where Roman Catholicism is wrong its wrong where its right its right, and stupid ideas about it

"The first,
“Antichrist,” is a Greek word, the second, “Vicar,” is an English word; but the two are in
reality one, for both words have the same meaning. Antichrist translated into English is
Vice-Christ, or Vicar of Christ; and Vicar of Christ, rendered into Greek is Antichrist –
Antichristos. If we can establish this –and the ordinary use of the word by those to whom
the Greek was a vernacular, is decisive on the point –we shall have no difficulty in
showing that this is the meaning of the word “Antichrist,” –even a Vice-Christ. And if
so, then every time the Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ, he pleads at the bar of the
world that he is the “Antichrist.”"
wrong. antichristos is instead of Christ an opposing substitute a false Christ, like
getting a stone instead of bread the stone would be antipetros or something like that.
What is a vicar? it is a REPRESENTATIVE SUBORDINATE APPROVED BY THE REPRESENTED
AUTHORITY. Merriam Webster defines vicar as "one serving as a substitute or agent;
specifically : an administrative deputy" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicar
"A vicar is a representative, deputy or substitute; anyone acting "in the person of" or
agent for a superior (compare "vicarious" in the sense of "at second hand")."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar
"noun
1. Church of England. a.a person acting as priest of a parish in place of the rector, or
as representative of a religious community to which tithes belong.
b.the priest of a parish the tithes of which are impropriated and who receives only
the smaller tithes or a salary.
2. Protestant Episcopal Church. a.a member of the clergy whose sole or chief charge
is a chapel dependent on the church of a parish.
b.a bishop's assistant in charge of a church or mission.
3. Roman Catholic Church. an ecclesiastic representing the pope or a bishop.
4. a person who acts in place of another; substitute.
5. a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy:
God's vicar on earth.
Origin of vicar Middle English Anglo-French Old French Latin"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vicar
Given this word's presence, and correct usage, in churches the writer would have
been familiar with other than Roman, I can only assume there is some kind of
dishonesty here.
the writer continues:
"In order to introduce ourselves to our subject, we have taken it for granted that the
system described by Paul in the passage we have just quoted is the papacy. This is the
thing to be established."
That's the key problem. he takes it for granted, and also note he calls what Paul
describes a "SYSTEM," reading back into Scripture what he has taken for granted.
PAUL DOES NOT DESCRIBE A SYSTEM. Paul describes an individual. Let's look at
Paul's words again: "that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and
exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God
sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."
man of sin....son of perdition...who does various specific things that only an individual
can do like sitting in the temple of God pretending to be God, when Paul wrote the
temple of the JEws was still in existence and though each individual can be called a
temple these terms bring to mind a limited geographic setting, a building, a small part
of that building where the high priest would sit or stand. this description is of an
individual.
There is a  mystery of iniquity which will eventually give rise to the antichrist, and is
attempting to do so now and at various times in the past, but while this mystery might
well manifest in a system, what its goal is is the production of the individual antichrist,
that man of perdition who is worse and more powerful than the lesser antichrists who
deny Christ and make heretical groups.
"Had Caesar continued to
reside in his old capital, he would, as the phrase is, have "sat" upon the Pope, and this
aspiring ecclesiastic could not have shot up into the powerful potentate which prophecy
had foretold. But Constantine (A.D. 334) removed to the new Rome on the Bosphorus,
leaving the old capital of the world to the Bishop of Rome, who was henceforth the first
and most influential personage in that city. It was then, probably, that the idea of
founding an ecclesiastical monarchy suggested itself to him."
The big problem with this one, is that the old capital was not left to the Bishop of Rome
to administer politically, and Constantinople had its bishop also! which was not
Constantine. the extreme claims of the papacy don't develop till hundreds of years later,
though a few earlier popes made noises in that direction. Pope by the way means papa,
a familiar form of "father," affectionate term, and was used by the bishop of Alexandria
before it was used in Rome. Alexandria never made universal claims, so the term is not
of universal claiming nature. Tertullian, who hailed from north Africa, has been called
the father of Latin Christianity, and there seems to have been a strong connection
between Rome and north africa, with the former the student of the latter, and defender
of its claims to second position among the patriarchates, when it was argued (and
decided with Rome caving in eventually) that Constantinople should be second city.
