The False Ascension Of Antichrist

[White Knight]

The Book of Revelation. You know my friend, the author of this thread, Did you know you are using an 19th Century view point that was discribed by, for and to a 1st Century aduience?? The Book that was written down by John at the end of the First Century was decribing to the First Century Christians, that had just witnessed the temple being destroyed by the Roman Legions under the command of Titus, When John wrote this, it was about 20-25 years after the events too place, John described in His "Heavenly Vision" this Same Temple, yet even much more glorious than the one on Earth.

John in the book of Revelation was decribing what first century christians would recognize as the Temple here on Earth, even though it was destroyed prior to him writing down this book, "He was Detailing" the fact that it Exists in Heaven right now as He was writting it, and as it is now and pretty much forever and ever.

The Book of Revelation applies to all ages of all times, but if you dont understand it from a historical prespective, it makes it harder to understand correctly, and people come up with all kinds of ideas that the First Century Christians didn't see it as. Unfortunately People place too much stress on the "Anti-Christ" and not enough on the fact that there is very little information about the Anti-Christ in this book, thats because the Point of view is on the Second Coming of Christ, Thats the whole point of the book, is on the "The Second Coming of Christ", and descriptions of the future of "Heavenly Worship."

Thats how the whole First Century Christians understood it, and I think they know better than 19th Century prespectives. wouldn't you agree?


[size=3][color="#FF8C00"][b]If you have an understand of the Mass the Catholic Mass you will read the book of Revelation and see, the Mass is just very obviously descripted throughout the pages. Does this mean the Book of Revelation can be fully understood or isn't mysterious? of course not, its still very deep in Mystery always has been. Does the Book of Revelation describe events that have already clearly happened, Yes, quite clearly, is it a book that is ment for all ages, Yes, but its best understood from a 1st Century Prespective. The Book of Revelation is not so much about the End of the World, as it is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Yes the Book does give some clues to the End of the World, but more so on the Second Coming.[/b][/color][/size]

If you want details on just what I mean read some of the Chapters like Revelation 1-3 4-5, 11-13.

Edited April 14, 2008 by White Knight

[kafka]

[quote name='White Knight' post='1499197' date='Apr 14 2008, 02:05 PM']The Book of Revelation. You know my friend, the author of this thread, Did you know you are using an 19th Century view point that was discribed by, for and to a 1st Century aduience?? The Book that was written down by John at the end of the First Century was decribing to the First Century Christians, that had just witnessed the temple being destroyed by the Roman Legions under the command of Titus, When John wrote this, it was about 20-25 years after the events too place, John described in His "Heavenly Vision" this Same Temple, yet even much more glorious than the one on Earth.

John in the book of Revelation was decribing what first century christians would recognize as the Temple here on Earth, even though it was destroyed prior to him writing down this book, "He was Detailing" the fact that it Exists in Heaven right now as He was writting it, and as it is now and pretty much forever and ever.

The Book of Revelation applies to all ages of all times, but if you dont understand it from a historical prespective, it makes it harder to understand correctly, and people come up with all kinds of ideas that the First Century Christians didn't see it as. Unfortunately People place too much stress on the "Anti-Christ" and not enough on the fact that there is very little information about the Anti-Christ in this book, thats because the Point of view is on the Second Coming of Christ, Thats the whole point of the book, is on the "The Second Coming of Christ", and descriptions of the future of "Heavenly Worship."

Thats how the whole First Century Christians understood it, and I think they know better than 19th Century prespectives. wouldn't you agree?
[size=3][color="#FF8C00"][b]If you have an understand of the Mass the Catholic Mass you will read the book of Revelation and see, the Mass is just very obviously descripted throughout the pages. Does this mean the Book of Revelation can be fully understood or isn't mysterious? of course not, its still very deep in Mystery always has been. Does the Book of Revelation describe events that have already clearly happened, Yes, quite clearly, is it a book that is ment for all ages, Yes, but its best understood from a 1st Century Prespective. The Book of Revelation is not so much about the End of the World, as it is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Yes the Book does give some clues to the End of the World, but more so on the Second Coming.[/b][/color][/size]

If you want details on just what I mean read some of the Chapters like Revelation 1-3 4-5, 11-13.[/quote]
You dont need to patronize me "friend." You are out of your league. Notice I didnt even quote Revelation in my original post. You are regurgitating a common interpretation of Catholics such as Scott Hahn which has been in vogue for a while now. That Revelation refers just to the the Second Coming and the Heavenly Sacrifice is absurd. The Second Coming of Christ isnt even described as an event per se until the 20th Chapter. There are people described, there are events. My intrepretations are 21 century building on the tradition passed down starting with the first Christians, and fathers such as Saint Iraneus, and Saint Appolinaris. There is a spiritual sense to Sacred Scripture, but Revelation is for those Christians who must live during the Tribulation. It is such a severe time of suffering and stupendous events that God has given them a guide in Revelation in Daniel, in the major and minor Prophets, etc. Just as Sacred Scripture in general is a guidebook for salvation.

