You Have Left your First Love

[Saint_Nicolas]

Our Lord said this in the 2nd chapter of the Apocalypse when directing a letter to be written to the church at Ephesus. St. John was writing this letter, at our Lord’s instruction, to the seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodica. Our Lord explains the previous vision given to John as “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches. And the seven candlesticks are the seven churches.”(Rev. 1:20, Douay-Theme)

If we look at this definition as a guide to interpretation of a later verse:

"But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. "(Rev. 2:4-5, ESV)

If the candlesticks represent churches, then this verse is speaking of Christ moving the Church from its place. Most would rebutt this by calling on the Gospel verse that “the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.”(Matt. 16:18) But, I see a conditional promise in Revelation 2, where if the Church does not repent, then God has every right to come and remove his Church from its place.

So, the current crisis in the Catholic church can be seen here in this verse. This means the Church is under God’s judgement. Most Catholics take the promise in Matthew 16 in isolation to all other scripture. We must always remember to interpret scripture in light of Scripture as a whole. They would say this makes God into a liar and God would never judge his One Holy Church, God’s instrument for salvation.

In history God has judged Israel more than once through war, exile, deportation and the great diaspora, in which until recently Israel had no land or nation. Do we expect the Church to escape God’s judgement if Israel did not? “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."(Acts10:34-35)

The Church has not feared God by establishing “man” as a god in this new council: “Believers and non-believers are practically agreed that man is the centre on which all things on earth focus-the apex of nature.”(Vatican II, Gaudium et Spec, 12) This is an affront to God! Man a mere creature thinking he is the focus.

The Church has not done what is right to God. By establishing innerfaith dialogue with false religions, and relinquishing their previous attempts to proselytize those of other faiths. This “all roads lead to God” mentality relies on a credulity that begs the question, why did Christ have to suffer and be sacrificed?

 

[feed_me]

All roads lead to God except for all roads. Only Jesus leads you to God. Its up to you to listen and follow.

 

[Kei]

We have been judged many times…look at the Protestant split!

 

[Dan_Defender]

I do not agree. The verse is about that specific church and that specific time. The Book also talks about how these things are happening soon, at the very gates!
Now we can learn from mistakes of the past, yes of course.

 

[Todd_Easton]

“Believers and non-believers are practically agreed that man is the centre on which all things on earth focus-the apex of nature.”(Vatican II, Gaudium et Spec, 12)

The official English translation of that sentence at the Vatican website is:

According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown. (source)

What are they talking about? I think they explain themselves only a few sentences later:

For Sacred Scripture teaches that man was created “to the image of God,” is capable of knowing and loving his Creator, and was appointed by Him as master of all earthly creatures(1) that he might subdue them and use them to God’s glory.(2) “What is man that you should care for him? You have made him little less than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet” (Ps. 8:5-7).

1. Cf. Gen. 1:26, Wis. 2:23.
2. Cf. Sir. 17:3-10.

So, I think they are simply talking about human exceptionalism among the creatures of the visible world.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church similarly elaborates on this subject of human dignity, human exceptionalism among the creatures of the visible world:

342 The hierarchy of creatures is expressed by the order of the “six days”, from the less perfect to the more perfect. God loves all his creatures209 and takes care of each one, even the sparrow. Nevertheless, Jesus said: “You are of more value than many sparrows”, or again: "of how much more value is a man than a sheep!"210
343 Man is the summit of the Creator’s work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of the other creatures.211 (source)
. . .

Paragraph 6. MAN
355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.
I. “IN THE IMAGE OF GOD”
356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. and he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.
358 God created everything for man,222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honour? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223 (source)

 

[Darryl_B]

You sound Puritan, not Catholic.

 

[Spyridon]

The Church has not feared God by establishing “man” as a god in this new council: “Believers and non-believers are practically agreed that man is the centre on which all things on earth focus-the apex of nature.”(Vatican II,

I was with you until you poo-poo’d Vatican II.

Do you accept VII as a holy and ecumenical Council?

 

[TechieGuy]

Nothing good ever comes from using The Book of Revelations to support an agenda.

 

[Saint_Nicolas]

The CCC Is a product of Vatican II, A corrupt council and rupture from tradition. Human dignity only goes so far. yes, we were created in the image of God, but also have a sinful nature that tants everything we do. Man should never be put in the place of God, and that is what Vatican II does; making a man centered religion instead of a God centered one.

 

[Saint_Nicolas]

No. VII was a rupture from Catholic Tradition, and places man at the center instead of God. This Vatican II sect is preaching a different gospel. This is no longer Catholicism, but the religion of man.

 

[Saint_Nicolas]

Revelation is prophecy, and Prophecy can have more than a single application or fulfilment.

 

[Spyridon]

VII was a rupture from Catholic Tradition, and places man at the center instead of God. This Vatican II sect is preaching a different gospel. This is no longer Catholicism, but the religion of man

Okay.

Then I reject outright, and vehemently oppose everything you’re saying. What you’re saying is blasphemous and schismatical.

 

[Saint_Nicolas]

I see your point. But this document uses orthodox language to obscure its true intentions. Gaudium et Spec, and other Vatican II documents are ambiguous in nature, and take on a nebulous, fuzzy meaning. Unlike the first Vatican Council, VII defined no dogma of the Church and was more pastoral. This is a modernist take-over of our Church, and we should be at war (philosophically speaking) with this relativistic world view. Read Pope Pius X: modernism “the synthesis of all heresies.”

 

[Saint_Nicolas]

I used to be a Calvinist until I converted. But we only read puritan literature. Ha ha!

 

[Spyridon]

used to be a Calvinist until I converted.

If you converted, what are you still Protesting the Church for?

Am I supposed to believe the Holy Spirit has guided you, a lone laymen, to the truth, yet guided the entire College of Bishops away from the truth and into error - during an Ecumenical Council - as well as every Roman Pontiff since? That’s pure theological madness.

Do you believe Pope Francis is an antipope? If you do, who’s the real Pope? An antipope has to oppose the real Pope. If there’s no real Pope, then Pope Francis isn’t an antipope - the papacy simply doesn’t exist anymore. How does that jive with the teachings of the Church about the centrality of the Pope and indefectability of the Church? Do you also reject the first Vatican Ecumenical Council?

 

[Darryl_B]

Ah. So what examples of literature have you been reading since your conversion?

 

[Saint_Nicolas]

How about: St. Augustine, City of God; Robert Barron, Catholicism; Brante Pittre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist; Scott Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises.

 

[angel12]

As far as I know, Fr. Barron, Dr. Pitre, & Dr. Hahn are in full communion with the Church, and do not accuse her of schism, nor Pope Francis of not being the true pontiff.

 

[Darryl_B]

I am not sure they would give you what has become your impression of Vatican II. I know there is an amount of voiced opinion on the Internet concerning Vatican II and its supposed aftermath. There are two ways to approach it. One of the important things I did was read a book on the biography of St Pope John xxiii.