Characteristics of the Little Horn Daniel 7

brakelite · August 31, 2016

There are ten specific criteria that the Bible, just from Daniel 7, offers us in which to identify the Antichrist. Ten. We have so far, in 3 pages, dealt with one, and as I suspected, it did not receive unanimous approval. But hey, that was just the first. That first installment dealt with the little horn growing from the Roman Empire, the fourth "terrible beast" that arose from the sea after Babylon, Meda/Persia, and Greece. So, nine more to go....here's #2.

The little horn arises among the ten horns. The ten horns are the divisions of western Europe, so the little horn must arise in western Europe (Daniel 7:8). Notice that these first two characteristics restrict the geographical location of the little horn to western Europe.

That the little horn was to rise up among ten future kings was understood by the early church fathers. They saw and understood that what Paul meant when he said….

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

….was the Roman power. They understood that when the Roman power was taken out of the way, the antichrist would appear among the ten kings, and would subdue 3 of them.

First, let us read what the well known Catholic historian Cardinal Manning had to say:
“Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire. The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.”
(Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).

According to Manning, there was a restraint that inhibited the Bishops of Rome from exercising full authority as the temporal and spiritual leaders they believed was their destiny. That restraint was the pagan Roman power.
Now let us see what some of the early church fathers believed would take place soon according to their understanding of the prophecies.

Tertullian 160-240AD
“‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.’ What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? ‘And then shall be revealed the wicked one.”
“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” chapter 24; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, p. 563

“The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire.”
(“Apology,” chapter 32; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 43).

Lactantius (early fourth century):

“The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains, it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things.”
(“The Divine Institutes,” book 7, chapter 25; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 220).

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

Ambrose (died in 398):

“After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear.”
(Quoted in, Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463)

Chrysostom (died in 407):

“When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God.”
“Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians 2:6-9,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. XIII, p. 389

So after the restraint of Rome was removed, first ten kings arose from within, and the empire was divided between them.

From the historian Barnes we read the following very interesting remark regarding other historians.

“Even the Romanists themselves admit that the Roman Empire was, by means of the incursions of the northern nations, dismembered into ten kingdoms (Calmet on Revelation 13:1; and he refers likewise to Berangaud, Bossuet, and DuPin. See Newton, p. 209); and 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: 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.”
(Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel, p. 322.)

“Antichrist, then (as the Fathers delight to call him), or the little horn, is to be sought among the ten kingdoms of the western Roman Empire. I say of the western Roman Empire, because that was properly the body of the fourth beast; Greece, and the countries which lay eastward of Italy belonged to the third beast; for the former beasts were still subsisting, though their dominion was taken away.
‘As concerning the rest of the beasts,’ saith Daniel, ‘they had their dominion taken away; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.’ Daniel 7:12.
‘And therefore,’ as Sir Isaac Newton rightly infers, ‘all four beasts are still alive, though the dominion of the three first be taken away. The nations of Chaldea and Assyria are still the first beast. Those of Media and Persia are still the second beast. Those of Macedon, Greece and Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, are still the third. And those of Europe, on this side of Greece, are still the fourth. Seeing therefore the body of the third beast is confined to the nations on this side the river Euphrates, and the body of the fourth beast is confined to the nations on this side of Greece; we are to look for all the four heads of the third beast among the nations on this side the river Euphrates; and for all the eleven horns of the fourth beast, among the nations on this side of Greece.”
(Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, pp. 239, 240).

The above quote is also very pertinent to Revelation 13 and the beast that arises from the sea having all the composite parts of the beasts of Daniel. All four beasts are still alive in composite form of the Revelation beast, the antichrist. Notice also the steady progression in a westerly direction of each power. First Babylon, then Media/Persia, then Greece, then Rome and Europe. In Revelation 13 the beast of the sea being composite of all these, is followed by a new beast that rises from out of the earth. There are many who believe this power that rises chronologically after the European composite, is that power which lies further westward, namely America. But that subject is for another day.

Sister · August 31, 2016

5 hours ago, brakelite said:

40 years ago I believed as you do. Hal Lindsay's book The Late Great Planet Earth was my second Bible. I lapped up every book, movie, andd article that related to prophecy and the coming antichrist, the rapture, and the futuristic paradigm that was in its infancy in the 1970s, but is now mainstream Christian belief. It is singularly the most effective act of duplicity and deception ever perpetrated by man in the last 2000 years. Futurism, as a means by which to interpret and understand Bible prophecy, has, while purporting to reveal truth, successfully hidden the truth from millions of sincere Christians, and set them up to be completely deceived into accepting the Antichrist to the point of unknowingly promoting him to his position of power. Our current discussion on the millennium has diverted us away from the topic of the thread, so I am going to leave that particular subject and allow you to read on and learn why I have come out so strongly in this post against what is now accepted orthodoxy in eschatological teaching.

brakelite

I respect and understand that you are entitled to your view, ....however, all that I have told you, I did not read in any book about the bible, or follow any set out teachings by a church, or well known figure, but found these little treasures myself straight from the source and this is what I am trying to share - what God is showing us, not man, because man makes mistakes. Everything I have given here is backed up by scripture, because it's found in scripture, and that's where we should be looking to prove or disprove anything.

As for this being mainstream Christian belief, about 10 years ago it was not, and I was often rebuked and labeled a Zionist for speaking about Israel's mercy during the millennium. I didn't even know what a Zionist was back then! I was hated for speaking this, especially about Israel, as the Christian world used to think it was only about "them"...gentiles, and everyone else was going to hell after the Coming....but there are many shades of grey, a GREATER plan, and new generations to be born not under Babylon's reign.....and we will see that at the end of it, there are many men despite having heard the truth, with only ONE teaching mind you,..ONE DOCTRINE come out of the kingdom, that despite all this they are still unwilling to circumsize their hearts, and there has to be a final sifting of those generations to come also.

.....but now Christians are seeing for themselves, by these discussions and are looking into it, because those old testament scriptures which were hardly ever read, are now coming to light, slowly but surely, and I particularly enjoy showing these scriptures for the truth in them.

