The Real Foundation of the RCC.

[BreadOfLife]

Depends on your definition of worship. Subjection to...surrender to...submission to any authority whatsoever, if it usurps the prerogatives and status of the Godhead, is idolatry. So this bears repeating....
"And that my friends are precisely the reasons all non-Roman Bible commentators from the time of the 6th century on were almost unanimous in identifying the papacy as the man of sin. The power who entered the church (the temple of God) and by claiming the power to forgive sin, and shut out of heaven whom he will, and claiming universal spiritual and temporal authority over all the earth, thus claiming the prerogatives of God, “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

Any authority that claims the power to decide on who is saved, and who is not, is taking God's place. That precisely is what the Catholic church based in Rome, does. You know it. I know it. It is high time you stopped treating everyone who disagrees with you on this forum as if they are uneducated imbeciles. They know BOL who your church is. And we all utterly repudiate and deny your church's pompous and presumptuous pretensions to authority over all the world, and over the consciences of men.

Precisely.
Anti-Catholics like yourself have a ridiculous double-standard when it comes to the definition of "idolatry".
Catholics aren't allowed to respect our Church leaders while following the Gospel - yet YOU guys not only revere your leaders - you disobey the Gospel message with your constant splintering of the body.

The Scriptures command us to respect our Church leaders:
1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you,

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

The difference between Catholics and anti-Catholics is that we're not hypocrites about it.

PS - please provide documented PROOF that all "non-Roman Bible commentators from the 6th century on identified the Pope as a man of sin."
Good grief . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The above BOL is historic proof, that precise thing you constantly nag everyone about, regarding my "theories". Pagan Rome was the fourth beast. It was known by many historians as the "Iron Monarchy". The fourth beast was never conquered. It merely morphed into another form. Pagan Rome, as all students of history affirm, collapsed under the weight of its own immorality. The iron in the prophecy, Rome, continues all the way to the end of the statue. All the way down to the very toenails. Our time. Today. So the ancient pagan Roman empire depicted by that fourth beast does indeed exist today...the prophecy demands that it exists today....the question is...in what form? The answer to that is the purpose of this very discussion. Now, let us continue shall we? Unless of course you have some genuine inquiries or actual real historical challenges to what is very well understood and accepted history rather than the blind spraying of duckshot as is your custom in the hope that something hits its mark?

Pagan Rome fell largely BECAUSE of the Christian Church. It didn't "morph" into it.

When you use idiotic, sweeping generalizations like "ALL students of history affirm" - it simply shows that you have once again failed to do your homework . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

BoLs way of verifying everything you said, i guess

 

[BreadOfLife]

BoLs way of verifying everything you said, i guess

And once again, you post confused nonsense . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

And once again, you post confused nonsense . . .

ah, you honor me, ty

hope you've been well?

 

[brakelite]

Allow me @BreadOfLife to repeat the following....

Any authority that claims the power to decide on who is saved, and who is not, is taking God's place. That is a fact. And no claims of delegated authority...apostolic succession...can change that. The apostles themselves never claimed such power, nor did they confer such power upon their successors. That presumption of having power to shut heaven's doors to whomsoever she will, is precisely what the Catholic church based in Rome, does. For centuries it has been the boast of Rome to be the only door through whom anyone can be saved. You know it. I know it. Most everybody on this forum knows it. There is no need for me either to produce "documented evidence" of such claims...the confessional box is sufficient.
It is high time you stopped treating everyone who disagrees with you on this forum as if they are uneducated imbeciles. They know BOL who your church is. And we all utterly repudiate and deny your church's pompous and presumptuous pretensions to authority over all the world, and over the consciences of men.

The very fact BoL that your church does claim the power to forgive sin, among other pretensions to the throne of God, is evidence enough that your church, that is the system we all know as the Papacy, is antichrist. That said however, it wasn't my purpose to promote such on this thread. That has been done many times previous, and folk here, especially those who tire of the many threads that are Catholicism v non-Catholicism in nature, have read it all before, and hasn't changed their attitude necessarily to the Catholic faith. Many still view it as a benign Christian faith, despite some differences in opinion on doctrine. Therefore it was my idea that perhaps if I presented my case strictly through the scriptures, and how through scripture alone it is possible to reveal who Antichrist is, then maybe that will wake people up to the danger that your church presents as we head into the days of the end, and that global ecumenical monstrosity to come that will again persecute the saints even more intensely than Rome did during the dark ages.

