a piece of scripture:
Joh 9:39 Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind."
Joh 9:40 Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, "Are we also blind?"
Joh 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains.
Well, it isn't new that an anti-Catholic would misconstrue history to achieve his intents of denigrating the Church. Yawn.
The Second Council of Orange did not issue a "Creed". Your incorrect use of the word only under scores the need for a Teaching Authority.
Further the Second Council of Orange was not one of the 20 Ecumenical Councils of the Church. It was a limited council whose purpose was to advise the Church.
Seems like the Church didn’t heed their advice.
Think of it as an advisory panel to the Church. I'm sure that parts of the Canon can be found adopted by later formal Ecumenical Councils, but there was sufficient heterodoxy in it that was rejected.
Once again the Catholic pick and choose which creeds and doctrines they will believe in. Those Trent people were soooooo much smarter 800 years later than the heretics like Augustine and Jerome.
One has to wonder why they even bother writing it down. After all, paper was hard to come by.
Yup: Gospel Groupies!
Maybe so; but at least I answered.
This is the very reason that Christianity has survived 2,000 years. The alternative would be the fractious environment in which every heresy gains traction, in which YOPIS reigns, in which every milk maid and farm hand is their own pope and 30,000 denominations is just a start.
I thank God for the Church and it's Magisterium that guides and teaches the Truth.
The Council of Trent flatly rejected and contradict the Council of Orange. The Church has changed the doctrine of the early fathers to such a point it really no longer resembles the early church nor shares a Christian heritage. It has abandon the concept of grace, it has distorted the atonement, it has changed the First Commandment to suit its actions, and it has instituted theology that never was discussed in the holy word of God.
Yet you "thank God" that the "Church" "guides and teaches the Truth". I suppose you can ponder that comment as you bow down and pray to the statue of Mary.
However, the entire Revealed Word reminds us that God has chosen to progressively reveal his Word to man as we are able to comprehend it. Remember also that the Favors of the Holy Spirit are not equally distributed among all.
"The Council of Trent flatly rejected and contradict the Council of Orange."
The heterodoxy of the Second Council of Orange had been rejected for 500 years before orange and another 1000 years after the council before the Council of Trent addressed it again in response to its advocacy by Calvin. The Church still rejects it.
"I suppose you can ponder that comment as you bow down and pray to the statue of Mary."
You can suppose anything your mind imagines, but the truth is that Catholics do not pray "to" statues anymore than you pray "to" you Bible or pastor.
It is a little incredulous that you would whine when a Church, any Church, establishes its own dogmas and doctrines and declares them as a condition of membership.
?
"Progressive" is a buzz word for "liberal". The early fathers decided to set aside scripture when they knew what was fallible and what was infallible writings. They stated that it was in human nature to corrupt the things of God. For over four hundred years the early church wrote different creeds and statements. Yet not once did the fathers raise what they wrote to the same level as scripture.
The heterodoxy of the Second Council of Orange had been rejected for 500 years before orange...
And yet still you had a bunch of prominent clergymen get together, draft, approved and issue the creeds. I guess they didn't get the memo.
Council of Trent addressed it again in response to its advocacy by Calvin.
Sure, the Council of Trent addressed it. Calvin et alt was following the early church fathers. The Catholic Church rejected the early church fathers. It's that simple.
You can suppose anything your mind imagines, but the truth is that Catholics do not pray "to" statues anymore than you pray "to"
Perhaps I should have said you should remember that statement when you venerate before the statue of Mary and pray the rosary. There. Does that help?
...any Church, establishes its own dogmas and doctrines and declares them as a condition of membership.
It's one thing for a church to establish its own dogma. It's quite another for a church to "pretend" that it traces its roots back to fathers having rejected the fathers' teachings.
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.