Thank you for this discussion, I will follow your topic, and if I feel the need, I will join in if you don't mind.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Sister
spelling

Diaste · August 31, 2016

On 8/29/2016 at 6:31 PM, brakelite said:

Actually, what you have offered is your perspective....the angel did not say that the little horn came from the 'four notable ones', as you suggest. I will quote the text....

8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

"Out of one of them"....came the little horn. Out of one of the four horns, or out of one of the four winds, or points of the compass? We must take into consideration every clue we have if we are going to accurately identify this 'little horn', and before we decide if it came from the horns, or the winds. To do this, we must start with Daniel 2, continue with Daniel 7, and not deviate from the picture thus far formed. Through Daniel God is revealing a panorama of history from the time of Daniel, stretching all the way down to the end of time. He is doing this for our admonition, for our sakes, that we who are living in these last days may be able to look back into history, be able to compare history with prophecy, and therefore accurately deduce where we are in the great timeline thus revealed. Prophecy is not given to turn us into clairvoyants or progosticators of future events. (Not that I am charging you with this). Knowing the past hwever does inform us to a limited extent to what we can expect in the future, for history does repeat. Thus if we can accurately understand past prophetic events, we may be wise to better understand future events. If we get the past wrong, we will I believe find ourselves looking in the wrong direction when it comes to future threats to ourselves and the church today. And futurism, that based on Schofield and Darby and the false prophets of televangelism all of whose teachings originated in the Jesuit counter-reformation, clouds and blinds miliions today from the reality of current events and the role of Israel, and the Antichrist.

You said yourself that some obscure treaty with Israel cannot be used as evidence for prophecy. I agree, that is why I discard it and cleave to the four winds as being the source of Rome as opposed to the horns. Likewise, basing the reign of a future "antichrist" from Jerusalem for 3 and 1/2 years on an even more obscure treaty or 'covenant' from Daniel 9 is equally untenable, and one which I reject. After replying to some others on this thread, I will post another article on the Antichrist, which will clarify my position and explain why I reject Islam as being the focus of prophecy. Good conversing with you though. I appreciate your taking part in this discussion, and the way in which you present your arguments....with respect and dignity. I pray we may continue in that vein, and please feel welcome to rebuke me if I get personal or begin to sound too opinionated. We all have our reasons for believing the way we do...we all have our particular hermeuetic we use in the way we look at scripture and our different conclusions reflect that. I am an historicist. Some have charged me with being preterist, but that is because they misunderstand what historicism is.

Well, you can say whatever you like. I'm not sure how a timeline consisting of pure order can be construed in such a way. Of course it makes perfect sense if you are trying to prove a point that has little to do with truth. In the verse physical kingdom follows physical kingdom in a clear succession. Missing the totality of the verse is a common malady afflicting the modern church. It's obvious from the normal reading the little horn comes from the four notable ones and not from the wind. The four notable ones themselves face towards the four winds, an idiom meaning in this case, all over, in every direction, and as you suggest, toward all points of the compass; which is exactly what the verse is stating; the four notable one rose after the fall of Greece, in all four directions of the compass. Cassander in the west, Ptolemy in the south, Antigonus in the north and Seleucus in the east. So your quote, " Out of one of the four horns, or out of one of the four winds, or points of the compass?" is exactly what the angel says since the four notable ones fulfill your idea of the four winds and the points of the compass.

You don't see it as a weak argument adding confusion to assert special knowledge of 'four winds of heaven'? It's certainly meaningless considering the four notables ones are in the four winds and spread to all points of the compass. Considering the logic of the idea the little horn is spawned from the 'four winds' therefore, Rome, sans any biblical evidence confirming Rome as the beast kingdom; From the four winds there are 100 countries that could fit the bill. Dozens that affected Israel in the most dramatic way over centuries. You say history has a lot to say. How about Germany in the 1940's? What about the nations that forced the creation of the state of Israel in 1948? What about those same nations that stood by and watched Israel fight for her life against her Arab enemies for decades?

The fact is there are no clues leading to the conclusion of Rome as the beast empire. There is a great deal of evidence pointing to Islam as the beast empire and one of the caliphs, perhaps the one we see now, Baghdadi, as the little horn or beast. So lets have a look at the evidence you have been alluding to suggesting it 'must be' Rome.

brakelite · September 6, 2016

Characteristic 3

The little horn rises after the ten horns (7:24). According to historians, the ten horns were complete in the year 476 A. D., so this must mean that the little horn was to arise to power sometime after 476 A. D.
The Roman Catholic Papacy did arise to supremacy after the year 476 A. D. The Papal power could not exercise absolute sovereignty until the ten kingdoms were subjected to its control. When Odoacer, king of the Heruli, deposed Romulus Agustulus in 476 A. D., the fragmentation of the Roman Empire was complete. Yet even though the ten divisions of the Roman Empire were complete by 476 A. D., there were three who were rebellious and refused to submit to the Bishop of Rome (the Vandals, the Heruli and the Ostrogoths).

Characteristic 4

The little horn was to pluck up three of the first [ten] horns by the roots (7:8). This means that these three nations would be uprooted from history. Daniel 7:20-21 explains that three of the first horns would fall before the little horn, and Daniel 7:24 tells us that the little horn would subdue three horns. In other words, three of the first ten nations would disappear from history!!

Seven of the ten Barbarian kingdoms were converted to Christianity and submitted to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The first were the Franks, under king Clovis, and through various means, (intermarriage, war and diplomacy) other tribes followed his example. However, three of the kingdoms who converted to Christianity embraced the so called heretical teachings of Arius. Arius (who was presbyter in Alexandria around the year 320 A. D.) is generally believed to have taught that ‘Christ was created out of nothing as the first and greatest of all creatures’ (Loraine Boettner, Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, pp. 64-65).
Consider carefully a few more historical statements which throw some light on the situation at this time. Stanley (History of the Eastern Church, p. 151) says: “The whole of the vast Gothic population which descended on the Roman empire, so far as it was Christian at all, held to the faith of the Alexandrian heretic. Our first Teutonic version of the Scriptures was by an Arian missionary, Ulfilas. There is some doubt as to the precise teachings of Arius...no-one can be certain of the extent of his so called heresy, as so few of his writings survived, and it is doubtful the remaining writings were preserved as they were originally written. One major reason for this doubt is that we do have some of the original writings of Ulfilas, a contemporary and student of Arius, described as Arian, yet according to his writings his teachings on the deity and nature of Christ accord well with the Biblical record.