 

[brakelite]

So, having in a previous post (#12) disposed of any notion that Antiochus Epiphanes could possibly be the antichrist, I shall no proceed to the only other viable candidate, and the criteria, at least 10, which need to be met in order to make any identification viable. This will not be conjecture or opinion on my part...the criteria demanded of scripture are specific; cannot be forged or imagined; cannot be guessed at; and cannot be disputed.

Every reformer, from the 12th to the 18th century, from Wycliffe to Luther, from Calvin to Cranmer, and dozens in between, as well as many Bible scholars prior to the reformation, pointed their collective fingers at Rome and proclaimed the Roman papacy as the Antichrist of prophetic scripture. Were they right? Judging by today’s views, the reformation was a major mistake, and the reformers all religious radicals deceived and influenced by the times in which they lived. If they were right, then why do so few proclaim it today? If however they were wrong, then why don’t we all forsake the title “protestant” (who’s protesting today anyway?) and return to Rome?

From the time of Wycliffe (known as the morning star of the reformation) there were many who held the view that the papacy was the antichrist of prophetic scripture. A follower of John Wycliffe, one John Purvey, wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation, this being nearly 150 years before Luther. In 1528 Luther reprinted or republished this commentary, and inserted the following preface.

“This preface, noble reader, you may understand was written by us for this reason–that we might make known to the world that we are not the first to interpret the Papacy as the kingdom of the Antichrist. For many years prior to us, so many and so great men (whose number is large, and their memory eternal) have attempted this so clearly and openly, and that with great spirit and force, that [those] who were driven by the fury of the papal tyranny into the farthest boundaries of the earth, and suffering the most atrocious tortures, nevertheless bravely and faithfully persisted in the confession of the truth.”


In a statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith, ratified by the British parliament in 1647:
“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.”
(Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom–With a History and Critical Notes, vol. 3, pp 658, 659)

In his book, All Roads Lead to Rome, (pp205,206) Michael de Semlyen says:
“Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist Confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, John Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently, Spurgeon, Bishop J. C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.”

The vast majority of these courageous men died at the hands of the very system they were denouncing, so there can be little surprise that the power that had most to gain by their silence was that power that destroyed them, and what writings they could find. There is however many examples available of such denunciations, particularly of those more eminent scholars like Newton, Calvin, Luther Wesley and Whitfield.

Now, some quotes from some individual reformers.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) (Lutheran): “Luther … proved, by the revelations of Daniel and St. John,by the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, that the reign of Antichrist, predicted and described in the Bible, was the Papacy … And all the people did say, Amen! A holy terror seized their souls. It was Antichrist whom they beheld seated on the pontifical throne. This new idea, which derived greater strength from the prophetic descriptions launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries, inflicted the most terrible blow on Rome.” Taken from J. H. Merle D’Aubigne’s History of the
Reformation of the Sixteen Century, book vi, chapter xii, p. 215.

John Calvin (1509-1564) (Presbyterian): “Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt… I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” Taken from Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.



John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian): John Knox sought to counteract “that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church.” As with Luther, he finally concluded that the Papacy was “the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.”
The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican): “Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.

John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, “He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers… He it is…that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped…claiming the highest power, and highest honour…claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.

 

[brakelite]

For what reasons did the reformers risk life and limb, (literally), in their damning accusations against the church which raised them? Nearly all the reformers were priests, with no intentions of forming new churches, but reforming the one they loved and held dear. Yet here they are accusing the very institution which educated and confirmed them in their faith, of being the dreaded Antichrist of prophetic scripture. Why?

Was it revenge for being excommunicated? No, they were excommunicated for the most part because of the accusations. Was it the worst insult they could come up with because of a personal grudge? Hardly. Or perhaps, as this author believes and will expand on later, was it because they were serious students of the Bible and saw unmistakably the fulfilment of the many prophecies regarding Antichrist being played out perfectly before their very eyes?

