The Real Foundation of the RCC.

2.Not only do we have statements from Roman Catholic sources to the effect that the Papacy has the power of God, but the Pope also claims the right to be called “Holy Father”. Jesus warned the Jewish leaders of His day: “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). In the light of this clear statement of Jesus, How can the Pope demand that he be called “Holy Father”? The name, Pope comes from the Italian, “Papa” which is an abbreviation of pater patruum which means “father of fathers” or “principal father” (See, Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, p. 19).

3) The Pope allows people to approach him and bow before him and kiss his ring. In fact, Gregory VII, in his famous Dictatus Papae (Dictates of Hildebrand), article # 9 states: “That all princes should kiss his [the Pope’s] feet only.” (Cesare Baronius, Annales, year 1076, secs. 31-33, Vol 17 (1869 ed.), pp. 405, 406, translated). Acts 10:25-26 explains that Peter refused to allow Cornelius to bow before him. And supposedly, Peter was the first Pope!!! Even the angel Gabriel refused to allow John the Apostle to bow before him (see Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9). Jesus said to Satan on the Mount of Temptation, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve”. How unlike Jesus is the Pope. Jesus washed the feet of His disciples but the Pope has encouraged people to bow before him and kiss his feet!!

4) The Papacy claims to possess the power to forgive sins. According to the Bible, only God can forgive sins (see Mark 2:7). If only God can forgive sins and the Pope claims to have power to forgive them, then the Pope must claim to be God! Not only does the Papacy claim that the Pope can forgive sins, but it also claims that its priesthood can forgive them. St. Alphonsus de Liguori wrote a book titled, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva. Liguori lived in the mid 1700’s. What makes his book especially significant is that it is a compendium of the Roman Catholic “wisdom” of the previous 1500 years. Thus it presents with clarity, the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of the power and duties of the priesthood.
Before we look at several blasphemous statements from this book, it is important to understand the Roman Catholic view of the Mass.
In their view,
l) the priest has the power to change the bread into the real flesh of Jesus and the wine into His real blood,
2) Christ is contained in his totality (known as “ubiquity”) in each host distributed by the priest,
3) because Christ is totally present in each host, the host is worshiped by the priest and the faithful. Obviously, for these concepts to be true, the priest would have to exercise the powers of Almighty God. And this is just what the Roman Catholic Church believes.
Let’s listen to the words of St. Alphonsus de Liguori: “With regard to the power of the priests over the real body of Jesus Christ, it is of faith that when they pronounce the words of consecration the Incarnate Word has obliged himself to obey and to come into their hands under the sacramental species. We are struck with wonder when we hear that God obeyed the voice of Josue–The Lord obeying the voice of man–and made the sun stand when he said move not, O sun, towards Gabaon. , . . . and the sun stood still. But our wonder should be far greater when we find that in obedience to the words of his priests–HOC EST CORPUS MEUM–God himself descends on the altar, that he comes wherever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands, even though they should be his enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal; they move him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, or expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, pp. 26-27.

“With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution provided the penitent is capable of it. ‘Such is,’ says St. Maximus of Turin, ‘this judiciary power ascribed to Peter that its decision carries with it the decision of God.’ The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it,’ writes St. Peter Damian.”St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, pp. 27-28.

“Were the Redeemer to descend into a church, and sit in a confessional to administer the sacrament of penance, and a priest to sit in another confessional, Jesus would say over each penitent, ‘Ego te absolvo,’ the priest would likewise say over each of his penitents, ‘Ego te absolvo,’ and the penitents of each would be equally absolved.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, p. 28.

“
“When he ascended into heaven, Jesus Christ left his priests after him to hold on earth his place of mediator between God and men, particularly on the altar. . . The Priest holds the place of the Saviour himself, when, by saying ‘Ego te absolvo,’ he absolves from sin.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, p. 34

5) The Roman Catholic Papacy claims to have changed the law of God. (Dan.7:25 ) Not even God can change the law He wrote with His own finger (see Exodus 31:18). It is as eternal as He is. This means that the Papacy not only claims power equal to God’s but actually claims a power greater than God’s. Obviously this is blasphemy in its most odious form. Notice the following words from the Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XII, art. “Pope,” p. 265: “Peter and his successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when, needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offenses against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to forgive sin. For sin is a breach of the laws of the supernatural kingdom, and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges.”

This particular topic will be dealt with more fully a little later.

This number 5 is taking a little more space to deal with than I expected. I guess its because there is so much that was spoken against the Most High and so great, its taking more than the 10,000 word limit on posts. Sorry about that, but please, read on....
The Papacy claims that it has infallibility in faith and morals. The Bible teaches clearly that only God is infallible and does not change (James 1:17; Malachi 3:6;Hebrews 13:8.
If the Pope, speaking ex-cathedra, claims to be infallible, then he must also be claiming to be God!! Notice the following evidence: Gregory VII, in his famous Dictatus Papae, makes twenty seven propositions among which is: “That the Roman Church never erred, nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err.” (Cesare Baronius, Annales, year 1076, secs. 31-33, vol 17 (1869 ed.), pp. 405, 406, translated). The Roman Catholic Papacy has put itself on the record on this point by proclaiming, in 1870, the famous Dogma of Papal Infallibility. The events surrounding this event are described by Norskov Olsen:
“Viva Pio Nono Papa infallible! These words echoed and re-echoed in the basilica of St. Peter in Rome on the eventful July 18, 1870 when the great crowd, having heard the message of papal infallibility, jubilantly expressed their applause. ‘In the midst of one of the fiercest storms ever known to break across the city, accompanied by thunder and lightning, while rain poured in through the broken glass of the roof close to the spot where the Pope was standing, Pius IX read in the darkness, by the aid of a candle, the momentous affirmation of his own infallibility.’ The fierce storm and dense darkness, the thunder and lightning that accompanied the reading of this document, caused adherents of the papacy to compare the event to the lawgiving at Mount Sinai; on the other hand, opponents saw in the wrath of the elements a sign of God’s anger. By both friend and critic the declaration of papal absolutism was considered to be the most momentous event in the long history of the papacy.
On that day the document entitled Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith was decreed. It contains three fundamental concepts which were made into dogma: the supremacy, the universal jurisdiction, and the infallibility of the pope.” (V. Norskov Olsen, Papal Supremacy and American Democracy, p. 2).

