Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 7:03:13 GMT -5
Many have called it the Great Apostasy (or Revolt) spoken by by St. Paul in Scripture. The choice of the adjective "great" seems to distinguish it from all other apostasies, even the Arian heresy. If 97% of the Church could fall away and still not be called a great apostasy, then that apostasy which is called "great" is going to be great indeed, unlike anything we have ever seen, perhaps even worse than any of us could ever have imagined. Several approved Marian apparitions would seem to confirm this possible interpretation, given her warnings that "the apostasy" would begin from the top.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 23, 2018 7:09:46 GMT -5
What has been lost is OUR UNDERSTANDING of the hierarchal nature of the Church...that is the context. Dont forget vinny these are extemporainious(?) comments. I dont have prepared notes. Its just a conversation.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 7:22:59 GMT -5
Some also call the Protestant Reformation the great apostasy too.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 7:23:57 GMT -5
What has been lost is OUR UNDERSTANDING of the hierarchal nature of the Church...that is the context. Dont forget vinny these are extemporainious(?) comments. I dont have prepared notes. Its just a conversation. I know, this is why I am totally fine with you correcting what you meant back in the thread. I never said it was sworn testimony or an affidavit.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 10:15:10 GMT -5
Some also call the Protestant Reformation the great apostasy too. Sure, but the great apostasy dovetails with the appearance of the antichrist and the end of the world. If the protestant heresy was the great apostasy, then what word would you use for the Novus Ordo, which is immeasurably greater, since it has happened from within instead of without? The great er apostasy?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 15:30:50 GMT -5
Some also call the Protestant Reformation the great apostasy too. Sure, but the great apostasy dovetails with the appearance of the antichrist and the end of the world. If the protestant heresy was the great apostasy, then what word would you use for the Novus Ordo, which is immeasurably greater, since it has happened from within instead of without? The great er apostasy? I couldn't have asked that question any better than you have.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 16:44:33 GMT -5
So we are in agreement that it makes little sense to call the Reformation the great apostasy...
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 18:14:53 GMT -5
Actually, that was not my line of thinking. My thinking lately has been exactly what word to use for an immeasurably great apostasy that came from within? Do you have a particular scripture(s) you are referencing?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 0:57:56 GMT -5
Catholic tradition has referred to the "revolt" spoken of by St. Paul in II Thessalonians as the "great apostasy," since St. Paul sets it apart from all others by predicting [1] that it would immediately precede the arrival of the anti-Christ, [2] that it would give way to the Man of Sin sitting in the Holy Place and showing himself as if he were God, and [3] that it would be so widespread and deceitful that were it not for God shortening those days even the elect would be deceived. Those are some startlingly unprecedented predictions. Just the fact that the Man of Sin sits in the holy Place, that is, literally in the Temple of God, rather than say make his own false temple separate from the Holy Place and set his temple at war with it, seems to indicate that he has usurped the very material structure of the Church. This implies an internal revolt or revolution, which explains why it would be deceptive and widespread. Hence, it has been called the "great" apostasy because of the astonishingly unprecedented falling away from within it implies.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 24, 2018 10:37:51 GMT -5
Vinny do you belive the Church with Francis is in crisis? And if so what words do you describe it. Its time to begin to analize YOUR position. You assert Francis is Pope so is there a Crisis?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 11:02:20 GMT -5
Vinny do you belive the Church with Francis is in crisis? And if so what words do you describe it. Its time to begin to analize YOUR position. You assert Francis is Pope so is there a Crisis? That is a compound question, so not sure which one of the issues you want to deal with; crisis or papacy. I think we should deal with one or the other or otherwise it'll get real confusing. I did not think there was a crisis until I met traditionalists. I have never stated anywhere I thought sedevacantists were ever wrong in their assertions, concerns and writings. Because I assert the church is indefectible, immutable and bound in perpetuity, I assert Francis is Pope. Would you say Peter had the exact same authority and universal jurisdiction as Christ or is it different some how?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 13:13:26 GMT -5
Vinny, under what conditions would you question his papacy?