My intrepretation of Antichrist seating himself in a rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulcher is original, and not a 19th century or 1st century intrepretation. And it is not unfounded. Have you even heard of the Great Monarch of prophesy? I doubt it, yet I will not presume as you have presumed that I have not even considered certain chapters of Revelation.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='kafka' post='1499148' date='Apr 14 2008, 11:52 AM']I am not a fan of quoting Ott as the last word,[/quote]

I hear these kinds of comments a lot. I suppose it could be its own thread, but is this because you have a particular problem with Ott's work himself? Or is it because you have a problem with depending on texts like this, and other doctrinal manuals?

[kafka]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1499429' date='Apr 14 2008, 05:52 PM']I hear these kinds of comments a lot. I suppose it could be its own thread, but is this because you have a particular problem with Ott's work himself? Or is it because you have a problem with depending on texts like this, and other doctrinal manuals?[/quote]
not at all. Of course Ott was brilliant and an enormous intellect. And manuals have their place, but I've seen people misuse them (not you), hence you have me saying that in maybe a rash way. Sorry. Anyhow, Ott is an authority, but I've seen people lose sight of the fact that he is a private theologian. He like the rest of us have a limited understanding of the Faith. The Faith of course is so much more than any one person may comprehend. It isnt a box. And no person can possibly make a list of each infallible teaching of the Church because of the nature of the different ways in which Magisterium may be exercised. On top of that the the Church through the years and ages grows in understanding and insight into the Faith. Hence you have Saint Augustine, and Aquinas were not correct about everything. The Faithful should rely more on Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Magisterium, since these alone are infallible.

[kafka]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1498421' date='Apr 13 2008, 03:58 AM']ADVENT SERMONS ON ANTICHRIST by John Henry Newman

Sermon I: [url="http://www.conventhill.com/endtimes/newman1.htm"]Times of the Antichrist. 2 Thess. 2:3[/url]

Sermon 2:[url="http://www.conventhill.com/endtimes/newman2.htm"] I John 4:3[/url]

Sermon 3: [url="http://www.conventhill.com/endtimes/newman3.htm"]The Religion of the Antichrist[/url]

Sermon 4: [url="http://www.conventhill.com/endtimes/newman4.htm"]The Persecution of Antichrist [/url][/quote]
btw, thank you for those links. I am going to take a look at them.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='kafka' post='1499468' date='Apr 14 2008, 05:43 PM']not at all. Of course Ott was brilliant and an enormous intellect. And manuals have their place, but I've seen people misuse them (not you), hence you have me saying that in maybe a rash way. Sorry. Anyhow, Ott is an authority, but I've seen people lose sight of the fact that he is a private theologian. He like the rest of us have a limited understanding of the Faith. The Faith of course is so much more than any one person may comprehend. It isnt a box. And no person can possibly make a list of each infallible teaching of the Church because of the nature of the different ways in which Magisterium may be exercised. On top of that the the Church through the years and ages grows in understanding and insight into the Faith. Hence you have Saint Augustine, and Aquinas were not correct about everything. The Faithful should rely more on Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Magisterium, since these alone are infallible.[/quote]

true, but just remember that the manuals are collections of the teachings of the Church. In those areas in which the vast majority of bishops agree, it is infallible. The manuals are part of the ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible.

[goldenchild17]

Just for some quick reference so we're on the same page:

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.
________________________________________
__________________

Condemned proposition: "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith.” Encyclical Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864), DZ 1699, 1722.
________________________________________
______________

AD. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology

b. The Authority of Theologians

294 After the Patristic age Theologians arranged in logical order the doctrines contained in Scripture and in Tradition and they explained these doctrines with the help of philosophical reasoning. These theologians can be considered as witnesses to the faith or as private doctors. They should not be esteemed lightly no matter what the Protestants, Modernists or other adversaries alleged against them.

