"Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Faith" - Has 500 Years Taught Us Nothing?

[Phoneman777]

WRONG.
Early Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Melito, Hippplytus, etc. were expounding on preterism centuries earlier

Do your HOMEWORK . . .

Bull dooky

Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

 

[Phoneman777]

Love the BOLD type and underlined words. You have learned from the master.....@BreadOfLife ...

Excuse me, but properly used, bold type and underline are acceptable means of expression...Dead Bread is a prime example of the emotionally unstable sociopathic individual who lacks self control even when the activity of writing our thoughts out forces us to slow down and think about which words to choose.

Let me get this straight. As long as the Catholic Church changes it's 2,000 years of teachings and adopts the 500 year teachings of Protestantism or teachings that are approved by YOU then life would be good for all Christians? Fascinating......

Not approved by me, but by God. That goes for all of us, not just the Antichrist papacy.

What about the Protestant Churches that have some Catholic teachings? i.e. infant baptism Do they have to conform to YOUR teaching also before you will approve of them?

Doesn't God's Word say the Whore of Babylon in Rome has "daughters"??? Hello...

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ummm, so the early church fathers thought the antichrist had already been?

WHO told you that preterism was ALL about the AntiChrist??
Preterism has to do with ALL things eschatological – and the ECFs had PLENTY to say on the mater.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Bull dooky

Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

No - they were partial preterists.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Re-sacrificing Christ by means of sinful priests (frequently predators) is not proclaiming Christ's death, but making a mockery of it.

Once again - WHO told you that we "RE-sacrifice" Christ??
Where did you hear this - and WHY do you keep repeating this nonsense??

 

[BreadOfLife]

As usual, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and no evidence to back up your nonsense. Put down the satanic dead bread and catechisms and discover the Early Church Fathers followed what the Protestants taught, not what the Antichrist's Jesuits taught:

___________________________________________________________________________________________
Hippolytus, 3rd century (comment on the four beasts of Daniel 7):
”The golden head of the (Daniel 2) image is identical with the lioness, by which the Babylonians were represented; the shoulders and the arms of silver are the same with the bear, by which the Persians and Medes are meant; the belly and thighs of brass are the leopard, by which the Greeks who ruled from Alexander onwards are intended; the legs of iron are the dreadful and terrible beast, by which the Romans who hold the empire now are meant; the toes of clay and iron are the ten horns which are to be; the one other little horn springing up in their (the ten horns) midst is the antichrist ; the stone that smites the image and breaks it in pieces, and that filled the whole earth, is Christ, who comes from heaven and brings judgment on the world.”

Dead Bread, it is Protestant Historicism, not the lies of Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism, which teaches that the prophetic elements of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are representative of the same kingdoms.
______________________________________________________________
Irenasus, 2nd century (“Against Heresies,” chap, xxvi.):
"John, in the Apocalypse, . . . teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel.”

Dead Bread, it is Protestant Historicism, not the lies of Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism, which teaches the Ten Horns of Daniel and Revelation are the same.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Victorinus, 3rd century (claims in his commentary on The Apocalypse (Revelation) of John, the EARLIEST commentary on the book of Revelation as a whole):

• The White horse and the First Seal describe the same thing: the Gospel going forth in victory.
• The woman of Revelation 12 is "the ancient church of the fathers, prophets, and saints and apostles."

Dead Bread, it is Protestant Historicism, not the lies of Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism, which teaches that the 7 Churches, 7 Seals, and 7 Trumpets chronicle the same time periods and that the woman of Revelation 12 is God's people, not sinner Mary.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Origen, 3rd century ("Against Celsus", bk. vi., chap. xlvi.):
After quoting nearly the whole of Paul’s prophecy about the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians, which he interprets of the antichrist, he says : “Paul speaks of him who is called antichrist, describing, though with a certain reserve, both the manner and time and cause of his coming. . . . The prophecy also regarding antichrist is stated in the book of Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent and candid reader admire the words as truly Divine and prophetic ; for in them are mentioned the things relating to the coming kingdom, beginning with the times of Daniel, and continuing to the destruction of the world.”

Jerome, 4th century (commentary on the Book of Daniel, vii):
"...it is the man of sin, the son of perdition, who dares to sit in the temple of God, making himself as God.”

