BABYLON SCAMYLON

[TheHolyBookEnds]

I ...

See also (... continued ...):

In Latin:

“...ARTICULUS II. Quoad ea quae concernunt Papae dignitatem, autoritatem seu potestatem, et infallibilitatem.

Summarium. 1. Papa tantae est dignitatis et celsitudinis, ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et Dei Vicarius. – 2. Papa adeo summae et supremae dignitatis est, ut proprie loquendo non sit in dignitate constitutus, sed potius in ipso culmine dignitatum positus. – 3. Papa idem est ac Pater patrum. – 4. Et hoc nomine uti potest solus Summus Pontifex. – 5. Papa appellatur Sanctissimus, et quare? – 6. Neque Sanctissimi appellari possunt imperatores et reges? – 7. Merito solus Papa appellatur nomine Sanctissimi, et quare? – 8. Papa prae excellentia suae supremae dignitatis vocantur Episcopus Episcoporum. – 9. Item appellatur Ordinarius Ordinariorum. – 10. Item Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae. – 11. Item Episcopus seu dioecesanus totius orbis. – 12. Item divinus monarcha, ac imperator supremus et rex regum. – 13. Hinc Papa triplici corona coronatur tanquam rex coeli, terrae et infernorum. – 14. Imo Romani Pontificis excellentia et potestas, nedum est circa coelestia, terrestria et infernalia, sed etiam super angelos, quorum ipse maior est. – 15. Ita ut si foret possibile, quod Angeli errarent in fide, vel contra fidem sentirent, per Papam iudicari et excommunicari possent. – 16. Papa tantae est dignitatis et potestatis, ut faciat unum et idem tribunal cum Christo. – 17. Adeo ut quidquid facit Pap, ab ore Dei videatur procedere. – 18. Deveniendo ad Papae auctoritatem, Papa est quasi Deus in terra encius Christifidelium princeps, regum omnium rex maximus, plenitudinem potestatis continens, cui terreni simul ac coelestis imperii gubernacula ab omniptente Deo credita sunt. – 19. Congruunt ulterius quoad Papae summam auctoritatem et potestatem textus iuris Caesarei. – 20. Non minus summam Pape auctoritatem et potestatem extollunt rescripta et dogmata virorum aliorum Imperatorum. – 21. Magis magisque supremam Papae auctoritatem potestatemque extollunt plurimi sacri canones et ibi canonistae communiter. – 22. Egregium dictum S. Cyrilli Alexandrini de admirabili auctoritate seu potestate Summi Pontificis. – 23. Hinc iam communis opinion docet, quod Pap utriusque gladii habeat potestatem, spiritualem scilicet, et temporalem. – 24. Quae opinio auctoritate sanctorum Patrum, iuris canonici et civilis dispositione, et apostolicis constitutionibus latissime confirmatur. – 25. Adeo ut contrarium affirmantes videantur adhaerere fere illi opinioni haereticorum reprobatae per Bonifaccium VIII in extravag. Unam Sanctum 1 de Obedient. – 26. Unde principes et reges, infideles possunt per sententiam Papae privari in certis casibus Dominio, quod habent super fideles. – 27. Et inde Pap provincias, quae olim Christianorum erant, ab infidelibus occupatas, alicui ex principibus Chrsitianis regendas concedit. – 28. Imo Papa in casibus, quibus propter haeresim regis, videat periclitari religionem illius regni, fidemque aliorum, nec aliter tanto damno succuri possit, tunc potest non solum a rege regnum, sed etiam ab eius successoribus, si illud debellaverit, concedere. – 29. Afferuntur ad id varia exempla. – 30. Papa tantae est auctoritatis et potestatis, ut possit quoque leges divinas modificare, declarare, vel interpretari, ad num. 31. – [empty] – 32. Papa id potest de se solo etiam sine generali Concilio. Est enim Papa supra Concilium generale, et non e contra. – 33. Quanto vero Papa maior, et excellentior est omnibus, tanto humiliorem se reputat et nominat, ac se vocet Servum servorum Dei? – 35. Quis fuerit primus Pontifex qui se Servus servorum Dei nominavit? – 36. Papa potest ceder et renuntiare Papatui. – 37. Talis renuntiatio fieri debet apud collegium Cardinalium. – 38. Quantum ad Papae infallibitatem, potest Papa considerari dupliciter: primo, quo ad se, ut persona privata privatusque doctor; secundo, quo ad alios, ut persona publica et magister universalis Ecclesiae, eam ex cathedra docens, proponendo quid credendum, quidve agendum sit. – 39. Loqui ex cathedra quid sit? – 40. Loqui ex cathedra non arcatur praecise ad ea, quae Papa proponit ut a Deo revelata, et a nobis credenda fide theologica, sed insuper extenditur ad caetera quae proponit seu tenenda, seu servanda. – 41. Decreta, quae edit Papa ex cathedra circa doctrinam fidei et morum, sunt infallibilia. – 42. Affertur probatio primae partis conclusionis, scilicet, quod infallibilia sint decreta Papae circa doctrinam fidei. – 43. Adducitur et solvitur instantia. – 44. Adducitur et solvitur alia instantia, ad. n. 45. – [empty] – 46. Affertur probatio secundae partis conclusionis, scilicet quod infallibilia sint decreta Papae circa doctrinam morum. – 47. Adducitur obiectio contra conclusionem. – 48. Adducitur responsio et solutio dictae obiectionis. – 49. Papa errare non potest in canonizatione Sanctorum. – 50. Affertur probatio, quod id sit de fide. – 51. Adducitur et solvitur obiectio. – 52. Adducitur et solvitur alia obiectio. – 53. Papa secundum multos licet, errare non possit, et infallibilis sit in beatificatione Beatorum infallibilitate morali, et infra fidem, non tamen infallibilitate fidei. – 54. Affertur ratio huius sententiae. – 55. Papa secundum multos alios est absolute infallibililis infallibilitate fidei, non solum in canonizatione sed etiam in beatificatione. – 56. Affertur ratio istius sententiae. – 57. Adducitur responsio ad rationes proris sententiae. – 58. Pontifex errare non potest in approbatione religionum. – 59. Affertur ratio. – 60. Adducitur et solvitur obiectio. – 61. Adducitur et solvitur instantia. – 62. Papa probabilius etiam ut persona privata non potest in haeresim incidere et in fide deficere. – 63. Affertur ratio. – 64. Ex Romanis Pontificibus nemo unquam repertus fuit qui in haeresim vel apostasiam fuerit prolapsus. – 65. Adducitur et solvitur obiectio. – 66. Adducitur et solvitur alia abiectio. – 67. De fide est Benedictum XIV v. g. legitime electum, et talem ab Ecclesia acceptatum, esse verum Papam. – 68. Affertur probatio ex Concilio Constantiensi sub Martino V, et ex constitutione Leonis X damnantis haeresim Lutheri. – 69. Affertur probatio ex ratione. – 70. Adducitur et solvitur obiectio. – 71. Adducitur et solvitur alia abiectio. – 72. Primatus Ecclesiae universalis, seu Papatus est annexus Romano episcopatui de iure divino. – 73. Affertur probatio ex sacris canonibus et conciliis. – 74. Adducitur et solvitur obiectio ad. 75. – [empty] – 76. Adducitur et solvitur instantia. – 77. Adducitur et solvitur alia instantia concludendo, quod primatus Ec- [page 41 → page 42] clesiae nequeat a Romano episcopatu ulla humana potestate separari, ad n. 78. – [empty] – 79. Quamvis aliqui Pontifices Avenione manserint, semper tamen episcopatum Romanum tenuerunt, et Romani Pontifices fuerunt appellati. – 80. Ubi Papa ibi Roma. – 81. Papa etiamsi salutet excommunicatum, aut ipsi scienter participet quovis modo, non idcirco censetur eum absolvere, nisi expresse se declaret id velle. – 82. Alia ad rem ad n. 88. – [empty]

