B
bogeyjlg
Guest
You might want to read that quote more carefully. It doesn’t say the Antichrist is already come.
- Status
T
The_Augustinian
Guest
Brothers in Christ!
Maybe the Antichrist is a man, maybe he’s a group of men, or maybe even an idea. His/Their/Its identity is not as important as our response, even if we get thrown to the lions again.
Personally, I believe that scripture and tradition points to a single man, who will be of the Devil, but it’s not as important a belief to me.
Maybe the Antichrist is a man, maybe he’s a group of men, or maybe even an idea. His/Their/Its identity is not as important as our response, even if we get thrown to the lions again.
Personally, I believe that scripture and tradition points to a single man, who will be of the Devil, but it’s not as important a belief to me.
C
Contarini
Guest
I tend to think there will be a man who will sum up the spirit of the Antichrist. Presumably there will be a disputed papal election and there will be a true Pope and an antipope (and yes, I’m Episcopalian–but I still believe in the indefectibility of the See of Rome).
But, more to our purposes today, I think the spirit of Antichrist has been active throughout history. Admittedly, this is my personal opinion, but I firmly believe that the spirit of Antichrist is present whenever Christians try to use the powers of the world (i.e., coercion or manipulation of any kind) to serve the cause of Christ. More precisely, Antichrist is that which usurps the role of Christ, who is the one rightful King of the universe. When any power, whether State or Church, tries to bring in the Kingdom by force, it is usurping Christ’s place and thus becomes Antichrist. At the time of the NT, this was being done most obviously by the Roman Empire (the Aeneid is the Epic of Antichrist).
Antichrist is one and the same thing with putting on the Ring (a la Tolkien). It has manifested itself in all forms of Christianity, but most intensely and seductively in Catholicism (at least as compared to other churches as institutions–both Protestants and Orthodox tend to be more subservient to the spirit of Antichrist as it manifests itself in the State) precisely because Catholicism instantiates the Church most fully. In other words, Catholicism is both the true Church and the church of Antichrist. At the end of time, the two will be sorted out. But for now they are mixed. So I think the Protestants were not entirely wrong to decide that the Papacy was Antichrist–many aspects of the historic papacy are expressions of Antichrist. But by going into schism they didn’t preserve themselves from Antichrist. They simply cut the Ring off the Pope’s finger and gave it to the State. Which has proved to be even more vicious without the redeeming qualities. (In the modern world, I think the secular State is probably the fullest expression of Antichrist.) Schism is not the way to fight Antichrist. Rather, we are called to bear witness to the truth of the Church even in the teeth of those aspects of the Church that betray that truth. Christ has promised that the Church’s witness will never fail, however compromised it may become–that Jerusalem will never turn wholly into Babylon (until the final separation of the two just before Christ’s return–at least that’s how I see it).
So where does that leave me? Confused. But this is how I see it, and the older I get the more convinced I become. I don’t particularly like it. But I don’t like all sorts of things about the world. That’s why we call it a fallen world. The reality of the Catholic Church as the Body of Christ can’t be denied. But neither can the existence of hideous evil within it.
Edwin
But, more to our purposes today, I think the spirit of Antichrist has been active throughout history. Admittedly, this is my personal opinion, but I firmly believe that the spirit of Antichrist is present whenever Christians try to use the powers of the world (i.e., coercion or manipulation of any kind) to serve the cause of Christ. More precisely, Antichrist is that which usurps the role of Christ, who is the one rightful King of the universe. When any power, whether State or Church, tries to bring in the Kingdom by force, it is usurping Christ’s place and thus becomes Antichrist. At the time of the NT, this was being done most obviously by the Roman Empire (the Aeneid is the Epic of Antichrist).