St. Augustine hailed from Carthage, also in north africa. all manner of evils and several
heresies come from north africa, usually more specifically from Egypt.
Now he proceeds to get history partly right and partly wrong.
"About this time, moreover, the equality which had reigned among the pastors of
the church in the primitive age was broken. The bishops claimed superiority above the
presbyters."
Actually this precedence is evident in the Bible, Paul installed Timothy as bishop of
Ephesus and Titus as bishop of all of Crete (which would be more than one city) to direct
the believers and elders there and select worthy elders. that the term elder could incl
bishops does not mean the bishops didn't outrank the other elders, because Peter and
Paul both speak of themselves as "elders." so within that category you can have ranks.
" Nor was there equality even among the bishops themselves. They took
precedence, not according to their learning, or their talents, or their piety, but according
to the rank of the city in which their see was placed. Finally, a new and loftier order
arose overtopping the episcopate. Christendom was partitioned into five great
patriarchates -Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. These were
the five great cities of the empire, and their bishops were constituted the five great
princes of the church."
"was partitioned" as if imposed from outside. this developed over time, with I would
think Titus' position over all cities of Crete as a precedent. it was a response to growing
population and followed Paul's pattern of preaching mostly in cities, to which rural people
came and would bring the gospel back with them to their homes. Thus the organization
of the Church came to mirror that of the then known world, as was stated in Council
of Chalcedon canon 28.
"Now came the momentous question, for a while so keenly agitated, Which of the
five shall be the first? Constantinople claimed this honour for her patriarch, on the ground
that it was the residence of the Emperor. Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem each put in
its claim, but to no effect."
This is false. Rome already had a preeminence, not rulership, and Jerusalem didn't get
patriarchate status off the bat because it had become a backwater, but was added to
the patriarchates later making four in I Nicea canon 7 because it is where Christianity started
and had now become a place of pilgrimage and recovered from the destruction in
AD 70.  Custom ascribed dignity already to the Bishop of Jerusalem. So in AD 325, it was
Alexandria, Rome, Antioch named in that order in canon 6, where the north african jurisdiction
was affirmed for Alexandria, with Roman jurisdiction over european roman empire as an
example.
Constantinople was added to the patriarchates making them five at some point later, and
then at Chalcedon AD 451 it was argued should be second city instead of Alexandria,
which protested. Constantinople and its supporters in this won, against Rome and Alexandria.
Rome refused to sign off on canon 28  this canon was accepted as ecumenical because signed
off on by the rest and the next council settled it that Constantinople was exalted to second place.
The attendees of these great councils or synods were not just a handful of bishops, but bishops
or their representatives (legates or legatees) from all over Christendom.
" Constantinople found, however, a powerful rival in the old city
on the banks of the Tiber. Rome had been the head of the world, the throne of the
Caesars;"
constantinople was never vying for first place,  the opposition to its exaltation to second
place came from Rome in support of up to then second place Alexandria, which did not
want to lose rank. This fight over  status does show some spiritual problems, however.
status shouldn't be that big of a deal with supposedly humble people, absent a fight
against heresy where lack of status means you shut up could become an issue. But this
was never an issue, all ranks of the Church being involved in the fight against heresy.
"The popular suffrage had pronounced in favour of the
Roman bishop before his rank had received imperial ratification."  more like The Church
Fathers of the past had established this custom.
" He was installed as the
first of the five patriarchs in A.D. 606. The Emperor Phocas, displeased with the bishop
of Constantinople, who had condemned the murder of Maurice, by which Phocas opened
his way to the imperial dignity, made Boniface III. universal bishop. The imperial edict,
however, gave to the Roman bishop only the precedence among the five patriarchs; it
gave him no power or jurisdiction over them."
Now I don't know what this guy is talking about, and clearly he doesn't know either,
because Rome was already first place (in respect not in rule over the whole Church, which
was collegiate) by the time of Chalcedon. whatever went down with Phocas and Boniface
III was not accepted by any canon of any ecumenical council, none of which state Rome
was ruler over the whole Church, just first in honor. this already existed in AD 451.
