The Great Falling Away = Protestant Reformation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seeking33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Seeking33:
This thought has crossed my mind and in no way am I saying it is true… but could it be? Read 2Thessalonians 2 the entire chapter. I know that the anti-christ has not been revealed (at least I don’t think so), but reading about what the great falling away would be like, it sounds very much like the protestant reformation that has already taken place. I’ve been reading this passage in the Amplified Bible. I know it would be a controversial thing to say so, but Paul says that the people who fell away 1) were seduced by error, miracles, signs, delusive marvels…lying wonders and because they refused to welcome and love the Truth. Paul also tells us the way to overcome this delusion is to hold fast to the traditions and instructions that have been passed down whether by word or by letter. Also, Daniel 8:25 which predicts the great falling away to which Paul is referring, says that the antichrist will cause trickery to prosper in his hand; he shal magnify himself in his heart and mind, and in their (referring to the deceived) “security” (once saved, always saved?) he will corrupt and destroy many. I don’t have a full understanding of the historical context and scripture that I need to have to discern whether this thought of mine could contain some truth or not. It just seemed that this passage in II Thess had alot of similarities to what has happened over the centuries during this schism of the church.

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
You are definitely on to something. I have long thought that the Protestant “Deformation” was the ushering in of the anti-Christ. In fact, i’d go so far as to say i know it is. For one thing, the Masons started up not long after the Deformation. The Masons, as you may or may not know, are very anti-Catholic. They let Protestants into their organization but any true Christian would never stay, much less progress to the higher degrees… and Catholics are automatically ex-communicated if they join the Masons. Anyway, i don’t want to offend Protestants but i have to call things as i see it. They shouldn’t take offense anyway because they could not (usually) help it since most of them were raised outside the Church. A strange thing happened to me the other day. I am a very devout Catholic (despite many negative things i’ve had to deal with in the Church); i was reading the Bible yesterday, the Old Testament. i don’t remember what i was reading but it sounded kind of “un-real” and my faith began to falter. I even felt i was losing my faith completely because what i was reading was so hard to understand. Anyway, i suddenly realized, all over again, the great importance of having an infallible Church to interpret the Scriptures. I put the Bible down and had this strong urge to run to the nearest Church to be near the Blessed Sacrament (which i would have done had i been near one). Anyway… the Masons teach Protestants to despise the Catholic Church like thye do, so that their goal will some day be accomplished - that goal being the abolition of the Church. i was at the Blessed Sacrament the other day and wasn’t feeling too good, spiritually, for some strange reason. I asked Jesus why. I heard “blahsphemy of the Holy Spirit.” I said, “What?” incredulously.I heard: “Masonry.” When i asked Jesus why i felt so poorly, I heard, “Masonry and pornography.”

(Obviously, i am not involved with either one…People in my world may be involved though, and those are both things nobody wants to admit being part of…).

I don’t believe Masonry could have happened without the help of Martin Luther, the “father of Protestantism”. To fight the Catholic Church is to fight Jesus and to fight Jesus (reject Him) is the unforgivable sin (blashphemy of the Holy Ghost). In the OT, people died when they touched the the Ark of the Covenant improperly. I don’t know if the Church would agree with me on this but i see the Church as the New Ark of the Covenant.
 
40.png
contramundum:
You are definitely on to something. I have long thought that the Protestant “Deformation” was the ushering in of the anti-Christ. In fact, i’d go so far as to say i know it is. For one thing, the Masons started up not long after the Deformation. The Masons, as you may or may not know, are very anti-Catholic. They let Protestants into their organization but any true Christian would never stay, much less progress to the higher degrees… and Catholics are automatically ex-communicated if they join the Masons. Anyway, i don’t want to offend Protestants but i have to call things as i see it. They shouldn’t take offense anyway because they could not (usually) help it since most of them were raised outside the Church. A strange thing happened to me the other day. I am a very devout Catholic (despite many negative things i’ve had to deal with in the Church); i was reading the Bible yesterday, the Old Testament. i don’t remember what i was reading but it sounded kind of “un-real” and my faith began to falter. I even felt i was losing my faith completely because what i was reading was so hard to understand. Anyway, i suddenly realized, all over again, the great importance of having an infallible Church to interpret the Scriptures. I put the Bible down and had this strong urge to run to the nearest Church to be near the Blessed Sacrament (which i would have done had i been near one). Anyway… the Masons teach Protestants to despise the Catholic Church like thye do, so that their goal will some day be accomplished - that goal being the abolition of the Church. i was at the Blessed Sacrament the other day and wasn’t feeling too good, spiritually, for some strange reason. I asked Jesus why. I heard “blahsphemy of the Holy Spirit.” I said, “What?” incredulously.I heard: “Masonry.” When i asked Jesus why i felt so poorly, I heard, “Masonry and pornography.”

