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
Posting stuff like this will get you Private Mail from your OTHER Brothers and Sisters!
OK!...
...if, by that "OK," you're saying you see how Scripture effectively disproves the idea that we are literally not to call any man on earth "father." If that's what you means, then, thank you. We do have that in common.. and in common with St. Paul, St. Stephen and St. John.
But rather than follow up on the other 6 major issues you referenced in the next 6 lines --- I want to address this part,
"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?"
... because I think this shows some misunderstandng of the YOPIOS: Your Own Personal (or Private) Interpretation of Scripture.
YOPIOS, as I understand it, does not mean that an opinion is not valid, nor that it is non-Catholic, no that it is false. It just means it is an individual's opinion.
Catholics can and do practice YOPIOS --- personal opinionating --- all the time. I may have more YOPIOS (MOPIOS?) than most, because I may be more opinionated than the average Catholic. Any given pope can have opinions that are YOPIOS --- as did all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to some greater or lesser extent.
By using the term "YOPIOS," one is not distinguishing between Catholic and non-Catholic, but between ecclesial and individual.
Many non-Catholic Christians have points doctrine affirmed by, say, the early Ecumenical Councils (e.g. they still believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity) or follow practices originating in the early centuries of the Church (e.g. they still worship on Sundays, or they affirm the Apostles' Creed). Even if they do not make explicit reference to Councils or to early Church practices as their rationale, but only offer proof-texts,I would not call this YOPIOS, because they are in fact ecclesial rather than individual interpretations.
To be fair, I think that even doctrines and practices deriving from Protestant statements of faith, like the Lutheran Book of Concord, the Thirty Nine Articles of Anglicanism, the Baptist Faith and Message, and so forth, should not be called YOPIOS, because they are not individualistic: they owe something to the view that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church (and not just themselves as singularly enlightened individuals).
In other words, I'd venture to say that within most Churches, you can distinguish between an ecclesial doctrine and YOPIOS.
But that's just my opinion :o)
.
Oh, by the way, (real question, no snark) could you tell me if there is any Christian church which teaches officially (as part of its doctrine) that it is literally a sin to call any man on earth "father"?
Rabbi is the Hebrew word for “teacher”. Sometimes also translated “Master” (as in “schoolmaster”.)
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.
I don't know that that's true...Just because someone at a university says it true, I'll wait for the source material before I comment...
Read the article.
So what then? Is this an example of Catholic reasoning?
“Well, everyone else is doing it. So we’re going to , too. Why can’t we?*
Ummm, because Jesus said not to address any religious leader here on earth with the title of *father*?
Catholic exposition of Scripture as follows:
When a literal interpretation supports Catholic doctrine, use the literal interpretation.
When the figurative interpretation of Scripture supports Catholic doctrine, use the figurative one.
But by all means, don’t be consistent in how Scripture is to be interpreted. Use whatever supports Catholic doctrine but above all, don’t let Scripture determine Catholic doctrine.
>> “but above all, don’t let Scripture determine Catholic doctrine.” <<
.
By Jove, I think she’s got it!
>> “I single you out as you started it with what is trivial to the posted article—whether to call someone father.” <<
.
There is nothing trivial about rejecting Nicolaitanism.
Yeshua said he hates the Nicolaitans, but you think his opinion is trivial?
Men are not to be elevated; we are all equal.
I guess that makes it ok then; Dad.
>> “I think in either case, Jesus weeps.” <<
.
He weeps when men are elevated.
He weeps when his commandments are violated.
He weeps when men pray to the dead.
He weeps when men pray with vain pagan repetition, counting on beads.
He weeps when men hold confessions in private booths.
He weeps when men invent pagan feasts like christmas and easter in place of his feasts.
>> Oh, by the way, (real question, no snark) could you tell me if there is any Christian church which teaches officially (as part of its doctrine) that it is literally a sin to call any man on earth “father”? <<
.
I am abundantly confident that you understand that Yeshua was condemning Nicolaitanism, not telling his sheep that they couldn’t call their birth father ‘father.’
You are far more gracious than most Catholics, then.
Problem I see here, and it's not just Catholicism that engages in this, but in this case it primarily is.
Here is a clearly stated comment, indeed command, by Jesus, and all I see is people explaining why we DON'T have to obey it.
Problem is, this comes from a denomination which elevates (according to adherents of said denomination) that the words of Jesus are taken at a higher level of..... seriousness, I suppose one could say, that the words of anyone else.
And what do I see all over this thread?
Catholics defending why to NOT do what Jesus so clearly commanded. And the argument I've seen used most is the *everybody else is doing it* one.
Oh, by the way, (real question, no snark) could you tell me if there is any Christian church which teaches officially (as part of its doctrine) that it is literally a sin to call any man on earth "father"?
Can't say that I've seen it, but generally it's understood that disobeying a command of Christ's is sin. It seems to be redundant, not to mention a waste of time and paper, to print out all the separate instances of Jesus commanding something when we have Scripture there for all to read.
As far as other denominations deciding that that is a sin. Since they don't do it, I don't see the point of going to the trouble of commanding people not to do something they already don't do.
It's too much works based and legalism. Might as well add it to the *Don't drink, smoke, cuss, or chew and don't go out with girls who do.*
Living by a list of rules and regs may make life predictable and comfortable, but doesn't lend itself in the least to internal personal holiness. Why should Baptists, for example, bother to list as a sin something another denomination does?
Read it...And tried to source it...There was no source other than to claim it came from some guy at William and Mary college in 1985...Maybe you wrote it, I don't know...
When a literal interpretation supports Catholic doctrine, use the literal interpretation.
When the figurative interpretation of Scripture supports Catholic doctrine, use the figurative one.
And if you don't like the literal or the figurative, change the words to support your own doctrine...
And if you can't find it at all, just make something up...
And/or, Jesus doesn't mean what he clearly says in simple, clear 4th grade language...
Got it, just the usual protestant tirade and refusal to admit that Catholics have been correct all along.
Got it, just the usual protestant dodge and refusal to admit that Catholics have been correct all along.
Got it, just the usual dodge tirade and refusal to admit that Catholics have been correct all along.
ROTFLOL!!!!!!
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.