anti-christ and the papacy

[Albion]

.

I think that Protestants rightfully fear this office even though a difference face holds that office, the instrument of this office can be abused by another bad apple somewhere down the line.

As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Rest assured that Protestants make no judgements on Catholics or even people that sit in that office baring the exception of the few. The fear is reflected in the past tainted by the blood of the innocent.

Don't you think the issue concerns the possibility of the anti-Christ misleading the faithful into false doctrine rather than of restarting the Inquisitions or something like that?

From a historical point of view Vatican did try to deflect this notion when they renamed their institution Vatican 2 with the plea that major changes have been put in place to ensure that those dark ages are not revisited again.

The Vatican didn't rename anything there. The first of many church councils to be titled "Vatican" is referred to as "Vatican I" and the second one, held about 90 years later, is styled "Vatican II" for obvious reasons.

 

[Berean777]

Don't you think the issue concerns the possibility of the anti-Christ misleading the faithful into false doctrine rather than of restarting the Inquisitions or something like that?


The Vatican didn't rename anything there. The first of many church councils to be titled "Vatican" is referred to as "Vatican I" and the second one, held about 90 years later, is styled "Vatican II" for obvious reasons.

Yes to your first question and the result of those who do not agree on the flatteries of the false doctrine will be dealt with by force in what ever form that will manifest. Ultimately it will end up in persecutions of the body of Christ that stands firm and does not buy into the flatteries.

To the second question I am sorry for my ignorance and I didn't know that, so thank you for educating me.

 

[Berean777]

Vatican 2 public relations agenda that is revealing itself through ecumenical councils and acceptance of all regions without favour.

Albion off course Vatican 2 is a tweaking of the gospel to appease the masses. I politely call it flatteries, the gift of the gab.

From a theological point of view, Vatican II distinguishes between the indefectible fidelity of the Church and the weaknesses of her members, clergy or laity, yesterday and today,(12) and therefore, between the Bride of Christ “with neither blemish nor wrinkle...holy and immaculate” (cf. Eph 5:27), and her children, pardoned sinners, called to permanent metanoia, to renewal in the Holy Spirit. “The Church, embracing sinners in her bosom, is at the same time holy and always in need of purification and incessantly pursues the path of penance and renewal.”(13)

Thus, a number of questions can be identified: Can today’s conscience be assigned ‘guilt’ for isolated historical phenomena like the Crusades or the Inquisition? Isn’t it a bit too easy to judge people of the past by the conscience of today (as the Scribes and Pharisees do according to Mt 23:29-32), almost as if moral conscience were not situated in time? And, on the other hand, can it be denied that ethical judgement is always possible, given the simple fact that the truth of God and its moral requirements always have value? Whatever attitude is adopted must come to terms with these questions and seek answers that are based in revelation and in its living transmission in the faith of the Church. The first question is therefore that of clarifying the extent to which requests for forgiveness for past wrongs, especially if addressed to groups of people today, are within the biblical and theological horizon of reconciliation with God and neighbor.

The relationship between “historical judgement” and “theological judgement” is therefore as complex as it is necessary and determinative. For this reason, it is necessary to undertake it without falsehoods on one side or the other. Both an apologetics that seeks to justify everything and an unwarranted laying of blame, based on historically untenable attributions of responsibility, must be avoided. John Paul II, referring to the historical-theological evaluation of the work of the Inquisition, stated: “The Church’s Magisterium certainly may not intend to perform an act of natural ethics, which the request for pardon is, without first being exactly informed concerning the situation of that time. But, at the same time, neither may it rely on images of the past steered by public opinion, since these are frequently highly charged with passionate emotion which impedes serene and objective diagnosis… This is the reason why the first step consists in asking the historians, not to furnish a judgement of natural ethics, which would exceed the area of their competence, but to offer help toward a reconstruction, as precise as possible, of the events, of the customs, of the mentality of the time, in the light of historical context of the epoch.”(64)

Link...........

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html

 

[Albion]

Vatican 2 public relations agenda that is revealing itself through ecumenical councils and acceptance of all regions without favour.

Albion off course Vatican 2 is a tweaking of the gospel to appease the masses. I politely call it flatteries, the gift of the gab.

What in the world is this about? Vatican II is not a new Vatican or Papacy. It's the title of a council held about a half-century ago that is remembered for making some modernizing reforms in such things as relaxed rules on fasting, worship services in the language of the people, and more contemporary wording. But it's not the title of anything except the council; it doesn't refer to a different Papacy.

 

[Berean777]

What in the world are you talking about?

Come again. What do you mean.

 

[Berean777]

What in the world is this about? Vatican II is not a new Vatican or Papacy. It's the title of a council held about a half-century ago that is remembered for making some modernizing reforms. But it's not the title of anything except the council; it doesn't refer to a different Papacy.

Doesn't it imply that it no longer dogmatically holds to the ways of the past (i.e crusades and inquisitions) and its goal is to revamp/remodel itself according to the modernising reforms?