AD 606 didn't do anything about ranking in Church councils.
"The Emperor Constantine, by his last will and
testament, was made to bequeath to Silvester, Bishop of Rome, the whole Western
Empire, including palace, regalia, and all the belongings of the master of the world. A
goodly dowry, verily, for the poor fisherman. Then came another "windfall" to the
papacy, in the shape of the decretals of Isidore. This last showed the church, to her equal
surprise and delight, that her Popes from Peter downwards had held the same state, lived
in the same magnificence, and promulgated their pontifical will in briefs, edicts, and bulls
in the same authoritative and lordly style, as the grand Popes of the Middle Ages. Both
documents, it is unnecessary to say, were sheer forgeries. They are acknowledged by
Romanists to be so. They could not have stood a moment's scrutiny in an enlightened
age. But they were accepted as genuine in the darkness of the times that gave them birth,
and vast conclusions were founded upon them. The fabrications of Isidore were made the
substructions of canon law, and that stupendous fabric of legislation is still maintained to
be of divine authority, despite that it is now acknowledged to be founded on a forgery."
correct. And given these are forgeries, it might be a good idea for Rome to review all
canon law and customs that derive from these or even refer to these, and cancel them.
And for the Traditionalists, sedevacantist and otherwise, to review whatever changes
have occurred already and see how many are merely a rejection of these forgeries.
"This was the third intervention by arms in the Pope's behalf, and the third Gothic
power which had fallen before him. First, the Vandals established themselves in the
diocese proper of the Pope, occupying his pre-destined domain, and hindering his
predestined development. The arms of Justinian under his general Belisarius, swept them
off. Second, the Ostrogoths planted themselves in Italy, and their near neighborhood
overawed the Pope, and prevented his expansion. They, too, were rooted out by the arms
of Justinian. Last came, as we have said, the Longobards, pressing onwards to the gates
of Rome. The sword of France drove them back. Thus, a field was kept clear on which
the Pope might develop both his spiritual and temporal sovereignty; and thus was
fulfilled what Daniel (Daniel vii. 8) had foretold, that of the ten horns, or dynasties of the
modern Europe, three should be "plucked up" before the little horn, or papacy."
Again, his presupposition causes him to misread prophecy.
also he assumes that Europe has any place worthy of note in prophecy this eurocentric
view, later amerocentric, has infected the whole evangelical protestant prophecy "expert"
community from the Reformation on. Taking the pope's view of himself as center of the
universe at face value, they then challenge that and assume that he (and therefore they)
are in prophecy, when they are just peripheral elements. the only clear European presence
is the Roman Empire itself, the legs and feet of the statue, and very likely the winged lion
in the four beasts dream.
The little horn acts very much like an individual. and the angel tells Daniel that these four
beasts are four kings or kingdoms, that will arise after Daniel. If this is a rehash of the
statue dream, then the angel would have said THREE not FOUR but he said FOUR. The
anti RC writer at least positions this situation as later than pagan Rome and the Roman
Empire, but still plays it wrong. For the three horns displaced are kings of an empire
that crushes (not incorporating in itself as heir of its ancestors but annexes concurrent
empires) the other three, and such an empire hasn't existed yet that also includes a
triumvirate, displaced by one who then pretends to be a god and opposes God.
"There arose in the eleventh century a Pope of vast capacity, of inflexible
resolution, and towering pride, Gregory VII. -Hildebrand. He put before the world, with a
precision, a boldness, and an argumentative force, never till then brought to its support,
the claim to be the Vicar of Christ. This was the foundation-stone on which he rested his
scheme of pontificial jurisdiction and grandeur."
I will assume he has history correct since he is so euro focused he probably does.
" As Christ's Vicar, he claimed to surpass all earthly monarchs in glory and power, as far
as the sun surpasses the moon in brightness."
sounds familiar, probably correct statement by the writer.
" He claimed, in short, to be God upon the earth."
See earlier refutation of this Vicar of Christ = Christ idea.