... to be continued ...​

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

I ...

See also (... continued ...):

1. Papa tantae est dignitatis et celsitudinis, ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus Vicarius Dei; c. Ita Dominus 7, dist. 19, ibi: Hunc enim in consortium individuae unitatis assumptum, id, quod ipse erat Dominus, voluit nominari, dicendo: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; et ibi explicat Glossa: Id, quod ipse erat, scilicet petra, voluit eum vocari Petram; et concordat textus in can. In novo 2, dist. 21, et c. Fundamenta eius 17 de Election. In 6, annot. 1,

2. ad dec. 2, n. 2, part. 3 Rot. recent. Unde Papa adeo summae et supremae dignitatis est, ut proprie loquendo non sit in dignitate constitutus, sed potius in ipso culmine dignitatum positus, ut observat Card. Zabarell. in Clement. 1, in 5 notabil. de Renuntiat., et cit. Annot. 2, ad decis. 2, num. 2, part. 3 Rot. recentior.

3. Hinc Papa idem est ac Pater patrum, ut notat Gloss. Communiter recepta in Prooemio

4. Clement., verb. Papa. Et hoc nomine [1] uti potest solus Summus Pontifex, ut maxima ratione, teste Card. Petra, tom. 1 Comment. ad Constit. 1 divi Leonis, n. 8, fuit statum a Gregorio VII anno 1063, VII Kalend. Maii in Synodo Romana, quia vere solus ipse dici potest Pater patrum, sum contineat primatum omnium, omnibusque sit vere maior, omniumque maximus; cap. Solitae 6 de Maiorit. et obedient., ibi: Fecit Deus duo magna luminaria in firmamento coeli; luminare maius, ut praeesset diei, et luminare minus, ut praeesset nocti, utrumque magnum, sed alterum maius. Ad firmamentum igitur coeli, hoc est universalis Eclesiae, fecit Deus duo magna luminaria, id est duas instituit dignitates, quae sunt pontificalis auctoritas et regalis potestas, sed illa quae praeest diebus, id est spiritualibus, maior est; quae vero carnalibus, minor, ut quanta est inter solem et lunam, tana inter Pontifices et reges differentia cognoscatur [2].

5. Papa Sanctissimus appellatur, quia talis vere praesumitur; can. Non nos 2, dist. 40, ibi: Quis enim sanctum dubitet esse, quem apex tantae dignitatis attollit? In quo, si desint bona acquisita per meritum, sufficiunt quae a loci praedecessore praestantur; aut enim claros ad haec fastigia erigit, aut qui eriguntur, illustrat. Neque sanctissimi appellari possunt imperatores et reges, quamvis enim in legibus civilibus videatur aliquando usurpatum ab imperatoribus nomen sacratissimi, ut observat Card. Petra. Tom. 1 Commentar. ad Const. 1 divi Leonis Magni, n. 9. Et. Merito solus Papa appellatur nomine Sanctissimi, quia solus ipse est Vicarius Chritsti, qui est fons et origio, atque plenitudo omnis sanctitatis, cap. Inter corporalia 2, cap. Quanto 3, cap. Licet 4 de translatione Episcopi, cum similibus.