The key portion of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith stated the following: “We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians,!!?? by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one–which may God avert–presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema.” Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, chapter 4, pp. 270-271).

The Roman Catholic theologian, Fritz Leist, comments on this dogma: “The infallibility of the pope is the infallibility of Jesus Christ Himself. . . whenever the pope thinks, it is God Himself, who is thinking in him.” (Fritz Leist, Der Gefangene des Vatikanus, p. 344. Quoted in Symposium on Revelation, pp. 340-341).

The proclamation of this Papal Dogma was the most controversial in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. A significant number of the clergy who attended the Vatican Council I were ardently opposed to this dogma and yet in spite of protests, it was passed.

The famous Bible commentator, Adam Clarke, remarks: “They have assumed infallibility, which belongs only to God. They profess to forgive sins, which belongs only to God. They profess to open and shut heaven, which belongs only to God. They profess to be higher than all the kings of the earth, which belongs only to God. And they go beyond God in pretending to loose whole nations from their oath of allegiance to their kings, when such kings do not please them. And they go against God, when they give indulgences for sin. This is the worst of all blasphemies.” ( Adam Clarke, Commentary, on Daniel 7:25).

7) According to the Bible, it is the prerogative of God alone to place kings on the throne and to depose them (Daniel 2:21) and yet the Papacy, throughout its history has boastfully claimed the right to install kings and depose them. The examples are numerous but for now, let us examine statements by Popes and theologians to this effect: In the famous Dictatus Papae of Pope Gregory VII, article 12 states: “That it is lawful for him [the Pope] to depose emperors.” Article 27 reads: “That he [the Pope] can absolve subjects from their allegiance to unrighteous rulers.” In the second sentence of excommunication which Gregory VII passed upon Henry the Fourth are these words: “Come now, I beseech you, O most holy and blessed fathers and princes, Peter and Paul, that all the world may understand and know that if ye are able to bind and to loose in heaven, ye are likewise able on earth, according to the merits of each man, to give and to take away empires, kingdoms, princedoms, marquisates, duchies, countships, and the possessions of all men. For if ye judge spiritual things, what must we believe to be your power over worldly things? And if ye judge the angels who rule over all the proud princes, what can ye do to their slaves?” James Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, p. 161.


The arrogance of the Papacy over the secular power is illustrated in the famous Decree of Gratian. Even though this Decree is a perversion of fact, it does show the boastful claims of the papacy: “It is shown with sufficient clearness that by the secular power the Pope cannot in any way be bound or loosed, who it is certain was called God by the pious leader Constantine, and it is clear that God cannot be judged by man.” (Decree of Gratian, part 1, div. 96, chap. 7).

Notice the words of the papal bull of Pius V deposing Queen Elizabeth of England in 1570:
“He that reigneth on high, to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, has with all fulness of power delivered the rule of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one sole [ruler] upon earth, to wit, Peter, the prince of the apostles, and to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter. Him alone he hath set as prince over all nations and all kingdoms, to pull up, to destroy, to overthrow, and to break down, to plant, and to build, that he may keep the people faithful, bound with the bond of mutual love, and in the unity of the Spirit, and present them unhurt and safe to his Saviour.”

Pope Pius, in articles 4 and 5 of this bull, states the following:
“Article 4. Moreover she herself is deprived of her pretended right to the aforesaid kingdom, and also of all dominion, dignity and privilege whatsoever
Article 5. And so we absolve the nobles, subjects, and peoples of the said kingdom, and all others who have taken any oath to her, from the obligation of their oath and besides from all duty of dominion, fidelity and obedience: and we deprive the said Elizabeth of her pretended right to the kingdom and of all other things as is aforesaid: and we charge and order all and every the nobles, subjects, and peoples, and others aforesaid, not to venture to obey her monitions, commands, and laws. And we attach the like sentence of anathema to those who shall act otherwise. . . Given at St. Peter’s at Rome 25th February, 1570, in the fifth year of our pontificate.” (Charles Stuteville, Our Brief Against Rome, p. 268.)

Finally, the Bible makes it clear that God the Father has given Jesus Christ the right to judge because He is the Son of Man (John 5:22, 27). In fact, the Father has given Jesus ALL JUDGMENT!! But the Papacy claims that it has been given the right to serve as judge of mankind. In this way, the Papacy, once again, claims to possess the right to exercise the role which belongs to God alone. Notice the following evidence:

In Gregory VII’s Dictatus Papae, article 18 reads: “That his [the Pope’s] sentence is not to be reviewed by any one; while he alone can review the decisions of all others.” Article 19 states: “That he [the Pope] can be judged by no one”.