Are you aware that there is more detail concerning the character and nature of this entity than any other in the entire scriptures apart from Jesus Himself? Even Satan doesn’t get that much press, yet God has seen fit to describe the Antichrist with accuracy and detail no other earthly entity receives. In His love, God earnestly desires that every man, woman, and child on the planet makes no mistake regarding the identity of Antichrist. Antichrist poses such a threat that God has given us more than ample warning and information as to who or what this entity is. Yet today the majority of Christendom completely ignores the very heroes of our faith and the godly men and women of recent history who died as a result of their testimony, and look to the future for some mythical creature to fulfil their clairvoyant prognostications.

Let me lay my card on the table, and I pray everyone reading this heeds the warning. While you look to the horizon for a battleship to appear with all guns blazing against Christianity and named “Antichrist”, look behind you. There is a ‘friend’ who kisses you as Judas kissed Christ and will run you over like a runaway train lest you kneel before her.

 

[brakelite]

In post #15 I quoted several of the church fathers who all agreed that pagan Rome was the power 'restraining' the coming antichrist from appearing. They at that time did not know what form the antichrist would take. But they did agree on a number of true criteria that needed to be fulfilled before any recognition could be affirmed. First, the pagan Roman empire had to be dissolved. From the prophecies of Daniel they rightly understood that ten nations or kingdoms would arise in its stead, and that an eleventh would come up after them, deposing 3 of the original 10. Those early church fathers could not even guess at the identity of the coming horror, because it wasn't until the 5th century that the western section of the Roman empire had succumbed to barbarian rule. In fact, it wasn't until after 476AD ....

In September 476 AD, the last Roman emperor of the west, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by a Germanic prince called Odovacar, who had won control of the remnants of the Roman army of Italy. He then sent the western imperial regalia to Constantinople. ... The end of empire was a major event in human history.
BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: The Fall of Rome
www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/fallofrome_article_01.shtml

.....that the little horn could arise, because only after the ten horns were established, was the eleventh to "come up after them", according to Daniel 7:24 And as for the ten horns, out of this kingdom (Rome) shall ten kings arise: and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the former, and he shall put down three kings. ASV — Daniel 7:24

So who were those ten horns that came up? Where did they come from? And who were the three that were destroyed, and never heard from again?

 

[BreadOfLife]

The very fact BoL that your church does claim the power to forgive sin, among other pretensions to the throne of God, is evidence enough that your church, that is the system we all know as the Papacy, is antichrist. That said however, it wasn't my purpose to promote such on this thread. That has been done many times previous, and folk here, especially those who tire of the many threads that are Catholicism v non-Catholicism in nature, have read it all before, and hasn't changed their attitude necessarily to the Catholic faith. Many still view it as a benign Christian faith, despite some differences in opinion on doctrine. Therefore it was my idea that perhaps if I presented my case strictly through the scriptures, and how through scripture alone it is possible to reveal who Antichrist is, then maybe that will wake people up to the danger that your church presents as we head into the days of the end, and that global ecumenical monstrosity to come that will again persecute the saints even more intensely than Rome did during the dark ages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[brakelite]

The very fact BoL that your church does claim the power to forgive sin, among other pretensions to the throne of God, is evidence enough that your church, that is the system we all know as the Papacy, is antichrist. That said however, it wasn't my purpose to promote such on this thread.

@BreadOfLife As I said, that has all been discussed before, and am not entertaining such a distraction from the topic in hand. Bring it up if you like elsewhere, and we can all go another merry-go-round with it there. Same with Papal supremacy...Catholic canon/scripture...whatever. But this topic is a focus on prophecy, and the identification of the iron metal in the legs of the statue of Daniel 2...the identity of the fourth beast and its "little horn" of Daniel 7....the identity of the "little horn from one of the four winds/directions associated with the goat of Daniel 8...the dientity of the first beast of Revelation 13...in other words; the real foundation of the 'Roman' Catholic Church. Regardless of what is meant by Catholic in its legal sense...everyone knows who and what we are talking about. It includes anyone who in their heart and practice, obey, or submit to or agree with Papal authority, whether they call themselves Catholic or not. Roman or otherwise.

 

[Philip James]

And yet you have provided no evidence of this foundation you speak of.

At what point does the Bishop of Rome mysteriously morph into the antichrist...

Why did the other bishops in the church not say something?

How is his teaching differentiated from Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria?

If Rome is your stumbling block you should be Orthodox....

Who else is there with valid authority?

Where are those who did NOT 'go out from us'?

Where is the beacon set on a hill that cant be hid?

Where is the Church that remains One with Christ and the apostles in 100 AD
200AD 300... 500.. 1000... 2000?