What if he created a One World Church under which umbrella he claimed all religions are contained?
What if he obliged infant sacrifice in his code of canon law as a condition of membership in his church?
What if he officially, formally, and universally promulgated a Satanic Mass as a replacement of the true Mass?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 13:50:28 GMT -5
Catholic tradition has referred to the "revolt" spoken of by St. Paul in II Thessalonians as the "great apostasy," since St. Paul sets it apart from all others by predicting [1] that it would immediately precede the arrival of the anti-Christ, [2] that it would give way to the Man of Sin sitting in the Holy Place and showing himself as if he were God, and [3] that it would be so widespread and deceitful that were it not for God shortening those days even the elect would be deceived. Those are some startlingly unprecedented predictions. Just the fact that the Man of Sin sits in the holy Place, that is, literally in the Temple of God, rather than say make his own false temple separate from the Holy Place and set his temple at war with it, seems to indicate that he has usurped the very material structure of the Church. This implies an internal revolt or revolution, which explains why it would be deceptive and widespread. Hence, it has been called the "great" apostasy because of the astonishingly unprecedented falling away from within it implies. Ok so you are referring to 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, which we'll use as the text under consideration. However, the prophecy is so much larger and consumes more of chapter 2. It also doesn't exist in a vacuum and should (I feel) be considered in light of Daniel and other passages. I assert, first off, that all interpretation by the laity is private interpretation. Peter asserted that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20-21). Therefore, any attempts to understand the traditionalist position that Vatican II and post-Vatican II fit this particular prophecy should also be considered in this light; i.e. these are private interpretations trying to understand what is happening publicly. However, I hope we can have a cordial conversation on the topic as I think it is important too. First, you have man mentioned twice, "no man" deceive you and "the man of sin, the son of perdition." The first man mentioned is that we not let anyone deceive us. Particularly it appears Paul is saying we should not let any man deceive us about about the day of the Lord. Previously in 2 the 2:2, Paul said the Thessalonians should not be alarmed because there was reported a prophecy or report or letter that came from them saying the Day of the Lord had come. So Paul says let no man deceive them (or us) and he tells what the prerequisites are, which anticipate to still come. He then mentions a "man of sin, the son of perdition." I will admit it is a difficult passage to look at in and of itself and I do not think it should be looked at without also considering what Daniel wrote. Many doctors and fathers of the church also struggled with this passage. While I think continual disintegration in society and among the church can certainly create the necessary environment for the coming of this man of sin and son of perdition, I still think it refers to the antichrist in a future setting beyond even what we see today. Looking even at 2 Thessalonians 2:7, "the mystery of iniquity" and "the one who holds it back." Of these versus, even St. Augustine said, "what do these mean" and replied he did not know before supplying a likely explanation. So I will not deny the things happening worldwide in someway point to the prophesy, but I do not think I am prepared to say Vatican II was definitely it.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 24, 2018 14:39:41 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 18:18:40 GMT -5
Vinny, none of us is saying it absolutely must refer to the Novus Ordo, but you did not address the most important point: the revolt is internal and capable of deceiving even the elect. Much like a possessed spirit harms the body of its host, such an internal revolt implies the taking control of material structures within the Church and using them to attack her body. This uniquely describes the Novus Ordo more than any other revolution in the Church. It also describes the type of crisis it will be, of which the Novus Ordo is the only one. The removal of the withholder as the event that opens the floodgates for this apostasy, as it were, just so happens to correspond to the suppression of the Mass, the one thing we have on earth that tempers the mighty justice of God and stays His hand. This couldn't have happened without the removal of the Mass, the most efficient withholder that has ever existed. You can call all of this coincidence, but unless God is going to make the same type of crisis happen repeatedly, with the Church never fixing the problem, such that the same thing will happen again on (somehow) an even bigger scale, then I can't fathom a better prediction of what has happened. It is categorically the same as the Novus Ordo. There would be no better way by which the elect might be deceived then by the ostensible authority of a man who sits in the Holy Place, commanding their obedience as a condition of salvation.
|
|