Dead Bread, it is Protestant Historicism, not the lies of Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism, which teaches the Little Horn of Daniel, the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, the Beast of Revelation 13 are one in the same power: Antichrist.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Tertullian, 2nd century (commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2):

"'Now ye know what detaineth that he might be revealed in his time, 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...?"

Chrysostom, 4th century (Commentary on 2 Thessalonians):
"One may first naturally inquire what is that which withholdeth, and after that would know why Paul expresses this so obscurely, . . . ‘he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ That is, when the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 4th century (Catechetical Lectures, XV):
"But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled..."

Dead Bread, it is Protestant Historicism, not the lies of Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism, which teaches the Restrainer which Paul mentioned was preventing the rise of the Man of Sin Antichrist was the Roman Empire, not the "spirit filled church" or some other agent of holiness.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

READ WHAT THE ECF SAID FOR YOURSELF:
Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

And it appears that you are ignorant of what “Preterism” is.
It is the belief – in varying degrees – that some, much or all of end times prophecy has already been fulfilled.

Neither Christ’s Catholic Church, nor any Early Church Father has ever taught radical or total Preterism. The Church has always held a mild or partial preterist view.

In other words, Einstein – SOME of the Eschatological prophecy has already taken place. This was not “invented” by the Jesuits – but has ALWAYS been taught and goes back to the ECFs.

 

[Enoch111]

Once again - WHO told you that we "RE-sacrifice" Christ??
Where did you hear this - and WHY do you keep repeating this nonsense??

I have already quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the Council of Trent (which you have conveniently ignored). The Mass is a re-sacrifice of Christ, and you should at least be honest enough to admit it.

THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: [THIS IS A RE-SACRIFICE]

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. [AN "UNBLOODY RE-SACRIFICE]

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have already quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the Council of Trent (which you have conveniently ignored). The Mass is a re-sacrifice of Christ, and you should at least be honest enough to admit it.

THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: [THIS IS A RE-SACRIFICE]

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself ONCE in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. [AN "UNBLOODY RE-SACRIFICE]

And this is a BIG, FAT, LIE - an you should be ashamed of yourself for lying.

The Mass is a RE-PRESENTATION. Paragraph 1367 CLEARLY states that it is part of the SAME sacrifice at Calvary.
We Catholics recognize that His Sacrifice is ETERNAL, hence it is RE-PRESENTED at Mass - He is not RE-SACRIFICED.

Let it be known once again that you resorted to LYING because you can't argue against the truth.

 

[Phoneman777]

No - they were partial preterists.

Dead Bread, this has got to be the absolute stupidest thing you've ever posted.

How in the world could the ECFs be "partial Preterists" when Preterism says Antichrist arrived in the FIRST century and not a single ECF that I know of ever wrote anything that remotely agrees with that? They all expected the Antichrist to arise IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE....

...which it did...

...when Pagan Rome was immediately followed by Papal Rome.

 

[Phoneman777]

And it appears that you are ignorant of what “Preterism” is.
It is the belief – in varying degrees – that some, much or all of end times prophecy has already been fulfilled.

Neither Christ’s Catholic Church, nor any Early Church Father has ever taught radical or total Preterism. The Church has always held a mild or partial preterist view.

In other words, Einstein – SOME of the Eschatological prophecy has already taken place. This was not “invented” by the Jesuits – but has ALWAYS been taught and goes back to the ECFs.

No, it is YOU who are ignorant of Preterism, but that's to be expected since it's a Jesuit doctrine and we all know how you constantly deny the teachings of your church.

Notwithstanding the "varying degrees", what we know for sure is that Jesuit Alcazar said the Antichrist arose in the FIRST century - which some interpret to be Emperor Nero. Ribera says Antichrist will arise during the "last seven years of tribulation".

"Hey, point your fingers to the past, to the future, ANYWHERE BUT AT US", right Dead Bread?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Dead Bread, this has got to be the absolute stupidest thing you've ever posted.

How in the world could the ECFs be "partial Preterists" when Preterism says Antichrist arrived in the FIRST century and not a single ECF that I know of ever wrote anything that remotely agrees with that? They all expected the Antichrist to arise IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE....

...which it did...

...when Pagan Rome was immediately followed by Papal Rome.

