Fulton Sheen and the Anti Christ

Standing on my head ^ | 11/23/2013 | Fr Dwight Longenecker

[markomalley]

This weekend is the Feast of Christ the King–reminding us that his kingdom is not of this world and therefore to be wary of any ideological system or world system or leader with plans to simply make this world a better place.

Last week the Holy Father warned against the “adolescent progressivism” that is only another guise of secular humanism. He  referenced Robert Hugh Benson’s novel Lord of the World in which the world has sunk into a secular, socialist dream, out of which arises a charming anti Christ, Julian Felsenburgh who promises the world to the worldlings. It’s an apt subject for the weekend when we celebrate the Feast of Christ the King, for the anti Christ hates Christ the King and will set  himself up as “the People’s Prince”–a populist ruler who plans total domination. C.S.Lewis’ sci-fi horror story That Hideous Strength (Space Trilogy, Book 3) explores the same theme as a cadre of elite academics plan a brave new world.

Holy Deacon Ballard has sent me this excellent quotation from Fulton Sheen’s Communism and the Conscience of the West in which he discusses the Antichrist:

The Antichrist will not be so called; otherwise he would have no followers. He will not wear red tights, nor vomit sulphur, nor carry a trident nor wave an arrowed tail as Mephistopheles in Faust. This masquerade has helped the Devil convince men that he does not exist. When no man recognizes him, the more power he exercises.

We must always remember that Satan comes as an angel of light. What he presents is always eminently reasonable. He offers the seemingly sensible way, the soft way, the way of compromise and ease. If he showed himself as the monster he is all would run howling in terror. Instead he offers a way out when we are in a jam, an alternative when the way of Christ seems difficult.

Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather is he described as an angel fallen from heaven, as “the Prince of this world,” whose business it is to tell us that there is no other world.

All the world’s systems combine to convince us of this fact. Materialism: there is no other world. This is it. Scientism only scientifically tested knowledge is valid. Historicism there is not over-arching providence. History is random. Evolutionism the natural world develops at random. There is no divine plan. Utilitarianism what works is all that matters. Efficiency and economy are our gods. Moral Relativism there is no great Law. Therefore you may do as you wish. In fact this is the motto of diabolism: “Do as you Will.”

His logic is simple: if there is no heaven there is no hell; if there is no hell, then there is no sin; if there is no sin, then there is no judge, and if there is no judgment then evil is good and good is evil. But above all these descriptions, Our Lord tells us that he will be so much like Himself that he would deceive even the elect–and certainly no devil ever seen in picture books could deceive even the elect.

Of course the elect will be deceived and follow the antichrist. They already do. To see what I mean continue reading Archbishop Sheen.

How will he come in this new age to win followers to his religion?The pre-Communist Russian belief is that he will come disguised as the Great Humanitarian; he will talk peace, prosperity and plenty not as means to lead us to God, but as ends in themselves.

Always beware the promise of a better world. There is always a price to pay for Utopia. Do not swallow the bait. Remember there is always free cheese in a mousetrap. Do not spend your time making this world a better place without first making sure you are going to the Best Place. The antichrist always offers us this world. He offered Christ himself all the kingdoms of this world. He does the same to us. He offers a wonderful world…one without God and his Son Christ the King.

this is the temptation to have a new religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a world to come, a religion to destroy a religion, or a politics which is a religion–one that renders unto Caesar even the things that are God’s.In the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell to no one: he will not believe in God.

The antichrist will not believe in God, but he will be religious. Watch the political leaders give lip service to Christianity and the Church. During the election the politician will pray to get into office. After the election the people pray to get him out of office. The antichrist follows the Lord of this World and you can tell because all he cares about is this world.

Because his religion will be brotherhood of Man without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect. He will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .

