Who is the AntiChrist? (Identifying Him)

[Jude Thaddeus]

Just answer the question.

For the fourth time, among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. Were they martyrs or apostates?
You can't or won't answer the question.
Citing sources that can't be found on line for verification is dishonest.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

CHALLENGE
“The pope is the Antichrist.”
DEFENSE
This claim does not fit the biblical evidence; it is based on unbiblical polemics.

Although the Antichrist is sometimes associated with figures like the “man of sin” (2 Thess. 2:3–10) and the beast of Revelation (Rev. 13:1– 18), there are only four passages in the New Testament that explicitly speak of the “antichrist”:
1 John 2:18,
John 2:22,
John 4:3, and
2 John 7.

To under- stand the role of the Antichrist, we must look to these passages.

• According to them, the Antichrist “denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22),
• the “spirit of antichrist” “does not confess Jesus” (1 John 4:3),
• and the Antichrist does “not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh” (2 John 7).

These passages indicate that the Antichrist denies the coming of Jesus in the flesh. This could be construed several ways:
(1) Jesus was a mere man and not God Incarnate (the early heresy known as Ebion- ism),
(2) the humanity of Jesus was only an illusion (the early heresy known as Docetism), or
(3) Jesus was not the Messiah (as in non- Christian Judaism).

None of these descriptions fit the popes, who have consistently maintained that Jesus was the Messiah, that he was God, and that he was fully God and fully man. Even a cursory reading of papal teaching provides abundant evidence for this. In fact, the popes have been among the most vigorous defenders of orthodoxy on these points.
The evidence is so extensive that it is amazing anyone could make the papal Antichrist claim, and its existence calls for an explanation.

The ultimate explanation is one of necessity: Prior to the Protestant Reformation, it was universally recognized in Western Christendom that the Catholic Church was the Church of Christ, governed by the pope as the authentic representative of Christ. Critics of the papacy thus needed to provide an alternative explanation of what the pope’s role was and how he could achieve such prominence if he were not Christ’s representative. They, therefore, asserted that he was the arch-enemy of Christ, the Antichrist (Smalcald Articles 2:4:10, 14; Westminster Confession 25:6).
This may have been a polemically useful claim, but it does not fit the biblical data—a fact most Protestant scholars recognize today.

 

[Brakelite]

Although the Antichrist is sometimes associated with figures like the “man of sin” (2 Thess. 2:3–10) and the beast of Revelation (Rev. 13:1– 18)

"Sometimes associated" I think could be seen as somewhat of a euphemism.

1 John 2:18,
John 2:22,
John 4:3, and
2 John 7.

To under- stand the role of the Antichrist, we must look to these passages.

• According to them, the Antichrist “denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22),
• the “spirit of antichrist” “does not confess Jesus” (1 John 4:3),
• and the Antichrist does “not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh” (2 John 7).

I agree with you. If the Catholic church does not meet all of these specific criteria, then clearly she cannot be the Antichrist. You have offered in defence...

None of these descriptions fit the popes, who have consistently maintained that Jesus was the Messiah, that he was God, and that he was fully God and fully man. Even a cursory reading of papal teaching provides abundant evidence for this. In fact, the popes have been among the most vigorous defenders of orthodoxy on these points.

Indeed, the popes have been the most vigorous in affirming what we today call orthodoxy. But are the present "orthodox" views of the popes in harmony with what was commonly believed by the apostles and the early church outside of papal officialdom?
For example. It may seem extremely weird to modern day Christians to think there were anyone who could believe Jesus was a ghost, spirit, or phantom, however as you correctly pointed out, there was a small number who indeed did believe this. But are you considering the right people, and the correct meaning of what John was terming, "flesh"? Flesh in the biblical sense particularly in the NT, can mean carnal nature. So the question would be, died Jesus come in the carnal sinful nature of fallen Adam, or the perfect nature of Adam before the fall? In considering this question, one needs to take into account what Catholics term, "the immaculate conception". I suggest that when those points are considered, the Catholic church does indeed meet the criteria of believing Jesus did not come in the "flesh".
As for denying the Father and the Son, I believe this also goes deeper than the simple declaration that in the trinity there is a Father and Son. What does "eternally begotten" actually mean when determining the ontological nature of the Father/Son relationship? Is the Son truly a literal son, or metaphorical? Did the Father actually bring forth an only begotten Son, or are they not really father and son at all according to Catholic creedal and Nicean thinking?

