Protestantism, Modernism, Atheism

“The reality of the apostasy of faith in our time rightly and profoundly frightens us,” said Cardinal Burke in honor of Fatima’s centenary.

In 1903, Pope St. Pius X declared himself “terrified” by humanity’s self-destructive apostasy from God: “For behold they that go far from Thee shall perish” (Ps. 72:27). How much more “daunting,” said Cardinal Burke, is today’s “widespread apostasy.”

In 1910, St. Pius X condemned the movement for a “One-World Church” without dogmas, hierarchy, or “curb for the passions”—a church which, “under the pretext of freedom,” would impose “legalized cunning and force.” How much more, said Cardinal Burke, do today’s “movements for a single government of the world” and “certain movements with the Church herself” disregard sin and salvation?

In Pascendi, St. Pius X named the trajectory toward the “annihilation of all religion”: “The first step … was taken by Protestantism; the second … by [the heresy of] Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.”

So let us, said Cardinal Burke, heed Fatima’s call for prayer, penance, and reparation. Let us be “agents” of the triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart.

A few weeks after that speech, the Vatican announced its shining tribute to the Protestant revolution: a golden stamp with Luther and Melanchthon at the foot of the cross, triumphantly supplanting the Blessed Virgin and St. John.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has asked how the Vatican can call Luther a “witness to the gospel” when he “called the Mass … a blasphemy” and “the papacy an invention of Satan.” The signatories of the filial correction have expressed “wonderment and sorrow” at a statue of Luther in the Vatican—and documented the “affinity” between “Luther’s ideas on law, justification, and marriage” and Pope Francis’s statements.

At a 2016 joint “commemoration” of the Protestant revolution, Pope Francis expressed “joy” for its myriad “gifts.” He and pro-abortion Lutherans with female clergy jointly declared that “what unites us is greater than what divides us.” Together they “raise[d]” their “voices” against “violence.” They prayed for the conversion of those who exploit the earth. They declared the “goal” of receiving the Eucharist “at one table” to express their “full unity.”

In Martin Luther: An Ecumenical Perspective, Cardinal Kasper confirms that the excommunicated, apostate monk is now a “common church father,” a new St. Francis of Assisi. This prophet of the “new evangelization” was “forced” into calling the pope the Antichrist after his “call for repentance was not heard.” But Kasper finds ecumenical hope in Luther’s “statement that he would…kiss the feet of a pope who allows and acknowledges his gospel.”

Kasper says Pope Francis’s Evangelii Gaudium, “without mentioning him by name,” makes Luther’s concerns “stand in the center.”

So it’s Luther’s “gospel of grace and mercy” behind, apparently, the high disdain for “self-absorbed promethean neopelagianis[ts]” plagued by a “soundness of doctrine” that’s “narcissistic and authoritarian” (EG 94).

So it’s Luther—the bizarre protagonist of “ecumenical unity”—behind the demand for a “conversion of the papacy” that gives “genuine doctrinal authority” to episcopal conferences (EG 32). Sandro Magister says the pope is already creating a “federation of national Churches endowed with extensive autonomy” through liturgical decentralization.

So it’s Luther behind the demand to “accept the unruly freedom of the word, which accomplishes what it wills in ways that surpass our…ways of thinking” (EG 22). Kasper says Luther’s faith in the “self-implementation of the word of God” gave him a heroic “openness to the future.”

Ultimately, Kasper’s Luther—a prophet of “openness” to futurity, a “Catholic reformer” waiting for a sympathetic pope—emerges as a symbolic father for Modernism’s struggle to change the Church from within. Modernism falsely claims that God evolves with history—making truth utterly mutable. So Kasper the Modernist says dogmas can be “stupid” and Church structures can spring from “ideology” and denying the Eucharist to adulterers because of “one phrase” from Christ is “ideological,” too.

Kasper baldly calls the “changeless” God an “offense to man”:

One must deny him for man’s sake, because he claims for himself the dignity and honor that belong by right to man….