(Obviously, i am not involved with either one…People in my world may be involved though, and those are both things nobody wants to admit being part of…).

I don’t believe Masonry could have happened without the help of Martin Luther, the “father of Protestantism”. To fight the Catholic Church is to fight Jesus and to fight Jesus (reject Him) is the unforgivable sin (blashphemy of the Holy Ghost). In the OT, people died when they touched the the Ark of the Covenant improperly. I don’t know if the Church would agree with me on this but i see the Church as the New Ark of the Covenant.
Click to expand...
 
… it sounds very much like the protestant reformation that has already taken place. … but Paul says that the people who fell away 1) were seduced by **error said:
…lying wonders and because they refused to welcome and love the Truth. Paul also tells us the way to overcome this delusion is to hold fast to the traditions and instructions that have been passed down whether by word or by letter. Also, Daniel 8:25 which predicts the great falling away to which Paul is referring, says that the antichrist will cause trickery to prosper in his hand; he shal magnify himself in his heart and mind, and in their (referring to the deceived) “security” (once saved, always saved?) he will corrupt and destroy many. …
What do you guys think?

Keeping in mind the bolded items, read through my series on geocentrism. I am not claiming this issue is the only one, but it is certainly a central one to the issue of authority in the Church.

Here you will learn that:
  1. The Church has made authoritative declarations in favor of geocentrism.
  2. The Scriptures are geocentric and interpreted that way by the Fathers.
  3. Science has not disproven geocenrtism, nor proven any alternates.
Geocentricity 101: A beginner’s Course
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Seeking33:
Couldn’t be Benny Hinn… He hasn’t proclaimed himself to be God and hasn’t set himself up in the temple.

As a Protestant, I actually learned alot about God from Benny Hinn. So it’s hard for me to say anything negative about him or his ministry. But I could see where people would think that about him if you just sat and watched his services with no information about him as a believer. 🙂
Click to expand...
If you go online and research about him the info is scary…he actually claimed to raise a man from the dead…amongst other things…
 
What exactly needs to be done to Consecrate Russia to the Emaculate Heart? Is this done through words, gestures or the total conversion of Russia?
 
40.png
Brucealeg:
What exactly needs to be done to Consecrate Russia to the Emaculate Heart? Is this done through words, gestures or the total conversion of Russia?
Click to expand...
Most experts agree that a Pope must:

Consecrate specifically Russia to Mary in a solemn ceremony with all the Bishops of the world joining in at the same agreed upon time.

Not consecrate the world with or wothoiut the bishops.

Not consecrate Russia without the bishops.

etc.

(these combinations have been done).

See this superb and detailed analysis:

The Controversy of the Third Secret of Fatima
Robert Sungenis

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
 
So, all the Catholic Bishops would have to take part in the ceramony? I would imagine this act would piss the Russian Orthadox Church off. I wonder if that is the reason it hasn’t been done or if there are other reasons.

I’ll check your links out and see if they answer any of my questions. I’m curious why this hasn’t been done yet. You would think JP2, given his love of Mary, would have done this years ago.