8. Papa prae excellentia suae supremae dignitatis vocatur Episcopus Episcoporum, can. Novatianus 6, caus. 7, qu. 1, can. Loquitur 18, caus. 24, qu. 1. Item appellatur Ordinarius Ordinariorum, c. Cuncta per mundam 17, can. Per principalem 21, caus. 9, qu. 3. Item Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae, prout definit Pelagius II, Const. Incip. Manifesto. Item Episcopus seu Dioecesanus totius orbis, cap. Ad honorem 4 de Auctoritate et usu pallii, Glossa verb. Privata, in c. Felicis, [double s] final., de Poenis in 6. Item divinus monarcha ac imperator supremus, et rex regum; adnotat. Secundae partis, ad dec. 2, Rotae recentior., n. 7.

13. Hinc Papa triplici corona coronatur, tanquam Rex coeli et terrae et infernorum; adnotat. 1 ad dec. 2, part. 3, Rotae recentior., [double s] 45, num. 61.

Nota Romani Theologi.

De triplici Papae corona Nicolaus Alemanus de Laternanensibus parietinis, cap. 13, p. 48, tom. 8, part. 6 Thesauri antiquit. et historiarum Italiae, ita scribit: Tiaram triplicis coronamenti ex Pontificibus primus gestavit ante annos non amplius ducentos quinquaginta Urbanus V, duplicis vero Bonifacius VIII. Nam superiorum Pontificum tiaras in vetustis imaginibus ac monumentis unius coronamenti, et Romae cernimus, et Surgerius describit: capiti [page 42 → page 43] eius (Innocentii VI) phrygium ornamentum imperiale instar galeae circulo aureo concinnatum imponunt. Circa ea quae de triplici Papae regno, deque potestate in sanctos angelos, quorum ipse sit maior, auctor recenset, consulendi sunt theologi. Quae enim ex iurisconsultis ipse refert, eruditis theologis suspecta, et quandoque etiam ridicula habentur. Capiti enim, ac visibili Ecclesiae principi, non alii sane quam visibiles subditi, fideles scilicet homines designari videntur, atque in hoc tantum solvendi ligandique potestatem exercet, eos scilicet regendo, absolvendo vel per censuras ligando dum vivunt, et per Indulgentias iuvando vita functos.

Responsio Auctoris.

Mirandum, quod theologus noster sic parvipendat iurisconsultos; ut quae ipsi tradiderint, eruditis theologis suspecta, et quandoque etiam ridicula haberi pronuntiet! Nonne classici iurisconsulti sunt etiam saepe eruditi theologu? Talis certe fuit celeberrimus Paulus Rubeus, qui in cit. Adnotat. Ad dec. 2, part. 3 recent. Sacr. Rom. Rotae, innumeros allegat pro suis conclusionibus theologos, ac in multis etiam SS. Patres. Et si talis non fuisset, sacrum illud supremum tribunal nequaquam permisisset quod suis decisionibus adnecterentur Rubei eruditissimae adnotationes. Legant itaque eruditi omnes dictas sapientissimi iurisconsulti adnotationes ad dec. 2, part. 3 Sacr. Rom. Rotae recentior., et iudicium ferant.

14. Imo Romani Pontific excellentia et potestas, nedum est circa coelestia, terrestria et infernalia, sed etiam super Angelos, quorum ipse maior est; cit. adnotat. 1, ad dec. 2, part. 3 Rotae Romanae recent., [double s] 5, n. 24. Ita ut, si foret possibile, quod Angeli errarent in fide, vel contra fidem sentirent, per Papam iudicari et excommunicari possent; cit. adnot. 1 ad decis. 2 Rotae Romanae recent., [double s] 5, num. 24. Hinc in materiis fidei ad eum, tnaquam ad solem intendere debemus. Ita in cit. Sacr. Rot. Rom. In Compend. Redact., [double s] 3, in secund. adnot. ad decis. 2, [double s] 5, n. 32.

16. Tantae enim est dignitatis et potestatis, ut faciat unum et idem tribunal cum Christo, ut per textum in c. Quanto 3 de translatione Episcopi, tenent passim doctores adducti in cit. Adnot. 1, n. 68, ad dec. 2, p. 3 Rotae recent. Adeo ut quidquid facit Papa, ab ore Dei videatur procedere, ut post plurimos doctores, ratiocinatur Rota in Forosempronien. et Eugubina, seu Nullius, Emphyteusis 16 Iunii 1636 coram Coccino, [double s] Hinc inferendo, vers. Ita ut, quod fit a Papa, ab or Dei videtur procedere; cit. Adnot. 1 ad decis. 2, [double s] 5, a. 31, part. 3 Rotae recent.

18. Deveniendo igitur ad Papae auctoritatem; Papa est quasi Deus in terra, unicus Christifidelium princeps, regum omnium rex maximus, plenitudinem potestatis continens, cui terreni simul ac coelestis imperii gubernacula ab omnipotente Deo credita sunt, prout clare habetur in can. Omnes 1, dist. 22, ibi: Qui (scilicet Christus) aeternae vitae clavigero terreni simul et coelestis imperii iura commisit; et in extravagant. Ioannis XXII, cap. Si fratrum, unic., Ne sede vacante aliquid innovetur, et in alia celebri extravagant. Bonifacii VIII, cap. Unam sanctum catholicam de Maiorit. Et obed., inter communes.

19. Congruunt ulterius quo ad Papae summam auctoritatem et potestatem textus Iuris Caesarei, nempe in 1. Reddentes honorem Cod. de summa Trinitate et fide catholica; 1. Bene a Zenone Cod. de quadriennii Praescriptione; 1. Omnes dies Cod. de Feriis, et authent. de Monachis, [double s] Si vero relinquens; authentic. de ecclesiastic. Titul., [double s] 1, collat. 9, cum similibus.