The first conqueror of Rome, Alaric, and the first conqueror of Africa, Genseric, were Arians. Theodoric, the great king of Italy, and hero of the ‘Nibelungen Lied,’ was an Arian. The vacant place in his massive tomb at Ravenna is a witness of the vengeance which the Orthodox took on his memory, when, in their triumph, they tore down the porphyry vase in which his Arian subjects had enshrined his ashes.”
The teachings of Arius were condemned in two great church councils, Nicea (325 A. D.) and Constantinople (381 A. D.). These three Arian kingdoms were a threat to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome [later called the Pope]. To make a long story short, these three kingdoms eventually were uprooted by the imperial power acting under the influence of the Bishop of Rome. The Ostrogoths (originally from Yugoslavia), by order of the emperor, dealt the heretical Heruli a devastating defeat in 493 A. D.

Ranke, in his History of the Popes (London, edition of 1871), Vol.I, p.9, says: “But she [the church] fell, as was inevitable, into many embarrassments, and found herself in an entirely altered condition. A pagan people took possession of Britain; Arian kings seized the greater part of the remaining West; while the Lombards, long attached to Arianism, and as neighbors most dangerous and hostile, established a powerful sovereignty before the very gates of Rome. The Roman bishops, meanwhile, beset on all sides, exerted themselves with all the prudence and pertinacity which have remained their peculiar attributes, to regain the mastery, at least in the patriarchal diocese.”
Machiavelli, in his History of Florence, p. 14, says: “Nearly all the wars which the northern barbarians carried on in Italy, it may be here remarked, were occasioned by the pontiffs; and the hordes with which the country was inundated, were generally called in by them.”
These extracts give us a general view of the state of affairs at this time, and show us that though the hands of the Roman pontiffs might not be visibly manifest in the movements upon the political board, they constituted the power working assiduously behind the scenes to secure their own purposes. 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.”
Odoacer was slain by Theodoric and the Heruli , as a kingdom, disappeared from history. There are records however of Heruli tribesmen continuing to serve in the Roman armies, and others returning to their home in Scandinavia, and still others settling among the Gepids of Byzantine.
Theodoric however, being Arian also, was not disposed to allow the church of Rome any more freedom than did Odoacer. The following incident will show how completely the papacy was in subjection to his power. The Catholics in the East, having commenced a persecution against the Arians in 523, Theodoric summoned Pope John into his presence, and thus addressed him: “If the emperor [Justin, the predecessor of Justinian] does not think fit to revoke the edict which he has lately issued against those of my persuasion [that is, the Arians], it is my firm resolution to issue the like edict against those of his [that is, the Catholics]; and to see it everywhere executed with the same rigor. Those who do not profess the faith of Nicaea are heretics to him, and those who do are heretics to me. Whatever can excuse or justify his severity to the former, will excuse the justify mine to the latter. But the emperor,” continued the king, “has none about him who dare freely and openly speak what they think, or to whom he would hearken if they did. But the great veneration which he professes for your See, leaves no room to doubt but he would hearken to you. I will therefore have you to repair forthwith to Constantinople, and there to remonstrate, both in my name and your own, against the violent measures in which that court has so rashly engaged. It is in your power to divert the emperor from them; and till you have, nay, till the Catholics [this name Theodoric applies to the Arians] are restored to the free exercise of their religion, and to all the churches from which they have been driven, you must not think of returning to Italy.” – Bower’s History of the Popes, Vol.I, p.325. For any secular king to command the bishop of Rome and expect obedience such as this, shows clearly the necessity of the removal of this horn also before the ‘little horn’ could claim complete autonomy, and for the prophecy to be complete.

While the Catholics were thus feeling the restraining power of an Arian king in Italy, they were suffering a violent persecution from the Arian Vandals in Africa. (Gibbon, chap.,37, sec.2.) Elliott, in his Horae Apocalypticae, Vol.III, p.152, note 3, says: “The Vandal kings were not only Arians, but persecutors of the Catholics: in Sardinia and Corsica, under the Roman Episcopate, we may presume, as well as in Africa.”

The second horn to be uprooted, were the Vandals who were crushed (in 534 A. D.) by Belisarius, general of emperor Justinian’s armies. Procopius relates that the African war was undertaken by Justinian for the relief of the Christians (Catholics) in that quarter; and that when he expressed his intention in this respect, the prefect of the palace came very near dissuading him from his purpose; but a dream appeared to him in which he was bidden “not to shrink from the execution of his design; for by assisting the Christians he would overthrow the power of the Vandals.” – Evagrius’ Eccl.Hist., book 4, chap.16.

Which left the remaining horn, the Ostrogoths. Since defeating the Heruli in Italy and murdering Odoacer , Theodoric and the Ostrogoths had become extremely powerful. But the Bishops were not inclined to be continually embarrassed by their presumptuous power, and implored Justinian to do something about them.

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 in short order, disappeared from the historical scene in Europe. The third horn had been uprooted once and for all!

It is of great significance that in 533 A. D. Justinian proclaimed a decree which recognized the Pope’s headship over all the churches of east and west. This decree was actually a letter written by Justinian to Pope John. The letter was included in The Code of Justinian which is a collection of Justinian’s laws. It must be remembered that this letter had the force of law. In effect, the Code of Justinian was the standard law of all Europe for over one thousand years until it was replaced in the late 1700’s by the Code of Napoleon. Part of Justinian’s decree reads as follows: “Therefore, we have exerted ourselves to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness, and hence the questions which have at present arisen, although they are manifest and free from doubt, and, according to the doctrine of Your Apostolic See, are constantly firmly observed and preached by all priests. . . because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See. . .” (S. P. Scott, The Civil Law, vol. 12, pp. 11-13).