In regard to their authority the following rules should he admitted:

1. When theologians unanimously teach that something is not only true but also that it must be accepted in Catholic faith, such consensus on their part presents a certain argument;

2. If all proclaim some doctrine in regard to faith and morals as true or certain, it is rash to reject this doctrine;

3. If there is a division of opinion among the different schools, even if the theologians of one school hold their opinion as certain or as very close to faith, no obligation exists of accepting such an opinion.
________________________________________
__________________________

Tanquerey again:

292 1. Who are the Fathers? The Fathers are those men, distinguished for their sanctity and their doctrine, who in the first centuries made the Church renowned by their writings, and who received full approbation from the Church, at least in an implicit manner. In order to recognize these men, we should look for four marks or signs: renowned and orthodox teaching, holiness of life, antiquity, and the approbation of the Church. Among the ecclesiastical writers some have been adorned with the title, Doctor of the Church, because they have surpassed others with their superior knowledge. Of these eight are the major Doctors of the Church, the others are called the minor Doctors.
...
294 After the Patristic age Theologians [i.e. the Scholastics, or the School Men] arranged in logical order the doctrines contained in Scripture and in Tradition and they explained these doctrines with the help of philosophical reasoning. These theologians can be considered as witnesses to the faith or as private doctors. They should not be esteemed lightly no matter what the Protestants, Modernists or other adversaries alleged against them.

________________________________________
___________________________

[kafka]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1499590' date='Apr 14 2008, 08:19 PM']true, but just remember that the manuals are collections of the teachings of the Church. In those areas in which the vast majority of bishops agree, it is infallible. The manuals are part of the ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible.[/quote]
I think your understanding of the Magisterium is flawed, but that isnt the purpose of this thread. It isnt possible for a manuel or a document to be a part of Magisterium. The Magisterium is an ability and authority, given as a gift to the whole Church, but exercised only by the Pope and the Bishops, to teach the truths of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Sometimes it depends on a document, other times in the case of the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium it does not depend upon a document. The teaching is infallible, not the document or even the words themselves.

Magisterium can be exercised infalliby only under certain conditions. If these conditions are not met then the teachings are non-infallible. The Ordinary Magisterium(I am not referring to the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium) is the non-infallible teaching of the Pope and Bishops. Non-infallible teachings may contain small errors but never enough to lead a soul from the path of salvation.

Now we have strayed from the subject.

Any more questions, comments about Antichrist and his false ascension?

[kafka]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1499612' date='Apr 14 2008, 08:38 PM']Just for some quick reference so we're on the same page:

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.
________________________________________
__________________

Condemned proposition: "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith.” Encyclical Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864), DZ 1699, 1722.
________________________________________
______________[/quote]
thanks for the links. These are givens. Not all truths expressed in Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture are infallibly defined. It isnt even possible nor will it ever be. Catholic are bound by moral law to continually seek truth in Sacred Tradition & Scripture throughout there lives.

The Tanqueray you quoted is specualative. I agree with the spirit of what he is saying.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='kafka' post='1499638' date='Apr 14 2008, 07:57 PM']I think your understanding of the Magisterium is flawed, but that isnt the purpose of this thread.[/quote]

or you didn't understand my post, or I didn't make myself clear. Both of which are possibilities.

[quote]It isnt possible for a manuel or a document to be a part of Magisterium. The Magisterium is an ability and authority, given as a gift to the whole Church, but exercised only by the Pope and the Bishops, to teach the truths of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Sometimes it depends on a document, other times in the case of the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium it does not depend upon a document. The teaching is infallible, not the document or even the words themselves.[/quote]

In regards to the ordinary magisterium, the consensus of the bishops on a certain point is infallible. It is these points of consensus that are recorded in these books (except on the occasion when there is dissension, at which point such a disagreement is mentioned). The books themselves aren't infallible, they record infallible material. Regardless, the messages in them are infallible, unless there is considerable dissension.
[quote]Now we have strayed from the subject.

Any more questions, comments about Antichrist and his false ascension?[/quote]

Yes we have , and no I don't. I haven't had any. Antichrist and end-times haven't really been on my mind as a point of study lately. I'm sure in time I will take up reading on the subject again, but for now the end will come when it comes and all I want to do is live faithfully and if I do that it won't matter when the end comes.

[kafka]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1499642' date='Apr 14 2008, 09:07 PM']or you didn't understand my post, or I didn't make myself clear. Both of which are possibilities.



In regards to the ordinary magisterium, the consensus of the bishops on a certain point is infallible. It is these points of consensus that are recorded in these books (except on the occasion when there is dissension, at which point such a disagreement is mentioned). The books themselves aren't infallible, they record infallible material. Regardless, the messages in them are infallible, unless there is considerable dissension.
Yes we have , and no I don't. I haven't had any. Antichrist and end-times haven't really been on my mind as a point of study lately. I'm sure in time I will take up reading on the subject again, but for now the end will come when it comes and all I want to do is live faithfully and if I do that it won't matter when the end comes.[/quote]
it is a possiblity we have a misunderstanding of terms. When you are referring to "Ordinary Magisterium" I think that is what I would call Ordinary & Universal Magisterium:

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held." (Luman Gentium)

There is not yet a infalliby defined set of criteria (like Papal Infallibility (Vat I)) where one may decided if a teaching fall under Universal Magisterium. Therefore any list of in a manuel, etc of possible infallible definitions which fall in the Universal Magisterium are speculative. And these teachings usually take time to emerge, years, sometimes centuries.