20. Non minus summam Papae auctoritatem et potestatem extollunt rescripta et dogmata variorum aliorum imperatorum, nempe Valentiniani, Othonis, Caroli Magni, Constantini, etc., quae ex eorum constitutionibus refert Gratianus in c. In memoriam 3, dist. 19, ibi: Per legatos apostolicam interpellet sublimitatem, ut potissimum sua sancta legatione dignetur decernere, etc.; et in summario expresse dicitur: Tolerandum est iugum, quod a Sancta Sede imponitur, licet intolerabile videatur; can. Valentinianus 3, dist. 63, ibi: Nos, qui gubernamus imperium, Pontificibus sincere capita nostra submittimus; c. Tibi domino Ioanni Papae 33, ead. Dist. 63, ibi: Sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam, et te rectorem ipsius exaltabo; can. Constantinus 14, dist. 96, ibi: Ut sicut Beatus Petrus in terris vicarius Filii Dei fuit constitutus, ita et Pontifices eius successores in terris principatus potestatem amplius, quam terrenae imperialis nostrae serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur. ...” [Prompta Bibliotheca Vol. 6, “Papa”, Article 2; pg 41 → ] - http://books.google.com/books?id=uJ8sAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq="Prompta+Bibliotheca"#v=onepage&q&f=false
​

Where this response belongs.

 

[brakelite]

Well you have to do what God leads you to do. I recognize the distinction you make between the official doctrine and the individual. Normally I steer away from the official doctrine as I have never really studied it that much. As a Catholic I only knew what I heard and now the little I remember from 50+ years ago. I have learned a bit more from what I have read online from Catholics. I, however, do not really seek to learn that. I seek rather to learn what God wants me to learn, which I grant at times will be more about Catholicism.

I think it is obvious that THBE is quoting or copying and pasting from his own work, and not the work of others. I think it also clear that he has as good an understanding of Catholic dogma and doctrine as anyone here. So I am quite happy to resign myself to his greater knowledge to expound specifically on Catholic doctrine. But I have a different perspective. I would rather expose Catholicism by exalting truth through prophecy and scripture. If scripture calls the papacy the Antichrist, and this can be proven, then discussing actual doctrine becomes rather moot. A specific and intellectual understanding of Catholic doctrine merely becomes a more weightier evidence to support the Biblical accusation. Which is why in the face of such accusations, the Vatican throughout recent centuries (through the counter-reformation movement) has fought so hard to propagate a more amenable character and acceptable front...but that is all it is...a front. She is still the Antichrist, regardless of the smiley face she adds to her public personna.

 

[bbyrd009]

no more so than any instituted church i guess

 

[amadeus]

I think it is obvious that THBE is quoting or copying and pasting from his own work, and not the work of others.

This is OK.

Sometimes I refer to or quote things I have written and saved to my computer over the years, but, then again, when I access them for a current response to someone I frequently edit them for the current purpose or even because God has shown me something new to me since I saved them.

I am glad someone is so knowledgeable and able and willing to discuss the things they believe. I still won't read his lengthy posts regularly unless I am led to do so. Time is a factor and my own inability to understand another person's in depth writing without a lot of time, concentration and study.

I spend probably a few hours a the day every day seven days a week on things of the Lord. I wish had done that when I was a lot younger, but I was foolish and lazy about many things then. As an old rhyme has it:

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

I think it also clear that he has as good an understanding of Catholic dogma and doctrine as anyone here. So I am quite happy to resign myself to his greater knowledge to expound specifically on Catholic doctrine.

I have learned a lot more about Catholicism on forums than I ever knew when I was a practicing Catholic, but I am really uninterested in learning such things purposely most of the time. There are too many more important things as I see it in which to invest my time. But... I know that every person is not me. Every member, or potential member, does not have the same function in the Body of Christ. Notice, I am not saying who is or is not in the Body of Christ. What I need to know, God will show to me when it is needed if I am where I am supposed to be doing what I am supposed to be doing. Sometimes I miss the mark on this... but God is not finished with me yet.

But I have a different perspective. I would rather expose Catholicism by exalting truth through prophecy and scripture. If scripture calls the papacy the Antichrist, and this can be proven, then discussing actual doctrine becomes rather moot.

Even if you have the "proof" in your heart and mind of such a thing, before you open your mouth you need to be certain that God wants to open your mouth. Sometimes people need to hear the truth that we really possess but sometimes God wants us to remain silent on a thing for His reasons.

Here, on this forum, we are not only talking to the persons seen to be in discussion with us but to others who may or may not ever comment on what we say. Solomon's written admonition still applies. This is why, I believe, it is so important to always retain a direct connection with God. He always knows all of the answers and He also knows when we should speak and when we should remain silent:

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;" Ecc 3:1, 7

I have put my foot in my mouth more times than I can remember.

A specific and intellectual understanding of Catholic doctrine merely becomes a more weightier evidence to support the Biblical accusation. Which is why in the face of such accusations, the Vatican throughout recent centuries (through the counter-reformation movement) has fought so hard to propagate a more amenable character and acceptable front...but that is all it is...a front. She is still the Antichrist, regardless of the smiley face she adds to her public personna.

I have long believed that the Catholic Church really has a greater, more comprehensive collection of answers to people's questions about them written and now available through the Internet than most other, if not all other, church groups or organizations. This may or may not be a good thing depending upon one's purpose in wanting to know about all of those things.

But I have long believed that the personal uninterrupted connection between an individual and God is more important than having access to such a written body of explanations and/or answers. Unfortunately for good reason or bad, many people are not with me in striving toward or asking for such a continuing connection with God. Having access to someone else's written answers too often all they want or even more than all they want.