 

[covenantee]

For the fourth time, among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. Were they martyrs or apostates?
You can't or won't answer the question.
Citing sources that can't be found on line for verification is dishonest.

Until you answer my question, I'll not be answering yours.

 

[Douggg]

For the third time, among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. Were they martyrs or apostates?

For my own education, I had to look up who Valerian was. He was emperor of Rome, 253-260 AD.

Jude Thaddeus, are you Catholic ? I am non-denominational, but don't think that the Pope/papacy is the Antichrist.

 

[Brakelite]

For the fourth time, among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. Were they martyrs or apostates?
You can't or won't answer the question.
Citing sources that can't be found on line for verification is dishonest.

In answer to the bolded question above... Who knows? I understand there are writings attributed to Cyprian, writings that strongly affirm Catholic dogma regarding the eucharist, the primacy of Peter and the chair of Rome, infant baptism etc. But who knows if those writings are genuine? The early Catholic church is renowned for its forgeries and myths and tradition and the benefits thus procured by them, both in gaining power and influence, property, and affirmation of doctrine. So, il have to admit that I look upon the writings of such with a little cynicism. Hence why sola scriptura is really they only truly safe position to take. Was Cyprian a Christian martyr? I believe so. Was he a Catholic in today's sense of the word, denominationally speaking? I don't know.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Jesuit futurism is dogmatic that it will be one "he". But historicism recognizes that it was the apostate papacy, headed by the succession of papal "he's".

Certainly not. Christianity was subjected to repeated persecutions until the fourth century.

He was talking about the Rome which was still persecuting Christians, but which he recognized would ultimately be far outdone in persecution by the "hateful tyrant" of the emerging apostate papal antichrist.

It was.

Your "Jesuit futurism" (post #762) was banned by the Church that you erroneously called dogmatic, as well as your unbiblical "emerging apostate papal antichrist", proven to be unbiblical polemics even by Protestant standards.

In response to @Timtofly, you said "I have the united unanimous witness of the historic defenders of the true faith on my side." (post #764), and your only reply to Timtofly was childish insults: post #771
while it is well known your sect rejects what the early church believed, that I explained in post #765, that you ignored.

Certainly not. Christianity was subjected to repeated persecutions until the fourth century.

Do you read your own links?

Among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. The public examination of Cyprian by the proconsul in Carthage, Galerius Maximus, on 14 September 258 has been preserved:[60] from your own link. post #765​

​

Can a Christian be a martyr and an apostate at the same time? That's the first question you refused to answer, that I asked twice. You cannot admit that Cyprian, Pope Sixtus II, and St, Lawrence were in fact, Christian martyrs of the late 2nd century. To make matters worse, you borrow quotes from anti-Catholics about an obscure rebellious bishop "Arnuf" from the 18th century, refuse to answer ANY of my questions, but demand that I answer your off topic questions.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Did they, or would they have, affirmed the following?

How can late 2nd century martyrs affirm anything 15 centuries into the future?

1. “All the names which in the Scripture 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 Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17

Another SDA fabrication. This one already appeared in 19th century anti-Catholic works, such as Theological discourses on important subjects, doctrinal and practical by James Thomson, 'Minister at Quarrelwood', and Letters in the Roman Catholic Controversy by William Brownlee, 'Of the Collegiate Protestant Reformed Dutch Church' in New York, where it is attributed to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.
By the way, for those seeking the work where all this appears - which is part of his famous Disputationes, it could be found in this link (which also contains all, or most of, Cardinal Bellarmine's work) under the title Controversiarum de Conciliis, Liber Secundis: Qui est de Conciliorum Auctoritate.

1. “The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is 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.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”

If there is one thing, one argument that some anti-Catholics use that would irk me, it's their trying to prove the "Pope is God" by showing various quotes from (supposedly) Catholic works which show a Pope or a Cleric proclaiming that the Pope is equivalent to and is God Himself under the flesh. I know a few will say, "Come on, these guys have their proof and even provide citations for them! How can you refute these?"

I answer that: While these people may have done a commendable job of trying to provide citations for a statement), providing citations is not enough in many cases. I believe that one must also show the statement in question in context (cherry-picking one phrase and interpreting it removed from its context is just intolerable, IMHO), show other related works (if possible) that corroborate the statement, and always provide correct citations. If the Church teaches that the Pope is God in human form, then why doesn't a statement similar to that one appear in the Catechism, where just about all things that Catholics believe in are written? And be better sure that if there is any evidence to the contrary, that it is published in the official Catechism and not in local ones.