[goldenchild17]

Well I don't know about Lumen Gentium as I don't subscribe to V2, but I believe it's been pretty well established that we are to give our assent to the doctrines put forth in these books, except in cases of dissension. Maybe a case of agree to disagree (especially since its not on the topic of this thread), peace

Edited April 15, 2008 by goldenchild17

[kafka]

And peace be with you. I like you, but seriously someday I am going to start a thread called "Contra Sedevecantism"

[goldenchild17]

haha yeah well be careful with that. mods don't take to kindly to such threads . Though you can email me anytime if you wanna go at it

Edited April 15, 2008 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

not to beat a dead horse (especially since this topic was supposed to be about antichrist), but here is part of a text that says what I was trying to. Again, agree to disagree, but I do believe this is a very important concept in understanding the extension of Catholic dogmatic teaching.

The Teaching of the Theological Manuals
Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton
(The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963, pp. 254-270:
[quote]It must be noted that we are speaking of the common teaching of these texts or manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology. Father Baum charges that one of the two conflicting groups at the Second Vatican Council was trying "to consecrate as eternal Catholic wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century." Of course this is the language of Madison Avenue rather than of the university lecture hall. It is calculated to make his readers imagine that many of the Fathers of the council were attempting to give to the teaching of the manuals in fundamental dogmatic theology a status, which that teaching had not previously enjoyed.

What seems to displease Father Baum is the fact that the unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians in any area relating to faith or morals is the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. The manuals, like those to which we have referred, are books actually used in the instruction of candidates for the priesthood. They are written by men who actually teach in the Church's own approved schools, under the direction of the Catholic hierarchy, and ultimately, through the activity of the Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, under the direction of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. The common or morally unanimous teaching of the manuals in this field is definitely a part of Catholic doctrine.

It is quite obvious that the individual opinions of individual authors do not constitute Catholic doctrine, and could not be set forth as such. But there is a fund of common teaching (like that which tells us that there are truths which the Church proposes to us as revealed by God, and which are not contained in any way within the inspired books of Holy Scripture), which is the unanimous doctrine of the manuals, and which is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians has always been recognized as a norm of Catholic doctrine. It is unfortunate that today there should be some attempt to mislead people into imagining that it has ceased to be such a norm in the twentieth century.[/quote]

[kafka]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1499878' date='Apr 15 2008, 03:38 AM']not to beat a dead horse (especially since this topic was supposed to be about antichrist), but here is part of a text that says what I was trying to. Again, agree to disagree, but I do believe this is a very important concept in understanding the extension of Catholic dogmatic teaching.

The Teaching of the Theological Manuals
Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton
(The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963, pp. 254-270:[/quote]
Trust me, I know where you are coming from, I used to be a Traditional Catholic, and I realize the manifest errors of liberal theologians. Of course scholastic theology is valuable and precious. But it does have flaws. It isnt perfect. No theological system is perfect, as is no theologian. Even if the Pope and Bishops decide to place a certain theological system over another though at the time it might be wise it would be merely a temporal decision and subject to revision, since theology isnt a matter of faith & morals in Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture or previous Magisterium (though many doctrines within Dogmatic theology are infallible).

This is really a matter to be debated elsewhere. Why dont you start a thread?

[goldenchild17]

nah that's okay. I think I've already posted what I would have posted. If a mod wants to split these posts to another thread and continue it there then its fine with me. btw, this has nothing to do with be a "traditional Catholic." The sources I posted were from pre-Vatican II, but they apply to all Catholics as far as I'm concerned. Unless you have other sources which say that such things are not authoritative. But probably a good idea to let it slide unless a mod splits the posts elsewhere.

Edited April 15, 2008 by goldenchild17

[dairygirl4u2c]

i didn't read through this all... but catholic bibles say, and if you look on wikipedia it mentions that..... that the nero.
[url="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=zbD&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=revelation+nero&spell=1"]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&saf...ero&spell=1[/url]

Edited April 15, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

He certainly was (I'd say) AN antichrist. Not THE antichrist. Just like Scripture foretells Christ's coming with the lives of many Old Testament men, history foretells the coming of the final Antichrist with evil men in history that in some regards, compare.