• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why does the Papal Tiara have three crowns?

Presentist

Active Member
Jul 14, 2011
348
2
✟514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
triregno.jpg


http://www.vatican.va/news_services.../documents/sp_ss_scv/insigne/triregno_en.html

The Vatican says...

"The Triregnum (the Papal Tiara formed by three crowns symbolizing the triple power of the Pope: father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ)... Among the various interpretations, we shall mention the one that says that the three crowns represent the militant, the suffering and the triumphant Church. "

One of the other interpretations is found in Daniel 7:8,24-25...

I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things... and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

presentist1.gif
 

MrPolo

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
Jul 29, 2007
5,871
767
Visit site
✟24,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
So basically, any time a Pope is connected in any way to the number three, it cannot stand for:

Father, governor, vicar
Militant, suffering, triumphant
Priest, prophet, king

Etc...

It has to stand for ---- not the 10 horns of the "dreadful beast" actually specified in Daniel 8:7 --- but only the three that are pulled out? What? And since when must a crown be a "horn"? Revelation 14:14 (cf. Rev 6:2; 19:12, Mk 15:17, etc...) says the Son of Man wears a crown. By the Presentist interpretation, this would make Jesus the wearer of the one "little horn." I mean why not. 1=1 just as 3=3. The Scripture means whatever we want it to! But all this tells us is that the book of Daniel is a Rorschach blot for anti-Catholic "Presentists."

And your preterist timeline has the Papacy starting sometime after 500 A.D. So could you give us the historical substantiation for who was the first Pope?
 
Upvote 0

Presentist

Active Member
Jul 14, 2011
348
2
✟514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And your preterist timeline has the Papacy starting sometime after 500 A.D. So could you give us the historical substantiation for who was the first Pope?

The Pope is a unique individual as he is both a spiritual leader and a temporal ruler.

It the chart below, I start the timeline of the Papacy in AD 538 (when the Bishop of Rome surpassed the other Bishops), and I end the "rise" of the Papacy in AD 755 (when the Pope finally became a temporal ruler).

presentist1.gif
 
Upvote 0

Presentist

Active Member
Jul 14, 2011
348
2
✟514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It has to stand for ---- not the 10 horns of the "dreadful beast" actually specified in Daniel 8:7 --- but only the three that are pulled out? What?

It may help identity the one "before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots."

But it could also just mean "father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ."

But many on this board will also object to that because they do not believe the Pope is (or has ever been) the "father of kings" or the "governor of the world."

presentist1.gif
 
Upvote 0

MrPolo

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
Jul 29, 2007
5,871
767
Visit site
✟24,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
It the chart below, I start the timeline of the Papacy in AD 538 (when the Bishop of Rome surpassed the other Bishops), and I end the "rise" of the Papacy in AD 755 (when the Pope finally became a temporal ruler).

What happened in 538 to lead you to that conclusion?
 
Upvote 0

Presentist

Active Member
Jul 14, 2011
348
2
✟514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What happened in 538 to lead you to that conclusion?

The Pope is both a spiritual leader and a temporal ruler.

When the Pope became a temporal ruler is easier to find in history. All historians place that between AD 755 - AD 756.

But when the Bishop of Rome became spiritual leader of all the other Bishops is harder to find in history. It seems the earliest possible time is AD 533 during the reign of Emperor Justinian I and Pope John II, and the latest possible time is AD 606 during the reign of Emperor Phocas and Pope Boniface III.

This was decided during Justinian's reign...
"Hence, in accordance with the provisions of these Councils, We order that the Most Holy Pope of ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all other sees."

I used the earlier date (of Justinian's time) for my chart.
 
