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

[BreadOfLife]

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?

ONCE again, Phoney - you illustrate your ignorance on the subject because you see everything in Black and White.
You are an extremist, who doesn't understand that life is full of gray areas. You HAVE been schooled - but you're just too full of yourself to admit it.

I'm not "unwilling" to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church because the Church has NEVER taught TOTAL Preterism. Oh, and by the way - the Church doesn't teach that the Antichrist already came. It simply posits this as a possibility.

YOUR inability to grasp the varying degrees of Preterism is at the core of your deep confusion . . .

 

[brakelite]

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.

So, what is the RCC then? Full preterist like Lacunza, or full futurists like Ribera?

 

[BreadOfLife]

So, what is the RCC then? Full preterist like Lacunza, or full futurists like Ribera?

I really don't understand WHYyou would ask this question - when I have already answered it repeatedly.

I have stated that the Early Church Fathers - who were CATHOLIC - were PARTIAL Preterists.
I have stated that the Catholic Church has NEVER embraced Total Preterism but falls into the PARTIAL Preterist camp.

WHY would you ask me this question??

 

[brakelite]

I really don't understand WHYyou would ask this question - when I have already answered it repeatedly.

I have stated that the Early Church Fathers - who were CATHOLIC - were PARTIAL Preterists.
I have stated that the Catholic Church has NEVER embraced Total Preterism but falls into the PARTIAL Preterist camp.

WHY would you ask me this question??

That being the case, I am wondering why the Catholic church failed to recognise Antichrist when she looked in the mirror. All the ECFs wrote that Antichrist would rise among the ten horns that rose out of Rome. That Antichrist would uproot 3 of the horns, and submit the others to her authority. This is what happened. The Barbarian tribes overrun the Empire in the western hemisphere, and became the foundation nations of Europe. 3 of them were destroyed and no heritage remains of their existence. Except for one. History. Which attests to the power that influenced their demise through the manipulation of the state power in the East. Catholic Rome.

 

[brakelite]

@BreadOfLife
You see BoL, your early church fathers, which you claim were Catholic, knew exactly where they were in the prophetic timeline. Some of them, such as Jerome, were witnesses to the fall of Rome, and saw first hand the rise of the barbarian powers. They recognised Daniel's prophecy was being fulfilled before their very eyes. What they did not recognise was the Antichrist, because the 3 tribes to be uprooted were still there. But by 538, the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Goths were gone.
In the ensuing centuries, Bible scholars who were willing to be honest and looking back upon that history, instantly recognised which power it was that rose up among the ten horns, uprooted 3 of them, and subjugated the remaining 7 to her authority. That little horn power was firmly established by law by Justinian in 533 as a legal civil authority and that decree was established fully in 538 when the Goths were ejected from Rome giving the Catholic church autonomy in both religious and civil matters. She trained that authority until 1798 , exactly 1260 years later when France took the Pope captive and disbanded the college of Cardinals. While she retained her religious authority, she lost her civil authority... Until 1929 when Mussolini have her the Vatican.
Reformers throughout the last 1000 years or so recognised this. So did Rome. Which is why futurism and preterism was invented. You see BoL, the ECFs were not partial preterist... They were historicists. As were the reformers. As am I. That way, through historicism, the RCC is clearly identified. She cannot hide from truth. And while she may attempt to change the times an dnd the laws, there is a God in heaven who is not deceived.
Come out of her BoL. Let you partake of her sins and receive of her plagues.

 

[Marymog]

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.

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

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

@BreadOfLife is an "emotionally unstable sociopathic individual who lacks self control"????? I find it FASCINATING that you are able to make that diagnosis by reading peoples words? From which University did you get your degree to diagnose him without even meeting him? You truly have a gift.

How can you say "Not approved by me, but by God" when YOU are the one passing judgment on us Catholics and the daughters of Babylon telling US everything we believe is wrong (anti-Biblical)? YOU have determined the Pope is the anti-Christ???? Are you Gods voice on earth?

Soooo let me get this straight: Any Church that has any belief that mirrors Catholic belief they are a daughter of the whore of Babylon??? Who taught you this? Or are you self taught?

 

[BreadOfLife]

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.

Funny that when you get schooled by an educated Catholic - all of a sudden they're "sociopathic" because they exposed YOUR ignorance.
Get a grip, Phoney . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

That being the case, I am wondering why the Catholic church failed to recognise Antichrist when she looked in the mirror. All the ECFs wrote that Antichrist would rise among the ten horns that rose out of Rome. That Antichrist would uproot 3 of the horns, and submit the others to her authority. This is what happened. The Barbarian tribes overrun the Empire in the western hemisphere, and became the foundation nations of Europe. 3 of them were destroyed and no heritage remains of their existence. Except for one. History. Which attests to the power that influenced their demise through the manipulation of the state power in the East. Catholic Rome.