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

This one is a classic case of "cherry-picking a quote out of context." The Encyclical mentioned here is Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, which called for the reunion of Eastern and Western churches into the "Unity of the Faith". What then, does the actual Encyclical say?

...A great deal, however, has been wanting to the entire fulness of that consolation. Amidst these very manifestations of public joy and reverence Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the same name of Christians. This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief. But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, who when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest prayer, that His disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: "I pray...that they all may be one, as thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us." And as this divine prayer and supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the unity of divine faith.​

​

Pressed on to Our intent by charity, that hastens fastest there where the need is greatest, We direct Our first thoughts to those most unfortunate of all nations who have never received the light of the Gospel, or who, after having possessed it, have lost it through neglect or the vicissitudes of time: hence do they ignore God, and live in the depths of error. Now, as all salvation comes from Jesus Christ--for there is no other name under Heaven given to men whereby we must be saved--Our ardent desire is that the most holy name of Jesus should rapidly pervade and fill every land.​

1.) If the Pope identifies himself as God, then why does he refer to the Lord Jesus as "Our Redeemer and Master?" Surely God cannot have a master as that would imply that there is someone superior to him.​

​

2.) The phrase is interpreted in the wrong sense by many here. In the Catholic point of view, "we hold upon this Earth the place of God" makes perfect sense, as Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar (i.e. Representative) of Christ. What does a representative do? He "holds the place" of the person he represents! Far from claiming that he is God in the flesh, Pope Leo is just reaffirming his position as Christ's representative (like a Prime Minister) on Earth.​

The quote in the actual encyclical (called Sapientiae Christianae in Latin), paragraph 22, says the following:

Now, as the Apostle Paul urges, this unanimity ought to be perfect. Christian faith reposes not on human but on divine authority, for what God has revealed "we believe not on account of the intrinsic evidence of the truth perceived by the natural light of our reason, but on account of the authority of God revealing, who cannot be deceived nor Himself deceive."(24)​

​

It follows as a consequence that whatever things are manifestly revealed by God we must receive with a similar and equal assent. To refuse to believe any one of them is equivalent to rejecting them all, for those at once destroy the very groundwork of faith who deny that God has spoken to men, or who bring into doubt His infinite truth and wisdom.​

To determine, however, which are the doctrines divinely revealed belongs to the teaching Church, to whom God has entrusted the safekeeping and interpretation of His utterances. 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. This obedience should, however, be perfect, because it is enjoined by faith itself, and has this in common with faith, that it cannot be given in shreds; nay, were it not absolute and perfect in every particular, it might wear the name of obedience, but its essence would disappear. Christian usage attaches such value to this perfection of obedience that it has been, and will ever be, accounted the distinguishing mark by which we are able to recognize Catholics.​

Admirably does the following passage from St. Thomas Aquinas set before us the right view:
"The formal object of faith is primary truth, as it is shown forth in the holy Scriptures, and in the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the fountainhead of truth. It follows, therefore, that he who does not adhere, as to an infallible divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the primary truth manifested in the holy Scriptures, possesses not the habit of faith; but matters of faith he holds otherwise than true faith. Now, it is evident that he who clings to the doctrines of the Church as to an infallible rule yields his assent to everything the Church teaches; but otherwise, if with reference to what the Church teaches he holds what he likes but does not hold what he does not like, he adheres not to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will."

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Related Reading:

What Year Did Popes Become Antichrist? (vs. John Calvin) [3-11-10]
*
Pope St. Pius V Claimed to be God (Say Anti-Catholics) [2-11-11]
*
Did a Bishop Say Pope St. John Paul II was God? [2-11-11]
*
“Pope is God”? Similar Rhetoric from Luther & Bullinger [2-24-11]

 

[covenantee]

How can late 2nd century martyrs affirm anything 15 centuries into the future?

Can you understand "would they have"?

Apparently not.

Another SDA fabrication.

So provide an English translation of what Bellarmine actually said.

Thank God for the Reformation.

 

[Brakelite]

@covenantee
No need to find quotes that affirm the Popes as seeing themselves as something more than the common herd.... Their actions have more than cried aloud their ambitions for honour and glory by seeing fit to claim authority to change God's law. If that single action (substituting the 7th day Sabbath for the 1st day Sunday) proclaimed to the world that "we have the authority to change God's laws" , even to the point of contradicting Jesus Himself, making them equal to or even greater than God, what else do we need?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Can you understand "would they have"?