Upvote 0

MrPolo

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
Jul 29, 2007
5,871
767
Visit site
✟24,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
But when the Bishop of Rome became spiritual leader of all the other Bishops is harder to find in history. It seems the earliest possible time is AD 533

So you don't believe in a Petrine succession for the Papacy despite the consistent historical record of lists of Roman bishops tracing back to Peter? (cf. Jerome quoting Hegesippus' work, ca. 170 A.D., Eusebius giving further extension of Petrine succession in Rome in Church History 5.6 & 5.28.3, and still later Augustine giving further succession in Letter 53, 1.2, etc...) That places Petrine primacy at about 30 A.D. cf. Luke 22:31-32, cf. Mt 16:18.

And even if you reject that, it's not just to overlook the numerous examples of Petrine/Roman primacy outside of Scripture prior to 533. For example:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.2, ca 170 A.D.)

"The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity....Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith?" St. Cyprian Of Carthage ("On the Unity of the Catholic Church," 251 A.D.)

Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters... (Council of Sardica, canon 5, 343 A.D.)

At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world...when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor. (Chyrsostom, Homily on St. Ignatius, 4, ca. 390 A.D.)

Consequently, Lord and Brother, we have thought it best to transmit this report to your holy Charity, that the authority of the Apostolic See may be added to the decisions of our insignificance... (Council of Carthage, 4, 419 A.D., signed by some 68 other bishops addressing Pope Innoncent)​
So I think the historical record in no way resembles the claim that the primacy of the Roman bishop started in 533 or 538.
 
Upvote 0

Presentist

Active Member
Jul 14, 2011
348
2
✟514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So you don't believe in a Petrine succession for the Papacy despite the consistent historical record of lists of Roman bishops tracing back to Peter?

There is a succession of Bishops in Rome. But, the other Bishops did not concede supreme authority to the Bishop of Rome until the time of Justinian.

That is why, during Justinian's time, they had to declare...
"Hence, in accordance with the provisions of these Councils, We order that the Most Holy Pope of ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all other sees."

In other words, there were multiple "Sees" up until that time.
 
Upvote 0

Incariol

Newbie
Apr 22, 2011
5,710
251
✟7,523.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There is a succession of Bishops in Rome. But, the other Bishops did not concede supreme authority to the Bishop of Rome until the time of Justinian.

That is why, during Justinian's time, they had to declare...
"Hence, in accordance with the provisions of these Councils, We order that the Most Holy Pope of ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all other sees."

In other words, there were multiple "Sees" up until that time.

1. That quote isn't saying what you think it is saying.

2. There are still multiple sees. No one has tried to change that.
 
Upvote 0

LinuxUser

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2011
1,018
83
in a house :)
✟1,655.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So you don't believe in a Petrine succession for the Papacy despite the consistent historical record of lists of Roman bishops tracing back to Peter? (cf. Jerome quoting Hegesippus' work, ca. 170 A.D., Eusebius giving further extension of Petrine succession in Rome in Church History 5.6 & 5.28.3, and still later Augustine giving further succession in Letter 53, 1.2, etc...) That places Petrine primacy at about 30 A.D. cf. Luke 22:31-32, cf. Mt 16:18.

And even if you reject that, it's not just to overlook the numerous examples of Petrine/Roman primacy outside of Scripture prior to 533. For example:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.2, ca 170 A.D.)

"The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity....Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith?" St. Cyprian Of Carthage ("On the Unity of the Catholic Church," 251 A.D.)

Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters... (Council of Sardica, canon 5, 343 A.D.)

At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world...when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor. (Chyrsostom, Homily on St. Ignatius, 4, ca. 390 A.D.)

Consequently, Lord and Brother, we have thought it best to transmit this report to your holy Charity, that the authority of the Apostolic See may be added to the decisions of our insignificance... (Council of Carthage, 4, 419 A.D., signed by some 68 other bishops addressing Pope Innoncent)​
So I think the historical record in no way resembles the claim that the primacy of the Roman bishop started in 533 or 538.
Now why introduce facts :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrPolo
Upvote 0

Presentist

Active Member
Jul 14, 2011
348
2
✟514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That quote isn't saying what you think it is saying.