" There followed a series of popes who struggled through two dreadful centuries of war
and bloodshed to convert Gregory's theory into fact. The struggle was successful in the
end: the mitre triumphed over the empire. The scheme of Gregory VII. In all its amplitude
of jurisdiction and magnificence -and, we may add, in all its amplitude of despotism and
blasphemy -was exhibited to the world in the person and reign of Innocent III. , in the
thirteenth century. The history of the world does not show another achievement of equal
magnitude. The glory of the Pharaohs; the state and power of the Kings of Babylon; the
victories and magnificence of the Caesars, all pale before this great conquest of the Popes.
Now had come the noon of the Papacy; but, as we have remarked elsewhere, the noon of the
Popedom was the midnight of the world."
Ahem. a little glance at ancient history puts the lie to this one. Pharoahs were kings who
were supposedly gods incarnate from the time of their coronation or whatever. Babylonian
kings, well, I forget but they seemed to be a bit in this direction, especially Nebuchadnezzar
who once demanded that for a month no one make any request to any person or deity
except him. The Egyptian Empire at its zenith was probably close in size to little old Europe,
maybe not if you incl. some eastern euro locations. Babylonia ruled all the Middle East
and may have hit parts of Egypt I forget. Maybe not the same size as Europe but pretty
big. when you get to " the victories and magnificence of the Caesars" some of whom did
claim divinity, it is the "great conquest of the Popes"  which pales before the Caesars not
vice versa, for Rome at its zenith held europe, the Middle East, and north africa. How can
you compare europe alone to this? you can't unless in your mind somewhere in your heart
europe eclipses the whole world. This is beginning to remind me of some parody maps,
showing how various nations' typical countrymen view the world. it creates some great
skews. all of these show a radical self centeredness, moved from the obvious form of
individual self centeredness to the "greater self" of country.
this is a classic exercise in eisegesis, reading something into the Scriptures intead of
exegesis, reading something out of them. for instance, eisegesis says Eve ate an apple.
exegesis says she ate a fruit of unknown species , which had an effect, either inherent
to it, or else the action itself created the effect by separating them from God,and this
plant and its fruit are mostly likely nonexistent now given the destruction by the Flood,
and possibly but not necessarily destroyed by God shortly after Adam and Eve were
expelled from Eden. what is known is stated as known, what is possible WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF WHAT IS KNOWN is stated as speculation, but no more than what is possible
within the limits of what is known.
eisegesis reads presuppositions into Scripture that are not like sheep do this and that
and certain things have certain effects, this we know, so we can understand some
things and accept some interpretations and applications and reject other interpretations
and applications, but rather presupposes, for instance, that some natural force caused
the Flood, the  events of the Exodus, etc., and rewrites Scripture around that, or
presupposes that of course races looking different can't be of the same blood as Adam
and Eve who of course have to be white like us euroamericans who read ourselves into
the Bible, or even that the Jews called the seventh day Saturday because we call it
Saturday.
now, as I read this pdf booklet and comment, I suppose he is about to get into blaspheming
the Body and Blood of Christ. Certainly this following statement shows his ignorance of
the origins of Holy Liturgy of which The Mass is a modification.
"The ferment in the minds of men gives birth to a great system, as yet without form or name.
The materials of which this system, not yet constituted, is composed, are drawn from a great
variety of sources. Ancient Paganism, Druidic and Scandinavian superstition, Jewish Rabbinism,
and Oriental philosophy, all  contribute their share to it. A corrupt "Church" arranges, combines and concatenates these heterogeneous elements, and stamping them with its own impress, presents it to the
world as Christianity. The new worship must have celebrants. A human agency gathers round it, and
that agency comes gradually to be summed up and embodied in one great personality."
yes he get to the issue of lying signs and wonders by the antichrist, and relates these to
saints and miracles of the Roman church, some of which as he says are open to severe question
and apparently some mechanisms to pull off deceit have been discovered. Such were also
discovered when Christian mobs overthrew pagan temples and found machinery that made
the idols appear to come alive, move and speak. Some bleeding or weeping statues have, I
think, been found to not be producing blood (they may have been producing myrrh, which
is reddish but is not blood and occurs in the Orthodox Churches and of course if misunderstood
as blood would be tested as blood and fail). Some were flat out fraud.