Augustinus de Ancona, in a document preserved in the British Museum, states the following:
“Therefore the decision of the Pope and the decision of God constitute one [i. e., the same] decision, just as the opinion of the Pope and of his disciple are the same. Since, therefore, an appeal is always taken from an inferior judge to a superior, as no one is greater than himself, so no appeal holds when made from the Pope to God, because there is one consistory of the Pope himself and of God himself, of which consistory the Pope himself is the key-bearer and the doorkeeper. Therefore no one can appeal from the Pope to God, as no one can enter into the consistory of God without the mediation of the Pope, who is the key-bearer and the doorkeeper of the consistory of eternal life; and as no one can appeal to himself, so no one can appeal from the Pope to God, because there is one decision and one court [curia] of God and the Pope.”
(From the writings of Augustinus de Ancona (R. C.), printed without title page or pagination, commencing, ‘incipit summa Catholici doctoris Augustini de Ancona potestate ecclesiastica’, Questio VI, ‘De Papalis
Sententiae Appellatione’ (On an Appeal from a Decision of the Pope).

We are also reminded of the words of Lucius Ferraris:
“So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the Pope. For he is of so great dignity and power that he forms one and the same tribunal with Christ.”
(Lucius Ferraris, Prompto Bibliotheca, article, “Papa”, II, vol. 6, pp. 26-)

Note, in the aforementioned quote a reference to the pope being” the key-bearer and the doorkeeper of the consistory of eternal life”. Now I fully appreciate that this quote comes from an old source, however, when I was a young man being taught and raised within the Catholic communion of faith, this precept, that only by the grace and authority of the pope could anyone enter heaven, was well understood and believed as a dogma and doctrine of the modern church. I do not believe for one moment that has changed.
Now, after reading the above, can any true protestant continue to entertain the idea that Catholicism, as a system of religion, ( I speak not of individuals within this system) is genuinely Christian? Or were the reformers absolutely correct, when they all declared the papacy as the ‘antichrist’, that which stands in the place of , thus replacing, Christ?

BreadOfLife said:

I LOVE the fact that you are ignoring responses to this manure because it shows a complete cowardice on your part to deal with the truth. This hit-and-run style of yours is almost comical - if not so tragically stupid.

Like I've said many times - some of you guys make MY job o this forum SOOOOO much easier . . .

Click to expand...

The only job you find easy BoL, being so natural to you, is the personal abuse you resort to when bereft of real counterarguments. Calling my posts "manure" doesn't really cut it as far as refutation of prophesy. I thought you Jesuits were trained better.
Added to that is the fact that I am using Catholic sources. Must be very difficult to refute your own without condemning yourself.

BreadOfLife said:

Then your problem is with JESUS - and not the Church.

The practice of telling our sins directly to a priest is based directly in Scripture. Three times in the Gospels (Matt. 16:19, 18:18 and John 20:23), we read where Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins or to hold them bound. This is not a something that Jesus took lightly. In John 20:21-23, Jesus (who is God) breathes on the Apostles as he is giving them this power:

(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

The fact that Jesus breathed on the Apostles when entrusted them with this ministry is highly significant because he doesn’t do this anywhere else in the New Testament. In fact, there are only TWO times in ALL of Scripture where God breathes on man:
1. The first is when he breathed life into Adam.
2. The second is here in John’s Gospel when he is giving them the power to forgive or retain sins.

The practice of confessing your sins to the Church is an ancient one that goes all the way back to the Apostles themselves. We see this in the 1st century document, The Didache (The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), where it emphatically states the necessity of confessing our sins to the Church:

“Confess your sins in Church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . , On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14,14:1 [A.D.70]).

St. Paul makes NO small case for this ministry of reconciliation clearly in 2 Cor. 5:18-20:

“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

In 2 Cor. 2:10, he states, “Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I HAVE FORGIVEN, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ.”

In the Greek, the word “presence” in this phrase is Prosopone, which means Person. In the PERSON of Christ is a more correct translation. Paul was indicating that they were forgiving sins in the PERSON of Christ, which is translated into Latin as In Persona Christi.

Click to expand...

We are all very well aware of the reasoning behind the Church's assumed power to be able to forgive sin. That particular topic, the pros and cons of whether the RCC has the actual right to forgive sin, is not what this thread is about. I am simply making the point that she does make that claim, which fulfils the prophecy itself is that the little horn power would speak great things. And to claim to be able to forgive sin BoL, in consideration of the fact that the Pharisees in Jesus own hearing said that only God could forgive sin, which Jesus did not refute, is a claim that does indeed speak great things, just as the prophecy declares. Whether right or wrong is the subject for another thread. That it IS, is indisputable. It is also indisputable that if it is true that only God can forgive sin, then it is indeed blasphemy to claim to have the power to do likewise...you are claiming to be equal to God, which is what the Pharisees were objecting to in the beginning. Are the priests and bishops equal to God BoL?

Now to characteristic six of the little horn. Daniel informs us that this Antichrist power would be a persecuting power.
Persecution by the church of Rome wasn’t just a few incidental instances over a period of a couple of years by a few misguided zealots. It was a matter of established policy.

Let us look for example at the Holy Office of the Inquisition. An office by the way that still exists today albeit, unsurprisingly, under a different name. The recently retired pope Benedict being the former head of that esteemed office.
The origins of this organism can be clearly traced to 1227-1233 A. D., during the pontificate of Gregory IX. In 1229 the church council of Tolouse condemned the Albigenses in France and gave orders to exterminate them. In 1231 Gregory IX in his bull, Excommunicamus, condemned all heretics and proclaimed specific laws on how to deal with them. Among the provisions were the following:
1. Delivery of heretics to the civil power.
2. Excommunication of all heretics as well as their defenders, followers, friends, and even those who failed to turn them in.
3. Life imprisonment for all impenitent heretics.
4. Heretics were denied the right to appeal their sentence.
5. Those suspected of heresy had no right to be defended by counsel.
6. Children of heretics were disqualified from holding a church office until the second generation.
7. Heretics who had died without being punished were to be exhumed and their bodies burned.
8. The homes of convicted heretics were to be demolished. (See, G. Barraclough, The Medieval Papacy, London, 1968, edited by Thames and Hudson, p. 128; and R. I Moore,
“The Origins of Medieval Heresy”, in History, vol. 55 (1970), pp. 21-36).