Antichrist is one and the same thing with putting on the Ring (a la Tolkien). It has manifested itself in all forms of Christianity, but most intensely and seductively in Catholicism (at least as compared to other churches as institutions–both Protestants and Orthodox tend to be more subservient to the spirit of Antichrist as it manifests itself in the State) precisely because Catholicism instantiates the Church most fully. In other words, Catholicism is both the true Church and the church of Antichrist. At the end of time, the two will be sorted out. But for now they are mixed. So I think the Protestants were not entirely wrong to decide that the Papacy was Antichrist–many aspects of the historic papacy are expressions of Antichrist. But by going into schism they didn’t preserve themselves from Antichrist. They simply cut the Ring off the Pope’s finger and gave it to the State. Which has proved to be even more vicious without the redeeming qualities. (In the modern world, I think the secular State is probably the fullest expression of Antichrist.) Schism is not the way to fight Antichrist. Rather, we are called to bear witness to the truth of the Church even in the teeth of those aspects of the Church that betray that truth. Christ has promised that the Church’s witness will never fail, however compromised it may become–that Jerusalem will never turn wholly into Babylon (until the final separation of the two just before Christ’s return–at least that’s how I see it).
So where does that leave me? Confused. But this is how I see it, and the older I get the more convinced I become. I don’t particularly like it. But I don’t like all sorts of things about the world. That’s why we call it a fallen world. The reality of the Catholic Church as the Body of Christ can’t be denied. But neither can the existence of hideous evil within it.
Edwin
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Whatever that means. Clearly, John feels SOMETHING is already in the world.
L
Lovez4God
Guest
David Oatney said:
Please forgive me if I happen not to be giving out a ‘right attitude’ in responding to Vern. Vern you see is a very distrubing man. I find humor in responding to him. But now I will give my better attitude.
Oatney if you read the whole forum again. I never objected to Vern’s belief. He was the one who opposed my view on the Anti-Christ by placing an excerpt, which clearly misinterpreted by Vern, on the topic of Antichrist’s deception. He is interpreting it as if the Catechism has stated that people within the Church are the ones who will, or are promoting this ‘psuedo-messianism.’ He disregards that evil doers outside the Church are the ones who will, or are promoting the Antichrist deception. Vern has this thing against Catholics not in accordance with his own interpretation on the doctrine of the Catholic faith.
Now as for the present state of the catechism. If it has been updated, it will more than likely be updated in the future. This is for the reason which I do not like updated resources. The validity of it is relative to time. No matter what, tradition is what makes the Church great.Want good resources? Go back to the original.
If you look away from the representation of Vern’s view, you will notice that the catechism is not saying what Vern is saying. Antichrist’s deception will be the deception of itself by the system, or a figure. Now a system would definitely be the forerunner before a figure becomes big…Any how, antichrist is something in reality as you said…more than likely the Antichrist has yet to come. Because Jesus was a person, and Satan most definitely would have his messenger too before the end of the world. It’s just common sense to believe, which is nothing wrong.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No. I didn’t say that.
However, if you read John, you see that clearly HE thinks the antichrist(s) will try to infiltrate the Church.
Where do you get the idea I ignore those without the Church? Did I not mention Communism and Nazism as atheistic pseudo-messianism?
No, it isn’t. The Church may make some things more clear in the future than now, but that does not invalidate the Catechism.
The people who have the authority to go back to the original are the Bishops – who produced the Catechism as a result of THEIR going back to the originals. They did it by exercising their authority, the Magisterium.
Lovez4GodIf you look away from the representation of Vern’s view said:Antichrist has yet to come. Because Jesus was a person, and Satan most definitely would have his messenger too before the end of the world. It’s just common sense to believe, which is nothing wrong.
Except that it’s very close to manicheanism. From the Catechism:
[285](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/285.htm’)
Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.
Elevating Satan to be co-equal with God, and having his own “messenger” is not Catholic doctrine
L
Lovez4God
Guest
vern humphrey:
This ends here, Vern. You are disturbed for sure.
OMG, that’s the most blasphemous thing I’ve heard you say so far…
This ends here, Vern. You are disturbed for sure.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Except you’re the one who said it.
You said “Because Jesus was a person, and Satan most definitely would have his messenger too before the end of the world. It’s just common sense to believe, which is nothing wrong.”
T
TomK
Guest
However, if a certain former-President becomes Secretary General, I’m going to stock up on Holy Water and relics!
L
Lovez4God
Guest
Vern,
There’s something wrong with you! I’m not saying this for my own pleasure. You need help badly.
This will probably be my last reply to you. You are putting words into people’s mouths. And bad thoughts into readers’ minds. Their sole intention is to be a good Catholic. And you are not helping. You are responsible for a lot of fallen souls on Judgment Day. I will pray for you.