Peace be with you,
Bruce
 
40.png
Brucealeg:
So, all the Catholic Bishops would have to take part in the ceramony? I would imagine this act would piss the Russian Orthadox Church off. I wonder if that is the reason it hasn’t been done or if there are other reasons.
Click to expand...
Bingo!
40.png
Brucealeg:
I’ll check your links out and see if they answer any of my questions. I’m curious why this hasn’t been done yet. You would think JP2, given his love of Mary, would have done this years ago.

Peace be with you,
Bruce
Click to expand...
I think he believes he did. But he consecrated the world, not Russia. I think he may have asked for the Bishops to join him.

There are a lot of apologies out there for his consecrations (he did another one previously, see the article), but the formula Mary asked for is pretty simple, and one need not be a rocket scientist to know if it was done or not.

Many people say, ‘well Russia is in the world, so therefor by consecrating the world he consecrated Russia’. Some participants claim that he ‘muttered Russia under his breath’. Father Fox says that the consecration was done, but we (all Catholics) have not done our part by saying the 5 first Saturdays.

Lots of apologies to explain away a simple formula.

An JPII is not alone. I believe at least 3 popes unsuccessfully tried the consecration and failed (Pius XII, JPII, Paul VI?). Maybe even a previous pope (I am going from memory here). I know John XXIII (who was the Pope of the magic year 1960- see the article) basically said ‘the message is not for my pontificate’.

One wonders if the third secret was not fully revealed, what the consequences of performing the consecration may be, that multiple Popes seemed unable to bring themselves to do it as Mary asked? I.e., if it was not fully revealed, did the unrevealed portion say something that kept the Popes from performing the consecration?

Mary Help us!

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Hmmm…that’s all very interesting. I do appreciate you taking the time to share with me.

I’ve read many things saying the full message in the secrets have yet to be revealed. I don’t know how I do or don’t feel about that.

You would think that there is more to this, if no one has been able to complete this simple task. I would not be suprised if our Popes were worried about assasination for such a gesture. I’ve heard some true horror stories about the Russian Orthadox Church. I don’t know if they are true or not, but …

God Bless,
Bruce
 
Hello,

I haven’t been a part of this thread but thought I could add some of my own thoughts. In regards to the question of the Protestant Revolt being the beginning of ***a ***revolt, I could agree, however, as has been insinuated in this thread, the apostasy that has developed from Protestantism is evidently the ***Minor ***Apostasy of the Mystics and not the Great One of the end of the world.

However, I do agree with USMC to some extent when he sees the Protestant Revolt as one of the three “Great Woes” of Revelation.

In this regard, I would comment as follows: whereas James Akin probably wouldn’t agree with my views entirely, I believe that I heard him say once (maybe on Catholic Answers Live) that the apocalyptic literatures in Scripture many times have **three different points of fulfillment:

  1. *]An Immediate Fulfillment
    *]An Intermediate Fulfillment
    *]A Far-Reaching Fulfillment

    For example, I remember something to effect that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 has three different aspects of fulfillment: in the immediate context, it was the Seleucid Division of Greece and Antiochus (the final persecutor of the Jews prior to Christ); in the *intermediate *context, it was pagan Rome (the initial persecutor of the Catholic Church); and, in a far-reaching context, it evidently applies to the Antichrist and his kingdom at the end of the world.

    But, anyway, I think, then, it is safe to speculate that St. John’s apocalypse will be no exception, implying, therefore, that the primary sections of Revelation will be fulfilled on three different portions in the history of the Church, i.e., ***Early, Intermediate, ***and Late. This seems to agree with the data of the mystics. More specifically, in terms of the history that has already transpired, we appear to be in the Intermediate epoch, the gradually developing minor apostasy that will give way, most likely by the Minor Chastisement, to the Age of Peace. Then, at some point, the Age of Peace dissolves and we enter the final era, the Great Apostasy, Antichrist, and Second Coming. In other words, here would be the three epochs:

    **EPOCH I Early: Pagan Rome and Barbarians persecute / Catholic Victory in Christendom, Middle Ages

    **EPOCH II **Intermediate: Gradual Loss of Catholic Christendom (gradually developing Minor Apostasy) / Restoration of Catholic Christendom (Age of Peace)

    **EPOCH III **Late: Great Apostasy, Antichrist / Second Coming and New Creation

    In other words, it would then follow that the three primary sections of Revelation (i.e., the Seven Seals, the Seven Trumpets, and the Seven Bowls) will each be fulfilled in a unique way in all three epochs. For example, the final section—with the Beast, its deception, and judgement in the Bowls—will be fulfilled first in the Early history as pagan Rome, secondly in the Intermediate history in the Minor Apostasy (our current age), and thirdly, at the very end in the Great Apostasy and Antichrist.