We must resist this God … also for God’s sake. He is not the true God at all, but rather a wretched idol. For a God … who is not himself history is a finite God. If we call such a being God, then for the sake of the Absolute we must become absolute atheists. Such a God springs from a rigid worldview; he is the guarantor of the status quo and the enemy of the new.

A shocking ultimatum from the man hailed as “the pope’s theologian”: either embrace a mutable God who’s not an “enemy of the new”—or profess “absolute,” unflinching, hardcore atheism.

Kasper says the Church must be led by a “spirit” that “is not primarily the third divine person.” That ominous “spirit,” says Thomas Stark, is apparently some Hegelian agent of creation’s self-perfection. Pope Francis, against all the “sourpusses” (EG 85), describes our “final cause” as “the utopian future” (EG 222). Because God wants us to be “happy” in this world, it’s “no longer possible to claim that religion … exists only to prepare souls for heaven” (EG 182).

But Christ said, “In the world you shall have distress” (Jn. 16:33). The 1907 dystopian novel The Lord of the World hauntingly imagines the travails of history’s last days, when humanity has heeded Kasper’s call to “resist” God with absolute atheism if necessary. By this point, “Protestantism is dead,” for men “recognize at last that a supernatural religion involves an absolute authority.” Those with “any supernatural belief left” are Catholic—persecuted by a world professing “no God but man, no priest but the politician.”

More and more clergy apostatize. Man “has learned his own divinity.” Yet Fr. Percy Franklin still adores the Eucharistic Lord, still believes that “the reconciling of a soul to God” is greater than the reconciling of nations. He secretly hears a dying woman’s confession before the “real priests”—the euthanizers—come.

Her daughter-in-law, Mabel, scoffs that the new atheism has perfected Catholicism:

Do you not understand that all which Jesus Christ promised has come true, though in another way? The reign of God has really begun; but we know now who God is. You said just now you wanted the forgiveness of Sins; well, you have that; we all have it, because there is no such thing as sin. There is only Crime.

And then Communion. You used to believe that that made you a partaker of God; well, we are all partakers of God, because we are all human beings.

Mabel and the rapt multitudes ritually worship Man. God was a “hideous nightmare.” Their spirits swoon before a politician promising “the universal brotherhood of man.”

That “savior of the world” is the Antichrist. All must deny God or die.

For history, like the novel itself, ends not with rapturous utopia but with tribulation, apostasy, martyrdoms, and “God’s triumph over the revolt of evil [in] the form of the Last Judgment” (CCC 677). In the throes of his own tribulation, Fr. Franklin calls us to cling to the faith and those refuges of old:

The mass, prayer, the rosary. These first and last. The world denies their power: it is on their power that Christians must throw all their weight.

Not only that, he disagrees with JESUS.

John 3:3-8 Jesus answered him,“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Now, notice Paul says we are saved by GRACE.

No...the text says for by grace you have been saved through faith.

Vlad's Rules of Internet Debate #3...it means what he wants it to mean.

But as you're not a Roman Catholic priest your position on this issue really carries no weight at all. It's only your opinion...and a weak one at that. I can understand why Rome doesn't want ya'll reading the texts.

God makes the provision through His grace that we come to Him through faith....not as a result of works.

There is no work we can do prior to coming to Him that is sufficient for our salvation. That is what the sacrifice of Christ is about.

>>"You disagree with Paul."<<

Nope. I don't disagree with St. Paul. You merely claim I do and, as always, offer no proof whatsoever that I do. You may have forgotten - because you're not very good at this whole debating thing - that you tried this in post #92 and it didn't work then either.

You said, "Since I believe we are saved by grace alone,..."

Paul says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith..."

Vlad's Rule #3 seems to be in play here.

But I don't know how you can claim to understand this as Rome teaches the individual cannot read the Scriptures and understand them and I am not aware of a verse by verse exegetical account of each verse in the NT. One of your Roman Catholic buddies who at one time claimed to be a priest said he was only aware of one verse Rome had ruled on.