EASY.
Because Christ's Catholic Church is NOT Antichrist. The Church is the BODY of Christ.

Jesus equated His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).
St. Paul called the Church the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

So, you see - the Church cannot be Antichrist - or Jesus is a LIAR (Matt. 16:18) . . .

 

[brakelite]

EASY.
Because Christ's Catholic Church is NOT Antichrist. The Church is the BODY of Christ.

Jesus equated His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).
St. Paul called the Church the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

So, you see - the Church cannot be Antichrist - or Jesus is a LIAR (Matt. 16:18) . . .

God's church cannot be Antichrist, true. But an apparatus church can... And is. And historically, regardless of any other criteria bring met, the RCC is the only viable candidate for the title. Your own ECFs indicated this when they all agreed that the little horn was next to grow up among the ten.
Did you know that the early church would pray for the preservation of pagan Rome, even with the persecutions, so that the Antichrist would be withheld from coming?

 

[BreadOfLife]

God's church cannot be Antichrist, true. But an apparatus church can... And is. And historically, regardless of any other criteria bring met, the RCC is the only viable candidate for the title. Your own ECFs indicated this when they all agreed that the little horn was next to grow up among the ten.
Did you know that the early church would pray for the preservation of pagan Rome, even with the persecutions, so that the Antichrist would be withheld from coming?

Then this should be easy enough to prove.
Show me the official Church document(s) that show the Church calling for prayers for the "preservation" of Pagan Rome.
If you CAN'T produce them - them ADMIT that you LIED.

The plain historical fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church can trace its roots in an UNBROKEN line of succession ALL the way back to the Apostles.
Not ONE SINGLE Protestant sect can go back ANY further than the SIXTEENTH Century.
Them's the historical facts, Einstein . . .

In fact one of your OWN Protestant historian, Kenneth Samples, wrote the following in his treatise, "What Think Ye of Rome: An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism" for the Christian Research Journal in 1991:

"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two‐thousand‐year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."

 

[brakelite]

Then this should be easy enough to prove.
Show me the official Church document(s) that show the Church calling for prayers for the "preservation" of Pagan Rome.
If you CAN'T produce them - them ADMIT that you LIED.

The plain historical fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church can trace its roots in an UNBROKEN line of succession ALL the way back to the Apostles.
Not ONE SINGLE Protestant sect can go back ANY further than the SIXTEENTH Century.
Them's the historical facts, Einstein . . .

In fact one of your OWN Protestant historian, Kenneth Samples, wrote the following in his treatise, "What Think Ye of Rome: An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism" for the Christian Research Journal in 1991:

"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two‐thousand‐year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."

There is probably a word that expressly describes what you have done. I cannot remember what it is. But you have not very effectively attempted to divert our conversation away from our origin al topic.
We were discussing the prophetic and historical timeline that irrefutably identifies the RCC as the little horn. Even the early church fathers which Catholics do admire confirmed this in their expectations... You quoted them yourself. My question was...
Why didn't the CC recognise this? Our did she, and so had to change the hermeneutic and pretend the ECFs were preterist and that the Antichrist was Nero or Antiochus, which none of the church fathers could have agreed to.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is probably a word that expressly describes what you have done. I cannot remember what it is. But you have not very effectively attempted to divert our conversation away from our origin al topic.
We were discussing the prophetic and historical timeline that irrefutably identifies the RCC as the little horn. Even the early church fathers which Catholics do admire confirmed this in their expectations... You quoted them yourself. My question was...
Why didn't the CC recognise this? Our did she, and so had to change the hermeneutic and pretend the ECFs were preterist and that the Antichrist was Nero or Antiochus, which none of the church fathers could have agreed to.

What "I" have done??
YOU are the one who is claiming that the Catholic Church called for prayers to PROLONG Pagan Rome. Therefore, genius - the onus is on YOU to prove it.

Words matter - so don't go around vomiting out nonsense like that unless you can back it up with historical documentation.
Didn't ANYBODY ever teach you how a debate works??

 

[brakelite]

What "I" have done??
YOU are the one who is claiming that the Catholic Church called for prayers to PROLONG Pagan Rome. Therefore, genius - the onus is on YOU to prove it.

Words matter - so don't go around vomiting out nonsense like that unless you can back it up with historical documentation.
Didn't ANYBODY ever teach you how a debate works??

