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
Father; forgive ne, for I have sinned.
What's it gonna cost me THIS time?
I am not AT ALL confident that calling any man on earth “father” except your birth father, is Nicolaitanism. Especially since St. Stephen did it, right before his blessed Martyrdom, in which he literally saw the heavens open.
Good morning, metmom. And thanks for a good discussion.
The problem here, I think, is that what you interpret as a clearly stated command, is not, and has not been, seen that way by anybody --- starting in Biblical times and for the first 1600-1700 years of Christendom, neither by Protestant nor Evangelical not Catholic nor Orthodox nor anybody else.
Taking this imperatively as a command,"Call. No. Man. On. Earth. Your. Father." --- and equally, call no man your teacher or instructor --- is in fact a quite recent innovation, and one that implies that neither St. Paul, nor St. Stephen, nor St. John knew or cared what Jesus was talking about, nor did any other Christian for a millennium and a half --- but 1600-1700 years later, some guy, probably in Germany, did.
To reprise in fewest words: Stephen, Paul and John called other men father, or were called so, in the verses I cited; so did all Christians for well over a millennium and a half; same goes for "teacher" and all its synonyms; same goes for, historically, all the early Protestants, See Link, #38; same goes for all Protestants to the present day who ever referred to another man as "my teacher" or "my instructor" or "my mentor," or "my tutor" (all synonyms for "teacher") or who accept titles like "Doctor" or "Professor" (likewise synonyms for "teacher.")
Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to ask the innovators --- like, with all due respect, yourself --- for an explanation, both as to why not one person,including the Apostles, and including the Fathers of the Reformation ;^), understood Jesus' words in the imperative sense you ascribe to them, and why your own application of the imperative sense is so fractional that you don't even apply it to Jesus' other strictly equivalent and parallel comments about "teacher" and "instructor".
Can you see it from that point of view?
>> “Especially since St. Stephen did it...” <<
.
Reference? (Biblical, not pagan apology)
>> “Brothers and fathers, listen to me.” <<
.
Seriously?
That is your “evidence?”
Logic demands understanding that he was respecting generational differences, not authority.
Accuracy demands that you recognize that what Jesus said --- without your interpretive gloss --- was, "Call no man on earth your father". Or "teacher". Or "instructor." Read back and forth through the chapter. There are no codicils here, no exceptions, and no modifications. By the plain words of Scripture --- as I've been so patiently schooled by my Evangelical brethren and sistren --- it's an exceptionless norm.
Romans 4:16
those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”)—
1 Corinthians 4:15
Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
Philemon 1:10
I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment.
1 John 2:13
I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him Who is from the beginning.
If that was meant to be a flat-out imperative, then Stephen violated it when he called those men "father." Likewise John violated it when he addressed the older men in his congregation as "fathers". And emphatically, Paul violated the norm when he called himself the father of the Corinthian believers, as well as of Timothy and Onesimus.
You can't get around the fact that Jesus did not make exceptions in his statement, neither for natural fathers, nor for step-fathers, foster-fathers, adoptive fathers, distant ancestors, older men in the congregation, or Apostles: men who,like himself, preached, baptized, taught, governed, and thus called themselves, and were called, the fathers of believers.
All this converges to suggest only two reasonable inferences: either
This applies, as Jesus said in his exceptionless statement, to EVERY one called "father" --- even natural fathers ---that they have no primary original authority, but only secondary, derivative authority, since every father, of whatever kind, is a "type" of the real Father. It's only because they are types, that anyone --- even our natural fathers --- 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.
Please stop twisting the obvious meaning of Yeshua’s words!
He commented on this subject sufficiently to make himself clear. If the comment in the gospel is insufficient for you, the comments in the Letters to the Kehilot in the Revelation should clear it all up.
Have a blessed Thanksgiving, editor-surveyor!
John and Paul do absolutely nothing to advance your cause; name dropping is just a fun diversion.
Have a Blessed Thanksgiving.
When a follower of Yeshua reads those verses, they have full comprehension of what they are saying, because they are not trying to do apologetics for pagan doctrine. Especially John would never make the mistake you attribute to him, since he, his bro James, and his Mother were personally chided by Yeshua for attempting what you assume. (they had their Mother appeal to Yeshua to seat them at his right hand)
"Especially John would never make the mistake you attribute to him,"
This comment makes no sense, since I did not attribute any mistake to John. Quite the opposite: I said he was NOT making a mistake. He addresses people in his congregation as "fathers" and "brothers", and in doing so was NOT violating the Savior's commands.
"...he, his bro James, and his Mother were personally chided by Yeshua for attempting what you assume."
"Attempting what [I] assume"?? What the blue blazes are you talking about? I didn't assume any "attempt" on John's part at all.
Whatever it is you're refuting, it has nothing to do with what I wrote. Where did I attribute any mistake to John? Where did I "assume" he was making some kind of bogus "attempt"? You have it very much twisty-tailed around.
I'm the one who's arguing that it was perfectly OK for John to call men "fathers and brothers."
It is exasperating to be accused of things I never said.
John never addressed anyone as a father to him. He never elevated any man in any way.
1 John 2:13
I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him Who is from the beginning.
It's a term of respect. Simple as can be.
1John 2:
[8] Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
[9] He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
[10] He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
[11] But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
[12] I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.
[13] I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
[14] I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
So we see that he speaks only in differentiating the generations, not to elevate the stature of the (uncapitalized) fathers.
To imply differently is what I call deception.
"A little CONTEXT blows your theory away... he speaks only in differentiating the generations, not to elevate the stature of the (uncapitalized) fathers."
What do you mean by "my theory"? I didn't write any theory. Quite the opposite: it was perfectly customary and unremarkable in Apostolic times to call older men "fathers". That's very much my point. I sure didn't say anything about elevating the stature of the "uncapitalized" fathers.
So again and again (and again), you're refuting things I didn't say.
(By the way, when you're trying to discern the meaning of a text, it helps to know just a little teeny bit about the original language. The Greek New Testament was written in all capital letters, without spaces, punctuation, accents or diacritical marks. "Uncapitalized" is completely irrelevant in this context: it was all capitalized.)
The true “original language” was Hebrew; John couldn’t even speak Greek, and certainly couldn’t write it. Hebrew also uses uniform letters, but that isn’t as important as the fact that every early English translator left ‘fathers’ uncapitalized, and did capitalize Father, when it referred to Yehova.
What I mean by your theory goes back to when you first offered the verse out of context in support of addressing men as father in authority. Neither John, Stephen, nor Paul ever did that. It was always generational when they used the word.
The full rules of capitalization for English are complicated, and have also changed over time. To us, an 18th-century document uses initial capitals excessively. And you can throw all this into the air when it comes to languages like German, which have entirely different rules for capitalization, with different implications for meaning.
Therefore I would caution against reading too much into capitalization or lack thereof, by English Bible translators: your argument could be kaput in German.
And the consensus among biblical scholars is that all four canonical gospels were originally written in Greek. Where do you get the idea that John couldn't read or write Greek? This sort of statement makes me think you are getting your information from sources radically other than, and counter to, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Scripture scholarship.
Who are your scholars? Can you link to a website?
>> “And the consensus” <<
.
Yes, like Global Warming.
The evidence, on the other hand is to the contrary in almost all of the books of the NT. Evidence of translation is strong. The consensus people had an agenda, and so did their 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.