A major deceit I discovered recently, was the periodic liquification of the dried blood of some
saint in Italy, it liquified at the presence of pope francis I. This liquification thing, however,
is immediately suspicious because it occurs only in that city and some cities  not far from it
and is almost unknown, the article on the internet said, elsewhere. A little more digging, and
it seems an alchemist was involved in the production of the first one (which of course helped
the town get money from pilgrims who either contributed or bought from residents, i.e., the
tourist trade). Naturally this trick involving a chemical that I think liquifies when agitated
or something like that, would be limited to the locations he could get to and who were likely
in communication with the original city this was done in, and the conspiracy to profiteer off
piety could proliferate.
That does not change other miracles which have been tested, including the most extreme
Eucharistic miracle I know of (maybe there is another like it somewhere), The Miracle of
Lanciano. In the days before the Great Schism of AD 1054,  when the west was moving away
from the practices of the east, an eastern monkpriest was visiting the Italian city of Lanciano,
and there was asked to perform the Eucharist, and instead of the leavened bread (which
signifies the new leaven, Christ) he was to use unleavened bread (which is symbolizing the
bread without leaven without corruption but pure, and relating to Passover, both symbolisms
are biblical) and had doubts that this could be the true Body and Blood of Christ, so at the
words of institution or after, the host became flesh and the wine became five dried clots of
blood.
Initial examination maybe some centuries later, showed that when the dried blood clots
were weighed, they each weighed the same weight, WHICH WAS THE SAME AS THE FIVE
CLOTS TOGETHER ON THE SCALE. some very strange physics are involved here. This
feature however has apparently disappeared.
The flesh is cardiac muscle. The blood type is the same as on the Shroud of Turin and I
think as on the Veil of Veronica or another veil a cloth that has Jesus' sweat and blood
and image on it from when His followers stayed with Him on the way to the Cross and would
comfort Him as much as they could.
the writer continues frothing away:
"The Spiritual performances of the Church of Rome are emphatically "lying
wonders." Baptismal regeneration is a lying wonder, sacramental grace is a lying
wonder, priestly power is a lying wonder, the absolution of the Confessional is a lying
wonder, transubstantiation is the biggest wonder and the greatest lie of all,"
yep, I figured he'd get to that
" and extreme unction is a last and fatal lie."
In all these, he tries to make out that these are the lying signs and wonders the antichrist will
do. But how do these invisible things compare to the visible signs and wonders that were done
by Christ, and that the antichrist will try to duplicate? Whatever you think of sacramentalism,
it is perceived by faith, operates by faith, and a sacrament is a visible material sign of an
INVISIBLE and spiritual grace. by definition, the miraculous element is INVISIBLE. These are not
"lying signs and wonders" because they are not visible to the average person, believer or not.
A bleeding or crying statue is very visible to anyone, believer or no. Whether it is legitimate or
a fraud in any given case is another matter. BUT IT IS VISIBLE.
frothing, he does not only eisegesis, but its frequent aid, spiritualization or allegorization of
the specific.
"Speaking of the two-horned lamb like beast of the
earth, John says, "And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down out of
heaven upon the earth in the sight of men."( Apoc. xiii. 13.)
The prophecy found a striking fulfilment in the papal interdicts and
excommunications so frequent in the Middle Ages, and not unknown in even our own
day. These ebullitions of pontifical vengeance, it was pretended, were fire out of heaven:
the fire of the wrath of God which the Pope had power to evoke, therewith to burn up his
enemies. The blinded nations believed that in the voice of the Pope they heard the voice
of God, and that the fulminations of the Vatican were the thunderings and lightnings of
Divine wrath. A papal excommunication was more dreadful than the invasion of
thousands of armed men."
what part of "maketh fire come down out of heaven upon the earth IN THE SIGHT OF MEN"
does this character not understand? this is not a political move but a ballistic move.
probably to one up the two witnesses who will bring down fire on their opponents until their
time comes to die and resurrect and ascend to heaven. after them the antichrist comes.