“The Ape of God” what a phrase! It reminds me of The Last Battle by C.S.Lewis in which an ape named Shift finds an old lion skin and persuades a stupid donkey named Puzzle to dress up as Aslan. The faithful Narnians are fooled by Shift and Puzzle because they had already given in and forgotten about Aslan. They had already compromised, so when the anti Aslan appeared they fell down before him.

American Christians need to wake up. Already most of us have adapted to the Spirit of the new age. Already we have compromised our standards and lowered our defenses. It has been a slow, gradual process, but why do we think that we might stand up to the antichrist when we have already swallowed his candy?

Christians–look at the world around you. How many church leaders do you know who already preach a gospel that is no more than watered down socialism? How many sweet talking, smiling preachers do you already know who parade their political activism while neglecting the reality of Christ’s true gospel? How many religious people do you know who already believe that it is all about the brotherhood of Man while neglecting the Fatherhood of God?

Already they have put before us “a new religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a world to come, a religion to destroy a religion, or a politics which is a religion–one that renders unto Caesar even the things that are God’s.”

Wake up, and don’t be deceived. Remember the only thing Satan knows how to do is to lie. He is the Father of Lies and the Father of Flies, and where the flies gather there is already a corpse.

Brantly Millegan writes here on the history of the Feast of Christ the King and how it was instituted by PopePius XI as a bulwark against Communism and secular atheism.

Book Recommend: If you are in the mood for some apocalyptical reading for Advent I recommend Paul Thigpen’s powerful book of prophetic poetry, The Burden: A warning of things to come

[Mrs. Don-o]

Need a link.

[editor-surveyor]

You need a link to your Bible?

Reading the text, there are hundreds of sentences whose wording could only have come from a translator with minimal familiarity with the original language, and zero familiarity with the culture and practices of the apostles.

Reading critically, as a real scholar always does, one cannot miss them.

Here is one that shows up in three or four places: “they came together on the first day of the week...”

This is obviously a clumsy mistranslation of “havdalah.” To a Hebrew, the first day of the week was only significant as to the traditional meeting celebrating the end of the Sabbath at sundown on the pagan “saturday” night. That was when it was permissible to bring money, which is not permissible on the Sabbath. Where the text reads “early on the first day of the week” sundown is what is being invoked, not 12 hours later when the sun rises, when the day was half over.

Failing to reckon how Yehova’s days occur completely destroys the meaning of many passages of the NT. Only a non-Hebrew translator would make that kind of error. Had the books been written in Greek by the original author, a more successful transliteration of the traditional and cultural factors would have resulted.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ed-surv, I do not read Hebrew or Greek. Consequently I have to rely on scholars who do. There have been 50-100 generations of scholars over the past 2,000 years --- depending on how you want to count a generation --- many of them native Hebrew or Greek speakers, and many who were not, but who spent their whole lifetime studying the texts and the nuances of the languages. I can't name a one of them who thinks the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John were not written in Greek.

Having read your brief explanation, I still can't name "a one", since I don't know who you are or what your credentials might be as a translator, or why your credentials must be better than the 50 generations of scholars who came before you.

Thus my skepticism should not be surprising.

Still no link?

Then I must suppose that you're essentially a stand-alone guy with a--- shall we say, a unique hypothesis. Just a guess on my part. Otherwise, you would be citing and linking to truly dispositive evidence.

I'm still interested in a citation or a link, though. I'm here to learn.

[jjotto]

Here’s a link on the subject (scroll down to the end for “sources”):

http://www.promotethetruth.com/id23.html

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you, jjotto. This is exactly what I was looking for, and the sources at the bottom look substantial. Do you know who wrote this article? Or whether this represents the view of some church or organization? I moused around bu couldn't find anything.

Happy day-after-Thanksgiving!

[jjotto]

There are a handful of scholars who propose Hebrew originals of the Gospels. Most non-academics who believe this, however, seem to do so for theological reasons, not because there’s evidence. Many who deny the possibility also do so for theological reasons instead of on the basis of evidence. It’s one of those subjects.