One or both of you is in error.

I agree with that entirely. He says we receive that grace through FAITH.

You have it backwards.

I agree with that entirely. What I don't do is assume - as Protestants do - that that means St. Paul saw no role for God's works started within us in our salvation.

You are again in disagreement with Paul....Rule #3.

...and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

After all if God works in us, that is grace because it is entirely a gift He wields through His sovereign power and no one's else's. And let's not forget the verse you posted but did not emphasize: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (RSV/CE) .

Again...Vlad's Rules of Internet Debate #5...omit what others have posted or twist it in an attempt to show them wrong.

You really have some narcissistic tendencies dude. Did I not post verse 10????

If we are His disciples we will be producing fruit for His kingdom. But that comes after we are saved and is evidence of the faith we have in Christ.

Perhaps in addition to counseling you need glasses....and some sound Biblical training.

The following article explains it far better than I could and most likely you'll never read it anyway: http://timstaples.com/blog/how-works-work

You cite Tim Staples?!! LOL!!!! Oh now that's rich. He has the second worse apologetics I've seen from a Roman Catholic...

In other words, you can’t refute anything I have said.

I said St. Paul says we are saved by grace. And he does.

You wrote: “But as you’re not a Roman Catholic priest your position on this issue really carries no weight at all.”

False. What I said is absolutely and irrefutably true. I do not have to be a priest simply to say what has always been believed, taught and said.

“It’s only your opinion...and a weak one at that.”

False. It is not my opinion - it is what St. Paul actually taught. It is what Christ taught. It is what the Apostles taught. It is what the Church has always taught. It is what the CCC teaches. I did not, in fact, give my opinion. I merely stated facts on the matter in question.

“I can understand why Rome doesn’t want ya’ll reading the texts.”

Except no one in “Rome” is doing anything of the kind. And I think you know that. There are some fine, accessible, and easily affordable Catholic commentaries and Bible studies on St. Paul’s letters including his letter to the Ephesians. Since these are all books you’re probably unfamiliar with them since you seem to rarely ever do any serious reading but I will post links to where you can purchase one if you are so inclined:

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/isbn=0801035848/bakerbookhouseA

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-St-Paul-Galatians-Ephesians/dp/1586174657/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512249546&sr=1-1&keywords=scott+hahn+ephesians

https://www.amazon.com/Navarre-Bible-New-Testament-Expanded/dp/1594170754/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512249597&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=navarre+bible+ephesians

“God makes the provision through His grace that we come to Him through faith....not as a result of works.”

Actually, our faith is a grace in itself. It is a gift in itself. And it is the result of a work - Christ’s work on the Cross. We would have nothing at all if it were not for that work. It is becoming popular in Protestant circles for people to deny that faith is a gift (no matter what Ephesians 2:8 says), but Catholics will continue to believe it. As the CCC says:

Faith is a grace

153 When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood”, but from “my Father who is in heaven”. Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. “Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.’”

You wrote: “There is no work we can do prior to coming to Him that is sufficient for our salvation.”

There is nothing at all in itself which we can do before or after knowing Him that is sufficient for our salvation. Re-read CCC 153 above again. Notice, it says we cannot even have faith without God giving us grace FIRST. Thus, we see here yet another example of you trying to teach us to be against something we don’t even believe in in the first place. So much time wasted because you refuse to realize you obviously don’t know what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

“That is what the sacrifice of Christ is about.”

Yes, and in a sense greater than you currently believe since your Protestant gospel is so deficient. In your latter-day, man-made gospel you have dispensed with the truth that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was so momentous that it actually transforms up when we share in His grace. We are not just juridically or forensically acknowledged but we are in fact infused with grace which transforms us into new creatures in Christ. It is not just faith (which is a gift from God) which opens the way for sanctifying grace but God’s works started in us (which are also a gift from God) that opens the way for sanctifying grace. Many Protestants essentially deny this. They belittle the sacrifice on the cross by saying we are only forensically viewed differently by God when in reality we are transformed by God. We are truly new creatures and it is by God’s grace.