The significance of this decree is that the Roman Emperor was legitimizing the spiritual authority of the Pope. The state was using its clout to proclaim that only the Pope was the authentic spokesman for orthodox Christianity.

(This is highly significant when considering Revelation 13:2, which pertains directly to the establishment of the papal power. The dragon, when comparing Rev.12:3,4 and 13:2, can be clearly seen as representing not just Satan, but pagan Rome. So when we consider that the dragon is giving papal Rome its authority, seat, and power, then the above historical scenario takes on great significance.) Though this decree was given in 533 A. D., it was not fully implemented until the rebel Ostrogoths were devastated in 538 A. D.

Sister · September 6, 2016

Hi brakelite

I see you have put a lot of effort into this and I appreciate that. That is a lot of information you have provided there, but I would like to give my view?

Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

We all know there is a New World Order coming. A new "system" to be put into place,...an end time kingdom different from all the others before them.
Considering the 10 kings receive power only for "one hour" with the beast (false prophet), tells me they arise in the end times, and did not rise in the past. I understand that this last empire's roots have come from somewhere, and Daniel tells us that the 10 toes consist of iron and clay. But that is just their root's, not their end because this kingdom has changed and different from all the other beasts before them.

Also the ten only receive power "as kings", and this tells me that they are not real kings (leaders of any nations), but in control of those nations whom they have groomed to form an allegiance, like NATO (NORTH Atlantic Treaty Organisation) for example.

I understand that before the 10 kings receive power, a plan has to be put into place, and everything has to be set up and ready for the little horn's arrival who will come out of their kingdom in the end times (3 1/2 yrs before Christ returns). So they have been working for a long time, slowly gaining control of everything, so that they can fashion the world to accept their plan.

We know Rome is in there, but it doesn't tell us that Rome is leading it all and responsible for it all, but are one of the many puppets used to assist, and hide the real fellows. For us to point the finger at the Roman Catholic Papacy to say they are the Beast, is very dangerous. They do play a big part spiritually on the world stage, but this end time beast is so clever in keeping their identities hidden, that they always point us into the wrong direction.

Therefore I cannot see that the ten kings and the little horn were given power in the past. They are future and to come shortly.

God doesn't require of us to understand prophecy according to how the historians view the world stage. History helps a little, so that we can follow the trail, but understanding end time prophecy is given according to the spirit of God, and this is a gift based on what is given us in scripture.

My opinion is we don't have to become "learned" to understand prophecy, nor rely on the "learned" historians etc, but rely on the Word of God, which is given to the lowly so that we can benefit to the full. We must examine the scriptures very carefully with a fine tooth comb, and tune in to God's speech, or we will go down the wrong path. All other things put in our path requiring much study are only distractions, and not needed for interpretation. That's my opinion brother.

Ecclesiastes 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

brakelite · September 8, 2016

On 6/09/2016 at 10:46 PM, Sister said:

Hi brakelite

I see you have put a lot of effort into this and I appreciate that. That is a lot of information you have provided there, but I would like to give my view?

Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

We all know there is a New World Order coming. A new "system" to be put into place,...an end time kingdom different from all the others before them.

Considering the 10 kings receive power only for "one hour" with the beast (false prophet), tells me they arise in the end times, and did not rise in the past. I understand that this last empire's roots have come from somewhere, and Daniel tells us that the 10 toes consist of iron and clay. But that is just their root's, not their end because this kingdom has changed and different from all the other beasts before them.

Also the ten only receive power "as kings", and this tells me that they are not real kings (leaders of any nations), but in control of those nations whom they have groomed to form an allegiance, like NATO (NORTH Atlantic Treaty Organisation) for example.

I understand that before the 10 kings receive power, a plan has to be put into place, and everything has to be set up and ready for the little horn's arrival who will come out of their kingdom in the end times (3 1/2 yrs before Christ returns). So they have been working for a long time, slowly gaining control of everything, so that they can fashion the world to accept their plan.

We know Rome is in there, but it doesn't tell us that Rome is leading it all and responsible for it all, but are one of the many puppets used to assist, and hide the real fellows. For us to point the finger at the Roman Catholic Papacy to say they are the Beast, is very dangerous. They do play a big part spiritually on the world stage, but this end time beast is so clever in keeping their identities hidden, that they always point us into the wrong direction.

Therefore I cannot see that the ten kings and the little horn were given power in the past. They are future and to come shortly.

God doesn't require of us to understand prophecy according to how the historians view the world stage. History helps a little, so that we can follow the trail, but understanding end time prophecy is given according to the spirit of God, and this is a gift based on what is given us in scripture.

My opinion is we don't have to become "learned" to understand prophecy, nor rely on the "learned" historians etc, but rely on the Word of God, which is given to the lowly so that we can benefit to the full. We must examine the scriptures very carefully with a fine tooth comb, and tune in to God's speech, or we will go down the wrong path. All other things put in our path requiring much study are only distractions, and not needed for interpretation. That's my opinion brother.

Ecclesiastes 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Hi. There is a lot of validity in what you have said. Think about it this way. In Daniel 7 there is the 4th beast that comes out of the sea...that is a beast which arises out of 'kingdoms, nations, tongues,' (Revl 17:15) Out of this beast grows a little horn among ten others. Eleven horns altogether. The beast was pagan Rome. Out of pagan Rome grew 11 kingdoms. 3 were uprooted, and their existence ceased. Those ten were the barbarian nations that over-ran Europe after the waning of the Roman power. By 476AD they were in full control. The 11th horn was the papacy, before whom 3 were plucked up, the remaining 7 surrendering to her. As that little horn grew and matured, it became strong, becoming a beast in its own right. That beast, the papacy, had almost unbridled power through the height of the dark ages, even kings cowering before her in fear of hell and damnation and excommunication. The Popes rules with an iron fist. Those 7 original tribes settled into areas we now know as Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, and Italy. The 3 that were destroyed were the Heruli, the Ostrogoths, and the Vandals. They were Arian, which explains why the angst between them and Rome.