And this guy uses the wrong word. a general excommunicatin against a nation is called
an INTERDICT not an excommunication, the latter term is for individuals.
baptismal regeneration does not mean you are perfect but that you are freed from the power
of original or ancestral sin and you might fall under it again but then if you repent the
confession and absolution (originally included penance,  and is stated on EWTN to be without
effect if your confession is false, you don't really intend to change just going through the motions)
transformation aka transubstantiation (a more complex theory of scholaticism that proposes
to  reduce this mystery to rational comprehension) is to be found referenced by Irenaeus and
Justin Martyr, themselves taught by aged men who were taught by the Apostle John or those
taught by him in Justin's case, and reflecting the understanding of the church in europe and
asia as being the truth. Paul's warning about eating the body and blood of Christ without
perceiving the Body of the Lord indicates the same.   Jesus gave power to absolve sin to the
Apostles, ALL of them, and gave the keys to Peter at first then to ALL of them. Extreme Unction
was originally to heal the sick not to absolve them and keep them out of hell at the last
minute.
one thing he gets right:
"That the "Pope is the Vicar of Christ" is the corner-stone of the papal Church. Out
of that root does the whole of popery spring."
the idea is, if you are not in communion with in submission to the pope you are ipso facto out of
communion with and not in submission to Jesus Christ.  This is highly problematic, especially
since  the more amorphous idea that you needed to be in communion with SOME bishop with
apostolic succession was the original one. And Jesus said that those are not against us (Him
and the Apostles) are for us, regarding one who did exorcisms in Jesus' Name but did not follow
along with them   in their group. But was clearly in some relationship to Jesus.
The Miracle of Lanciano shows that the Orthodox position that unleavened bread CANNOT be
legitimate is wrong, but does not thereby show that leavened bread is wrong. this should be a
matter of local preference of no  primary importance. Once the mixing of bread with wine
started, to keep the heretics out who lied and claimed Orthodoxy, but would not drink wine as
unclean, the resulting mush does not lend itself to miracles like bleeding hosts, since the wine
used in the east is red already. Miracles generally occur to testify to truth and support and
strengthen the faithful or convert the ungodly or rebuke them.
I can't recall if there is a specific canon or official anathema against azymes or unleavened
bread, but if there is this should be no ground for doubting The Faith. The problem when you take
a visible system as the totality and a seamless web, is that when one thing is at question the
whole thing seems to be at question. But the DOGMATIC DEFINITIONS WERE ALWAYS GIVEN
FIRST, and canons second, some to enforce them, some to enforce morals that are from Christ
and the Apostles so are non negotiable anyway, and some to deal with situations of the time.
Someone in Orthodoxy said there is a difference between tradition with a big T and traidition
with a small t, the former being Scripture based Apostolic things like the Creed and Holy Liturgy
or the core of it that developed, and so forth and other traditions with a small t vary from
place to place. Trullo contradicted a much earlier canon for instance, and installed ekonomia
as standard practice.
that said, I am happy with the way ORthodoxy does the Eucharist and would not like to see it
changed. the serving separate of Body and Blood, while original practice and retained in the
west where they weren't dealing with those particular wine avoiding heretics, does lend itself
to evasion by any who have heretical notions involving wine avoidance, and to wrong headed
stuff like the laity eat the Body and the priest drinks the Blood.
Agreeing with early church writers that the one "letting" or hindering was the Roman Empire,
but for the very different reason that he argued that two false gods couldn't occupy the same
throne, the fall of the Roman empire allowed the pope to become a temporal power and
enthroned. This ignores that Rome was Christian when it fell.  there was no claimant to godhood
on the Roman imperial throne. When Rome fell the early writers argued that it was govt. in general
which restrained the antichrist, because he is the "man of lawlessness."
arguing that while temple mentioned in Acts is refered to as hieron but when used referring to
Christian church or individual as temple of God the word used is naos, and this word is used by
Paul referring to the antichrist sitting in the temple of God and pretending to be God.
"Antichrist
therefore could "sit," that is, establish himself and exercise jurisdiction, nowhere but in
the professedly Christian Church. As a Vice-Christ it behoved all his visible
characteristics and all his environments to be professedly Christian and ecclesiastical."
possibly.