I think the quote is saying that the Bishop of Rome shall hold first rank of all the Pontiffs.

"Hence, in accordance with the provisions of these Councils, We order that the Most Holy Pope of ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all other sees."

What do you think it is saying?
 
Upvote 0

MrPolo

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
Jul 29, 2007
5,871
767
Visit site
✟24,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
There is a succession of Bishops in Rome. But, the other Bishops did not concede supreme authority to the Bishop of Rome until the time of Justinian.
Ok, well, I'm confident putting up the sample of Scripture and historical quotations I provided against your conclusions on this sentence.
 
Upvote 0

NumberOneSon

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5
Mar 24, 2002
4,138
478
51
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟37,370.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you agree that the Pope became a temporal ruler around AD 755-756?
Interesting. The historicist Albert Barnes placed the beginning of the 1260 years in 552AD, crediting that year with the Donation of Pepin. It looks like you believe something similar. So do you think a devastating event is going to occur to the papacy between 2015-2016 marking the end of the 1260 years? Just curious.




.
 
Upvote 0

Presentist

Active Member
Jul 14, 2011
348
2
✟514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The historicist Albert Barnes placed the beginning of the 1260 years in 552AD, crediting that year with the Donation of Pepin.

It seems most historians place the donation of Pepin between AD 754 and AD 756.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the States of the Church "consists of the civil territory which for over 1000 years (754-1870) acknowledged the pope as temporal ruler."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm

When do you think the Pope became a temporal ruler?
 
Upvote 0

NumberOneSon

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5
Mar 24, 2002
4,138
478
51
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟37,370.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It seems most historians place the donation of Pepin between AD 754 and AD 756.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the States of the Church "consists of the civil territory which for over 1000 years (754-1870) acknowledged the pope as temporal ruler."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: States of the Church
True. I'm not sure how Barnes came up with the date, but I found it interesting that his view and your view on the 1260 years were pretty close. Like I asked before, do you think anything of note is going to happen to the papacy betweenn 2015-1026?

When do you think the Pope became a temporal ruler?
Between the Donation of Pepin and the rule of Charlemagne. Before the Donation, whatever temporal power the pope wielded in Italy, it was due to circumstance, not legal right. Pepin's Donation changed all of that.


.
 
Upvote 0

Presentist

Active Member
Jul 14, 2011
348
2
✟514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
do you think anything of note is going to happen to the papacy betweenn 2015-1026?

I do not predict the future.

I am simply pointing out that the common view of the Protestants from the Reformation up until 100 years ago was that the reign of the Papacy would be 1,260 years.

The best I can tell from history is that the Pope became a sovereign (temporal ruler) somewhere around AD 754-756. As you point out, AD 756 + 1,260 years = AD 2016.

But, all those Protestants could be wrong about the Papacy and the length of it's reign.

The reason I am intrigued is becuase there has also been a tradition since the first century that there would be 6,000 years between Adam and the Second Coming.

Again, that tradition could be wrong.

But notice that the following Bible Chronology dates Adam at 3986-3980 BC, and adding 6,000 years would bring you to AD 2015-2021.

chronology.gif
 
Upvote 0

NumberOneSon

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5
Mar 24, 2002
4,138
478
51
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟37,370.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I do not predict the future.
Ok. I guess I was wondering if you tied the "deadly wound" to the end of the 1260 years. Most of the Reformers and Historicists do, and it was worth checking to see if you shared that opinion as well.




.
 
Upvote 0

Presentist

Active Member
Jul 14, 2011
348
2
✟514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I guess I was wondering if you tied the "deadly wound" to the end of the 1260 years.

I would think the "deadly wound" may be referring to the period between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the beginning of the Pope's temporal rule (I show this on the chart as AD 476 to AD 756).

It could also possibly be referring to the period between AD 1870 and AD 1929 when the Papacy was not a temporal ruler (I do not show this on the chart at present).

presentist1.gif
 
Upvote 0