Well first, that little remark I made was not a major part of the discussion. Second, I picked that up a long time ago from reading an historical account of the times. If you want verification, do your own homework. Thirdly, it wasn't the Catholic church. That apostate organisation didn't exist yet, like I've been trying to tell you. It was the Christian church... The early church that was faithful to Christ and had no connections to the empirical powert except from the end of a spear or arrow. Like I said, Antichrist didn't arise until after 476sd.

 

[epostle]

Well first, that little remark I made was not a major part of the discussion. Second, I picked that up a long time ago from reading an historical account of the times. If you want verification, do your own homework. Thirdly, it wasn't the Catholic church. That apostate organisation didn't exist yet, like I've been trying to tell you. It was the Christian church... The early church that was faithful to Christ and had no connections to the empirical powert except from the end of a spear or arrow. Like I said, Antichrist didn't arise until after 476sd.

But you haven't got a single name of a martyr who was killed by the pagan Romans after the Bible was enscripturated. All you have is false history, much to the embarrassment to your own scholars. My evidence has been previously posted.
Yes, it was the "Christian Church", and the appellation "Catholic" Church originated in scripture and took form in 106 A.D. less than 10 years after John wrote Revelation.

CATHOLIC: Where did the word originate? It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.

It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is necessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

It is totally biblical. It is in Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world." That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Rom. 1:8….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATAnggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)”

Acts 9:31 Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.
church throughout (Greek) = Kataholos.

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8, Acts 9:31

The first known recorded use of the word after all the Bible was enscripturated is in St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D.:

"Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.
Written records of the term "CATHOLIC" describing a character of the Christian Church:
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name."
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.

That apostate organisation didn't exist yet, like I've been trying to tell you.

Your SDA demands that you deny the obvious. When did this "apostasy" occur? Why did it take 16 centuries for anyone to notice such an alleged monumentous event? You won't find a recent Protestant historian that agrees with you.

It's easy to prove sabbatarians existed in the 1st century, but IMPOSSIBLE to prove they existed in the 2nd. So who didn't exist?

 

[brakelite]

You won't find a recent Protestant historian that agrees with you.

If that is true, it is more an indictment on the sad state of Protestant scholarship, not necessarily that it isn't true. There are older historians who attested to Sabbath keepers throughout every century as far as I know till the 12th. or so. But of course, when one ravenous beast is on the loose devouring all opposition, evidence becomes scarce as to the nature of the diet and lifestyles of the victims. One only has the stomach contents inside the predator as a sort of distorted and reprocessed evidence.

 

[epostle]

If that is true, it is more an indictment on the sad state of Protestant scholarship, not necessarily that it isn't true. There are older historians who attested to Sabbath keepers throughout every century as far as I know till the 12th. or so. But of course, when one ravenous beast is on the loose devouring all opposition, evidence becomes scarce a s to the nature of the diet and lifestyles of the victims. One only has the stomach contents inside the predator as a sort of distorted and reprocessed evidence.

"Sad state of Protestant scholarship". But of course. Again, no evidence, no names, no dates, it's no wonder you dismiss the Council of Nicae.
Your rant is as foul as it is false.
Since so many were killed by the pagan Romans, you should be able to come up with ONE name. You can't because they were all Catholic. That's why you get slippery. Your cult has no connection with the early church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well first, that little remark I made was not a major part of the discussion. Second, I picked that up a long time ago from reading an historical account of the times. If you want verification, do your own homework. Thirdly, it wasn't the Catholic church. That apostate organisation didn't exist yet, like I've been trying to tell you. It was the Christian church... The early church that was faithful to Christ and had no connections to the empirical powert except from the end of a spear or arrow. Like I said, Antichrist didn't arise until after 476sd.

Uhhhh, no. You don’t get to make unsubstantiated claims and then tell ME to do the homework. That’s NOT the way a debate works, junior.

The way it works is that when YOU make a claim – the onus is on YOU to prove it by presenting documented historical evidence. Idiotic opinions and moronic biases go right OUT the window.
Now – your historically-bankrupt claim that that the Catholic Church didn’t exist until around 476 AD is EASILY debunkable manure. Time for a little HISTORY lesson . . .

Ignatius of Antioch, student of the Apostle John writes Letters to Seven churches on the way to his martyrdom in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd Century. In these Letters, he refers to . . .

- the Authority of the “Catholic Church”
- obedience to the Bishop
- the fact that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ and many other Catholic doctrines.
- In the 2nd century document, The Martydom of Polycarp, the Catholic Church is mentioned again – NOT as a description, but as a TITLE.
- Around the year 180 AD, Irenaeus, in his work, Against Heresies, lists the succession of the Popes from Peter all the way to his own day.
- Around 219 AD, Tertullian writes in this treatise, Di Pudicitia about the Pope, calling him “Bishop of Bishops” and “Pontifex Maximus”.
- At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Bishops, responding to the Tome of Pope Leo erupted and exclaimed, “Peter has spoken through Leo!”