Apparently not.

I understand your polemical question is illogical. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence, did not have access to 15 centuries of development. You cannot admit that these three men were Christian martyrs, that's why you do not answer any of my questions, and demand I answer your derailing off topic questions.

So provide an English translation of what Bellarmine actually said.

You are the one with a bogus quote, written by Dutch Reformers attributed to Bellarmine. The onus is not on me to provide an English translation that cannot be found on line, that does not appear anywhere in the catechism. The onus is on you to back up your bogus quote, that can't be done, but you demand I do your homework for you.
For the fifth time, among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. Were they martyrs or apostates? You refuse to answer my question because your sect is far removed from the early church.
I've exposed your out-of-context quotes and answered your questions, which are not questions, they are false accusations. You haven't answered ANY of my questions since you jumped in to the middle of the thread.

Thank God for the Reformation.

That your sect condemns as daughters of the whore.

 

[covenantee]

I understand your polemical question is illogical. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence, did not have access to 15 centuries of development. You cannot admit that these three men were Christian martyrs, that's why you do not answer any of my questions, and demand I answer your derailing off topic questions.

You are the one with a bogus quote, written by Dutch Reformers attributed to Bellarmine. The onus is not on me to provide an English translation that cannot be found on line, that does not appear anywhere in the catechism. The onus is on you to back up your bogus quote, that can't be done, but you demand I do your homework for you.
For the fifth time, among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. Were they martyrs or apostates? You refuse to answer my question because your sect is far removed from the early church.
I've exposed your out-of-context quotes and answered your questions, which are not questions, they are false accusations. You haven't answered ANY of my questions since you jumped in to the middle of the thread.

That your sect condemns as daughters of the whore.

You don't know how to translate Latin into English?

What kind of a Catholic are you?

You're unable to disprove what you claim is a bogus quote.

No surprise at all.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

You don't know how to translate Latin into English?

Translate a document that can't be found?

What kind of a Catholic are you?

You're unable to disprove what you claim is a bogus quote.

I've done that twice, asked the same question 5 times, and exposed your out-of-context quotes. So you demand the impossible as an excuse to avoid answering any of my questions.

 

[covenantee]

Translate a document that can't be found?

I've done that twice, you are just blind.

What can't you find?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

What can't you find?

1. “All the names which in the Scripture 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 Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17

Written by anti-Catholic Dutch Reformed, attributed to Bellarmine. De Conciliorum Auctoriatate does not even exist.
But I found this, it's in English, but you won't read it anyway because it doesn't fit on a T shirt

St. Robert Bellarmine, Conciliarism, and the Limits of Papal Power

conciliarist work, found in the Dis-putationes de controversiis Christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, emphasizing his theolog-of conciliarism. Bellarmine sees the conciliarists as attacking the divinely instituted Petrine structure of

www.academia.edu

 

[covenantee]

1. “All the names which in the Scripture 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 Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17

Written by anti-Catholic Dutch Reformed, attributed to Bellarmine.
But I found this, it's in English, but you won't read it anyway because it doesn't fit on a T shirt

St. Robert Bellarmine, Conciliarism, and the Limits of Papal Power

conciliarist work, found in the Dis-putationes de controversiis Christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, emphasizing his theolog-of conciliarism. Bellarmine sees the conciliarists as attacking the divinely instituted Petrine structure of

www.academia.edu

So find the accurate actual original, translate it, and post it.

What's so difficult about that?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

So find the accurate actual original, translate it, and post it.

What's so difficult about that?

It is difficult, it took me 2 days of searching, that you refused to do.

3): "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."
-On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

Tertia Prepositio. << Summus Pontifex simpliciter et absolute est supra Ecclesiam universam, et supra Concilium generale, ita ut nullum in terris supra se judicium agnoscat. >> Haec etiam est fere de fide; et probatur primo ex duabus praecedentibus: nam si Papa est caput Ecclesiae universae, etiam simul congregatae, et Ecclesia universa etiam simul congregata non habet ullam potestatem ratione suae totalitatis; sequitur Papam supra Concilium esse, et supra Ecclesiam, non contra.

