Prophecy Experts - HRE

[Shin]

I read an article recently calling the European Union a revival of the Holy Roman Empire. . . However ridiculous the author’s reasons for saying this might or might not be, the thought did arrive that they functionally could be considered such again.

And so, the various prophecies about it would then be appropriate again.

Thoughts, prophecy experts? What qualifies a thing to be the HRE or a revival of thereof?

Prophecy is my weakpoint, so I thought I would ask. ‘Trial, Tribulation, & Triumph’ is in a box somewhere or I would refer to it, I am in the midst of relocating.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Plug into this thread with your question…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=376518&page=44

 

[bpbasilphx]

The linking of a revived Roman Empire (not HOLY Roman Empire, which went defunct in the 19th century after the Napoleonic wars) is based on a limited dispensationalist view that believes that Western Europe and the United States are somehow the spiritual center of the universe.

The present European Union has 27 nations, over half of which were never in the territory of the Roman Empire–much less the Holy Romen Empire.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think it was Voltaire who commented that the Holy Roman Empire was not Holy, was not Roman, and was not much of an Empire.

 

[peary]

I read an article recently calling the European Union a revival of the Holy Roman Empire. . . However ridiculous the author’s reasons for saying this might or might not be, the thought did arrive that they functionally could be considered such again.

And so, the various prophecies about it would then be appropriate again.

Thoughts, prophecy experts? What qualifies a thing to be the HRE or a revival of thereof?

Prophecy is my weakpoint, so I thought I would ask. ‘Trial, Tribulation, & Triumph’ is in a box somewhere or I would refer to it, I am in the midst of relocating.

If the EU is a revival of the Holy Roman Empire, believe me, it’s far from being ‘holy’.

 

[Shin]

I think it was Voltaire who commented that the Holy Roman Empire was not Holy, was not Roman, and was not much of an Empire.

You shouldn’t quote Voltaire so approvingly, given that he was an avowed enemy of Christ.

 

[Shin]

The linking of a revived Roman Empire (not HOLY Roman Empire, which went defunct in the 19th century after the Napoleonic wars) is based on a limited dispensationalist view that believes that Western Europe and the United States are somehow the spiritual center of the universe.

The present European Union has 27 nations, over half of which were never in the territory of the Roman Empire–much less the Holy Romen Empire.

I wouldn’t expect useful commentary from you on the subject of Catholic prophecy, never fear, given that you do not believe in Catholic prophecy.

 

[Lujack]

You shouldn’t quote Voltaire so approvingly, given that he was an avowed enemy of Christ.

That doesn’t mean that he can’t make witty observations, and there is a lot of both wit and truth in his comment about the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[Shin]

That doesn’t mean that he can’t make witty observations, and there is a lot of both wit and truth in his comment about the Holy Roman Empire.

Yes, he made many witty observations such as:

“Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.” and “Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.”

He has also said things far worse and more directly blasphemous against the person of God directly, which I cannot actually quote because of that very fact.

So, when you quote witty Voltaire with pleasure, be sure to later go kneel before Christ in the tabernacle and tell him how harmless it is to approvingly quote His enemy. I am certain He will appreciate your reasonings and blase.

 

[Lujack]

If the Catholic Church can use Aristotle as a major part of the basis for Catholic philosophy, I see no reason why historical matters cannot be discussed by using a witticism of Voltaire.

 

[LilyM]

If the Catholic Church can use Aristotle as a major part of the basis for Catholic philosophy, I see no reason why historical matters cannot be discussed by using a witticism of Voltaire.

‘He will give His angels charge over you, lest you dash your foot against a stone’. In quoting that, I may well be quoting the devil, who said the same to Christ. In a sense I may even be quoting him approvingly, since I wholeheartedly agree that God DOES protect those who love and serve Him, as did King David who first said those words Psalm 91.

Am I approving of the devil’s misuse of that quote, though? Or of anything else whatsoever that the devil has said - such as ‘come worship me’ or the like? It’s taking an unwarranted leap to suggest that because I agree with one thing someone has said that I necessarily agree with anything or everything else they have said.

Methinks you need to be kneeling alongside our friend here, begging God’s forgiveness for besmirching his character and making inexcusably unfounded assumptions about his beliefs. It’s called the sin of detraction.