 

[Marymog]

Nonsense, even a so-called bishop (of Rome) called another so-called Bishop (of Constantiople) precursor of 'antichrist' (John the Faster) well before Luther. Luther did not throw away the book of Revelation. You simply refer to his earlier impetuousness, still being a monk, and not his later clear-headedness on the subject after leaving that false system. Half-truth, is a whole lie. Martin Luther even wrote tracts on Revelation.

Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome, etc were before Luther.

Others were Tyndale, Hugh Latimer, Patrick Hamilton, John Knox, Ulrich Zwingli, George Wishart, Jean Calvin, the Vaudois, Albigensi, Passagini, Paulicians, the Waldensi, and so on.

"... What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588

"I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest [Bishop], is in his elation the precursor of the Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others" (Epistles 7:33). ..." - http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num7.htm​

According to many others:

Tertullian:

“...Again, in the second epistle he addresses them with even greater earnestness: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that you be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, that is, the word of false prophets, or by letter, that is, the letter of false apostles, as if from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away, he means indeed of this present empire, and that man of sin be revealed, that is to say, Antichrist, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sits in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Do you not remember, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now you know what detains, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity does already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist ...” [Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; On The Resurrection Of The Flesh (Tertullian); “Chapter 24. Other Passages Quoted from St. Paul, Which Categorically Assert the Resurrection of the Flesh at the Final Judgment.”] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm​

“...There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth— in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes— is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration. ...” [Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; Apology (Tertullian; Chapter 32)] - http://newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm​

Chrysostom:

"... One may naturally enquire, what is that which withholds, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholds, that is, hinders him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end. And he did not say that it will be quickly, although he is always saying it— but what? “that he may be revealed in his own season,”... But he did not also wish to point him out plainly: and this not from cowardice, but instructing us not to bring upon ourselves unnecessary enmities, when there is nothing to call for it. So indeed he also says here. “Only there is one that restrains now, until he be taken out of the way”, that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God. For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans: … And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness. ...” [Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; Homilies On Second Thessalonians (Chrysostom); Homily 4] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23054.htm​

Most Latin "fathers":

“...The impediment is the Roman Empire; the main event impeded is the "man of sin" (most Latin Fathers and later interpreters) ...” [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “A”; Antichrist; In The Pauline Epistles; [second option of 4 listed]] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm​

Hi,

I can't find the alleged statement by Tertullian, What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist.

Can you please provide a link or more specific guidance to help me find that specific statement??? Here is the link I searched: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

Also, did you know under your "Most Latin "fathers": statement, you misquoted and took out of context what was said in the link you provided??? Did you read the link you provided????

Or did you just Re-Post someone else's "research"??

Thank you in advance....Mary​

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

Hi,

Hello.

I can't find the alleged statement by Tertullian, What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist.

Can you please provide a link or more specific guidance to help me find that specific statement??? Here is the link I searched: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html ​

I gave the quotation and link from the Roman Catholic source, NewAdvent, website by Kevin Knight. It is at the end of the first quotation on Tertullian. Here is the quotation again, and notice the link at the end, which was in the original reply I gave:

Tertullian:

“...Again, in the second epistle he addresses them with even greater earnestness: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that you be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, that is, the word of false prophets, or by letter, that is, the letter of false apostles, as if from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away, he means indeed of this present empire, and that man of sin be revealed, that is to say, Antichrist, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sits in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Do you not remember, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now you know what detains, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity does already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist ...” [Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; On The Resurrection Of The Flesh (Tertullian); “Chapter 24. Other Passages Quoted from St. Paul, Which Categorically Assert the Resurrection of the Flesh at the Final Judgment.”] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm​

From the very link you provided, it is quoted as (see final paragraph before chapter XXV begins):

"... CHAP. XXIV.--OTHER PASSAGES QUOTED FROM ST. PAUL, WHICH CATEGORICALLY ASSERT THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH AT THE FINAL JUDGMENT. ...

... For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way." What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? "And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish." ..." - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html​

Here is the original Latin (Tertullian, De Resurrectione Carnis. XXIV, full):

"... XXIV. [1] Quae haec tempora, cum Thessalonicensibus disce. Legimus enim, Qualiter conversi sitis ab idolis ad serviendum vivo et vero deo et ad expectandum a caelis filium eius, quem suscitavit a mortuis Iesum: [2] et rursus, Quae enim spes nostra vel gaudium vel exultationis corona quam ut et vos coram domino nostro Iesu Christo in adventu ipsius? Item, Coram deo et patre nostro in adventu domini nostri Iesu Christi cum universis sanctis eius. [3] De quorum dormitione minus maerenda docens, simul et tempora resurrectionis exponit: Si enim credimus quod Iesus mortuus sit et resurrexerit, sic et deus eos qui dormierunt per Iesum adducet cum ipso: [4] hoc enim dicimus vobis in sermone dei, quod nos qui vivimus, qui remanemus in adventum domini nostri, non praeveniemus eos qui dormierunt: [5] quoniam ipse dominus in iussu et in voce archangeli et in tuba dei descendet de caelo, et mortui in Christo primi resurgent: [6] deinde nos qui vivimus, qui <reliriquimur,> simul cum illis tollemur in nubibus obviam domino Christo in aerem, et ita semper cum domino erimus. [7] Quae vox archangeli, quae tuba dei audita iam, nisi forte in cubiculis haereticorum? nam etsi tuba dei evangelicus sermo dici potest qui illos iam vocarit, sed aut mortui erunt iam corporaliter ut resurrexerint, et quomodo vivunt? aut in nubibus erepti, et quomodo hic sunt? [8] Miserrimi revera, ut apostolus pronuntiavit, qui in ista tantum vita sperantes habebuntur, excludendo, dum praeripiunt, quod post illam repromittitur, frustrati circa veritatem non minus quam Phygellus et Hermogenes. [9] Et ideo maiestas spiritus sancti, perspicax eiusmodi sensuum, et in ipsa ad Thessalonicenses epistula suggerit, De temporibus autem et temporum spatiis, fratres, non est necessitas scribendi vobis: [10] ipsi enim certissime scitis quod dies domini sicut fur in nocte ita adveniat: [11] cum dicent 'Pax' et 'Tuta