    But, anyway, (sorry for the diatribe), I can definitely see that since the three “Woes” are certainly Intermediate (i.e., the last three Trumpets), they could appropriately symbolize the gradual spiritual decline of the intermediate stage that we have been experiencing in the last 500 years, beginning with Protestantism. In fact, I think the idea of gradual spiritual developments in Church history, be they good or bad, would be the proper context to understand all of St. John’s Apocalypse when we view it on the level of historicism, for Christ has certainly made it evident that it is the spiritual condition of man that will either make or break the temporal one.

    So, again, if the three Woes are the process of the falling away from Catholic Christendom into fully Secular Apostasy, I think the devil’s psychology of bringing this about is easy to follow: the devil most certainly couldn’t get Middle Ages man to directly apostatize, as Catholic Christianity was too embedded within the culture. Hence, the devil would have to take gradual steps to undo the Church’s hold on the world (like the gradual boiling of a frog analogy). I think the three steps are also rather clear:

    1. ]Seriously Disrupt Christendom with Unimaginable* Heresy** (Protestantism)
      ]Through the Scandal thereof, cause loss of faith but retention of Infidel Monotheism (“Enlightenment”: Deism, Rationalism*)
      *]Cause Full Apostasy (Atheistic Materialism, Relativistic Materialism)

      (continued next post…)
 
(…continued from above)

In order to bring about the first step, the massive Christian heretical confusion (First Woe), the devil gets man to distrust the Church, which is the only sure safeguard against heresy. Hence, as in Matt 13, the devil does this by sowing weeds in the wheat so to speak. Then, it is inevitable that the heretics who rebel against Our Mother Church will confound the hell out of the Revelation, seeing as they left the “foundation” of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). But, also, since the messy interconnection of religion and politics still remains, there is inevitable bloodshed, division, and horrors that follow, which, then, in turn, cause man to become disillusioned with the pursuit of *supernatural *truth and turn merely to the *natural *(Second Woe). Hence, in this stage, man has become disillusioned with Christianity, and hence rejects, on the basis of the bad witness of the Christians, The Redeeming, Intimate Personal God that is Christ and views God merely as a bystander, a casual observer who has left man on his own in the pursuit of happiness. However, once man, even while still accepting the existence of God (like the Deist or Rationalist), no longer perceives that He needs the help and redemption of his Creator, it is inevitable that horrors and calamities (like the French Revolution) develop, as man unaided by grace descends into serious moral evil (Rev. 9:20-21). Finally, in the Third Woe, man, having developed a significant understanding of the natural order (because he no longer cares about the supernatural), withdraws even from God and becomes fully apostate, believing that he can violate God’s order and build a prosperous and peaceful society purely materialistically. The final wrath of the Bowls would then be the associated Chastisement that is a direct consequence of the sin of the apostasy.

At any rate, I would then correlate the three stages directly above with the Three Woes. As a side comment, I would see not only the Woes (which are the last three Trumpets) but all of the Trumpets as negative spiritual disturbances. I could elaborate a bit:

Fundamentalists tend to take the imagery of the “Divine Wrath” segments literally, and so it is not surprising that they commonly see the Seven Trumpets, which do not “harm” the 144,000 (with the Seal of God), as literal physical calamities on earth that literally only harm evil persons and not the righteous. However, I take a different path, for, seeing that the Woes, or final trumpets, could appropriately describe a gradual spiritual decline as above, I would conjecture that the entirety of the Trumpets are describing spiritual digressions that do not “harm” the righteous spiritually.