In The Decretals of Gregory IX we find the following:
“Temporal princes shall be reminded and exhorted, and if need be, compelled by spiritual censures, to discharge every one of their functions; and that, as they desire to be reckoned and held faithful, so, for the defense of the faith, let them publicly make oath that they will endeavor, bona fide with all their might, to extirpate from their territories all heretics marked by the church; so that when any one is about to assume any authority, whether spiritual or temporal, he shall be held bound to confirm his title by this oath. And if a temporal prince, being required and admonished by the church, shall neglect to purge his kingdom from this heretical pravity, the metropolitan and other provincial bishops shall bind him in fetters of excommunication; and if he obstinately refuse to make satisfaction this shall be notified within a year to the Supreme Pontiff, that then he may declare his subjects absolved from their allegiance, and leave their lands to be occupied by Catholics, who, the heretics being exterminated, may possess them unchallenged, and preserve them in the purity of the faith.”
(The Decretals of Gregory IX, book 5, title 7, chapter 13).

During the pontificate of Innocent IV (1241-1253), the mechanism of the Inquisition was further developed. In the papal bull Ad Extirpanda (1252), the following provisions were given the force of law:
1. Torture must be applied to heretics so as to secure confessions.
2. Those found guilty must be burned at the stake.
3. A police force must be established to serve the needs of the Inquisition.
4. A proclamation of a crusade against all heretics in Italy. Those participating in this
crusade were to be extended the same privileges and indulgences as those who went on crusades to the Holy Land.
5. The heirs of heretics were to have their goods confiscated as well.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:
“In the Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ (1252) Innocent IV says: ‘When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podesta or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them’. . . Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of the impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions Commissis nobis’ and Inconsutibilem tunicam. The aforesaid Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or re-enforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas
IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake”. (Joseph Blotzer, article, ‘Inquisition’, vol. VIII, p. 34).

The savagery of Innocent the IV has led the Roman Catholic historian, Peter de Rosa, to state:
“In [Pope] Innocent’s view, it was more wicked for Albigenses to call him the antichrist than for him to prove it by burning them–men, women, and children by the thousands.”
(Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, p. 225).
Further, de Rosa makes this telling comment: “Of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on, not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine.”
(Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, pp. 175-176).

It was during this same period that one of the greatest dogmatic theologians in the history of the Roman Catholic Church added his support to the idea of exterminating heretics. Let’s allow St. Thomas Aquinas to speak for himself:
“With regard to heretics two elements are to be considered, one element on their side, and the other on the part of the church. On their side is the sin whereby they have deserved, not only to be separated from the church by excommunication, but also to be banished from the world by death. For it is a much heavier offense to corrupt the faith, whereby the life of the soul is sustained, than to tamper with the coinage, which is an aid to temporal life. Hence if coiners or other malefactors are at once handed over by the secular princes to a just death, much more may heretics, immediately they are convicted of heresy, be not only excommunicated, but also justly done to die. But on the part of the church is mercy in view of the conversion of them that err; and therefore she does not condemn at once, but ‘after the first and second admonition,’ as the apostle teaches. After that, however, if the man is still found pertinacious, the church, having no hope of his conversion, provides for the safety of others, cutting him off from the church by the sentence of excommunication; and further she leaves him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated from the world by death.”
(Joseph Rickaby, S. J. (R. C.), Aquinas Ethicus; or, The Moral Teaching of St. Thomas, Vol. I, pp. 332, 333. London: Burns and Oates, 1892).

The fourteenth century inquisitor, Bernard Gui explained the purpose of the Inquisition:
“the objective of the Inquisition is to destroy heresy; it is not possible to destroy heresy unless you eradicate the heretics; and it is impossible to eradicate the heretics unless you also eradicate those who hide them, sympathize with them and protect them.”
(Salim Japas, Herejia, Colon y la Inquisicion (Siloam Springs, Arkansas: Creation Enterprises, 1992), p. 20; ).

Further to the above....
Moving on to the fifteenth century, we think of John Wycliffe. The Papacy would have been delighted to burn him at the stake during his life, but divine providence ruled otherwise. Forty years after his death, the Council of Constance (1413) ordered his body exhumed and burned. (see more on this in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 7-8 ).
Notice the words of Pope Martin V (1417-31) to the King of Poland commanding him to exterminate the Hussites:
“Know that the interests of the Holy See, and those of your crown, make it a duty to exterminate the Hussites. Remember that these impious persons dare proclaim principles of equality; they maintain that all Christians are brethren, and that God has not given to privileged men the right of ruling the nations; they hold that Christ came on earth to abolish slavery, they call the people to liberty, that is to the annihilation of kings and priests. While there is still time, then, turn your forces against Bohemia; burn, massacre, make deserts everywhere, for nothing could be more agreeable to God, or more useful to the cause of kings, than the extermination of the Hussites.” . These words were written by Martin V in 1429.