And I can assure you, as a history student, if I had restricted my quotes only to devout Christians, I would have been failing in my task, as history is the history of all people, however nice or nasty. And my historical views on the Holy Roman Empire, a secular state, have nothing whatsoever to do with my views on the Church itself, nor would agreeing with Voltaire’s assessment of the one mean I agree with his assessment of the other.

 

[Lujack]

‘He will give His angels charge over you, lest you dash your foot against a stone’. In quoting that, I may well be quoting the devil, who said the same to Christ. In a sense I may even be quoting him approvingly, since I wholeheartedly agree that God DOES protect those who love and serve Him, as did King David who first said those words Psalm 91.

Am I approving of the devil’s misuse of that quote, though? Or of anything else whatsoever that the devil has said - such as ‘come worship me’ or the like? It’s taking an unwarranted leap to suggest that because I agree with one thing someone has said that I necessarily agree with anything or everything else they have said.

Methinks you need to be kneeling alongside our friend here, begging God’s forgiveness for besmirching his character and making inexcusably unfounded assumptions about his beliefs. It’s called the sin of detraction.

And I can assure you, as a history student, if I had restricted my quotes only to devout Christians, I would have been failing in my task, as history is the history of all people, however nice or nasty. And my historical views on the Holy Roman Empire, a secular state, have nothing whatsoever to do with my views on the Church itself, nor would agreeing with Voltaire’s assessment of the one mean I agree with his assessment of the other.

I think you might have quoted the wrong person, since I’m agreeing with you and JoeKelley.

 

[Shin]

What I have said is a warning about people whose writings contain direct blasphemy against the Holy Spirit of God.

People may not know this. It’s common to quote people like Voltaire for bad reasons – they are famous with people who hate God, and that filters down to people who have no idea this is so.

If you have something against me discouraging quoting people like that, and encouraging quoting better folks. . Tough.

I do not consider myself besmirching character by telling people not to quote Voltaire and speaking of his great problems. If I did, I’d be down on my knees in an instant.

Go ahead, quote Hitler approvingly and see how far you get… But quote Voltaire… who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit of God directly, crudely, and disgustingly… and you get a pass?

Well, I won’t give it. Lack of awareness is one thing. Now you know. I’d think you’d be thankful.

I won’t approve of promotion of the man.

 

[Lujack]

What I have said is a warning about people whose writings contain direct blasphemy against the Holy Spirit of God.

People may not know this. It’s common to quote people like Voltaire for bad reasons – they are famous with people who hate God, and that filters down to people who have no idea this is so.

Voltaire’s famous because he was an acclaimed writer; he was well-known across the Continent, his writings influenced things that happened in the 18th century, and everyone acknowledged him as an important person, even those who disagreed with him (and he was obviously wrong on some important things).

But Voltaire is famous because he was important; as far as I know the Catholic Church does not attempt to obliterate people that it does not like from the history books. It acknowledges their importance, and records their disagreement.

If you have something against me discouraging quoting people like that, and encouraging quoting better folks. . Tough.

Find a better short description of the Holy Roman Empire, then. You can’t talk 18th century history without talking about Voltaire, and you can’t talk about Voltaire without quoting him.

I do not consider myself besmirching character by telling people not to quote Voltaire and speaking of his great problems. If I did, I’d be down on my knees in an instant.

Go ahead, quote Hitler approvingly and see how far you get… But quote Voltaire… who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit of God directly, crudely, and disgustingly… and you get a pass?

Hitler murdered millions and started a world war. Voltaire wrote. That’s an absurd comparison. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Voltaire compared to Hitler in my life, because as far as I know, Voltaire was never a head of state, and never persecuted or killed anyone at all.

Well, I won’t give it. Lack of awareness is one thing. Now you know. I’d think you’d be thankful.

I won’t approve of promotion of the man.

Well, its quite fortunate that your approval or disapproval does not affect our ability to quote people. And what, exactly, are we to do with Voltaire? Pretend that he didn’t exist? Obliterate him from the history books? Destroy all his quotes and never speak of him again? Again, the Church is not in the practice of trying to rewrite history.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

A profoundly useful insight into any situation is as valid as any other.

The logic that you cannot quote someone because of their less-than-stellar reputation (such as things we would condemn today) would mean Abraham Lincoln himself must be stricken from the history books and never quoted again because he stated that he was willing to maintain slavery if it meant saving the Union.