But, anyway, (Finally!) I would modify USMC’s rendering in the second Woe, replacing the French Revolution with the Enlightenment and general descent of the world from Christianity into the infidel heresies, like Deism or Rationalism (the latter of which certainly played a role in the F.R.) as noted above.

I think this fits well when we consider the nature of the Woes: in the first Woe, those “without the Seal of God” are tortured but not killed. Again, I think this life that is “tortured” is not physical but spiritual, hence describing that Christian heresy (when it is material and not formal) does not completely destroy the life of grace in the person, as they retain two of the Sacraments, Baptism and Marriage. But, then, in the second Woe, a third of man “dies.” Again, clearly this is spiritual, in that when a person falls away from Christianity into a state of infidel monotheism (as in Deism or Rationalism), they can no longer have “supernatural life” as they reject the notion that they need God’s help, from which alone a person can be spiritually alive.
Well, anyway, sorry for the diatribe, but thought I would throw this out there.

GB,

Scott

Ps. I have further details if anyone is interested in the “five months” of the First Woe, or the “200 million” in the Second Woe
 
I think one of the greatest problems is post modernisim and relativism…i know my generation…they dont seek truth…because we are socialized in America that truth is relative…to say that someone or some group or some practice is not right…it is intolerant…so what good is a Church that fails to condone immorality…its terrible…

in fact…relativism is at the heart of protestantism…
protestants believe scripture to be the only truth when it comes to matters of faith and morality…Holy Scripture is Truth!
however…when there is no Authoritative Church and Living Tradition to filter scripture through…everyone becomes a magesterium unto him or herself…so while one denomination believes one thing in light of a particular scripture, another denomination believes something else entirley…they agree to disagree…but both believes they are right and the other is wrong or else they would not subscribe to it…relativism at its finest…to me this is one of the greatest indicators to the true teaching authority of the Catholic Church…in fact 1 Corinthians 11:18 says “First of all, I hear that there are divisions among you when you meet as a church, and to some extent I believe it. But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that those of you who are right will be recognized…”
 
Dear Anonymous,

I think you’re right! Why would I disagree? But, then, certainly, this is an era of the beast, as the world (at least most of the European Civs) see materialism as the sole source of happiness and necessity for peace and prosperity. I also agree that the youth largely do not seek out the truth, which, of its very nature, suggests an apostasy, as indifference to truth is indifference to God, who is “The Way, the Truth, and the Life!”

GB,
scott
 
Oh, I forgot to make one thing clear about my first two posts: my association of the three Woes to the last 500 years or so is just ONE LEVEL of interp, for, as I hinted at, these Woes (as well as many of the other primary sections) may have fulfillments at other points in Church history, for example, the Early or Very End periods. So I wouldn’t reject James Akin’s views here. Preterism is certainly valid on one level. I would only contest if a person argues that preterism is the ONLY layer of fulfillment. For that matter, anawim on Steve Ray’s forum pointed out that the Church is willing to accept, on polyvalence, several layers of meaning, such as not only historicism and preterism, but also futurism and idealism.

However, in my opinion, the layers that are most useful and interesting would seem to be historicism and idealism, because they are addressing deep spiritual realities, which seem to conform to something more useful for the theologian than particular temporal events in the Early Church or the Very End of the World (for example, according to Scott Hahn, (from what I can recall) the First Woe in preterism is some war in the fall of Jerusalem that lasted “five months.” Well, fine, perhaps that was the literal sense in the level of preterism, but I don’t find it as meaningful as seeing the First Woe as the Protestant Revolt in historicism. But anyway, it’s just personal opinion.)

Also, I don’t see why amillennialism and postmillennialism couldn’t both be true, amill in a fully allegorical sense and postmill in a partially allegorical sense, again, by polyvalence.

GB,
scott
 
It is interesting that when Cardinal Newman was studying the Church Fathers and their battles with the heresies of their day, he realised that the heresies were all represented in the various Protestant denominations and led to his conversion to the catholic Church. Some respondents mention the way that many Catholics do not believe in many of the truths of the Catholic faith e.g. the Real Presence, but isn’t this just an example of their protestanisation? Our task must be to deepen our faith, commitment and understanding of the faith that has been present from the very first years of the Church.

