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).
Are televangelists not pastors?
Damn! All that money wasted on my Aramaic lessons!
How many NT documents were written in Aramaic?
Are you admitting that for a couple of millennia, much of the world did something that your instructor told you was ridiculous? And you believed him? The NEA and the ACLU have yet another great graduate of the American public school system.
Than you for the clarification, and I do see now that i should have provided the researcher, rather than just the original source, which might infer i had found it myself, and i am sorry for not doing so.
Nor does my use of such impugn my objectivity, as i quoted more RC sources, including in this matter, while the main thing is that the reference was genuine, which i have found no indication otherwise of, and could have simply cited what the Society of Saint Pius said Bellarmine taught, though it provided no reference.
As for copyright violation, both sources are public domain (the work by Littledale was printed in 1810) so there was no violation of copyright as you charge. Nor was in anyway threatening a lawsuit.
Yet despite your protest about accreditation, the point remains that while you attack our lack of certainty in some things, you have no infallible understanding of infallible declarations, or how many there are in total, or how many verses they have defined, etc., while you must allow varying interpretations by Catholics, and are contradicted by your own in at least 2 key assertions.
But the most important thing is that souls believe and the church preaches the wholly inspired Scriptures, and the words that expound it.
“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “ (John 20:31)
"Abolishing" a practice is NOT "clarification".
The Council of Trent sticks in the craw of Protestants because it organized the counter reformation
Actually I love the Council of Trent (1545AD) because it illustrates just how corrupt the doctrine of the Church became 1000 years later when compared against the Council of Orange (523AD). Consider these contradictory views:
Compare with Orange CANON 5 - If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly ... belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8)....]
---------------------
Council of Trent-CANON V.- If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man’s freewill is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed"!
Compare with Orange-CANON 8 > If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).
-----------
Council of Trent - CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
Council of Orange: CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).
Please note that I've posted the Council of Orange doctrine from a Reformed site. This is because I can't find the Council of Orange's declarations on New Advent, the Catholic website. Instead they just "tell" you (wrongly) about the Council of Orange. Perhaps I'm wrong but try as I might I cannot find the Council of Orange's doctrine of faith on New Advent. One has to wonder what they don't want people to read.
Contrasting the Council of Orange to the much later Council of Trent shows how the Catholic belief was alter from the true Christian faith.
BTW-The Council of Orange backed all their statements up with scriptural quotes.
As far as Wycliffe's statement on the foolishness of indulgences and Luther's assertion that they are pious fraud, it isn't important what the Church's response is. Wycliffe and Luther are correct.
Odd statement. It hasn't in 2000 years, while we watch the churches of men self destruct over and over and over. When do you think that the last OPC member will survive its own implosion?
I can understand why YOU wouldn't read it: you don't need to, with the MINDREADING abilities you have exhibited here; but why won't anyone ELSE read it?
Usually not, but you used a BIG brush when you painted ALL the pastors.
I have heard about 1.
WRITTEN...
Usually not, but you used a BIG brush when you painted ALL the pastors.
All of the televangelists that I am familiar with are pastors. Do you have examples of ones who are not?
The televangelist brush I used encompasses all of the Protestant pastors that I have encountered during my life, with the exception of a few Anglican and Lutheran pastors.
I have heard about 1.
Which one? And how did you hear it?
I have heard about 1.
Which one? And how did you hear it?
I seriously doubt it. There were 25 session each issuing a Encyclical report. At the most you have read less than 1% of these and of that I doubt you comprehended much without the context of the whole (kind of like your knowledge of Scripture and the Catechism of the Church). Its clarifications made anuses and corruption more visible and less possible. Its exact wording is important since the Protestant characterization of them is frankly dishonest:
, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,--whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,--be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.
The Second Council of Orange, that Calvinists often point to as validation of their heresy, is not even included among the 20 recognized Ecumenical Councils and is not therefore official Church doctrine or dogma. (That explains why you didn't find it.) Its findings were never recognized by the entire Church and have never been considered infallible or a product of the Magisterium.
If you found the first spoonful of a food spoiled would YOU eat the entire pot?
The comedic content of your post is that you have to engage in mind reading in order to accuse me of it. (Just once don't you wish you didn't step in it?)
See. That's where you're wrong. I have read and reread the entire Council of Trent several times. Now I suspect that you have never read the Council of Orange nor could you comprehend it if you did. Its decrees contradicts the Council of Trent's decrees. I've noticed that you have failed to specifically address the contradictory Canons from the CofO and the CofT. But you're certainly not the first Catholic to do so.
I guess the LABEL may fit, but the FUNCTION wouldn't.
Their organizations are WAY too big for them to 'pastor' and those duties are left to the underlings.
(The 'star' of the show may descend from time to time to attend more, ahem, important parishoners...)
Protestant services generally aren't - they are a praise of the pastor.
You need to get out more!
Since I use the NIV mainly, I was thinking of what it said: John 19:20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.
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.
Oh!
I see what you mean!
(That source is very telling of the "objectivity" of your research).
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.