Secunde probatur ratione, in Scripturis fundata; nam omnia nomina, quae in Scripturis tribuuntur Christo, unde constat eum esse supra Ecclesiam, eadem omnia tribuuntur Pontifici. Ac primum, Christ est paterfamilias in domo sua, quae est Ecclesia, Pontifex in eadem est summus oeconomus, id est, paterfamilias loco Christi, Lucae XII: Quis est fidelis dispensator, et prudens, quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam, etc. Hic enim per dispensatorem, sive oeconomum, ut Graece habetur, intelligunt Episcopum. Ambrosius in hunc locum, et Hilarius, et Hieronymus in cap. XXIV Matth. ubi similis habetur sententia. Et quamvis Patres non loquantur expresse de Episcopo Romano, tamen sine dubio sententia Scripturae illa est; ut Episcopi particulares sunt summi oeconomi in suis Ecclesiis, ita esse Episcopum Romanum in Ecclesia universa. Unde Ambrosius in illud I. Tim. III.: Ut scias quomodo te oporteat conversari in domo Dei etc. << Domus Dei, inquit, Ecclesia dicitur, cujus hodie rector est Damasus. >> Et Chrysostomus lib. II De Sacerdotio circa initium, hunc ipsum locum: Quis est fidelis servus, etc. de Petro exponit.

Quod autem oeconomus summus sit supra familiam, et ab ea judicari, ac puniri non possit, patet ex hoc eodem loco, Dominus enim ait: Quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam. Et ibidem: Quod si dixerit servus ille in corde suo, moram facit Dominus meus venire et coeperit percutere servos, et ancillas, edere, et bibere, et inebriari, veniet Dominus servi illius in die, qua non sperat, et dividet eum, partemque ejus cum infidelibus ponet. Ubi vides Dominum servare suo judicio servum illum, et non committere judicio familiae. Idem etiam docet usus omnium familiarum; nulla enim familia est, in qua liceat inferioribus famulis etiam simul congregatis punire, vel expellere oeconomum, etiamsi pessimus sit, id enim ad solum Dominum totius familiae pertinet.

Alterum nomen Christi est Pastor, Joannis X: Ego sum pastor bonus, etc. Idem communicat Petro, Joan. ult., Pasce oves meas. Constat autem pastorem ita praeese ovibus, ut nullo modo ab eis judicari possit.

Tertium est, Caput corporis Ecclesiae, Ephes. IV idem communicat Petro, ut habemus in Concilio Chalcedonsi, act. 3. ubi legati sententiam pronuntiant in Dioscorum, et in epist. Concilii ad Leonem. Porro caput a membris regi, et non ea potius regere, contra naturam est, sicut etiam est contra naturam, quod membra sibi caput praecidant, cum forte graviter aegrotat.

Quartum est, Vir, seu sponsus, Ephes. V: Viri diligite uxores vestras, sicut et Christus dilexit Ecclesiam, et seipsum tradidit pro ea, etc. Idem convenit Petro, nam in Concilio general Lugdunensi, ut habetur cap. Ubi periculum, de elect. in 6. loquens Concilium de electione Romani Pontificis: << Acceleret, inquit, utilis per necessaria totius mundi provisio; idoneo celeriter eidem Ecclesiae sponso dato. >> Est autem contra Apostolum Ephes. V et contra naturae ordinem, ut sponsa praesit sponso, et non potius subsit.

Translation on the next page.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Third proposition: “The Supreme Pontiff is simply and absolutely over the universal Church, and over a general Council, so that he recognizes no judicial authority on earth over himself.” This is almost de fide, [necessary to be believed as a dogma of the faith] and is proved first of all from the two preceding points: for if the Pope is the head of the universal Church, even when it is gathered together at one time, and if the universal Church even gathered together at one time has no power by reason of its totality;[1] it follows that the Pope is over the Council, and over the Church, not the other way around.

It is proved by the second reason, based in Scripture: for all the names, ascribed to Christ in Scripture, from which it is determined that he is over the Church—those same names are ascribed to the Pontiff. [2] And first, Christ is the paterfamilias [male head of the household] in his own house, which is the Church. The Pope is the highest steward in the same house, that is, the household head in Christ’s place: Luke 12: “Who is the faithful and prudent dispenser, whom the Lord has set over his household, etc.” Here by “dispenser,” or “steward” [oeconomus], as the Greek has it, they [the Fathers?] understand the Bishop. See Ambrose commenting on this passage, and Hilary, and Jerome in chap. 24 of Matthew where there is a similar statement. And although the Fathers do not speak expressly about the Roman Bishop, nonetheless that passage of Scripture undoubtedly means: as the particular Bishops are highest stewards in their Churches, so the Bishop of Rome is in the universal Church. Whence Ambrose on that passage of 1 Timothy 3: “That you may know how you ought to act in the house of God,” etc, says: “The house of God, he says, is called the Church, whose ruler today is Damasus.” [Damasus, as you no doubt know, was the Pope in Ambrose’s day.] And Chrysostom in book 2 of On the Priesthood around the beginning, talking about this same passage: “Who is a faithful slave,” etc., expounds it as being about Peter.