"This effectually disposes of all those theories of Antichrist which would find him
in some powerful atheistic confederacy, or in some masterful, political chief, or other
embodiment of monstrous iniquity and tyranny yet to arise, and which, during a brief but
terrible career, should desolate the world. Such a power could in no sense be said to sit in
the temple of God. It would be a power outside the temple; and so far from aspiring to
office and dignity in the "temple" -that is, in the church -such a power must needs, from
its instincts and character, make war on the church, under the banner of open hostility,
and with the cry of: Raze it, raze it.""
Daniel's prophecy points to the antichrist starting as such an outside power, and then
moving into the temple.
"Moreover, no one-man Antichrist, or Antichrist whose reign is to last for only
three years and a -half, can fulfil the conditions of Paul's prophecy."
That in itself should have brought him up short. But no, he figures out how it has to
be a system instead of an individual.
"How could he spring into being, climb to a height which mortal had never reached
before, exhibit his lying wonders, and deceive the whole world, compel all its nations and
kings to serve him, make war with the saints and overcome them, and all in the brief
period of three and a half years?"
This was written in 1880. nuff said.
"The Pope, seated on the high altar of St Peter's
while incense is burned before him, and the knee is bent to him, is invoked as the Lord
our God. Romanists are accustomed to call the altar the throne of God, inasmuch as
thereon they place the host. The use the Pope finds for it on these occasions, is the not
very dignified one of a footstool. "He as God sitteth in the temple of God showing
himself that he is God.""
interesting, and frankly somethng that should not be done.  But that doesn't mean the
pope is the antichrist. This is about the only thing resembling the antichrist you can find
in romanism. And that's assuming that the description is correct that some misinterpretation
of obsolete phrasing is not in play.
"The years of his life were to be counted in
centuries; they were far to exceed the days of the life of man; they were to fill the period
betwixt the time when Paul wrote, and the appearance of Christ at the Millenium. The
system was to be presided over, and necessarily so, by a race of rulers, who were to take
their place in succession at its head; but inasmuch as there was to be identity in the
system from first to last, and it was to grow as man grows, by regulated stages, and
inasmuch as its chiefs were to be linked together by oneness of spirit and aim, Antichrist
is spoken of as a corporate individuality. The conditions of the prophecy, we repeat,
could be fulfilled by no one man, however superhuman his power, or however
stupendous his wickedness, whose rise, reign, and ruin were to be acted and over in the
short space of three years and a half."
This is how gets around all this. okay, if a year for a day or a day for a thousand years,
then that means the papacy has 3500 years life span from whenever you figured it started.
Bullshit.
And "forbidden to marry, commanded to abstain from meats" is not relevant to forbidding
clergy to marry, Paul said they should be married ahead of time and the husband of one wife,
which has been twisted to make the priest the husband of the congregation, but Orthodox
decided that an unmaried man should remain unmarried if he was ordained, and if married
could not remarry if his wife died or left him. This may be the result of influence of the
north africans, who managed to get the Ecumenical Council to allow them and them only
to deny consecration to married men, and that a married bishop had to live apart from his
wife and be celibate. clerical celibacy, whether absolute or conditional, is not  enjoining
celibacy on all, or forbidding marriage and enjoining promiscuity on all. abstaining from
meats is not about fasting on certain days or no meat on certain days or keeping lent, it is
about keeping mosaic food laws prohibiting eating certain animals at all, and/or veganism
as spiritually essential. the former is judaizing the latter is gnosticism of some sort.
Infallibility, once ascribed to Church Councils regarding doctrine and to a lesser extent canons
(which he misspells as "cannon") being ascribed to one man is without precedent in Church
history east or west and begun as a political ploy by the Franciscans.  But it is limited to
speaking ex cathedra on faith and/or morals.
to sum it up, there are some errors in Roman Catholicism, of doctrine and practice. but  they
are not the antichrist. And in all this fulmination he forgets the false prophet and the harlot.
who is the false prophet? not mentioned in this analysis. the harlot rides on the beast which
turn and destroy her, so, as Sir Richard Anderson noted in the 1800s,  if the pope is the antichrist and the harlot is the church itself, that
means the pope and his armies will destroy the laity and churches and a lot of the clergy.
does that make sense? no it does not.