Posted on 11/23/2013 3:32:28 PM PST by 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
They are referred to as fathers but none are addressed by anyone as father as your references indicate...So it's not a personal interpretation, it's what God says...It would be very odd that millions of people could come up with the exact same personal, private interpretation...
Abraham is the only one who is addressed as Father but he in that case is a type of the real Father...
Nor tomorrow...
The anti-Christ know exactly who and what God is...
Of course the elect will be deceived and follow the antichrist. They already do.
Nope...The elect have not nor will they be deceived and follow the anti-Christ...Both of these positions are anti-biblical...
Great article. Thank you.
I was using an “interpret Scripture by Scripture” argument. That’s not the same as an “everyone else is doing it” argument.
I don't know of any "millions" who have come up with "this exact same private interpretation." There are almost no churches which teach such a thing. In fact none of them teach, exactly, what a literal interpretation would dictate, that "no man on earth" is to be called father. All of them permit calling fathers, fathers. And teachers, teachers. And instructors, instructors. All of them
I don't know of a one of them who object, even, to calling Martin Luther the "Father of the Reformation," or John Paul Jones the "Father of the Navy," or James Madison the "Father of the Constitution" or George Washington the "Father of His Country." These are still just derivatives of, and analogies to, the Only Father.
"Abraham is the only one who is addressed as Father but he in that case is a type of the real Father..."
Yes. YES! There you have it! Furthermore, all of the churches understand, just as Catholics do, that EVERY father is a "type" of the real Father. It's only because they are types, that they can be called 'father' at all:
Ephesians 3:14-15 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth takes its name.
OK, Scripture interprets Scripture..
About Peter = rock thing.....
Hey, Elsie, about those passages on God = rock.....
And then we can get back to the eucharist and the prohibition against eating blood.
And while we're at it, the whole who we pray to.
And whether any human being can be sinless.....
And the list goes on....
Why when Catholics want to call their priests *Father* do they insist on *Scripture interprets Scripture* and when non-Catholics do it with some other sacred cow of the Catholics, it's called YOPIOS and not valid?
Don't you know a PICTURE worth a thousand words?
Call narses for his input...
Why verga?
Well; I was thinking of him and just KNEW he'd feel slighted if not included...
And then we can get back to the eucharist and the prohibition against eating blood.
Darn it; I have a LIFE!!!!
If they wanna eat blood; let 'em!
It makes ZERO impact on a person's salvation anyway.
Heck...
They can call them Ray if they want...
Why do you criticize me for not posting a picture?
Yep context is everything. You folks keep forgetting the preceding verse. As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
How do protestants weasel out of that one?
All I saw was that he asked you a question.
Elsie's posts sometimes need to be taken with a grain of salt. A BIG one sometimes.
It would help to chill.
What Protestants call their leaders *Rabbi*?
That’s right they don’t try and weasel out of it they just dodge the question. Now about trying to actually answer the question.
It seems that protestants also used the title, father. Pesky things these facts.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1916
Such opposition, however, is ironic in the context of church history. For American Protestants regularly called their clergy "Father" 200 and 300 years ago, and some continued to do so a century ago. And during the same years, Protestants addressed venerated women in their churches as "Mother."
The title "Father" was used in four ways in addressing clergy (see my article, "Fathers and Brethren," Church History [September 1968], pp. 298-318). In early America "Father" was a title of respect for elderly men. Although, for example, "Mister" (the designation of a gentleman and a college graduate) was the normal title for Puritan clergy in colonial New England, Congregationalists. Baptists, Methodists and German Reformed commonly addressed older ministers as "Father" well into the 19th century.
Furthermore, Protestants also employed the title for younger ministers who influenced Christian commitment and served as spiritual fathers. This usage is evident in the correspondence between early American ministers and their theological students. The journals of Methodist circuit riders as well as the records of Protestant missions to Indians and seamen also indicate this usage. Herman Melville, for example, based his character Father Mapple -- the whaleman-chaplain in Moby Dick -- on Father Edward Thompson Taylor, the Methodist pastor of Boston’s Seamen’s Bethel.
Protestants of earlier centuries also addressed founders of denominations and religious communities as "Father." American Methodists, for example, referred to John Wesley not only as "Mr. Wesley" but also as "Father Wesley." Following the custom in both genders, the Shakers called their matriarch ‘‘Mother’’ and their male leaders "Father."
Closely related was the custom of calling missionary pioneers "Father." In the 19th century, Presbyterian, Baptist, Congregationalist, German Reformed, Methodist and Universalist missionaries were given the title throughout the New South and West. And American Lutherans used "Father" for their pioneer pastors, their first missionary to India, and their patriarch, Father Henry Melchior Muhlenberg.
Few in Protestant churches of earlier generations would have seen a theological problem in addressing spiritual fathers, founders or missionary pioneers as ‘Father." Just as the author of I John addressed as "fathers" the elderly who were advanced in the knowledge of Christ (I John 2:13-14), so Protestant churches applied the title to experienced ministers who had been long in the service of the church. "Fathers and Brethren" sat in ecclesiastical assemblies, and in the New Testament "Father" denoted the difference between generations.
Moreover, if calling clergy "Father" had violated biblical norms, the Christian Church and Disciples of Christ surely would have opposed it, for these groups were formed in an attempt to restore not only the doctrine and practice of primitive Christianity, but also its very nomenclature. Warren Stone’s motto was "Bible names for Bible things." And Thomas and Alexander Campbell stood on the phrase, "Where the Bible speaks, we speak: where it is silent, we are silent." Ridiculing "Reverend" and "Doctor" as "unscriptural," Alexander Campbell even employed the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:8-10 as a motto for his magazine, the Christian Baptist.
Yet church history clearly indicates that members of the Restoration Movement commonly addressed both the Campbells and Stone as "Father." Furthermore, the three founders used the term for their own clergy as well as for each other. And none of the movement’s opponents ever seemed to exploit a contradiction in the movement’s use of "Father" as a clerical title. They apparently saw no contradiction.
Maybe they haven’t looked at their Bibles for a long time and have forgotten that the words “Rabbi”, “Teacher”, “Master”, “Rabbuoni” were all spoken to or about Christ.
Is the pope your earthly father or spiritual father?
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.