24: 9 exponit dicens P.
10 resurrexerit MPX: resurrexit TB.
11 dei TMPX: domini Pam.
15 relinquimur addendum censebam.
16 domino Christo T: Christo MPX: domino Brf.
23 excludendi TC.
29 sicut fur in T: quasi fur MPX. adveniat T: adveniet MPX.​

sunt omnia', tunc et illis repentinus insistet interitus. [12] Et in secunda pleniore sollicitudine ad eosdem, Obsecro autem vos, fratres, per adventum domini nostri Iesu Christi et congregationem nostram ad illum, [13] ne cito commoveamini animo neque turbemini neque per spiritum neque per sermonem----scilicet pseudoprophetarum----neque per epistulam----scilicet pseudoapostolorum----acsi per nostram, quasi insistat dies domini: [14] ne quis vos seducat ullo modo, quoniam nisi veniat abscessio primum----huius utique regni----et reveletur delinquentiae homo----id est antichristus----filius perditionis, [15] qui adversatur et superextollitur in omne quod dicitur deus vel religio, uti sedeat in templo dei adfirmans deum se: [16] nonne meministis quod cum apud vos essem haec dicebam vobis? [17] Et nunc quid teneat scitis, ad revelandum eum in suo tempore: [18] iam enim arcanum iniquitatis agitatur: tantum qui nunc tenet teneat, donec de medio fiat----quis, nisi Romanus status, cuius abscessio in decem reges dispersa antichristum superducet?----[19] et tunc revelabitur iniquus, quem dominus Iesus interficiet spiritu oris sui et evacuabit apparentia adventus sui: [20] cuius est adventus secundum operationem satanae in omni virtute et signis atque portentis mendacii et in omni seductione iniustitiae his qui pereunt. ..." - http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_res/evans_res_03latin.htm​

Also, did you know under your "Most Latin "fathers": statement, you misquoted and took out of context what was said in the link you provided???

How did I take the following quote out of context?

Most Latin "fathers":

“...The impediment is the Roman Empire; the main event impeded is the "man of sin" (most Latin Fathers and later interpreters) ...” [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “A”; Antichrist; In The Pauline Epistles; [second option of 4 listed]] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm​

The "Roman Empire" is that which 'impedes' "the man of sin", being "the main event", which is stated by "most Latin Fathers and later interpreters". The statement in the quotation therefore is in perfect harmony with the other quotations themselves, and even demonstrates the validity of the statement from the CCE.

Did you read the link you provided????

I read every thing in full, where possible.

Or did you just Re-Post someone else's "research"??

All the research is carefully garnered by myself from original and/or offiically sanctioned sources. It is quite time consuming.

Thank you in advance....Mary

You are welcome presently.

 

[Marymog]

Hello.

I gave the quotation and link from the Roman Catholic source, NewAdvent, website by Kevin Knight. It is at the end of the first quotation on Tertullian. Here is the quotation again, and notice the link at the end, which was in the original reply I gave:

Tertullian:

“...Again, in the second epistle he addresses them with even greater earnestness: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that you be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, that is, the word of false prophets, or by letter, that is, the letter of false apostles, as if from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away, he means indeed of this present empire, and that man of sin be revealed, that is to say, Antichrist, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sits in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Do you not remember, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now you know what detains, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity does already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist ...” [Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; On The Resurrection Of The Flesh (Tertullian); “Chapter 24. Other Passages Quoted from St. Paul, Which Categorically Assert the Resurrection of the Flesh at the Final Judgment.”] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm​

From the very link you provided, it is quoted as (see final paragraph before chapter XXV begins):

"... CHAP. XXIV.--OTHER PASSAGES QUOTED FROM ST. PAUL, WHICH CATEGORICALLY ASSERT THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH AT THE FINAL JUDGMENT. ...

... For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way." What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? "And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish." ..." - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html​

Goodness. I am so embarrassed. I FINALLY found it. I think I was looking in chapter 24.

Thank you. I am trying to understand what you think his statement means?

Are you saying that Tertullian is suggesting that the Roman Church (RCC) is the antichrist???

Mary​

 

[Marymog]

Hello.

How did I take the following quote out of context?

Most Latin "fathers":

“...The impediment is the Roman Empire; the main event impeded is the "man of sin" (most Latin Fathers and later interpreters) ...” [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “A”; Antichrist; In The Pauline Epistles; [second option of 4 listed]] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm​

The "Roman Empire" is that which 'impedes' "the man of sin", being "the main event", which is stated by "most Latin Fathers and later interpreters". The statement in the quotation therefore is in perfect harmony with the other quotations themselves, and even demonstrates the validity of the statement from the CCE.

Thank you.

Here is your PARTIAL quote with a little more context:
We can here only enumerate the principal opinions as to the meaning of this clause without discussing their value:

• The impediment of the main event is "the man of sin"; the main event is the second coming of the Lord (Grimm, Simar).
• The impediment is the Roman Empire; the main event impeded is the "man of sin" (most Latin Fathers and later interpreters)

As one can see once context is added it appears what you are suggesting is false.

I believe you are suggesting that "Roman Empire" in this statement is the RCC???

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Hello.