But that the highest steward is over the household, and cannot be judged or punished by it, is evident from this same passage. For the Lord says: “Whom the Lord has established over his household.” And in the same place: “If that slave should say in his heart, ‘My Lord is delaying his coming,’ and should begin to beat the slaves and the maids, to eat, to drink, and to get drunk, then the Lord of that slave will come in a day in which he is not looking, and will cut him up and allot his inheritance among the unfaithful.” (Luke 12:45-46) Here you see that the Lord preserves that slave for his own judgment, and does not hand him over to the judgment of the household. The custom of all households teaches the same thing; for there is no household in which it is allowed for the inferior members of the household (even gathered together at one time) to punish or expel the steward, even if he should be a really bad one—for that pertains only to the Lord of the whole household.

Another name of Christ is “Shepherd” [Pastor]. John 10: “I am the good shepherd,” etc. He shares this title [literally “communicates the same thing”] with Peter in the last chapter of John: Feed my sheep. He thus establishes that the shepherd is over the sheep, so that in no way he can be judged by them.

The third is: “Head of the body of the Church,” Eph. 4. He shares this title with Peter, as we find in the third act of the Council of Chalcedon, where the legates pronounce sentence on Dioscorus, and in the letter of the Council to Leo. Further it is against nature for the head to be ruled by the members and not rather to rule them, just as it is against nature that the members should cut off their own head, even if it should perhaps be gravely sick.

The fourth is “Husband,” or “spouse,” Eph. 5: “Husbands love your wives, just as also Christ loved the Church, and handed himself over for her,” etc. This same title applies to Peter, for in the general Council of Lyons, chapter 6 “Ubi periculum” [Where there is danger] regarding election, the Council says with regard to the election of the Roman Pontiff: “Let the useful and most necessary provision be hastened on the part of the whole world; thus may a spouse be given quickly to the Church.” But it is against the Apostle (Eph. 5) and against the order of nature, that the wife should be over the husband, and not rather be subject.

[1] I’ve translated this in a woodenly literal way, because without the previous section I can’t be sure what he means. I think he’s saying that the whole Church can’t have authority over itself.

[2] I’ve translated this “all the names, ascribed to Christ in Scripture, from which” rather than “all the names which are ascribed to Christ in Scripture, whence” in order to make it clear that Bellarmine is talking about a particular category of names. He is not saying without qualification that we can say anything about the Pope that we say about Christ. He’s talking about the names of Christ that indicate His authority over the Church.
Note the difference between what Bellarmine actually says when his quote is in its proper context. Far from claiming that the Pope is God, Bellarmine is here emphasizing how the Pope occupies the highest rank in the Church as its "high steward" and "shepherd" representing the pater-familias and the Good Shepherd, our Lord Jesus. Also, take notice how a single translation can change the whole meaning.

Pope claimed to be God?

Questions coming from Mr. Vic Kempis : * “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quo...

catholicpoint.blogspot.com

He is not saying without qualification that we can say anything about the Pope that we say about Christ. He’s talking about the names of Christ that indicate His authority over the Church.

Now answer my question I asked you 5 times.

 

[covenantee]

Third proposition: “The Supreme Pontiff is simply and absolutely over the universal Church, and over a general Council, so that he recognizes no judicial authority on earth over himself.” This is almost de fide, [necessary to be believed as a dogma of the faith] and is proved first of all from the two preceding points: for if the Pope is the head of the universal Church, even when it is gathered together at one time, and if the universal Church even gathered together at one time has no power by reason of its totality;[1] it follows that the Pope is over the Council, and over the Church, not the other way around.