“If I can win the war by freeing all of the slaves, I will do it; if I can win the war by freeing some of the slaves, but not others, I will do it; and if I can win the war by freeing none of the slaves, this I shall do.”

Obviously the Church also disagrees with slavery. So by quoting him, I must kneel and beg forgiveness? Faugh!

History is history. Blasphemers are part of history just as much as Saints. We would be suffering under the worst of all delusions to pretend that people like Voltaire, Hitler, and Lincoln didn’t exist. And there are many quotations of Hitler’s that would actually make you think he was a wonderful guy if they were said in a vacuum and you didn’t know that they were quotes of Hitler’s. Point being, discouraging anyone from reading or quoting anyone else is ridiculous folly. Instead, encourage people to read objectionable material critically, so that they can see why it is objectionable, and be better armed to deal with such material when it is brought up in debate.

 

[jonpd]

Would it be possible to get off of the debate over Voltaire and discuss the question the OP posted? I would be interested in people’s opinion on this.

 

[Muzhik]

I read an article recently calling the European Union a revival of the Holy Roman Empire. . . However ridiculous the author’s reasons for saying this might or might not be, the thought did arrive that they functionally could be considered such again.

And so, the various prophecies about it would then be appropriate again.

Thoughts, prophecy experts? What qualifies a thing to be the HRE or a revival of thereof?

Prophecy is my weakpoint, so I thought I would ask. ‘Trial, Tribulation, & Triumph’ is in a box somewhere or I would refer to it, I am in the midst of relocating.

Greetings, O patient one! I won’t be able to give a complete answer – not enough time and too lazy to go dig up the sources, plus a COMPLETE answer would fill a book – but hopefully I’ll be able to shed some light on the answer.

As others have noted here, the great majority of Protestants writing on the subject have equated the European Union with the original Roman Empire (not the Holy Roman Empire). I believe the reason is that in Daniel (again, too lazy to look up the exact quote), it says something to the effect that the Antichrist (although he doesn’t use that name) will arise from the people who destroy the second Temple. Since the Roman Army destroyed the Temple, people assume that means a rebirthed Roman Empire will come about and produce the Antichrist. Since it’s supposed to be a “Roman” empire, that must mean it will be based (or have most of its power) in Rome; since in Revelation 17:9 it makes reference to the Seven Hills on which the Whore of Babylon (WoB) sits, that must mean that the Antichrist will come from the Roman Catholic Church, which is the WoB, since Rome has seven hills around it.

Such reasoning ignores several facts. For one, we know that “hills” or “mountains” in prophetic literature usually refer to nations. This is supported by the fact that the very next line (Rev. 17:10) says that the hills are also seven kings. So it’s not just the nations (the people in the nation) that will be involved with the WoB, it will also be their leaders, i.e., the entire country. For two, both Mecca and Moscow are surrounded by 7 hills. (They also lie almost completely on a north-south line: Mecca is at 39 deg. 45 sec. E; Moscow is at 37 deg. 36 sec. E.) Both of these cities are possibly very significant prophetically. And for three, the Vatican is on the wrong side of the Tiber. Vatican hill was a necropolis, or city of the dead – a graveyard. It was on the other side of the Tiber river from the City of Rome and outside the city’s “corporate limits” as we would say today. Seeing as how the Vatican has been strongly opposed to any of the writings of the “Club of Rome”, which lead to the Common Market, which lead to the European Union, it’s hard to see how the Vatican could be the basis for the WoB.

Getting back to the European Union, no, it doesn’t qualify as a reborn Roman Empire. However, there is talk of using the EU as a model for a Mediterranean Union, an economic union of the nations surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. This could qualify as a “reborn” Roman Empire. Since a number of EU countries would also qualify to belong to the MU, the MU and EU would be linked. Such a large economic union would be hard to govern in one piece, so there’s talk of dividing the EU in to a number of regions – 10, to be exact.

To summarize, I think the EU/MU stuff is, like the rapid rise of the current occupant of the White House, a test run: something to show how quickly and easily it will be for the Antichrist to rise to power and assume it, but not the actual “kingdom” that will give birth to the Antichrist.

 

[Shin]

Interesting food for thought. . .

It’s hard not to see at least some of the signs of prophecy with this aim towards one world government, such an incredibly dangerous situation to have.

I’m reminded about how God once punished a certain census.

I will be happy when I can open up my boxes of books again and read further.