Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

St. Patrick


EcceNovaFacioOmni

Recommended Posts

Circle_Master

And this is where we run into the problem of the "other" thread. If we can't "discern" who is right between Catholics and Protestants (among ourselves) how are we going to figure out if anything else is right or not?

Discerning works very well here.

I meant discerning instead of judging in the passage

I'm not objecting to the millenium. I believe there will be a millenium, too. But I also think that we weren't meant to sit and debate in what order it was going to come, either. It should be sufficiaent to know that Christ will return for His people and that the devil, in the end, will be defeated for all time. I'm satisfied with that.

I find that fascinating (really). I thought that amillenialism was one of the accepted doctrines of the Catholic Church. Well either amil or postmil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that fascinating (really). I thought that amillenialism was one of the accepted doctrines of the Catholic Church. Well either amil or postmil

What I meant was that I see an overabundant amount of Protestants OBSESSED with the order of the end times. It's okay to have a view, but I don't think God wants us to be consumed with it. There are more important things to Christianity than the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Circle_Master

What I meant was that I see an overabundant amount of Protestants OBSESSED with the order of the end times. It's okay to have a view, but I don't think God wants us to be consumed with it. There are more important things to Christianity than the end of the world.

well - it also determines how you view israel and if you expect them to have a country again someday. Romans talks about 'all israel' coming to salvation before the millennium, so is this really the church it is speaking of and a given, or would you support israel in hopes of this coming someday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EcceNovaFacioOmni

No idea. I am not an expert on Church Councils. Actually, amill. has always been the Catholic position, but the Church doesn't use the term amillennialism to name it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Circle_Master

No idea. I am not an expert on Church Councils. Actually, amill. has always been the Catholic position, but the Church doesn't use the term amillennialism to name it.

Not quite true. It seems many church fathers were looking for a millenial kingdom. It was called 'chiliasm' back them - not premil.

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc2/htm/v.xiv.xxii.htm

Chiliasm Advocates of the 1st Century:

1. Andrew

2. Peter

3. Philip

4. Thomas

5. James

6. John

7. Matthew

8. Aristio

9. John the Presbyter

10. Clement of Rome A.D. 40-100

11. Barnabas A.D 40-100

12 Hermas A.D 40-150

13 Ignatius A.D. 50-115

14 Polycarp A.D. 70-167

15. Papias A.D. 80-163

Chiliasm Advocates of the 2nd Century:

1. Pothinus A.D. 87-177

2. Justin Martyr A.D. 100-168

3. Melito A.D. 100-170

4. Hegisippus A.D. 130-190

5. Tatian A.D. 130-190

6. Irenaeus A.D. 140-202

7. The Churches of Vienne and Lyons - a letter A.D. 177

8. Tertulian A.D. 150-220

9. Hippolytus A.D. 160-240

10 Apollinaris A.D. 150-200

Chiliasm Advocates of the 3rd Century:

1. Cyprian A.D. 200-258

2. Commodian A.D. 200-270

3. Nepos A.D. 230-280

4. Coracion A.D. 230-280

5. Victorinus A.D. 240-303

6. Methodius A.D. 250-311

7. Lactantius A.D. 240-330

There were only four in this century that opposed the millennium view:

1. Caius (or Gaius), wrote about A.D. 210

2, Clemens Alexandrinus, died A.D. 202, great influence on Origin

3. Origin A.D. 185-254

4. Dionysius A.D. 190-265

The first and second century had no amill advocates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EcceNovaFacioOmni

While some may have supported it, the vast majority did not. The Fathers were not infallible, only the Pope, and he was quite clear in the Nicene Creed written during the Council of Nicea. Pre-mill. has never been an infallible position, only amill.:

"We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While some may have supported it, the vast majority did not. The Fathers were not infallible, only the Pope, and he was quite clear in the Nicene Creed written during the Council of Nicea. Pre-mill. has never been an infallible position, only amill.:

See. IF those same sources supported a CURRENT Catholic Church position, they are authoritative, if they don't they are fallable. If a Pope did or didn't, it goes the same way.

Cardinal Newman was a freaking genius, you guys should cannonize him pronto.

This "Magisterium" thing is pretty cool, the CIA copied it and renamed it "Plausible Deniability" that allows the Catholic Church to be "right" no matter what.

Can we steal it too, maybe rename it so that we can hone in on this invention that allows for revisionism to be the right answer, no matter WHO agreed, Pope, Council, or generally, if they are WRONG, then they "don't count."

Impressed, really impressed, Newman is MY hero too guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EcceNovaFacioOmni

You know as well as I do that the Fathers were NOT infallible, so don't say that we changed it when we don't agree. They never were infallible. If you can find a POPE who supported this, you might have an arguement. Only the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is infallible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...