“But I don’t know how you can claim to understand this as Rome teaches the individual cannot read the Scriptures and understand them...”

No, that’s just something you’re falsely claiming. You make false claims all the time. The Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit, good sources - these are reliable guides for someone.

“and I am not aware of a verse by verse exegetical account of each verse in the NT.”

1) Such a “verse by verse exegetical account” is not inherently necessary to avoid error. If one merely avoids the peculiar and particular Protestant errors that would cut out most of the possible errors from the beginning.

2) If you’re unaware of sources, then that merely shows your unpreparedness for such a discussion. It says nothing about anyone else.

“One of your Roman Catholic buddies who at one time claimed to be a priest said he was only aware of one verse Rome had ruled on.”

Oh, and there we see more of your muddled understanding of things. The fact that one poster (whoever that is?) said something (who knows if that was even done?) about one verse in no way means a Catholic cannot give the proper understanding about other verses. There no connection between these things. For some reason, and I’ll never understand why, Protestant anti-Catholics always assume you have to be an “official representative of the Catholic Church” (by which they mean a priest or other clergyman) to correctly state the truth of the Catholic faith. Yet that in no way has ever been a Catholic teaching. The truth is the truth whether it comes from a lay person or a priest. At the same time, these same dimwitted Protestant anti-Catholics insist that since the Church has officially defined a verse or verses in some sense that that means only those verse and only in those senses can a Catholic discuss them. That too is nonsense. When you ask a Protestant anti-Catholic to present any such teachings of either of those things they ALWAYS FAIL TO PROVIDE IT. What they sometimes do is try to lie by citing a Church document that says Catholics should not interpret the Bible in opposition to the teachings of the Church or to the detriment of the faith or what have you and claiming that means something other than it means. Just more nonsense form anti-Catholics.

“You have it backwards.”

No. This is what I said: “I agree with that entirely. He says we receive that grace through FAITH.”

And here’s what St. Paul says: “For by grace you have been saved through faith...”

If we are talking about two created things: If B goes through A, then A essentially had to be in place before B could go through it. The only thing to keep in mind is that there will be some sort of prevenient grace to give a person that spark that is faith - because faith is a gift from God. Once we have faith God pours in even more grace - sanctifying grace. I got exactly nothing backwards. You keep making basic errors. Why?

“You really have some narcissistic tendencies dude. Did I not post verse 10????”

You didn’t say a word about Verse 10. Verse 10 shows you are in error. That’s the point.

“If we are His disciples we will be producing fruit for His kingdom.”

Wait. We will not be producing anything of the kind on our own. God WILL BE PRODUCING FRUIT through us with His grace. He starts works within us. They are His works, not ours.

“But that comes after we are saved and is evidence of the faith we have in Christ.”

Once again we see that you cheapen Christ’s death on the cross in its effects on us. Those fruits are not merely evidence of faith. They are works of grace God Himself started in us with His grace won for us on the Cross.

“Perhaps in addition to counseling you need glasses....and some sound Biblical training.”

Perhaps you need glasses to see how you’re cheapening the sacrifice of the cross in its effects. Don’t cheapen Christ’s grace eagleone. You really need to study the Bible more. This isn’t hard but you make so many errors.

“You cite Tim Staples?!! LOL!!!! Oh now that’s rich. He has the second worse apologetics I’ve seen from a Roman Catholic...”

You can’t refute what he said so you attack him. Predictable. You can’t refute what I posted either so there’s a good chance you’ll either go back to “moving on” or you’ll bring up something entirely different than St. Paul. After all if an anti-Catholic is willing to go back nearly 600 posts for an attempted face-saving measure who knows what kitchen sink he’ll throw in next to salve his ego.

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.