Christ IS risen!
Alleluia

 

[brakelite]

As I mentioned previously, there are at least 10 easily recognisable criteria that are exclusively applicable to the antichrist/little horn of Daniel 7 etc that make this entity wholly identifiable. So far I have established two. It grows from Rome as one of the eleven horns (all the horns must grow from the empirical beast, already unanimously established as pagan Rome). Therefore the little horn is Roman.
The second is that it must rise up after 476.ad...after the other ten horns are established. That year, 476 ad is the year most historians have settled on as being the year of transition from the western empire to a new order under the individual tribal rule of the Germanic tribes, the so-called barbarians. See Daniel 7:8,20.
So, what is the next criteria? Let us read...Daniel 7:8 "I (Daniel) considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots...." That word, 'before', is the Aramaic word 'quodam', meaning before, but not only in the sense of 'in front of', but before in time. This strongly suggests that the little horn rises to power as a direct result of the vanquishing of those 3 powers/tribes/kings. Not only is that little horn there to witness there demise, their defeat being in his presence, but because that little horn is there to be a witness, yet their defeat being before him in time, means obviously there is an element of power or right to rule involved...that horn until their demise did not have the authority or right to rule as an independent king. This element of authority is strengthened when one considers Daniel 7:23 where the angel actually explains the reality of what Daniel saw in the vision: he said "and the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise, and another shall rise after them, and he shall be diverse from the first and he shall subdue three kings. Thus not only were the 3 kings defeated in front of him, and their defeat being the catalyst for his own rise to power, but according to the angel, he actually had a hand in their demise!
So, now it is our task to study the history of these events, and see if what is described actually took place, and who were these kings or kingdoms that were involved. I have already shown that the church fathers expected these events to take place. In fact, there is evidence the early church prayed that Pagan Rome would continue because they feared this little horn far more. Better the beast they knew, than the one they didn't know. One particular church father had this to say...
Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386 A. D.) “But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after those an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, ‘three he shall humble,’ and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself.” (Catechetical Lectures,” section 15, on II Thessalonians 2:4; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 108 [New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1895]).
So who were these players in this great drama of the ages that would introduce the Antichrist into the world? As mentioned previously, historians are fairly well agreed, with a couple of minor variations, who made up the ten horns. Seven of them formed the nucleus of what their distant descendants would develop into modern Europe.
They were the
1. Suevi (Portugal)
2. Visigoths (Spain)
3. Franks (France)
4. Alemmani (Switzerland)
5. Lombards (Italy)
6 Anglo Saxons (Britain)
7. Burgundians (Burgundy)
Machiavelli (>History of Florence,= 1.i) with no design of furnishing an illustration of this prophecy, and probably with no recollection of it, has mentioned these names as making up the full ten: 1. The Ostrogoths in Moesia; 2. The Visigoths in Pannonia; 3. The Sueves and Alans in Gascoign and Spain; 4. The Vandals in Africa; 5. The Franks in France; 6. The Burgundians in Burgundy; 7. The Heruli and Turingi in Italy; 8. The Saxons and Angles in Britain; 9. The Huns in Hungary; 10. The Lombards at first upon the Danube, afterwards in Italy.
Other historians exclude the Huns, and include the Alemmani. This makes somewhat more sense as far as the actual prophesy is concerned, the Huns settling where modern Hungary is, the Alemmani in Germany, so more aligned to modern Europe and the western empire. The above 7 tribes, some being defeated by the first Catholic king, Clovis, were assimilated into what later became the "holy Roman empire". Those seven eventually submitted to Papal authority, whereas 3 did not. They refused to surrender their "Arian" beliefs, (although no-one today knows precisely what the "Arian" beliefs actually were ) and were therefore considered enemies to the growing 'orthodoxy' of the church developing in power and prestige in Rome.
So to the 3rd criteria for the Antichrist, the uprooting of the other 3 horns. There were 3 of the above kings that were destroyed. The Ostrogoths, the Vandals, and the Heruli. No trace of their kingdoms remain.
It was the emperor who sent Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths to do battle with Odoacer, king of the Heruli. Odoacer was slain by Theodoric and the Heruli disappeared from history. Then the Vandals were crushed (in 534 A. D.) by Belisarius, general of emperor Justinian's armies.