JenMM
 
40.png
JenMM:
It is interesting that when Cardinal Newman was studying the Church Fathers and their battles with the heresies of their day, he realised that the heresies were all represented in the various Protestant denominations and led to his conversion to the catholic Church. Some respondents mention the way that many Catholics do not believe in many of the truths of the Catholic faith e.g. the Real Presence, but isn’t this just an example of their protestanisation? Our task must be to deepen our faith, commitment and understanding of the faith that has been present from the very first years of the Church.

JenMM
Click to expand...
i got this message on email but i don’t recall what it might be in response to…? i don’t quite understand this forum and how it works… but anyway… I read this confusing stuff in a book called Jesus Freaks. I don’t remember the names of all the people in the 1500’s who died for their faith in Christ… but one name is familiar to most Catholics, that of John Huss. There were others. The book has an anti-Catholic bias, to say the least, because when it mentions Catholics who died for Christ, it fails to mention that they were Catholics, whereas when a Protestant died for Christ (regardless of the heresy he may have adhered to, which is conveniently never mentioned), the author does mention his/her Protestantism… (figures, i know…). The reason i knew some of the poeple in the book were Catholics was because i have studied the history of the Church, though not as thoroughly as i would have liked…

The confusing part was how in several stories in the book (very sketchy stories!), the author talks of bishops being the ones to sentence the person to death… I had thought that in the days of the Inquisition, it was the members of state government who did that kind of sentencing and that the Church only declared who was actually a heretic and who wasn’t (after questioning them)… I need to learn more about Church history, but i have to say, this book doesn’t make the Catholic Church (usually referred to in the book as “the established church”) look very good.

I guess the bottom line is that none of us was “there”… Even so, i find it hard to believe that a Church that has always preached against against murder (far more than any other Christian “church”) would condone actually putting heretics to death…

Anyway, i have to go but if you know more about this kind of thing or have the time to investigate, please let me know. I am not going to ditch the Catholic Faith over this because i know too much by now… I know that if i were to search for a church that had nothing but perfect people and a perfect track record, i would be church-less for the rest of my life. I used to be church-less and i was miserable… So waht can i say?

Have a great Thanksgiving.
 
40.png
contramundum:
i got this message on email but i don’t recall what it might be in response to…? i don’t quite understand this forum and how it works… but anyway… I read this confusing stuff in a book called Jesus Freaks. I don’t remember the names of all the people in the 1500’s who died for their faith in Christ… but one name is familiar to most Catholics, that of John Huss. There were others. The book has an anti-Catholic bias, to say the least, because when it mentions Catholics who died for Christ, it fails to mention that they were Catholics, whereas when a Protestant died for Christ (regardless of the heresy he may have adhered to, which is conveniently never mentioned), the author does mention his/her Protestantism… (figures, i know…). The reason i knew some of the poeple in the book were Catholics was because i have studied the history of the Church, though not as thoroughly as i would have liked…

The confusing part was how in several stories in the book (very sketchy stories!), the author talks of bishops being the ones to sentence the person to death… I had thought that in the days of the Inquisition, it was the members of state government who did that kind of sentencing and that the Church only declared who was actually a heretic and who wasn’t (after questioning them)… I need to learn more about Church history, but i have to say, this book doesn’t make the Catholic Church (usually referred to in the book as “the established church”) look very good.

I guess the bottom line is that none of us was “there”… Even so, i find it hard to believe that a Church that has always preached against against murder (far more than any other Christian “church”) would condone actually putting heretics to death…

Anyway, i have to go but if you know more about this kind of thing or have the time to investigate, please let me know. I am not going to ditch the Catholic Faith over this because i know too much by now… I know that if i were to search for a church that had nothing but perfect people and a perfect track record, i would be church-less for the rest of my life. I used to be church-less and i was miserable… So waht can i say?

Have a great Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top