It is proved by the second reason, based in Scripture: for all the names, ascribed to Christ in Scripture, from which it is determined that he is over the Church—those same names are ascribed to the Pontiff. [2] And first, Christ is the paterfamilias [male head of the household] in his own house, which is the Church. The Pope is the highest steward in the same house, that is, the household head in Christ’s place: Luke 12: “Who is the faithful and prudent dispenser, whom the Lord has set over his household, etc.” Here by “dispenser,” or “steward” [oeconomus], as the Greek has it, they [the Fathers?] understand the Bishop. See Ambrose commenting on this passage, and Hilary, and Jerome in chap. 24 of Matthew where there is a similar statement. And although the Fathers do not speak expressly about the Roman Bishop, nonetheless that passage of Scripture undoubtedly means: as the particular Bishops are highest stewards in their Churches, so the Bishop of Rome is in the universal Church. Whence Ambrose on that passage of 1 Timothy 3: “That you may know how you ought to act in the house of God,” etc, says: “The house of God, he says, is called the Church, whose ruler today is Damasus.” [Damasus, as you no doubt know, was the Pope in Ambrose’s day.] And Chrysostom in book 2 of On the Priesthood around the beginning, talking about this same passage: “Who is a faithful slave,” etc., expounds it as being about Peter.

But that the highest steward is over the household, and cannot be judged or punished by it, is evident from this same passage. For the Lord says: “Whom the Lord has established over his household.” And in the same place: “If that slave should say in his heart, ‘My Lord is delaying his coming,’ and should begin to beat the slaves and the maids, to eat, to drink, and to get drunk, then the Lord of that slave will come in a day in which he is not looking, and will cut him up and allot his inheritance among the unfaithful.” (Luke 12:45-46) Here you see that the Lord preserves that slave for his own judgment, and does not hand him over to the judgment of the household. The custom of all households teaches the same thing; for there is no household in which it is allowed for the inferior members of the household (even gathered together at one time) to punish or expel the steward, even if he should be a really bad one—for that pertains only to the Lord of the whole household.

Another name of Christ is “Shepherd” [Pastor]. John 10: “I am the good shepherd,” etc. He shares this title [literally “communicates the same thing”] with Peter in the last chapter of John: Feed my sheep. He thus establishes that the shepherd is over the sheep, so that in no way he can be judged by them.

The third is: “Head of the body of the Church,” Eph. 4. He shares this title with Peter, as we find in the third act of the Council of Chalcedon, where the legates pronounce sentence on Dioscorus, and in the letter of the Council to Leo. Further it is against nature for the head to be ruled by the members and not rather to rule them, just as it is against nature that the members should cut off their own head, even if it should perhaps be gravely sick.

The fourth is “Husband,” or “spouse,” Eph. 5: “Husbands love your wives, just as also Christ loved the Church, and handed himself over for her,” etc. This same title applies to Peter, for in the general Council of Lyons, chapter 6 “Ubi periculum” [Where there is danger] regarding election, the Council says with regard to the election of the Roman Pontiff: “Let the useful and most necessary provision be hastened on the part of the whole world; thus may a spouse be given quickly to the Church.” But it is against the Apostle (Eph. 5) and against the order of nature, that the wife should be over the husband, and not rather be subject.

[1] I’ve translated this in a woodenly literal way, because without the previous section I can’t be sure what he means. I think he’s saying that the whole Church can’t have authority over itself.

[2] I’ve translated this “all the names, ascribed to Christ in Scripture, from which” rather than “all the names which are ascribed to Christ in Scripture, whence” in order to make it clear that Bellarmine is talking about a particular category of names. He is not saying without qualification that we can say anything about the Pope that we say about Christ. He’s talking about the names of Christ that indicate His authority over the Church.
Note the difference between what Bellarmine actually says when his quote is in its proper context. Far from claiming that the Pope is God, Bellarmine is here emphasizing how the Pope occupies the highest rank in the Church as its "high steward" and "shepherd" representing the pater-familias and the Good Shepherd, our Lord Jesus. Also, take notice how a single translation can change the whole meaning.

Pope claimed to be God?

Questions coming from Mr. Vic Kempis : * “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quo...

catholicpoint.blogspot.com

He is not saying without qualification that we can say anything about the Pope that we say about Christ. He’s talking about the names of Christ that indicate His authority over the Church.

Now answer my question I asked you 5 times.

The answer to your question appears further below.

Your translation:

"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."
-On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

My quote:

“All the names which in the Scripture 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 Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17

Explain the difference.


If those executed under Valerian would have repudiated Bellarmine, they would indeed have been martyrs for repudiating blasphemy.

If they would not have repudiated Bellarmine, they would have been co-apostates with him for approving blasphemy.