The term "Preterism" simply has to do with eschatology in general and not specifically the Antichrist. It comes in varying degrees:
There are Radical or "Total" Preterists who believe that ALL end times prophecy had already taken place.
Then, there are lesser degrees of Preterism, wherein SOME prophecies have taken place - and some are still yet to come.

YOU are an extremist - ALL or NOTHING.
That's the cause for most of your confusion - that and ignorance . . .

 

[brakelite]

WHO told you that preterism was ALL about the AntiChrist??
Preterism has to do with ALL things eschatological – and the ECFs had PLENTY to say on the mater.

No one told me the ECFd spoke only on Antichrist. And I didn't say that either. You didn't answer my question though... Did the ECFs believe and teach that the Antichrist had already been

 

[Phoneman777]

The term "Preterism" simply has to do with eschatology in general and not specifically the Antichrist. It comes in varying degrees:
There are Radical or "Total" Preterists who believe that ALL end times prophecy had already taken place.
Then, there are lesser degrees of Preterism, wherein SOME prophecies have taken place - and some are still yet to come.

YOU are an extremist - ALL or NOTHING.
That's the cause for most of your confusion - that and ignorance . . .

Can you stop making exceptions the rule? I don't care what revisions non-catholics make to Preterism in their attempts to make square pegs fit in round holes - the issue revolves around my challenge to your bull dooky claim that Preterism and Futurism existed BEFORE Jesuits Ribera and Alcazar got their commission from the pope to find something in the Bible to refute Protestant Historicism - which was wreaking havoc on Roman catholic church membership during that time when catholics everywhere had the light of Protestantism's Biblical Jesus shine into their hearts and they did "well to take heed as a light that shineth in a dark place". You still have yet to produce even ONE statement of evidence to support your wild claims which, in my opinion, are intended to shield the papacy from their shameful but effective Jesuitical efforts to hide from the world that the Bible exposes them as the Antichrist.

Lastly, as a papist, surely you haven't forgotten you're affiliated with an organization which is so unbelievably extremist and intolerant of Christians following beliefs contrary to theirs that they spent century after century turning over countless "heretics" to the state to be burned alive, beheaded, or suffer some other horrible fate? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

 

[BreadOfLife]

Can you stop making exceptions the rule? I don't care what revisions non-catholics make to Preterism in their attempts to make square pegs fit in round holes - the issue revolves around my challenge to your bull dooky claim that Preterism and Futurism existed BEFORE Jesuits Ribera and Alcazar got their commission from the pope to find something in the Bible to refute Protestant Historicism - which was wreaking havoc on Roman catholic church membership during that time when catholics everywhere had the light of Protestantism's Biblical Jesus shine into their hearts and they did "well to take heed as a light that shineth in a dark place". You still have yet to produce even ONE statement of evidence to support your wild claims which, in my opinion, are intended to shield the papacy from their shameful but effective Jesuitical efforts to hide from the world that the Bible exposes them as the Antichrist.

Lastly, as a papist, surely you haven't forgotten you're affiliated with an organization which is so unbelievably extremist and intolerant of Christians following beliefs contrary to theirs that they spent century after century turning over countless "heretics" to the state to be burned alive, beheaded, or suffer some other horrible fate? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Nobody is making "exceptions" to ANYTHING.
YOU are simply too ignorant to understand the concept of Preterism

As I schooled you earlier - Preterism is NOT black and white - there are varying degrees. - just as there are varying decrees about a LOT of hermeneutical issues like Sola Scriptura, Einstein. Preterism is NOT simply about Antichrist prophecy - but about ALL eschatology in general.

If you can't deal with that - then you shouldn't be debating the issue in the first place, Einstein.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No one told me the ECFd spoke only on Antichrist. And I didn't say that either. You didn't answer my question though... Did the ECFs believe and teach that the Antichrist had already been

Some alluded to that - but most taught that he was STILL to come.
The one thing they ALL seem to have agreed upon was that he would come from the Roman Empire. Irenaeus spoke of Antichrist coming during his own lifetime (Against Heresies) and even made some guesses.

The point here is that Phoney's charge that the Catholic Church "invented" Preterism is flat out FALSE. Every time I present historical evidence to the contrary - he changes the goal posts to make it ALL about Antichrist - which shows a deep failure to understand eschatology.