The story of John Hus is very well known. In 1415 he was burned at the stake even though King Sigismund had guaranteed him safe conduct to defend himself at the Council of Constance (1414-1418). The remarkable fact is that Sigismund was encouraged to break his word by the Roman Catholic religious leaders. For a vivid description of the martyrdom of John Hus, read, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 19-30.
A year later, in 1416, Jerome was also burned at the stake. For the fascinating story of how Jerome recanted his faith and then recanted his recantation, see Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 31-38. In both of these cases, the trial was held in the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Constance. After the trial Hus and Jerome were delivered to the secular power to be exterminated.
Also in the fifteenth century, Pope Innocent VIII proclaimed a Bull against the Waldenses (1487). The original text of this Bull is found in the library of the University of Cambridge and a English translation can be found in John Dowling’s History of Romanism (1871 edition), book 6, chapter 5, section 62. A small excerpt from thus bull reads thus: ‘that malicious and abominable sect of malignants,’ if they ‘refuse to abjure, to be crushed like venomous snakes.’”

let me quote a church publication to put things in perspective.
“You ask, if he [the Roman Catholic] were lord in the land, and you were in the minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend upon the circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: if expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly even hang you. But be assured of one thing: he would never tolerate you for the sake of the ‘glorious principles of civil and religious liberty’. . .
Catholicism is the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is truth itself. We might as rationally maintain that a sane man has a right to believe that two and two do not make four, as this theory of religious liberty. Its impiety is only equalled [sic] by its absurdity. . .
A Catholic temporal government would be guided in its treatment of Protestants and other recusants solely by the rules of expediency, adopting precisely that line of conduct which would tend best to their conversion, and to prevent the dissemination of their errors.” Civil and Religious Liberty, The Rambler, 8 (September, 1851), pp. 174, 178.

The infamous syllabus of errors (infallible) echoes the above sentiments with regards religious liberty. These are relatively recent thoughts. So what happened to infallibility?

“He who publicly avows a heresy and tries to pervert others by word or example, speaking absolutely, can not only be excommunicated but even justly put to death, lest he ruin others by pestilential contagion; for a bad man is worse than a wild beast, and does more harm, as Aristotle says. Hence, as it is not wrong to kill a wild beast which does great harm, so it must be right to deprive of his harmful life a heretic who withdraws from divine truth and plots against the salvation of others.”
(Fr. Alexis M. Lepicier, De Stabilitate et Progressu Dogmatis, [printed at the official printing office in Rome in 1910], p. 194.

Or again even more recently perhaps from The Tablet, the official newspaper of the Roman Catholic diocese of Brooklyn, New York:
“Heresy is an awful crime against God, and those who start a heresy are more guilty than they who are traitors to the civil government. If the State has the right to punish treason with death, the principle is the same which concedes to the spiritual authority the power of capital punishment over the arch-traitor to truth and divine revelation. . . A perfect society has the right to its existence. . . and the power of capital punishment is acknowledged for a perfect society. Now. . . the Roman Catholic Church is a perfect society, and as such has the right and power to take means to safeguard its existence.”
(The Tablet, November 5, 1938).

The above reflects an ongoing policy that had endured for 1000 years. And although the recent apologies by the pope were welcome, albeit rather generalised, history and prophecy mitigate against any deep seated genuine change in Vatican thought. Steeped in over a thousand years of tradition and self assured righteousness, the curia I believe is far too entrenched in their own self deceptive dogmas to change in just one short generation from an attitude of total extermination of all opposition to one of brotherly love and tolerance to other faith practices. And prophecy testifies to the same.

Inherent in Catholic policy is the willingness to use civil legislation to enforce church dogma. This policy has prevailed since the time of Justinian II in the 6th century. And it continues today. If such legislation is enforced, is this not simply another form of persecution? And if it touches religious matters, does it not invade our liberties which you claim are now sacrosanct according to the Vatican. Yet I quote here Pope JP2 which totally contradicts freedom of conscience.
“Therefore, also in the particular circumstances of our own time, Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy. In any case, they are obliged in conscience to arrange their Sunday rest in a way which allows them to take part in the Eucharist, refraining from work and activities which are incompatible with the sanctification of the Lord’s Day, with its characteristic joy and necessary rest for spirit and body.” (Dios Domini page 112)And Benedict added to this….The RCC “makes its contribution (in the ethical and moral sphere) according to the dispositions of international law, helps to define that law, and makes appeal to it”, that we live in a time when little groups of independent people threaten the unity of the world, (Sabbath keepers ??) and that the only way to combat this problem is by establishing law and then ordering all of society according to this law, thus promoting “peace and good will throughout the earth.” (Apostolic Journey to the United States of America and Visit to the United Nations Organization Headquarters, Meeting with the Members of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, Address of Pope Benedict XVI, New York, Friday, April 18, 2008.)And if any here think that JP2 comment won’t affect them, consider the following.
On June 26, 2000 the United Religions Initiative was signed into what government leaders refer to as a global law. Truth is, this is actually one of many global laws popping up lately. At the signing of that document it became an all-inclusive international reality that any pope sitting in the Vatican after that date is now considered the universal moral authority over all churches with membership in the World Wide Council of churches, which essentially rules over your locally known National Council of Churches. This includes non-Christian churches that have joined as well.


Whether you believe the RCC has changed or not, whether you accept her apologies over past grievances, the fact remains that the RCC has fully met all the criteria to fulfilling the prophecies regarding the persecution of the saints. Untold thousands of Christians have been tortured, harried, chased, displaced and put to death by the Roman church. The Book of Revelation and Daniel both reveal clearly that this will continue right up to the second coming.