But there was one remaining horn which needed to be uprooted, and it was the most formidable of all: the Ostrogoths. After the Ostrogoths conquered the Heruli, they became extremely powerful. They were also Arians, so the Bishop of Rome [the Pope] implored Justinian to uproot the Ostrogoths. Justinian, in turn, implored the Franks to help him in his holy enterprise:
When Justinian first meditated the conquest of Italy, he sent ambassadors to the kings of the Franks, and adjured them, by the common ties of alliance and religion, to join in the holy enterprise against the Arians.[ Edward Gibbon, The History of
the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, volume 4 [chapter 41, paragraph 32]
(New York: Harper & Brothers), p. 175. Bold is mine. This was a crusade, inspired by the bishop of Rome who viewed Arianism as an enemy, a heresy to be uprooted at all costs, and as has been the practice of the Catholic Church throughout her history, used state armies to carry our her bidding.
There were several battles between Belisarius and the Ostrogoths. The decisive battle, however, was in February (remember the month, we will come back to it later) of the year 538. The armies of Justinian, as well as the ravages of disease, decimated the armies of the Ostrogoths, they were expelled from Rome and within a decade, disappeared from the historical scene in Europe. The third horn had been uprooted once and for all!
Thus history accurately reflects prophecy. But which power was this little horn that witnessed these events...which power had a decisive hand in motivating the emperor to battle...which power rose to great influence and authority in Rome as a result of the defeat of these kingdoms, despite being Christian, all of which held "heretical" beliefs that the Catholics in Rome could not tolerate? I think the answer is obvious. The little horn is the Catholic church. But let us not write such in stone, for there are other criteria that must be met...and even if just one of them fails, then the Catholic church cannot be the little horn, and thus cannot be the Antichrist.

 

[brakelite]

So far we have 3 of at least 10 criteria that identifies the Roman Catholic Church as the Antichrist.
1. Rose up to power after 476AD. Prior to that she had no judicial or civil jurisdiction or authority over other churches. The Justinian Code, and his letter to the bishop of Rome Pope John, which was established as law, proclaimed that authority. This was in 533 AD.
2. Uprooted three kingdoms., The Ostrogoths did not disappear in 538 A. D., but the decisive battle had been won, the
handwriting was on the wall. In 540 A. D. Witiges (king of the Ostrogoths) was dealt a further blow by Belisarius at Ravenna. And in 550 A. D.,what was left of the Ostrogoths was totally wiped out and the Ostrogoths were history. It is of great significance that today no trace can be found of the Heruli anywhere in Europe. There is no memory of the Vandals in North Africa. And all that remains of the Ostrogoths is King Theodoric=s Mausoleum (built in the early 6th century) in Ravenna. Theodoric was buried in this mausoleum in 526 A. D., but today his body is gone. When Belisarius conquered Ravenna in 540 A. D., Theodoric's body was removed from the casket and discarded. So it is literally true that the three horns were uprooted!!
3. The little horn is undoubtedly Roman, having grown from the Roman head of the beast. Is the Catholic church Roman? Let us hear from one of Catholicism's most eminent historians, Cardinal Manning.
"St. Thomas (Aquinas) . . says that the Roman Empire has not ceased, but is changed from the temporal into the spiritual. . . It was, then, the Apostolic Church, which, spreading throughout the nations, already combined together by the power of the heathen empire of Rome, quickened them with a new life. . . the temporal power in the old heathen empire of Rome, and the spiritual power in the supernatural kingdom of God met together. . . these two powers were blended and fused together; they became one authority, the emperor ruling from his throne within the sphere of his earthly jurisdiction, and the Supreme Pontiff ruling likewise from a throne of a higher sovereignty over the nations. . . the material power which once reigned in Rome [was] consecrated and sanctified by the investiture of the Vicar of Jesus Christ with temporal sovereignty over the city where he dwelt. And now for these twelve hundred years the peace, the perpetuity and faithfulness of the Christian civilization of Europe, has been owing solely in its principle to this consecration of the power and authority of the great empire of Rome, taken up of old, perpetuated, preserved, as I have said, by the salt which had been sprinkled from heaven, and continued in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, and in that order of Christian civilization of which he has been the creator. (Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, pp. 123-128)
Some on this forum have berated me for naming the Catholic church as 'Roman'. Here one of your most prominent historian, quoting one of your most prominent saints, agrees with me. Others would argue that Catholic Christianity did not rise from pagan Rome. Please consider the following....
If we extend our view over the ruins of the Western Empire, such is the spectacle that meets us on every side. . . . the Pax Romana has ceased; it is universal confusion. But wherever a bishop holds his court, religion protects all that is left of
the ancient order. A new Rome ascends slowly above the horizon. It is the heir of the religion which it has overthrown; it assumes the outward splendours of the Caesars. . . . The emperor is no more. . . . But the Pontifex Maximus abides; he is
now the Vicar of Christ, offering the old civilization to the tribes of the north. He converts them to his creed, and they serve him as their Father and Judge supreme. This is the Papal Monarchy, which in its power and its decline overshadows the
history of Europe for a thousand years. (W. F. Barry, The Papal Monarchy, pp.45, 46)