So papal Rome grew and became a beast. This beast we see in Revel 13:1. The 10 horns upon its head are horns which grow out of papal Rome, unlike the previous 10 horns which grew out of Pagan Rome. Now I agree with what you say regarding those kings giving their power to the beast, Papal Rome. Indeed, if you google the information, you will discover that there has been tn divisions drawn up globally. The leaders of these divisions (yet future) I believe will give their power, for a short time, to the Vatican. I also believe that the people of the world will in fact demand this through popular vote, as per Revelation 13:14 , 'they', the people, demand that an image to the beast be made. This is not a statue. It is an image of the church/state dictatorship that existed in the dark ages in Europe, but will be repeated globally under the auspices of the UN...the coming NWO. As scripture says however, this arrangement will only be short lived. We don't know the details, but I believe events and circumstances (we are talking about the end of the world here) will be so catastrophic and supernatural, that the people of the earth will finally realize, too late, the true nature of the beast, and will turn on her and destroy her.

Hope that gives a little more light and helps you to appreciate my perspective.

Sister · September 8, 2016

Hi brakelite

Thank you for giving me your perspective.

Quote

Think about it this way. In Daniel 7 there is the 4th beast that comes out of the sea...that is a beast which arises out of 'kingdoms, nations, tongues,' (Revl 17:15)

Yes, all the 7 kingdoms come out of peoples, nations and tongues, but keep in mind that on that beast which comes out of the sea in Rev 13, the 7th head (kingdom) morphs into an 8th kingdom. And it's this 8th kingdom that comes out of the bottomless pit.

Rev 17:15 is not depicting the 4th beast from Daniel, but going into more detail about the whore who sits upon all these kingdoms, so she is sitting on all of the 7 heads, ruling, and has done so since the beginning.

Revelation 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

Now if we go to the very next verse, we see that the 10 horns on that last "head", this particular beast, is the one who shall hate the whore and eat her flesh.

Revelation 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

The 10 kings change the whore's system by introducing a new system. They strip her of her old system where every nation had their own currency and laws. This will change. The 10 horns hate this current system, the whore's system. They will burn this current system with fire (war) to bring it on.

Quote

Out of this beast grows a little horn among ten others. Eleven horns altogether. The beast was pagan Rome. Out of pagan Rome grew 11 kingdoms. 3 were uprooted, and their existence ceased. Those ten were the barbarian nations that over-ran Europe after the waning of the Roman power. By 476AD they were in full control.

You say the beast was pagan Rome, this end time beast? I say it cannot be, please reconsider;

Revelation 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Do you agree that the seven kings stand for the seven kingdoms? (7 heads)
If so then this is proof that the end time beast cannot be Rome, because this was written in John's day when Rome was in power. Cannot force Rome to be the beast (10 kings)

But many will say no, not Rome back then, but the Roman Catholic Papacy, the spiritual side of Rome who has a say and large influence on the world's stage. Yes she does, and she's involved, but that still does not make her the beast, for she is only one spiritual side to it with a voice, one of the many avenues used to deceive millions of Christians who don't study.

Rome is gone. The British empire came up much more powerful after her. She appears to have given up many of her colonies, but all still pay royalties to her, and all is kept hush hush. The USA has the loudest voice today on all international laws and changes, and who is the USA working as one with?

Quote

Today, the United Kingdom affirms its relationship with the United States as its "most important bilateral partnership" in the current British foreign policy,^[4] and the American foreign policy also affirms its relationship with Britain as its most important relationship,^[5]^[6] as evidenced in aligned political affairs, mutual cooperation in the areas of trade, commerce, finance, technology, academics, as well as the arts and sciences; the sharing of government and military intelligence, and joint combat operations and peacekeeping missions carried out between the United States Armed Forces and the British Armed Forces.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now take into consideration who made the Balfour Declaration, and who maybe wants the land of Israel back?

Will these allies of Israel suddenly accuse her of breaking that declaration? And what about all the prophesies with God saying that Israel's lovers have turned against her? Her lovers are supposed to be her friends but they have other plans. I just put two and two together...prophesy and what's happening now in this kingdom today who currently holds the power, not what happened 1500 yrs ago.

And the only way to get control back of that land is to let Israel think her Messiah (little horn) is all for them, ...a Jew from the North, groomed for the job, but in the little's horn's heart is only to deceive and break down Israel with the 10 kings on his side. The Lord will repay.

Quote

Balfour Declaration:
Text of the Declaration

(November 2, 1917)

The British government decided to endorse the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine. After discussions within the cabinet and consultations with Jewish leaders, the decision was made public in a letter from British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The contents of this letter became known as the Balfour Declaration.

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,

Arthur James Balfour

Edited September 8, 2016 by Sister

Diaste · September 9, 2016

On 8/31/2016 at 3:27 AM, brakelite said:

There are ten specific criteria that the Bible, just from Daniel 7, offers us in which to identify the Antichrist. Ten. We have so far, in 3 pages, dealt with one, and as I suspected, it did not receive unanimous approval. But hey, that was just the first. That first installment dealt with the little horn growing from the Roman Empire, the fourth "terrible beast" that arose from the sea after Babylon, Meda/Persia, and Greece. So, nine more to go....here's #2.

The little horn arises among the ten horns. The ten horns are the divisions of western Europe, so the little horn must arise in western Europe (Daniel 7:8). Notice that these first two characteristics restrict the geographical location of the little horn to western Europe.

This is supposition that the 10 horns are the divisions of western Europe. There is biblical proof to the opposite. The little horn rises from one of the divisions of the ancient Grecian empire under Alexander. This truth from Daniel 8. You are just restating your first point which was already proven untenable.

That the little horn was to rise up among ten future kings was understood by the early church fathers. They saw and understood that what Paul meant when he said….

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

….was the Roman power. They understood that when the Roman power was taken out of the way, the antichrist would appear among the ten kings, and would subdue 3 of them.

First, let us read what the well known Catholic historian Cardinal Manning had to say:
“Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire. The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.”
(Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).

This is proof? The Catholic church is likely the whore of babylon.