If one protests that the RCC does not do such a thing today, I can testify to being acquainted personally with a convert to another Christian denomination from Catholicism who is in fear of her life should she return to India. Even here, in her adopted country, Catholic workmates and former friends have turned against her, ostracised her, and are doing all in their power to remove her from her position at her work where she is a nurse. Her brother incidentally converted to a pentacostal denomination in India and was physically cast from his house, his work, and village, his family have rejected him, and he is now in fear of his life. This scenario is not uncommon in countries where Catholicism has the power to implement and carry out and support such practices. The Philipines, and many South American countries and also even some south Pacific Islands come to mind. (Need I mention Ireland?) While such persecution is being carried out by individuals, the truth is that are simply following in spirit, a policy that is sacrosanct and written into canon law...the eradication of heretics from the planet.

kepha31 said:

There were no non-Roman Bible commentators in or before the 6th century. That's why you can't name any...

Click to expand...

LOL. You respond just like a Jesuit. I didn't claim there were any non-Roman commentators before the 6th century. That is why I didn't name any..but there were hundreds of thousands of non-Roman Christians who had non-Roman sanctioned scriptures to guide them...

kepha31 said:

No, the Church never decides who is saved and who isn't. You made that up too. What you despise is a cartoon caricature of the Church. It isn't real.

Click to expand...

For someone so steeped in Catholic canon law and doctrine, it astonishes me that you can come up with such adamant statements such as this, as if I and others have no real foundation for the things we believe in. Such as this...
Pope Innocent III (circa 1160 - 1216 CE) is considered "one of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages..." 1 At the Fourth Lateran Council (a.k.a. the General Council of Lateran, and the Great Council) he wrote:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."

and this....

Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy). He wrote, in part:

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins...In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Ephesians 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed....Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

As an ex-Catholic now deliberately practicing my faith in Christ in a communion of believers that reject utterly every doctrine held by the RCC, and in company of many other like-minded ex-Catholic believers, it doesn't pass our attention that according to the church we are classified now as dangerous heretics, and considered by the Pope himself as fundamentalists because we believe the Bible is the word of God...we believe in the second coming...we believe in the literal 7 day creation week...and in the possibility of a personal relationship with Christ without interference from priests and prelates etc. Such 'fundamentalists' are considered alike with Muslim fundamentalists...aka terrorists. As such we are to be treated as dangerous opposers to truth and outside of salvation: notwithstanding the much vaunted claims to the contrary based on Vatican 2 which supposedly undoes all the affirmations of Papal supremacy as quoted above.

kepha31 said:

I also notice your false history is NEVER backed by any historian writing after 1970. No Protestant historian today, no Protestant Bible college, teaches that outdated polemical crap any more. If you refuse to post scholarly documentation supporting your hate rant, then you are either a liar or a coward.

Click to expand...

No wonder @"ByGrace" and others get tired of these threads. They are twisted into personal slanging matches deliberately to deter people from viewing them, because you, BoL and others are so averse to allowing folk to read them. Because I use historians pre 1970 that makes me a coward and/or a liar!!!!???? Really? And no historian pre-1970 was a scholar? Tell me, would this include Cardinal Henry Newman who I quoted?

kepha31 said:

Opponents of the Church often attempt to discredit Catholicism by attempting to show similarities between it and the beliefs or practices of ancient paganism. This fallacy is frequently committed by Fundamentalists against Catholics, by Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others against both Protestants and Catholics, and by atheists and skeptics against both Christians and Jews.

Click to expand...

The thing is though kepha, it isn't just one or two minor details here and there, as if we are taking things out of context, or cherry picking things and making mountains out of molehills. The truth is kepha there is pagan symbolism throughout Catholicism. In every photo of the pope in his regalia, one can see pagan symbolism. I could fill the next 10 pages with photos of pagan symbolism in churches, in vestments, in architecture, in art, kepha, its everywhere!
Of course I suppose you believe these patterns are simply pretty pictures and have no significance apart from aesthetics right?

Characteristic 7 of the little horn power of Daniel 7 is a very comprehensive study. I will be presenting it in several parts.
“Think to change times and laws”. (Daniel 7:25)

What, then, is the meaning of the word “times”? An examination of the context will make it crystal clear. Let us go back in our minds to Daniel 2. We all remember the story. God gave the king a dream and when he woke up he couldn’t remember it. So the wise men of Babylon were called in, but they were unable to tell the king the dream or its meaning. Finally, through Daniel, God reminded the king of his dream and provided the interpretation. Even before Daniel described the dream and its meaning, the king was informed:
“Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all.”(Daniel 2:37-38)
God then proceeded to tell Nebuchadnezzar how history would unfold. Babylon would be succeeded by Medo-Persia, Medo- Persia would be followed by Greece, Greece would be supplanted by Rome, Rome would be divided into ten kingdoms and then God would set up His everlasting and indestructible kingdom. In short, God was telling Nebuchadnezzar: “Human history is under my control. I enthrone rulers and I depose them. I am able to predict precisely how historical events will unfold, and history will develop precisely as I have pre-established.” This is what Daniel meant when he said that God “changes the times and the seasons, removes kings and sets up kings”. It is God who reveals and determines the calendar of prophetic events!! Daniel 3 informs us that Nebuchadnezzar was unhappy with God’s prophetic scenario, so he built an image like the one he had seen in his dream but this one was made of gold from head to foot.
Most Bible scholars have totally missed the main point of Nebuchadnezzar’s rebellious act. The central issue is not worship or even obedience. The critical issue is, who controls human history? Will history unfold as God has announced or will history develop in harmony with the king’s scenario? The king is saying, in effect: “Daniel’s God has said that history will be composed of several kingdoms. But I say that my kingdom will last forever. And woe to him who dares question my perspective!!”
In short, Nebuchadnezzar thought he could change the times and seasons which God had already determined and announced. Don’t miss the point: IT WAS GOD’S CALENDAR OF PROPHETIC EVENTS WHICH NEBUCHADNEZZAR THOUGHT HE COULD CHANGE!!
But the story does not end here. There were three young men who refused to recognize the king’s changed calendar of prophetic events. We all know how the story ends. The three young men were delivered. God changed the king’s program. The significant verse is in Daniel 3:28 where the king states:
“Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word. . .”
In the end, not only was Nebuchadnezzar unable to change God’s prophetic scenario, but God actually interrupted and changed the kings plans. We find a similar story in Daniel 6. There, Daniel kept the appointed time of prayer (Daniel 6:10, 13). As a result, it appeared that the king’s unchangeable decree would result in Daniel’s death (Daniel 6:8,15,17). But God intervened and overturned the king’s decree and delivered Daniel.