 

[Philip James]

and even if just one of them fails, then the Catholic church cannot be the little horn, and thus cannot be the Antichrist

You mean like this one?

Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist

Your fantasy tale falls flat on this...
Not much of an antichrist who teaches people that Jesus IS the Christ, Son of the Father...

But go ahead keep spewing your calumny...

Father, forgive them.. They know not what they do..

 

[Andre]

Daniel the prophet, one of the greatest in history, revealed some astonishingly accurate portrayals of the rise and fall of the empires that would directly influence the lives of Gods people.
Beginning with that Babylonian Empire under which he served, he described in vivid detail the following 3 empires that would take mankind all the way down to the end of time and the second coming. That is right, the fourth Empire Daniel spoke of would still be here even in our day, albeit in another form, yet still retaining the basic features and characteristics that made that fourth Empire so unique; and such a vicious opposition to God's people.
Most are familiar with the statute of Daniel 2, and the four beasts of Daniel 7, and most here would be in agreement as to what empires they represent.
Babylon
Meda-Persia
Greece
Rome.
So how does Rome extend all the way down to our day and the second coming???

Hi @brakelight,
Daniel is my favorite prophet. It is this prophecy which really convinced me that the Bible is true. The accuracy is astonishing. As far as the extension of Rome into our day and to the return of Christ, I am inclined to understand that all four kingdoms, represented by the mixture of miry clay, will be present when Jesus returns. The reason I say this is because of this verse:
(Dan 2:44 [KJV])
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
(Dan 2:45 [KJV])
Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream [is] certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

 

[brakelite]

Hi @brakelight,
Daniel is my favorite prophet. It is this prophecy which really convinced me that the Bible is true. The accuracy is astonishing. As far as the extension of Rome into our day and to the return of Christ, I am inclined to understand that all four kingdoms, represented by the mixture of miry clay, will be present when Jesus returns. The reason I say this is because of this verse:
(Dan 2:44 [KJV])
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
(Dan 2:45 [KJV])
Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream [is] certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

Indeed, in the current formation of the global apostate church under the aegis of the bishop of Rome, are still to be found remnants of pagan belief and practice that first characterised those empires now fallen, but not yet completely destroyed.

 

[brakelite]

You mean like this one?

Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist

Your fantasy tale falls flat on this...
Not much of an antichrist who teaches people that Jesus IS the Christ, Son of the Father...

But go ahead keep spewing your calumny...

Father, forgive them.. They know not what they do..

Oh, there are many ways by which one can deny Messiah, just as there are many ways by which one can deny the Son and the Father. Let me ask you a question. Does the RCC uphold and teach what John said in the same book you quoted above here? quote:
1Jo 4:2,3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Another question. This is in reference to the scripture you quoted above 1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. An integral component of Christ's ministry as the Son of God and High Priest of our profession (Hebrews 3:1 and 4:14) is His mediatorial role, in fact, His unique and sole ownership of that role between man and the Father. A role only He can play, being the divine Son yet human also, He can touch the throne of God and the earth, thus fully qualified as no other can be. So in consideration of the above sole mediatorial ministry of our Christ and Brother, would it be a denial of Him being the Christ if one should attempt to place a mediator there in His stead? Would it be a denial to replace Christ with another High Priest who acts as mediator between heaven and earth? Or even places another mediator between the true Mediator and ourselves, as if the true cannot do His work? Like a mediatrix perhaps? Would such be a denial of the true Christ and therefore Antichrist?