I read every thing in full, where possible.

All the research is carefully garnered by myself from original and/or officially sanctioned sources. It is quite time consuming.

Thank you for your honesty.

What you are saying is you DIDN'T read all of it. That's OK....it is a long read. But context and accurate quoting, not opinions on a partial reading of something, is important when trying to make your point.

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

I think it is obvious that THBE is quoting or copying and pasting from his own work, and not the work of others. I think it also clear that he has as good an understanding of Catholic dogma and doctrine as anyone here. So I am quite happy to resign myself to his greater knowledge to expound specifically on Catholic doctrine. But I have a different perspective. I would rather expose Catholicism by exalting truth through prophecy and scripture. If scripture calls the papacy the Antichrist, and this can be proven, then discussing actual doctrine becomes rather moot. A specific and intellectual understanding of Catholic doctrine merely becomes a more weightier evidence to support the Biblical accusation. Which is why in the face of such accusations, the Vatican throughout recent centuries (through the counter-reformation movement) has fought so hard to propagate a more amenable character and acceptable front...but that is all it is...a front. She is still the Antichrist, regardless of the smiley face she adds to her public personna.

Could you explain to me how the bible could call the papacy the AntiChrist when Protestantism itself insists that there was no such person as the pope in that time.

Also, the bible explains what the AntiChrist is:
1 John 2:22

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

Goodness. I am so embarrassed.

No worries. Mistakes happen.

I FINALLY found it. I think I was looking in chapter 24.

It is in Chapter XXIV (24), last paragraph.

Thank you.

You are welcome, again.

I am trying to understand what you think his statement means?

Just what it says and no more.

Are you saying that Tertullian is suggesting that the Roman Church (RCC) is the antichrist???

Tertullian being what he was, would not have said that.

Mary

Is that your real name or userdesignation?

 

[Marymog]

Hello.

All the research is carefully garnered by myself from original and/or offiically sanctioned sources. It is quite time consuming.QUOTE]
LOL....thank you. A quick google search shows that you are only cutting a pasting the words of others with ccel.org as being the possible original source? Nothing wrong with that...I do it sometimes also.

Not sure that ccel.org is "officially sanctioned"....whatever that means.... but I digress.

Would something from a Catholic source be "officially sanctioned" in your opinion???

Mary

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

Thank you for your honesty.

Again, you are welcome.

What you are saying is you DIDN'T read all of it.

I read all of it. What I stated was, I read as much as is possible in regards my sources. There are certain sources that are in languages foreign to me, and in that area, I cannot read.

That's OK....it is a long read.

I read the English, in regards the "Latin Fathers" quotation.

But context and accurate quoting,

I agree, which is what I did do.

not opinions on a partial reading of something, is important when trying to make your point.

I did not give my opinion, but simply cited what they gave. Nothing more, nothing less.

Mary

www.pearltrees.com/awhn

 

[epostle1]

Hello.
I gave the quotation and link from the Roman Catholic source, NewAdvent, website by Kevin Knight. It is at the end of the first quotation on Tertullian.

Tertullian was a valuable historian, but fell into heresy in the latter part of his life. That's why anti-Catholics quote him without a date, they make him say things the Church never accepted, and ignore the truths of what he did say.

“Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’”
Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.”
Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

“I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights in…We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more steadfast; and no less by inculcations of God’s precepts we confirm good habits.”
Tertullian, Apology, 39:1 (A.D. 197).

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.”
Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212)

How do these quotes contradict your out-of-context snippets that you posted in Latin to deceive people??
Where are the sabbatarians found anywhere in the 2nd century?

If your theology is totally removed and divorced from 200 A.D., what are you trying to prove by quoting Tertullian?

Maybe you should bury your embarrassment with 10 videos and walls of SDA hate propaganda, your standard methodology.
You are worse than Dave Hunt, making no distinction between pagan Rome and Christian Rome. It's really sad your cult does your thinking for you. Are false histories stimulating for you?

​

 

[Marymog]

Tertullian being what he was, would not have said that.

Is that your real name or userdesignation?

Thanks....
I asked "Are you saying...." not what HE would have said.

Sooo once again......Are you saying that Tertullian is suggesting that the Roman Church (RCC) is the antichrist???

Does it matter to you if it's my real name?? Should it matter?? What if my birth name was really Marybeth?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

I read all of it. What I stated was, I read as much as is possible in regards my sources. There are certain sources that are in languages foreign to me, and in that area, I cannot read.

I agree, which is what I did do.

I did not give my opinion, but simply cited what they gave. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hmmmm......so when you said, "I read every thing in full, where possible" and that you "read as much as is possible.." that really means that you "read all of it" ?? A bit confusing to me but I digress!!!

You did not give context. Post #249 is context.

I realize now that you did not give YOUR opinion. You cut and pasted someone else's.....Once again, no big deal, I have done the same thing. HOWEVER when you cut and paste someone else's opinion you own it.

The originator of your opinion took the writings of Tertullian out of context and you parroted them.

Are you ok with us discussing the other quotes you posted??? I have some issues with them since they are also out of context and deceiving.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Tertullian:

“...Again, in the second epistle he addresses them with even greater earnestness: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that you be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, that is, the word of false prophets, or by letter, that is, the letter of false apostles, as if from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away, he means indeed of this present empire, and that man of sin be revealed, that is to say, Antichrist, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sits in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Do you not remember, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now you know what detains, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity does already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist ...” [Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; On The Resurrection Of The Flesh (Tertullian); “Chapter 24. Other Passages Quoted from St. Paul, Which Categorically Assert the Resurrection of the Flesh at the Final Judgment.”] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm​

“...There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth— in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes— is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration. ...” [Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; Apology (Tertullian; Chapter 32)] - http://newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm​

​

Does Tertullian's writing "Prescription against heresies" suggest that the Roman state will introduce the antichrist???