According to Manning, there was a restraint that inhibited the Bishops of Rome from exercising full authority as the temporal and spiritual leaders they believed was their destiny. That restraint was the pagan Roman power.
Now let us see what some of the early church fathers believed would take place soon according to their understanding of the prophecies.

Tertullian 160-240AD
“‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.’ What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? ‘And then shall be revealed the wicked one.”
“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” chapter 24; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, p. 563

“The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire.”
(“Apology,” chapter 32; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 43).

Lactantius (early fourth century):

“The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains, it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things.”
(“The Divine Institutes,” book 7, chapter 25; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 220).

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

Ambrose (died in 398):

“After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear.”
(Quoted in, Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463)

Chrysostom (died in 407):

“When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God.”
“Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians 2:6-9,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. XIII, p. 389

So after the restraint of Rome was removed, first ten kings arose from within, and the empire was divided between them.

From the historian Barnes we read the following very interesting remark regarding other historians.

“Even the Romanists themselves admit that the Roman Empire was, by means of the incursions of the northern nations, dismembered into ten kingdoms (Calmet on Revelation 13:1; and he refers likewise to Berangaud, Bossuet, and DuPin. See Newton, p. 209); and 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: 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.”
(Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel, p. 322.)

“Antichrist, then (as the Fathers delight to call him), or the little horn, is to be sought among the ten kingdoms of the western Roman Empire. I say of the western Roman Empire, because that was properly the body of the fourth beast; Greece, and the countries which lay eastward of Italy belonged to the third beast; for the former beasts were still subsisting, though their dominion was taken away.
‘As concerning the rest of the beasts,’ saith Daniel, ‘they had their dominion taken away; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.’ Daniel 7:12.
‘And therefore,’ as Sir Isaac Newton rightly infers, ‘all four beasts are still alive, though the dominion of the three first be taken away. The nations of Chaldea and Assyria are still the first beast. Those of Media and Persia are still the second beast. Those of Macedon, Greece and Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, are still the third. And those of Europe, on this side of Greece, are still the fourth. Seeing therefore the body of the third beast is confined to the nations on this side the river Euphrates, and the body of the fourth beast is confined to the nations on this side of Greece; we are to look for all the four heads of the third beast among the nations on this side the river Euphrates; and for all the eleven horns of the fourth beast, among the nations on this side of Greece.”
(Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, pp. 239, 240).

The above quote is also very pertinent to Revelation 13 and the beast that arises from the sea having all the composite parts of the beasts of Daniel. All four beasts are still alive in composite form of the Revelation beast, the antichrist. Notice also the steady progression in a westerly direction of each power. First Babylon, then Media/Persia, then Greece, then Rome and Europe. In Revelation 13 the beast of the sea being composite of all these, is followed by a new beast that rises from out of the earth. There are many who believe this power that rises chronologically after the European composite, is that power which lies further westward, namely America. But that subject is for another day.

All of the above is simply circular reasoning. You begin with premise that Rome is the Iron Kingdom and then come to the conclusion that Rome is the Iron kingdom. The conclusion cannot appear in the supporting facts. Do you get that? It's the same as saying, "My dog is black, therefore my dog is black." it's nonsensical. You are saying that Rome is the 4th beast, Rome is the 10 kingdom coalition, the little horn comes from the 10 nation coalition, the little horn comes from Rome. Not good logic.

brakelite · September 15, 2016

On 10/09/2016 at 2:28 AM, Diaste said:

All of the above is simply circular reasoning. You begin with premise that Rome is the Iron Kingdom and then come to the conclusion that Rome is the Iron kingdom. The conclusion cannot appear in the supporting facts. Do you get that? It's the same as saying, "My dog is black, therefore my dog is black." it's nonsensical. You are saying that Rome is the 4th beast, Rome is the 10 kingdom coalition, the little horn comes from the 10 nation coalition, the little horn comes from Rome. Not good logic.

Rome is identifiable as the 4th beast for several reasons. First,whatever kingdom it is, it must follow directly behind Greece according to Daniel 2. It must come from the same sea, that is the same group of peoples, nations, and tongues as the previous 3 beasts, as per Daniel 7, and Revelation 17:15. The little horn of Daniel 8 which grows from Greece, must grow to a stature exceedingly greater than that of Alexander as per Daniel 8:9. It must move and conquer horizontally, then change direction and attack vertically, as per Daniel 8:9,10. Then of course is the fact that only pagan Rome can be easily identified as having 10 kings grow from its own previously held territories as per Daniel 7:24...only pagan Rome gave rise to the 11th little horn which grew from among the 10, and which itself stood before the uprooting of 3. But lastly and not least, Paul clearly identified the pagan Roman power as the very power who was holding back the emergence of the Antichrist, a point which many early church fathers agreed to. Only a staunch apologist for papal Rome could deny this, and claim Islam or another power as the 4 th beast.

brakelite · September 15, 2016

Characteristic 5 of the Little Horn of Daniel 7.20-21.

The little horn was to speak great words against the Most High (Daniel 7:21, 25). Revelation 13:5 explains that 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).

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. Bold is mine.

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).

Many other quotations could be added to prove that the Papacy claims to have the powers and prerogatives of God.

2.Not only do we have statements from Roman Catholic sources to the effect that the Papacy has the power of God, but the Pope also claims the right to be called “Holy Father”. Jesus warned the Jewish leaders of His day: “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). In the light of this clear statement of Jesus, How can the Pope demand that he be called “Holy Father”? The name, Pope comes from the Italian, “Papa” which is an abbreviation of pater patruum which means “father of fathers” or “principal father” (See, Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, p. 19).

3) The Pope allows people to approach him and bow before him and kiss his ring. In fact, Gregory VII, in his famous Dictatus Papae (Dictates of Hildebrand), article # 9 states: “That all princes should kiss his [the Pope’s] feet only.” (Cesare Baronius, Annales, year 1076, secs. 31-33, Vol 17 (1869 ed.), pp. 405, 406, translated). Acts 10:25-26 explains that Peter refused to allow Cornelius to bow before him. And supposedly, Peter was the first Pope!!! Even the angel Gabriel refused to allow John the Apostle to bow before him (see Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9). Jesus said to Satan on the Mount of Temptation, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve”. How unlike Jesus is the Pope. Jesus washed the feet of His disciples but the Pope has encouraged people to bow before him and kiss his feet!!