 

[Berean777]

I mean Malachy prophesied that this pope may be the last. Could those reforms even extend to the popes office itself. I am just throwing it up in the air, maybe I am totally wrong.

 

[Albion]

Doesn't it imply that it no longer dogmatically holds to the ways of the past (i.e crusades and inquisitions)

No. There were no significant doctrinal changes.

and its goal is to revamp/remodel itself according to the modernising reforms?

Revamp itself? I don't think that's correct to say. It brought some practices more up to date, you might say--and some people said that this was done in order to head off Protestant gains. The kinds of changes were as I specified, but the power structure of the church and its doctrinal stances were not significantly altered. "Modernizing" might be a way of putting it, but not if that is supposed to mean breaking with the basics of Catholicism as they had been before. It was more like a streamlining of everyday practices than real "reform." I guess you'd have to read about it in more detail somewhere in order to get a better picture of Vatican II.

 

[Berean777]

I look at these reforms as piece meal, meaning they are slowly being revealed as people eat them up slowly and sometimes we are required to anticipate what will be revealed next. I believe that the pope office and also the American presidency are going to be amalgamated through a council under a unified religious head. You heard right, I believe that president Obama may be the last president and pope Francis may be the last official Catholic pope before we see a different constructed geopolitical relgious system emerging in the form of a council.

World leaders are going to voluntarily surrender their office one by one and we are seeing the Greek president as the first to relinquish his position which I prophesy will be followed by others within the European Union, leading up to the American also relinquishing the presidential voting apparatus in favour of a world council structure that is modelled on a United Nations model as its test bed.

Let's wait and see.....Hmmmmmmmm......

New World Order here we come.

This would be the answer to world's economic woes.

 

[Berean777]

We are hearing of borders being compromised and EU a borderless community now looking to unified reforms which means all EU leaders resign as heads of state and allow the New World Order to be headed by a world council made up of political and religious heads and a speaker/spokesmen/spokeswomen.

Maybe Merkel will be promoted to spokeswomen, she looks the part as of recent by telling the Greek prime minister to resign. Who knows.

Here is a link of her pointy finger.....

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150713/1024566877.html

 

[Tangible]

You seem to be confusing the actual scriptural doctrine of the Antichrist with modern millennialist "Left Behind" fictional conspiracy theories.

 

[Rhamiel]

I mean Malachy prophesied that this pope may be the last. Could those reforms even extend to the popes office itself. I am just throwing it up in the air, maybe I am totally wrong.

I made this thread about historical Reformers and Denominations
not to hear about legends that came up generations after St. Malachy died, he probably had nothing to do with that list made

 

[Berean777]

I made this thread about historical Reformers and Denominations
not to hear about legends that came up generations after St. Malachy died, he probably had nothing to do with that list made

Ok then I humbly bow out of this thread. My apologies.

 

[Erose]

Doesn't it imply that it no longer dogmatically holds to the ways of the past (i.e crusades and inquisitions) and its goal is to revamp/remodel itself according to the modernising reforms?

Not one dot or tittle of doctrine was changed at Vatican 2. It was a pastoral council, meaning that it dealt exclusively with practices.

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

which Reformers and denominations teach that the person and/or office of the Pope is the antichrist?

pretty simple thread lol

The Reformed and Presbyterian churches believe it.

Someone already put the Westminster Confession.

 

[Rhamiel]

Ok then I humbly bow out of this thread. My apologies.

sorry if I sounded blunt
I know you were only trying to add helpful information, thank you.

but a word of advice, the so called "prophecies" by St. Malachy are VERY suspect

 

[Berean777]

sorry if I sounded blunt
I know you were only trying to add helpful information, thank you.

but a word of advice, the so called "prophecies" by St. Malachy are VERY suspect

Ok.

 

[Berean777]

Not one dot or tittle of doctrine was changed at Vatican 2. It was a pastoral council, meaning that it dealt exclusively with practices.

You are correct so far, though time will tell in the not to distant future. Thanks.

 

[hedrick]

The accusation that the Pope was the anti-Christ seems to have come from the 16th Cent situation. This position was held by the major magisterial Reformers, and there are at least some uses of anti-Christ by anabaptist writer as well. It remains in traditional confessions for both Lutherans and Reformed. How literally they are taken depends upon whether you're conservative or mainline. I think usage of the term anti-Christ became less common over time, but you still see it crop up among conservative Protestants. I don't think the OP was interested in arguments over whether the pope actually is the anti-Christ. Obviously the 16th Cent pope was not the end-time figure that appears in the Rev. However if you take the term more broadly to refer to the Church being subverted by those whose intentions are opposed to Christ's, I'd be willing to accept it of the 16th Cent papacy. I don't feel the same way about the modern papacy. But I'm not prepared to argue the point.

 

[Erose]

You are correct so far, though time will tell in the not to distant future. Thanks.

How will it occur in the future? Vatican II ended 50 years ago. It's in the past now. So if it didn't change doctrine while it was occurring, how can the council now change something, when it is no longer meeting?