Mary

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

Thank you.

You are wlecome.

Here is your PARTIAL quote with a little more context:

Again, the citation was not partial, but in full in relevance to the other citations. The other 3 available explanations were not relevant to the Latin Fathers, and are contradictory to one another. The second explanation, "The impediment is the Roman Empire; the main event impeded is the "man of sin" (most Latin Fathers and later interpreters)" - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm is indeed the one which fits the other citations, thus making the other 3 explanations irrelevant to the citations.

I took nothing out of context, nor presented in error. You are presently in the error, in regards the citation, and in how I presented it. I have been nothing but straight, by the grace of God.

Already you have admitted to reading error. You are doing so again, in regards my citation, and purpose for so citing. You are adding into what I have posted that which is not there.

We can here only enumerate the principal opinions as to the meaning of this clause without discussing their value:

• The impediment of the main event is "the man of sin"; the main event is the second coming of the Lord (Grimm, Simar).
• The impediment is the Roman Empire; the main event impeded is the "man of sin" (most Latin Fathers and later interpreters)

Indeed, you cited explanation 1 and 2, and left off 3 and 4. Explanation 1,3 & 4 have nothing to do with Explanation 2. It is a stand alone statement. 1,3 & 4 are minor, whereas explanation 2 is the major, "most latin fathers".

As one can see once context is added it appears what you are suggesting is false.

Again, you are adding into what I have cited, that which I have not said, nor said that those statements say. You are in error, in regards my response.

When you asked, What do I think it means? I told you, Just what it says, nothing more and nothing less. I gave no opinion, only cited the source. The response was to epostle1's claim that "Martin Luther started all this." I demonstrated the error of that statement by then citing the available sources that existed before Martin Luther, which all show that after the Pagan Roman Empire ceased to be a hindrance, the AntiChrist would arise.

All Martin Luther did, among others before, during and after him, pointed out that the Papacy was the AntiChrist.

I believe you are suggesting that "Roman Empire" in this statement is the RCC???

You are in error, in reading the material, the citations and my response.

The Pagan Roman Empire is the 4th Kingdom (of Daniel 2,7,8,11, etc), and the Pagan Roman Empire as ruled by those Caesars (August's, etc) was the hindrance (because of supression of Jews, and Christianity) to the AntiChrist coming to fullness of power.

The "Roman Empire" in those statements is not the RCC itself. No. I stated that those citations mean exactly what they say, nothing more, nothing less.

You have incorrectly read, once again, the material, and my responses. Please read more carefully and slowly.

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

LOL.

What is there to "LOL" about? Please explain.

thank you.

You are welcome.

A quick google search shows that you are only cutting a pasting the words of others

I am quoting from officially sanctioned sources, such as the CCE (online), CCC (Online), Chuch Fathers (by NewAdvent, under the Kevin Knight and others, having the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, etc), Papal Encyclicals.net, Vatican.va, and other such sources, along with original language sources where possible, Latin, Italian, and so on.

with ccel.org

I rarely use CCEL, and cited from NewAdvent in the source under question, Tertullian, and "most latin fathers". You were the one who cited from ccel, and asked me to locate the material from that source, did you not?

as being the possible original source?

They (NewAdvent, Vatican.va, Papal Encyclicals, etc) are officially sanctioned sources. Original source material is usually in non-English langauge, such as Latin or Greek, or Hebrew, or Italian, or German/Dutch (as in Luther's case), etc.

Nothing wrong with that...

I am glad you agree that CCEL is fine to use, though as I said, I rarely use it, though I occasionally do use it. I do not like its format, which is one of the reasons I do not use it, and it sometimes has a differing translation than officially sanctioned Roman Catholic sources do, and I go with those at that time, so that there is no quibbling over a translation, into English.

I do it sometimes also.

I see that you do it presently, asking me to show you from the CCEL rather than the New Advent (Roman Catholic source page).

Not sure that ccel.org is "officially sanctioned"

I never said it was. You say that I said it was. You are in error, again.

....whatever that means.... but I digress.

Indeed. Read more slowly.

Would something from a Catholic source be "officially sanctioned" in your opinion???

"Officially sanctioned" in matters the Roman Catholic sources, would have to have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur at the very least, or be published directly under a Roman Catholic publishing house, such as Ignatius Press, L'Oservatory Romano, etc.

 

[Marymog]

You are wlecome.

Again, the citation was not partial, but in full in relevance to the other citations. The other 3 available explanations were not relevant to the Latin Fathers, and are contradictory to one another. The second explanation, "The impediment is the Roman Empire; the main event impeded is the "man of sin" (most Latin Fathers and later interpreters)" - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm is indeed the one which fits the other citations, thus making the other 3 expkanations irrelevant to the citations.

I took nothing out of context, and presented in error. You are presently in the error, in regards the citation, and in how I presented it. I have been nothing but straight, by the grace of God.

Already you have admitted to reading error. You are doing so again, in regards my citation, and purpose for so citing. You are adding into what I have posted that which is not there.

Indeed, you cited explanation 1 and 2, and left off 3 and 4. Explanation 1,3 & 4 have nothing to do with Explanation 2. It is a stand alone statement. 1,3 & 4 are minor, whereas explanation 2 is the major, "most latin fathers".

Hmmmm.... the 21 words you quoted is more context than the 65 words I quoted??? Fascinating.

How does that work again?? Fewer words mean MORE context????

I didn't ADD to what you posted.....I put into CONTEXT what you posted.

Do you know what the definition of CONTEXT is???

Mary