4) The Papacy claims to possess the power to forgive sins. According to the Bible, only God can forgive sins (see Mark 2:7). If only God can forgive sins and the Pope claims to have power to forgive them, then the Pope must claim to be God! Not only does the Papacy claim that the Pope can forgive sins, but it also claims that its priesthood can forgive them. St. Alphonsus de Liguori wrote a book titled, Dignity and Duties of the Priest . Liguori lived in the mid 1700’s. What makes his book especially significant is that it is a compendium of the Roman Catholic “wisdom” of the previous 1500 years. Thus it presents with clarity, the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of the power and duties of the priesthood.
Before we look at several blasphemous statements from this book, it is important to understand the Roman Catholic view of the Mass.
In their view,
l) the priest has the power to change the bread into the real flesh of Jesus and the wine into His real blood,
2) Christ is contained in his totality (known as “ubiquity”) in each host distributed by the priest,
3) because Christ is totally present in each host, the host is worshiped by the priest and the faithful. Obviously, for these concepts to be true, the priest would have to exercise the powers of Almighty God. And this is just what the Roman Catholic Church believes.
Let’s listen to the words of St. Alphonsus de Liguori: “With regard to the power of the priests over the real body of Jesus Christ, it is of faith that when they pronounce the words of consecration the Incarnate Word has obliged himself to obey and to come into their hands under the sacramental species. We are struck with wonder when we hear that God obeyed the voice of Josue–The Lord obeying the voice of man–and made the sun stand when he said move not, O sun, towards Gabaon. , . . . and the sun stood still. But our wonder should be far greater when we find that in obedience to the words of his priests–HOC EST CORPUS MEUM–God himself descends on the altar, that he comes wherever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands, even though they should be his enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal; they move him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, or expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, pp. 26-27.

“With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution provided the penitent is capable of it. ‘Such is,’ says St. Maximus of Turin, ‘this judiciary power ascribed to Peter that its decision carries with it the decision of God.’ The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it,’ writes St. Peter Damian.”St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, pp. 27-28.

“Were the Redeemer to descend into a church, and sit in a confessional to administer the sacrament of penance, and a priest to sit in another confessional, Jesus would say over each penitent, ‘Ego te absolvo,’ the priest would likewise say over each of his penitents, ‘Ego te absolvo,’ and the penitents of each would be equally absolved.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, p. 28.

“
“When he ascended into heaven, Jesus Christ left his priests after him to hold on earth his place of mediator between God and men, particularly on the altar. . . The Priest holds the place of the Saviour himself, when, by saying ‘Ego te absolvo,’ he absolves from sin.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, p. 34

5) The Roman Catholic Papacy claims to have changed the law of God. (Dan.7:25 ) Not even God can change the law He wrote with His own finger (see Exodus 31:18). It is as eternal as He is. This means that the Papacy not only claims power equal to God’s but actually claims a power greater than God’s. Obviously this is blasphemy in its most odious form. Notice the following words from the Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XII, art. “Pope,” p. 265: “Peter and his successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when, needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offenses against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to forgive sin. For sin is a breach of the laws of the supernatural kingdom, and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges.”

This particular topic will be dealt with more fully in characteristic 8.

6) The Papacy claims that it has infallibility in faith and morals. The Bible teaches clearly that only God is infallible and does not change (James 1:17; Malachi 3:6;Hebrews 13:8.
If the Pope, speaking ex-cathedra, claims to be infallible, then he must also be claiming to be God!! Notice the following evidence: Gregory VII, in his famous Dictatus Papae, makes twenty seven propositions among which is: “That the Roman Church never erred, nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err.” (Cesare Baronius, Annales, year 1076, secs. 31-33, vol 17 (1869 ed.), pp. 405, 406, translated). The Roman Catholic Papacy has put itself on the record on this point by proclaiming, in 1870, the famous Dogma of Papal Infallibility. The events surrounding this event are described by Norskov Olsen:
“Viva Pio Nono Papa infallible! These words echoed and re-echoed in the basilica of St. Peter in Rome on the eventful July 18, 1870 when the great crowd, having heard the message of papal infallibility, jubilantly expressed their applause. ‘In the midst of one of the fiercest storms ever known to break across the city, accompanied by thunder and lightning, while rain poured in through the broken glass of the roof close to the spot where the Pope was standing, Pius IX read in the darkness, by the aid of a candle, the momentous affirmation of his own infallibility.’ The fierce storm and dense darkness, the thunder and lightning that accompanied the reading of this document, caused adherents of the papacy to compare the event to the lawgiving at Mount Sinai; on the other hand, opponents saw in the wrath of the elements a sign of God’s anger. By both friend and critic the declaration of papal absolutism was considered to be the most momentous event in the long history of the papacy.
On that day the document entitled Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith was decreed. It contains three fundamental concepts which were made into dogma: the supremacy, the universal jurisdiction, and the infallibility of the pope.” (V. Norskov Olsen, Papal Supremacy and American Democracy, p. 2).

The key portion of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith stated the following: “We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians,!!?? by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one–which may God avert–presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema.” Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, chapter 4, pp. 270-271).

The Roman Catholic theologian, Fritz Leist, comments on this dogma: “The infallibility of the pope is the infallibility of Jesus Christ Himself. . . whenever the pope thinks, it is God Himself, who is thinking in him.” (Fritz Leist, Der Gefangene des Vatikanus, p. 344. Quoted in Symposium on Revelation, pp. 340-341).

The proclamation of this Papal Dogma was the most controversial in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. A significant number of the clergy who attended the Vatican Council I were ardently opposed to this dogma and yet in spite of protests, it was passed. If you would like to read more about how this controversial dogma was passed, despite the opposition, read the opening pages of V. Norskov Olsen’s book, Papal Supremacy and American Democracy.