Another question. Again, in reference to your quote of 1 John 2:22. Please explain in language we can all understand how a belief in the trinity as understood by Catholicism and expressed in the creeds, harmonizes with a belief that Jesus is truly an only begotten Son of His Father, and doesn't in fact accomplish the opposite, in denying the Father and the Son?

Although in one sense this is topical, it isn't where I wanted to focus, nevertheless, your challenge is appropriate. But not conclusively a decision of "not guilty".

 

[brakelite]

Further to post #33, just a little more history that supports the current evidence regarding the RCC involvement in the uprooting of the 3 horns/kingdoms.

The relation which these Arian kings sustained to the pope, from which we can see the necessity of their being overthrown to make way for papal supremacy, is shown in the following testimony from Mosheim, given in his History of the Church, cent.6, part 2, chap.2, sec.2:-
“On the other hand, it is certain, from a variety of the most authentic records, that both the emperors and the nations in general were far from being disposed to bear with patience the yoke of servitude which the popes were imposing upon the Christian church. The Gothic princes set bounds to the power of these arrogant prelates in Italy, permitted none to be raised to the pontificate without their approbation, and reserved to themselves the right of judging of the legality of every new election
An instance in proof of this statement occurs in the history of Odoacer, the first Arian king above mentioned, as related by Bower in his History of the Popes, Vol.I, p.271. When, on the death of Pope Simplicius, A.D.483, the clergy and people had assembled for the election of a new pope, suddenly Basilius, lieutenant of King Odoacer, appeared in the assembly, expressed his surprise that any such work as appointing a successor to the deceased pope should be undertaken without him, in the name of the king declared all that had been done null and void, and ordered the election to be begun anew. Certainly the horn which exercised such a restrictive power over the papal pontiff must be taken away before the pope could reach the predicted supremacy. Meanwhile, Zeno, the emperor of the East, and friend of the pope, was anxious to drive Odoacer out of Italy (Machiavelli, p.6), a movement which he soon had the satisfaction of seeing accomplished without trouble to himself, in the following manner. Theodoric had come to the throne of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Moesia and Pannonia. Being on friendly terms with Zeno, he wrote him, stating that it was impossible for him to restrain his Goths within the impoverished province of Pannonia, and asking his permission to lead them to some more favorable region, which they might conquer and possess. Zeno gave him permission to march against Odoacer, and take possession of Italy.

The emperor sent Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths to do battle with Odoacer, king of the Heruli. Odoacer was the first of the barbarians who reigned over the Romans. He took the throne of Italy, according to Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol.III, pp.510,515), in 476. Of his religious belief Gibbon (p.516) says: “Like the rest of the barbarians, he had been instructed in the Arian heresy; but he revered the monastic and episcopal characters, and the silence of the Catholics attests the toleration which they enjoyed.”
Again he says (p.547): “The Ostrogoths, the Burgundians, the Suevi, and the Vandals, who had listened to the eloquence of the Latin clergy, preferred the more intelligible lessons of their domestic teachers; and Arianism was adopted as the national faith of the warlike converts who were seated on the ruins of the Western empire. This irreconcilable difference of religion was a perpetual source of jealousy and hatred; and the reproach of barbarian was embittered by the more odious epithet of heretic. The heroes of the North, who had submitted, with some reluctance, to believe that all their ancestors were in hell, were astonished and exasperated to learn that they themselves had only changed the mode of their eternal condemnation.”

 

[brakelite]

The next two posts deal with characteristic number five of the ten or so criteria identifying the little horn as the RCC. These posts are not my views of what Catholicism is, they are the views of what Catholicism thinks of itself.

Characteristic 5:
The little horn was to speak great words against the Most High (Daniel 7:21, 25). Revelation 13:5 explains what these words would be, namely, blasphemy. And, what is blasphemy according to the Bible? It is when a merely human power claims to be God on earth and when it thinks it can exercise the prerogatives and functions of God (see, John 10:30-33; Mark 2:7).

Again, this post is not about my understanding of Catholicism, but rather what the RCC thinks of itself.

1) Roman Catholic church historians and theologians have made some audacious statements regarding the dignity and power of the Pope. Let’s notice a few of them:
In an oration offered to the Pope in the fourth session of the Fifth Lateran Council (1512) Christopher Marcellus stated: “For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman; finally, thou art another God on earth.” (Labbe and Cossart, History of
the Councils, Vol. XIV, col. 109). .