I’ve only scratched the surface – yet ALL of this and more is LONG BEFORE your stupid, make-believe date of 476 AD.

YOUR turn, Einstein.
And I’m STILL waiting for proof for your earlier asinine claim about the Catholic Church “praying” for an extension of the Roman paganism . . .

 

[brakelite]

Uhhhh, no. You don’t get to make unsubstantiated claims and then tell ME to do the homework. That’s NOT the way a debate works, junior.

The way it works is that when YOU make a claim – the onus is on YOU to prove it by presenting documented historical evidence. Idiotic opinions and moronic biases go right OUT the window.
Now – your historically-bankrupt claim that that the Catholic Church didn’t exist until around 476 AD is EASILY debunkable manure. Time for a little HISTORY lesson . . .

Ignatius of Antioch, student of the Apostle John writes Letters to Seven churches on the way to his martyrdom in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd Century. In these Letters, he refers to . . .

- the Authority of the “Catholic Church”
- obedience to the Bishop
- the fact that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ and many other Catholic doctrines.
- In the 2nd century document, The Martydom of Polycarp, the Catholic Church is mentioned again – NOT as a description, but as a TITLE.
- Around the year 180 AD, Irenaeus, in his work, Against Heresies, lists the succession of the Popes from Peter all the way to his own day.
- Around 219 AD, Tertullian writes in this treatise, Di Pudicitia about the Pope, calling him “Bishop of Bishops” and “Pontifex Maximus”.
- At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Bishops, responding to the Tome of Pope Leo erupted and exclaimed, “Peter has spoken through Leo!”

I’ve only scratched the surface – yet ALL of this and more is LONG BEFORE your stupid, make-believe date of 476 AD.

YOUR turn, Einstein.
And I’m STILL waiting for proof for your earlier asinine claim about the Catholic Church “praying” for an extension of the Roman paganism . . .

I have no argument against all that. Because that is not what I am talking about. E were discussing the Antichrist... Remember? The Catholic church, as it existed prior to 538ad, was still only a church. Albeit a rapidly failing church. But when she sought and grasped a hold of the civil power in Rome, and began to dictate doctrine at the point of the state sword, (for example with the Trinity and the Sunday sacredness doctrines in the 4th century), she was well into freefall. But when she officially mounted the throne of the Caesars in the 6 th century, she was officially crowned Antichrist. Married to the kings of the earth she had committed spiritual adultery and had divorced herself from her Saviour. She then went on to fulfill her self appointed role as the Antichrist. Placing herself, her doctrines, her Saints, and her priesthood in the room of Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have no argument against all that. Because that is not what I am talking about. E were discussing the Antichrist... Remember? The Catholic church, as it existed prior to 538ad, was still only a church. Albeit a rapidly failing church. But when she sought and grasped a hold of the civil power in Rome, and began to dictate doctrine at the point of the state sword, (for example with the Trinity and the Sunday sacredness doctrines in the 4th century), she was well into freefall. But when she officially mounted the throne of the Caesars in the 6 th century, she was officially crowned Antichrist. Married to the kings of the earth she had committed spiritual adultery and had divorced herself from her Saviour. She then went on to fulfill her self appointed role as the Antichrist. Placing herself, her doctrines, her Saints, and her priesthood in the room of Christ.

What do you mean you have NO argument against all that. It is the crux of the argument.

What do you mean by “The Catholic Church was still only a Church by 538 AD” – but a “rapidly failing Church”?? You’re constantly making these asinine claims without one SHRED of evidence based on your bizarre SDA myths. The Catholic Church was the ONLY Church in 538.

As for the “point of a state sword” – YOU don’t know your history.
The Church didn’t do around killing heretics. This Church didn’t go around ORDERING the killing of heretics. As I have educated you on more than one occasion – heresy was frowned upon by kingdoms. NOT simply because it was not in line with the King’s personal views - but because heretics destabilized the kingdom. They were bad for commerce and they were considered “rabble-rousers”.

Finally – you have YET to substantiate your filthy LIE that the Early Church was “praying for” the extension of Roman Paganism. What a bizarre claim to make.

As I told my friends who are former SDAs – study the HISTORY of the Early Church – and you will LEAVE the SDA sect. There is STILL hope for you . . .

 

[brakelite]

The Catholic Church was the ONLY Church in 538.

I am unsure what you mean by that. Can you clarify your meaning of 'Catholic' in the context of your statement, (that is denomination or description) ... And could you also clarify what you mean by 'church'? For example, are you saying that the Catholic church based in Rome was the only independent Christian body of believers?