The famous Bible commentator, Adam Clarke, remarks: “They have assumed infallibility, which belongs only to God. They profess to forgive sins, which belongs only to God. They profess to open and shut heaven, which belongs only to God. They profess to be higher than all the kings of the earth, which belongs only to God. And they go beyond God in pretending to loose whole nations from their oath of allegiance to their kings, when such kings do not please them. And they go against God, when they give indulgences for sin. This is the worst of all blasphemies.” ( Adam Clarke, Commentary, on Daniel 7:25).

7) According to the Bible, it is the prerogative of God alone to place kings on the throne and to depose them (Daniel 2:21) and yet the Papacy, throughout its history has boastfully claimed the right to install kings and depose them. The examples are numerous but for now, let us examine statements by Popes and theologians to this effect: In the famous Dictatus Papae of Pope Gregory VII, article 12 states: “That it is lawful for him [the Pope] to depose emperors.” Article 27 reads: “That he [the Pope] can absolve subjects from their allegiance to unrighteous rulers.” In the second sentence of excommunication which Gregory VII passed upon Henry the Fourth are these words: “Come now, I beseech you, O most holy and blessed fathers and princes, Peter and Paul, that all the world may understand and know that if ye are able to bind and to loose in heaven, ye are likewise able on earth, according to the merits of each man, to give and to take away empires, kingdoms, princedoms, marquisates, duchies, countships, and the possessions of all men. For if ye judge spiritual things, what must we believe to be your power over worldly things? And if ye judge the angels who rule over all the proud princes, what can ye do to their slaves?” James Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, p. 161.

The arrogance of the Papacy over the secular power is illustrated in the famous Decree of Gratian. Even though this Decree is a perversion of fact, it does show the boastful claims of the papacy: “It is shown with sufficient clearness that by the secular power the Pope cannot in any way be bound or loosed, who it is certain was called God by the pious leader Constantine, and it is clear that God cannot be judged by man.” (Decree of Gratian, part 1, div. 96, chap. 7).

Notice the words of the papal bull of Pius V deposing Queen Elizabeth of England in 1570:
“He that reigneth on high, to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, has with all fulness of power delivered the rule of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one sole [ruler] upon earth, to wit, Peter, the prince of the apostles, and to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter. Him alone he hath set as prince over all nations and all kingdoms, to pull up, to destroy, to overthrow, and to break down, to plant, and to build, that he may keep the people faithful, bound with the bond of mutual love, and in the unity of the Spirit, and present them unhurt and safe to his Saviour.”

Pope Pius, in articles 4 and 5 of this bull, states the following:
“Article 4. Moreover she herself is deprived of her pretended right to the aforesaid kingdom, and also of all dominion, dignity and privilege whatsoever
Article 5. And so we absolve the nobles, subjects, and peoples of the said kingdom, and all others who have taken any oath to her, from the obligation of their oath and besides from all duty of dominion, fidelity and obedience: and we deprive the said Elizabeth of her pretended right to the kingdom and of all other things as is aforesaid: and we charge and order all and every the nobles, subjects, and peoples, and others aforesaid, not to venture to obey her monitions, commands, and laws. And we attach the like sentence of anathema to those who shall act otherwise. . . Given at St. Peter’s at Rome 25th February, 1570, in the fifth year of our pontificate.” (Charles Stuteville, Our Brief Against Rome, p. 268.)

8) The Bible makes it clear that God the Father has given Jesus Christ the right to judge because He is the Son of Man (John 5:22, 27). In fact, the Father has given Jesus ALL JUDGMENT!! But the Papacy claims that it has been given the right to serve as judge of mankind. In this way, the Papacy, once again, claims to possess the right to exercise the role which belongs to God alone. Notice the following evidence:

In Gregory VII’s Dictatus Papae, article 18 reads: “That his [the Pope’s] sentence is not to be reviewed by any one; while he alone can review the decisions of all others.” Article 19 states: “That he [the Pope] can be judged by no one”.

Augustinus de Ancona, in a document preserved in the British Museum, states the following:
“Therefore the decision of the Pope and the decision of God constitute one [i. e., the same] decision, just as the opinion of the Pope and of his disciple are the same. Since, therefore, an appeal is always taken from an inferior judge to a superior, as no one is greater than himself, so no appeal holds when made from the Pope to God, because there is one consistory of the Pope himself and of God himself, of which consistory the Pope himself is the key-bearer and the doorkeeper. Therefore no one can appeal from the Pope to God, as no one can enter into the consistory of God without the mediation of the Pope, who is the key-bearer and the doorkeeper of the consistory of eternal life; and as no one can appeal to himself, so no one can appeal from the Pope to God, because there is one decision and one court [curia] of God and the Pope.”
(From the writings of Augustinus de Ancona (R. C.), printed without title page or pagination, commencing, ‘incipit summa Catholici doctoris Augustini de Ancona potestate ecclesiastica’, Questio VI, ‘De Papalis
Sententiae Appellatione’ (On an Appeal from a Decision of the Pope).

We are also reminded of the words of Lucius Ferraris:
“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.”
(Lucius Ferraris, Prompto Bibliotheca, article, “Papa”, II, vol. 6, pp. 26-)

Note, in the aforementioned quote a reference to the pope being” the key-bearer and the doorkeeper of the consistory of eternal life”. Now I fully appreciate that this quote comes from an old source, however, when I was a young man being taught and raised within the Catholic communion of faith, this precept, that only by the grace and authority of the pope could anyone enter heaven, was well understood and believed as a dogma and doctrine of the modern church. I do not believe for one moment that has changed.
Now, after reading the above, can any true protestant continue to entertain the idea that Catholicism, as a system of religion, ( I speak not of individuals within this system) is genuinely Christian? Or were the reformers absolutely correct, when they all declared the papacy as the ‘antichrist’, that which stands in the place of , thus replacing, Christ?

Sign In

Join Worthy Christian Forums today!

Characteristics of the Little Horn Daniel 7

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Serving

Sister

Last Daze

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Balfour Declaration: Text of the Declaration

(November 2, 1917)

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Balfour Declaration:
Text of the Declaration