Try googling “Hebrew origins of the Gospels” or something similar.

Somewhat related is another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3096066/posts

where it is pointed out in later posts that the Catholic Church is quite modernist and academic in its view of all Scripture.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I actually don't care whether the originals were Hebrew or Greek. And as I mentioned elsewhere, since I don't even read Hebrew or Greek, it would be truly dumb for me to pretend to any personal expertise. I read the scholars 3rd hand, at the Readers Digest level or thereabouts.

I do have a few criteria

• Catholic dogma. (Which most emphatically does NOT mean the Catholic Theological Society of America.)
• the Pontifical Biblical Commission, but not necessarily de fide to the extent of every jot and tittle, and
• the late Jaroslav Peliken, just because I'm fond of him and the Orthodox in general, and I'm entitled to fondness, like anybody. I do like Bruce Metzger, too.

[editor-surveyor]

No link would read your bible for you.

No need to read the Greek to see that more than 90 % of the English translations have approximately the same words, regardless of who did the English translation, thus there is scant reason to believe that you would render a different result if you did read the Greek.

The English translations deliver solid evidence that the
Greek text from which they came were not the words of an original author.

Denial, not skepticism, is the applicable term.

[editor-surveyor]

An excellent essay.

Thanks for posting.

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is all irrelevant to me, since I don't much care whether the originals were Hebrew or Greek. I don't see how it makes a big difference.

I am not a credulous person. Asking for links to more evidence is reasonable. Your failure or refusal to honor such a request makes me wonder whether it's really evidence which brought you to the opinion you now hold.

When you throw in a little contempt (calling my request for evidence "denial") it certainly deepens this impression.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “ I don’t see how it makes a big difference.” <<

.
The difference is in understanding what really was done/said, as opposed to confusion that has nullified many Bible passages to the casual reader.

This is where the error of “Sunday” worship was born. Granted, there are far worse sins than breaking the Sabbath, but who wants to sin at all?

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Asking for links to more evidence is reasonable.” <<

The link would be the verse anyway.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Are you a member of one of the Seventh Day churches?

[editor-surveyor]

Absolutely not!

I am a follower of the original Way.

[Mrs. Don-o]

No Church?

[editor-surveyor]

“Assemblies” or congregations (Kehilot) was what were refered to in the NT epistles.

By church I assume that you mean an org that owns buildings and such?

[Mrs. Don-o]

So, you ar a member of an "Assembly"? Where is it? How would I get in contact with this "Assembly"?

Building ownership isn't the relevant thing. "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" --- rightly defined --- are the relevant things. Given that, members of Christ's Church can gather around their bishops [episcopoi] in rented rooms, houses, barns, fields, or catacombs.

The Church has to be be nameable, definable, and findable: not just one of these set-ups where a website, an e-mail address and a P.O. Box are about all the contact information you can get.

Tagline.

[editor-surveyor]

Nicolaitan ‘churches’ are certainly all named, but Yeshua’s church has no other name, no address, nor phone, email, nor bank accounts.

[Mrs. Don-o]

So all churches that you could find in the Yellow Pages, all churches that have a name and an address, even an e-mail address, are false? invalid? Nicolaitan? Whereas the mark of the true Yeshua churches is that nobody can actually find them?

Yet, "find them" is what one would have to do in order to get a letter delivered to them, as all the authors of the Epistles were able to do. One would have to be able to find them, in order to bring their judgment to bear in a matter of dispute as in Matthew 18:1.

Let's suppose I were to say I am a member of this Yeshua Church. Where would I find my fellow believers?

[editor-surveyor]

You like to put words in my mouth.

The assemblies that are solidly Biblical communicate through their members as needed. No need to advertise anything; the Holy Spirit knows how to work.

The bigger a church is and the more they spend announcing themselves, the less likely it is that they worship Biblically. Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, David Jeremiah, etc. for example.