The False Ascension Of Antichrist

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1498394' date='Apr 13 2008, 01:27 AM']Well, I guess both my undergraduate and my graduate seminary New Testament professors were all wrong. I yield to your superior knowledge.[/quote]

no offense meant, but....

wouldn't surprise me.

[goldenchild17]

From Dr. Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" p. 487:

c) Falling away from the Faith

Jesus foretells that in the time before the end false prophets will appear who will lead many astray (Mt. 24, 4 et seq.). St. Paul asserts that before the coming-again of the Lord "the schism" must come, that is, the falling away from the Christian Faith (2 Thess. 2, 3).

d) The appearance of Antichrist

The falling-away of the Faith stands in a causal connection with the appearance of Antichrist. 2 Thess. 2, 3: "unless there be a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. Who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God." He appears in the power of Satan, works apparent miracles, in order to lead men astray into the falling-away from the truth and into unrighteousness, and to cast them into destruction (V. 9-II). The Lord Jesus will, on His arrival, kill him "with the spirit of His mouth," that is, destroy him with a power proceeding from Him (V. 8). The name Antichrist is first used by St. John (I John 2, 18.22 ; 4, 3;2 John 2, 7); but he also designates the false teachers, who speak in the name of Antichrist, by this name. According to Ss. Paul and John, Antichrist is to appear as a definite human personality who is the instrument of Satan. The Didache speaks of a "seducer of the world" (16, 4).

The historical interpretation associated with a particular time (Nero, Caligula, and others) as well as the historico-religious explanation, which seeks the origin of the idea of the Antichrist in Babylonian and Persian myths, are to be rejected. The oldest monograph on Antichrist is that composed by St. Hippolytus of Rome.

[KnightofChrist]

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]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1498283' date='Apr 12 2008, 07:37 PM']Isn't there a passage in Revelations where we're given a strick warning not to fool around with the Scripture in particular? I think its something that would mean the creators of the Left Behind series are in trouble.[/quote]

The Apocalypse Of Saint John
Chapter 22:18-20

18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. 20 He that giveth testimony of these things, saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

[kafka]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1498286' date='Apr 12 2008, 08:45 PM']The Magisterium has said little about the end times because Jesus himself said that no one can know the exact hour or day, not even him, only the Father. His word is good enough for me, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.[/quote]
yet he never mentioned "year"

[quote name='Hirsap' post='1498363' date='Apr 12 2008, 11:48 PM']Despite its name, this can hardly be considered a Catholic website, at least in terms of what I saw in the second link (the only one I bothered to check). Its heresy to suppose there will be two "Second Comings", in between which there being a thousand year Kingdom-of-God period on earth. And of course, no-one can predict the date and hour of Christ's return.[/quote]
again Christ never mentioned "year" and you are making enormous generalizations. And notice the Blessed Virgin Mary mentioned a specific date in her message of La Salette:

‘May the Vicar of my Son, the sovereign Pontiff Pius IX, no longer leave Rome after the year 1859; but may he be firm and generous, may he fight with the weapons of faith and love; I will be with him.’

this date has a dual meaning for the future. The Blessed Virgin Mary is full of wisdom.


[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1498393' date='Apr 13 2008, 01:13 AM']Mother Church does not agree. The Anti-christ of the Apocalypse of St. John is [u]the[/u] Anti-christ, not Nero.

To believe the Apocalypse of St. John does not revel the end times is in fact heresy. The book of the Apocalypse like many books of the Bible has more than one meaning.
------[/quote]
amen to that

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1498394' date='Apr 13 2008, 01:27 AM']Well, I guess both my undergraduate and my graduate seminary New Testament professors were all wrong. I yield to your superior knowledge.[/quote]
a professorship doesnt make a person more qualified to find truth in Sacred Scripture. Faithfulness in the Sacraments does

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1498399' date='Apr 13 2008, 02:22 AM']Yes, the Church has infallibly declared (in one way or another) that their will be one particular antichrist and that he will be a real person, not an organization or a church or anything of that nature. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm[/url][/quote]
he is a person. And yes, I would agree that the Universal Magisterium has infallibly declared that Antichrist is a particular person who will come

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1498401' date='Apr 13 2008, 02:34 AM']no offense meant, but....

wouldn't surprise me.[/quote]
agreed

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1498418' date='Apr 13 2008, 03:28 AM']From Dr. Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" p. 487:

c) Falling away from the Faith

Jesus foretells that in the time before the end false prophets will appear who will lead many astray (Mt. 24, 4 et seq.). St. Paul asserts that before the coming-again of the Lord "the schism" must come, that is, the falling away from the Christian Faith (2 Thess. 2, 3).

d) The appearance of Antichrist

The falling-away of the Faith stands in a causal connection with the appearance of Antichrist. 2 Thess. 2, 3: "unless there be a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. Who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God." He appears in the power of Satan, works apparent miracles, in order to lead men astray into the falling-away from the truth and into unrighteousness, and to cast them into destruction (V. 9-II). The Lord Jesus will, on His arrival, kill him "with the spirit of His mouth," that is, destroy him with a power proceeding from Him (V. 8). The name Antichrist is first used by St. John (I John 2, 18.22 ; 4, 3;2 John 2, 7); but he also designates the false teachers, who speak in the name of Antichrist, by this name. According to Ss. Paul and John, Antichrist is to appear as a definite human personality who is the instrument of Satan. The Didache speaks of a "seducer of the world" (16, 4).

The historical interpretation associated with a particular time (Nero, Caligula, and others) as well as the historico-religious explanation, which seeks the origin of the idea of the Antichrist in Babylonian and Persian myths, are to be rejected. The oldest monograph on Antichrist is that composed by St. Hippolytus of Rome.[/quote]
I am not a fan of quoting Ott as the last word, but he is right, or rather Sacred Scripture is right and the Didache is right. I think the "temple of God" Antichrist will sit in is Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The Great Monarch will rebuild it and it will be the center of worship for the Catholic Church, and the Vatican will be the center of authority for the Church. The Jews will also rebuild their Temple but it isnt as significant as the Holy Sepulcher. Antichrist will destroy the rebuilt Temple of the Jews, but he will not destroy the Holy Sepulcher since he hates the Catholic Church more, and will want to desecrate it and will eventually set up the abomination of desolation (the False Eucharist) in this Church:
Isaiah
{11:10} In that day, the root of Jesse, who stands as a sign among the people, the same the Gentiles shall beseech, and his sepulcher will be glorious.


[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1498423' date='Apr 13 2008, 04:28 AM']The Apocalypse Of Saint John
Chapter 22:18-20

18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. 20 He that giveth testimony of these things, saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.[/quote]
Amen

Edited April 14, 2008 by kafka

[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.