www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Reincarnation of Elias?

Stephanos I:

Oh, now I see how you are taking it.

"At the end of the movie this happened, and this, and this..." which is a casual way of indicating events in the movie which really take place - before - the end of the movie.


I refer you to Matthew 24 where Our Lord speaks of events - before "the end" in regard to his own death and resurrection - and the events before the death of the apostles.
http://www.thegenesisletters.com/Letters/Matthew24.htm

and I refer you to Cathechism....
which tells us that this return or coming takes place not within history buy - beyond (outside of) time and human history.

The proper way to thing of "at the end" of the movie - is - the crdits rolled and we went home. This is the meaning of Our Lord and Church. At the end of world-A - world-B begins.

World-A being our expereince that God is not in charge (fate, destiny, nessesity) and world-B begin an expereince that God was really in charge all alone.

-ray

Ray,
If I am understanding you correctly
you are still in error regarding Christ's return.
It is real, actual, and personal and will occur at the end of time.
Again it is not Christ's return that the cathechism is calling into question at all! (676)
It is the millenarian implications of an earthly kingdom that the Church has condemned, it has nothing to do with the return of Christ.

Immediately after death the particular judgement takes place, in which, by a Divine Sentence of Judgement, the eternal fate of the deceased person is decided.
(Opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church is millenarism which, invoking Revelation 20:1 and Old Testament Prophecies about the coming empire of the Messiah, foretold a long dominion of a thousand years for Chirst and the Just on earth before the general resurrection, and asserted, th at only then will the final beatification take place. This view was expounded by many older Fathers: Papias, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus Tertullian and others. The Chruch's teaching is also opposed to the view of various ancient and modern sects which hold that the souls after their seperation from the bodies are, until the final re-unification with the body, in an unconscious or semi-concious condition, the so called soul sleep, or that they formally die and are re-awakened with the body.)

As to the reality of Chirst Coming let me remind you. At the end of the world Christ will come again in glory to pronounce judgement.(677)
That is a matter of faith that must be believed.

The Apostle's Creed confesses: "From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead." The Nicene Constantiople Creed adds: "in glory"

Jesus repeatedly clearly foretold His second coming (parousia) at the end of the world. Mt. 16:27 Mk 8:38 Lk 9:26 "The Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will render to every man according to his works."

The testimony of Tradition is unanimous, the Didache 16,8 "Then the world shall see the Lord come on the clouds of Heaven."

I didnt have Matthews gospel in mind at all> I was reading the next paragraph of the catechism of the Catholic Church, which apparently either you failed to read or ignored.

"When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works and according to his acceptance or refusal of his grace.

I think the linking of Christ's return to credits after a movie are absurd. No as in the Book of Acts we believe, "Men og Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into h eaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."
Acts 1:11

Stephanos I

That is the faith of the Church, a doctrine of Catholic belief.
Even so Lord Jesus Come! Maranatha.

This is a long thread and I have many post in it, I would certainly understand if you had not read them all but jumped in somewhere in the on-going, how it is that you misunderstand me.

I never called into question the fact of the real, and actual, and person experience we shall have of Christ at the end of time. In fact I have intended to de-myth portions of it so that the reality of it shall be clearer.

As I have said several times in this thread - What I deny is a fundamentalist interpretation of that event. And so does the magisterium of the Church.

Yet what is commonly held after the 17th century, as an interpretation of this event among Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants - IS - a more fundamentalist and Protestant like interpretation of the 'second coming�. This fundamentalist interpretation came into a resurgence of popularity hand in hand with Luther, Calvin, and the spread of capitalism. It is a more �comfortable� interpretation of Christ�s coming - that puts off any reality of Christ�s coming in the - here and now - to some future date that has no immediacy for us. It moves the reality of daily Providence from first place to - almost forgotten today.

In fact - this misunderstanding of this event has become so prevalent and has become so sacrosanct in peoples minds - that to question or try to clarify details of this event - seems to those who hold a this more fundamentalist view to be - heresy.

A prominent Orthodox scholar puts it this way � �The end does not bring Christ with it - Christ brings the end with him.� If you had a proper understanding of �the end� in line with the way Jesus wants us to understand it - you would understand the perennial essence of his - coming.

The Christian theological use of the Greek word parousia - is �presence� .

The parousia is perennial and also takes place at the moment of Communion. That the word parousia has come to mean a Second Coming that has yet to happen at some future date during the �end of time� - is a consequence of the perseverance and wide spread persistence of fundamentalist interpretation within members of the church.

I showed you my notes on Matthew 24 to dispel any thought in your mind that these verses referred to any kind of physical return of Jesus at some future date that has not yet arrived. Matthew 24 is commonly used by people to support a fundamentalist interpretation consistent with the misinterpretation of the Apocalypse (mostly chapter 20) of which the Church has often spoken of this error.

Failed to read or ignored? Your assumptions are strong and biting. If you knew what �at the end of time� means you would not be imagining any difference between what this quote of the catechism is saying and what I am saying. But you misunderstand what I am saying.

Yes. I can see that this comparison in order to fix in you a proper concept of - at the end of time - was lost on you. You imagine that some earth like events can take place - after time has ended. You imagine that time exist after time has ceased to exist.

Sorry - you don�t. Your motivation is to preserve and defend your own understanding. That is the human motivation of us all. Me too.

It is difficult - to be human.


Cheers.
-ray