The Catechism of the Council of Trent states the following: “Bishops and priests, being, as they are, God’s interpreters and ambassadors, empowered in His name to teach mankind the divine law and the rules of conduct, and holding, as they do, His place on earth, it is evident that no nobler function than theirs can be imagined. Justly, therefore, are they called not only Angels, but even gods, because of the fact that they exercise in our midst the power and prerogatives of the immortal God.” (John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, p. 318).

Notice the following words of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine:
“All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that he is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” (Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de Controversiis, Tom. 2, “Controversia Prima”, Book 2 (“De Conciliorum Auctoritate” [On the Authority of Councils]), chap. 17 (1628 ed., Vol. 1, p. 266), translated

The New York Catechism states: “The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. By divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” (Quoted in Lorraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, p. 127)

Notice the following words in the journal, La Civilta Cattolica, “The pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land. . . . . He is the viceregent of Christ, who is not only a Priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords.” (La Civilta Cattolica, March 18, 1871, quoted in Leonard Woolsey Bacon, An Inside View of the Vatican Council (American Tract Society ed.), p. 229

Pope Gregory IX adds his testimony: “For not man, but God separates those whom the Roman Pontiff (who exercises the functions, not of mere man, but of the true God), having weighed the necessity or benefit of the churches, dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority.” (The Decretals of Gregory IX, Book l, title 7, chap. 3, in Corpus Juris Canonici (1555-56 ed.), Vol 2, col. 203, translated).

John XXIII at his inauguration address said: “Into this fold of Jesus Christ no one can enter if not under the guidance of the Sovereign Pontiff; and men can securely reach salvation only when they are united with him, since the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and represents His person on this earth.” (Quoted in Lorraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, p. 408).

Pope Leo XIII stated in an Encyclical Letter dated June 20, 1894: “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” (The Great Encyclical Letters of
Leo XIII, p. 304).

The following words, in a recognized Roman Catholic encyclopedia, illustrate the blasphemous claims of the Papacy: “The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. The Pope is of such lofty and supreme dignity that, properly speaking, he has not been established in any rank of dignity, but rather has been placed upon the very summit of all ranks of dignities. The Pope is called most holy because he is rightfully presumed to be such. Nor can emperors and kings be called most holy; for although in civil laws the term ‘most sacred’ seems sometimes to have been usurped by emperors, yet never that of ‘most holy.’ The Pope alone is deservedly called by the name ‘most holy’, because he alone is the vicar of Christ, who is the fountain and source and fulness of all holiness. The Pope by reason of the excellence of his supreme dignity is called bishop of bishops. He is also called ordinary of ordinaries. He is likewise bishop of the universal church. He is likewise the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions. Moreover the superiority and the power of the Roman Pontiff by no means pertain only to the heavenly things, to the earthly things, and to the things under the earth, but are even over angels, than whom he is greater. So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the Pope. For he is of so great dignity and power that he forms one and the same tribunal with Christ. So that whatever the Pope does, seems to proceed from the mouth of God, as according to most doctors, etc.
The Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been intrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom. The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine laws. [In proof of this last proposition various quotations are made, among them these:] The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as viceregent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing his sheep. Whatever the Lord God himself, and the Redeemer, is said to do, that his vicar does, provided that he does nothing contrary to the faith.” (Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica nec non Ascetica, Polemica, Rubricistica, Historica, article, “Papa”.) This encyclopedia is not some offshoot production. The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume VI, p. 48 in its article, “Ferraris” lauds the virtues of this encyclopedia with the following glowing words: It is “a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge” and “a precious mine of information.”

Once again, Pope Leo XIII stated: “But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, ‘On the Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens”, dated January 10, 1890, trans. in The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, p. 193.

Pope Nicholas I, who ruled from 858 to 867 A. D. pronounced the following awesome words: “It is evident that the popes can neither be bound nor unbound by any earthly power, nor even by that of the apostle [Peter], if he should return upon the earth; since Constantine the Great has recognized that the pontiffs held the place of God upon earth, divinity not being able to be judged by any living man. We are, then, infallible, and whatever may be our acts, we are not accountable for them but to ourselves.”
(Cormenin, History of the Popes, p. 243, as cited in R. W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power, p. 248).