We must now move on to the New Testament. We will find that there is a remarkable agreement of both Testaments with regard to the meaning of the “times”. We will begin with Acts 1:7.. But first we will read verse 6 for the context. Here the disciples ask Jesus: “Lord, wilt thou at this time, restore again the kingdom to Israel?” Here the disciples are asking a prophetic question. They want to know if God’s calendar of prophetic events for Israel will be fulfilled at this time or in the future.
Notice the answer Jesus gives:
“It is not for you to know the times [kronos] or the seasons [kairos], which the Father hath put in his own power.”
It is worthy of note that the Greek words kronos and kairos are coupled together, and, as we shall see, are frequently used synonymously throughout the New Testament. In this passage, as we saw in the book of Daniel, the times and seasons are under God’s control and they describe God’s calendar of prophetic events. In other words, Jesus is saying to his disciples: “Prophetic events [times and seasons] are under the control of my Father. He will determine when the kingdom will be restored to Israel”.
The apostle Paul employs a very similar expression in 1 Thess.5:1: “But of the times [kairos] and the seasons [kairos], brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.” Here the apostle uses the word kairos twice. He then goes on to speak about future events, particularly the close of probation and the second coming of Jesus. Once again, the expression “times and seasons” refers to God’s calendar of prophetic events. In the Greek lexicon by Arndt and Gingrich, pp. 394-395, we are told that kairos can mean “definite, fixed time, determined or alloted time.” William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979). We are also told on page 395 of the same lexicon, that kairos is “one of the chief eschatological terms”. Very frequently both kairos and kronos are used to depict future events on God’s prophetic calendar. We will now look at several examples:
Matthew 16:3–Jesus speaks about discerning the signs of the times [kairos].
Luke 1:20–The angel Gabriel tells Zacharias that he will be dumb “because thou believest not my words which shall be fulfilled in their season" [kairos]. Gabriel himself explains in the same verse that his words will be fulfilled when the things he spoke of “shall be performed.” Once again the word “season” refers to a previously determined prophetic event which is announced before it occurs.
Matthew 26:18–Jesus states that “his time [kairos] is at hand”. What He means is that He must die at the precise time which had been determined in God’s prophetic calendar.
Luke 21:24–In this text Jesus states that Jerusalem would be trodden under foot “until the times [kairos] of the Gentiles be fulfilled”. Once again, we have a prophetic period which is described by the word “times”.
Revelation 11:18 refers to “the time [kairos] of the dead, that they should be judged”. Some Adventist scholars believe that this text is describing the beginning of the judgment of the righteous dead in 1844. Others believe it refers to the beginning of the judgment of the wicked dead during the millennium. For our present purposes, it makes no difference. The point is, that there is an appointed time which God has placed on His prophetic calendar for the judgment of the dead. Once again, the word “time” in this text refers to a future event which God has announced before it takes place.
Mark 1:15–At the very beginning of His ministry, Jesus said: “The time [kairos] is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” The time Jesus spoke of here was the conclusion of the 69th week of the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9. Once again, the word “time” refers to an event which God has previously incorporated into His prophetic calendar.
I Timothy 6:15–In speaking about the Second Coming of Jesus, the apostle Paul states: “Which in his times [kronos] he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords. . .” Once again, a future event in God’s prophetic calendar is described with the word “times”.
Acts 17:26, 30, 31 presents an interesting use of the words kairos and kronos. In fact, they are used interchangeably. Verse 26 tells us that God has “determined the times [kairos] before appointed”.
This is, once again, a clear reference to pre-established prophetic events. In verse 30 Paul affirms that God winked at “the times [kronos] of this ignorance” and in verse 31 he assures us that God has “appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained. . .” Once again the word “times” is used in the context of God’s prophetic calendar of events.
In I Timothy 4:1 the apostle tells us that “in the latter times [kronos] some shall depart from the faith. . .” The latter times here would be parallel to “the time of the end” in the book of Daniel.....to be continued

.....

The Changing of the Times: A Historical Perspective
The Protestant reformers held the almost unanimous view that the Papacy was the predicted Antichrist of Bible prophecy. They shared several theological concepts: 1) The fourth beast of Daniel 7 is imperial Rome. 2) The “restrainer” of II Thessalonians 2 is the Roman Empire. 3) The Antichrist is not an individual, but rather a succession of popes who, taken together, constitute an apostate religious system. 4) The time periods in symbolic prophecy are to be understood figuratively, not literally. 5) The “temple” in which the Antichrist sits is not the literal Jerusalem temple, but rather, the Christian Church. 6) The word “Antichrist” does not denote a blasphemous
individual who openly denies and defies God, but rather, one who opposes Christ by posing as the vicar of Christ. 7) Though not unanimous, most Protestant reformers believed that the little horn of Daniel 7 represents the Roman Catholic Papal system.
When we think of the Protestant Reformation, expressions such as sola scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone) come to mind. However, all these “solas” grew out of a realization that the Roman Catholic system was the predicted Antichrist of Bible prophecy.
You see, the Protestant reformers knew for certain that in the prophetic flow, the lion (Babylon), the bear (Medo-Persia), the leopard (Greece), and the dragon (Rome) had already ruled the world. They also knew that Rome had been divided into ten kingdoms when the Barbarians carved up the Empire. They also knew that the predicted Antichrist was to arise among these ten kingdoms of Western Europe. They saw clearly and distinctly that they were living in the time of the little horn.
The historicist hermeneutical method made it quite simple. A correct understanding of Bible prophecy gave them the unmistakable mandate to unmask this system which had usurped the prerogatives of Christ and adulterated the truth of God!!