 

[Enoch111]

The point here is that Phoney's charge that the Catholic Church "invented" Preterism is flat out FALSE.

No. It is not a false charge at all. You constantly try to make non-Catholics out to be uninformed and misleading. But the Catholic Church invented Preterism: "Historically, preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy—Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (published in 1614)—during the Counter-Reformation."

Unfortunately, the Protestant Reformers did not protest the eschatology of the RCC. Therefore Preterism took the Protestant churches captive.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No. It is not a false charge at all. You constantly try to make non-Catholics out to be uninformed and misleading. But the Catholic Church invented Preterism: "Historically, preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy—Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (published in 1614)—during the Counter-Reformation."

Unfortunately, the Protestant Reformers did not protest the eschatology of the RCC. Therefore Preterism took the Protestant churches captive.

Uhhhhh, no - you're confusing what Preterism actually IS.

As I have repeatedly explained - there are varying degrees of Preterism - and Christ's Catholic Church has NEVER held to the total or extreme Preterist position. At MOST - the Church has always taken the PARTIAL Preterist position.

When I say "The Church" - I am including the Early Catholic Fathers like Irenaeus, Commodian, Lactantius and Augustine. The latter three suggested Nero as the Antichrist.

The fact that Luis de Alcasar wrote a treatise on Preterism does NOT mean that he "invented" it.
When you stick to anti-Catholic resources - you're only going to get an anti-Catholic slant.

Do your HOMEWORK . . .

 

[Phoneman777]

Nobody is making "exceptions" to ANYTHING.
YOU are simply too ignorant to understand the concept of Preterism

As I schooled you earlier - Preterism is NOT black and white - there are varying degrees. - just as there are varying decrees about a LOT of hermeneutical issues like Sola Scriptura, Einstein. Preterism is NOT simply about Antichrist prophecy - but about ALL eschatology in general.

If you can't deal with that - then you shouldn't be debating the issue in the first place, Einstein.

You haven't schooled anyone, Dead Bread. Your own Jesuit Luis Alcazar claimed the Antichrist came in the first century. If you're unwilling to accept the teachings of catholicism, why do you remain catholic?

 

[brakelite]

@BreadOfLife I would like to un derstand what you mean by "partial preterism". I ask this because from what I have read of the ECFs writings, while they believe some things had happened already, and some things had taken place in their own l lifetime, they also recognised that some things were yet to come... Is that what you are saying? Because in that I agree with you. But that doesn't make then partial preterists, makes them historicists. Just as the reformers were. But that Jesuit Alcazar was not. He was a full blown preterist ... The first of his kind.
You see Daniel revealed the fourth Empire collapsing, Rome, with 10 kingdoms rising in its stead in its western Empire, with the little horn, the Antichrist, rising up among those ten. The ECFs recognised this. The latter ones, for example Jerome, recognising the collapse of Rome and the rise of the Gothic nations, because he was living as a eye witness to these events . The one thing he did not recognise, but which earlier CFs did see, was that the Antichrist was even in Jerome's day on the rise. He was even a part of it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

@BreadOfLife I would like to un derstand what you mean by "partial preterism". I ask this because from what I have read of the ECFs writings, while they believe some things had happened already, and some things had taken place in their own l lifetime, they also recognised that some things were yet to come... Is that what you are saying? Because in that I agree with you. But that doesn't make then partial preterists, makes them historicists. Just as the reformers were. But that Jesuit Alcazar was not. He was a full blown preterist ... The first of his kind.
You see Daniel revealed the fourth Empire collapsing, Rome, with 10 kingdoms rising in its stead in its western Empire, with the little horn, the Antichrist, rising up among those ten. The ECFs recognised this. The latter ones, for example Jerome, recognising the collapse of Rome and the rise of the Gothic nations, because he was living as a eye witness to these events . The one thing he did not recognise, but which earlier CFs did see, was that the Antichrist was even in Jerome's day on the rise. He was even a part of it.

Partial Preterism is exactly how it sounds.
Preteristic thought comes in variyng degrees.

There are some who believe that ALL end time prophecy has already taken place.
These are FULL or "Extreme" Preterists.

There are others who believe that some prophecy has taken place.
These would fall into the category of PARTIAL Preterism.

Others believe that NONE of it has taken place yet - ad they would be NON Preterists.