There is much evidence in written form of the almost unanimous view of the reformers that the RCC was indeed the antichrist. For the sake of space I will not quote them here, but can provide quotes if desired.

Bear in mind that those who pointed the finger at the Papacy as the great Antichrist were highly educated individuals. They could not be accused of being ignorant and unlearned. Many reached their own conclusions independently of others. Their expositions were saturated with quotations from Daniel 7 (the little horn), Revelation 13 (the beast), Revelation 17 (the harlot), II Thessalonians 2 (the Man of Sin), and Matthew 24 (the abomination of desolation). And their testimony was unanimous and covered the entire Continent of Europe!!

The Papacy knew it could triumph only by turning away the incriminating finger of Bible prophecy. But, how could it do this when the evidence was so clear and overwhelming? The Papacy saw that in order to be successful, it must change the method Protestants had used to interpret prophecy. Only by obliterating the method of historicism could the Papacy deflect the accusing finger!! And the Papacy laid out a carefully devised plan to do just this!!
In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church called a church council which was held at Trent. The avowed purpose of the Council of Trent was to arrest the growing Protestant Reformation. The council lasted until 1563 (the longest church council in the history of the Roman Catholic Church). No major decisions were reached with respect to Bible prophecy but the Papacy did reaffirm categorically the dogmas of the Church and pronounced an anathema upon anyone who taught otherwise.
Just eleven years before the Council of Trent, St. Ignatius of Loyola founded the Jesuit Order (in 1534). Besides providing the Papacy with a formidable secret police force, the Jesuits also trained an elite of theological scholars whose avowed purpose was to overthrow Protestantism. In fact, in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, there is a statue of Loyola trampling Protestants underfoot!!
Loyola’s Jesuit Order would eventually spawn two able scholars whose views would not only arrest the growth of Protestantism but actually conquer it!! To this story we must now turn. Let’s begin with Luis de Alcazar, the preterist.
The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (born in the year 37 A. D.), believed that the little horn of Daniel 8 (perhaps also the little horn of Daniel 7, though we are not sure) was Antiochus Epiphanes, a Seleucid ruler who governed from 174 till 163 B. C. In this, Josephus shared the view of the LXX and many other Jewish scholars of his day..
In the second century A. D., an enemy of Christianity whose name was Porphiry, corresponded with Tertullian, one of the early church fathers, trying to persuade him that the little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes.
Luis de Alcazar, Jesuit from Seville, Spain, picked up on the idea of Josephus and the LXX. From 1569 onward he worked on counteracting the Protestant view of the prophecies. He wrote a 900-page commentary on the book of Revelation, titled: Vestigatio Arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi [Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse]. The book was published posthumously in 1614.
The main thrust of Alcazar’s book was to relegate the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation to the distant past. This system of prophetic interpretation became known as preterism. According to Alcazar, the entire book of Revelation was fulfilled in the first six centuries of the Christian Era. For him, Nero was the predicted Antichrist. By relegating the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation to the distant past, Alcazar argued that they could not apply to the Papacy in the 16th century.
If Alcazar’s view was true, then the preaching of the Protestants was gravely wrong. Alcazar established a rival method of interpreting prophecy which removed the incriminating finger from the Papacy and pointed it at Antiochus and Nero!!
Tragically, Protestants soon picked up Alcazar’s deviant theory. It was first adopted by Hugo Grotius of Holland in his Annotationes of 1644. Many other Protestant scholars would follow suit. Noteworthy is the German rationalist J. G. Eichhorn (1752-1827), who had the audacity of republishing Alcazar’s preterist interpretation.
What made the preterist method so attractive to the German rationalists was that it seemed to eliminate the predictive element from the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. Remarkably, preterism was introduced into the United States for the first time by Moses Stuart in 1842. Thus, while William Miller and his fellow preachers were proclaiming a message based on the method of historicism, Satan was working to introduce the rival method of preterism.
Preterism is still the prophetic method of choice in the Roman Catholic Church. It is also the favorite menu for liberal Protestant scholars who use the historical-critical method to do away with the supernatural predictive element of Bible prophecy.

The preterist hermeneutic involves a change of God’s times, that is, it creates its own prophetic scenario and tries to change our understanding about the manner in which prophecy was and will be fulfilled (remember what Nebuchadnezzar attempted to do in Daniel 3?). And liberal Protestants, by adopting the preterist method from Roman Catholicism, have become the False Prophet of Roman Catholicism. By reflecting the prophetic views of the Papacy, they have become, hermeneutically speaking, an image of the beast.
Is this perhaps the reason why liberal Protestants are becoming practically indistinguishable from Roman Catholicism? Could this be the reason why liberal Protestants are reaching across the abyss to clasp the hand of
Catholicism? Having cast aside the compass of a proper prophetic hermeneutic, liberal Protestants cannot but wander in a maze of uncertainty and confusion.