First, this comes down to the word itself. The word “Antichrist.” is composed of two Greek words, anti, against, and XPISTOS, Christ, which signifies against Christ. (This is the reason for my person identity argument, nothing more, nothing less) He shall be supremely inimical to Jesus Christ. This name, or rather surname, is given him by Holy Scripture, which calls him also “the Man of Sin,” “The Son of Perdition,” (2 Thes 2:3), “the Beast that ascended out of the abyss,” (Apoc. 11:7), “the abomination of desolation.” (Dan. 9:27)…The contemporaries of Antichrist who are enlightened by the Sacred Scripture will alone be able to discover the solution to this problem. Such was the case with those who were contemporary with Jesus Christ, of whom Antichrist will be the counterpart…Some have thought that the word Antichrist, is only a generic term by which all the enemines of Christ are designated, a word comprising in its signification all heretics, schismatics, apostates, infidels-in a word, all the impious or antichristian empire. St. John seems to hold this opinion when he says, “Even now there are become many Antichrists. He who denieth that Jesus is the Christ, this is Antichrist.” (1Jn 2:18-22). But that this supposition is errorneous is proved by the context of the same epistle. “Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are many Antichrists.”
Moreover, the Sacred Scriptures speak of Antichrist in various places as being a particular person or individual. “The Man of Sin,” “Son of Perdition,” terms such as these cannot mean a collective body since the individual is specifically pointed out, while it is easy to explain why St. John employs the same word to distinguish the enemies and adversaries of Christ. The similitude of tendencies and actions suffices to justify the identity of names. The priests, prophets, and kings of the old law were called “Christ”. This, however, did not hinder the Jews from believing in the coming of Christ, the Anointed par excellence, source of all sacerdotal, prophetic, and royal unction. And is not the same thing true of Antichrist and the Antichrists, that is, of the enemies of Christ? But there shall come an Antichrist of whom all the others are only the percusors. And this Man of Sin will combine in himself all the malice collectively found in all the others. All the Fathers and theologians unanimously concur in this belief as to Antichrist’s individuality.And consequently, his personal existence and future event must be considered as an object of divine faith, such as stated by Suarez and Bellarmine.
History of Antichrist. Rev. P. Huchede
Imprimatur: Edward Charles Fabre, Bishop of Montreal
There’s something wrong with you! I’m not saying this for my own pleasure. You need help badly.
This will probably be my last reply to you. You are putting words into people’s mouths. And bad thoughts into readers’ minds. Their sole intention is to be a good Catholic. And you are not helping. You are responsible for a lot of fallen souls on Judgment Day. I will pray for you.
First, this comes down to the word itself. The word “Antichrist.” is composed of two Greek words, anti, against, and XPISTOS, Christ, which signifies against Christ. (This is the reason for my person identity argument, nothing more, nothing less) He shall be supremely inimical to Jesus Christ. This name, or rather surname, is given him by Holy Scripture, which calls him also “the Man of Sin,” “The Son of Perdition,” (2 Thes 2:3), “the Beast that ascended out of the abyss,” (Apoc. 11:7), “the abomination of desolation.” (Dan. 9:27)…The contemporaries of Antichrist who are enlightened by the Sacred Scripture will alone be able to discover the solution to this problem. Such was the case with those who were contemporary with Jesus Christ, of whom Antichrist will be the counterpart…Some have thought that the word Antichrist, is only a generic term by which all the enemines of Christ are designated, a word comprising in its signification all heretics, schismatics, apostates, infidels-in a word, all the impious or antichristian empire. St. John seems to hold this opinion when he says, “Even now there are become many Antichrists. He who denieth that Jesus is the Christ, this is Antichrist.” (1Jn 2:18-22). But that this supposition is errorneous is proved by the context of the same epistle. “Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are many Antichrists.”
Moreover, the Sacred Scriptures speak of Antichrist in various places as being a particular person or individual. “The Man of Sin,” “Son of Perdition,” terms such as these cannot mean a collective body since the individual is specifically pointed out, while it is easy to explain why St. John employs the same word to distinguish the enemies and adversaries of Christ. The similitude of tendencies and actions suffices to justify the identity of names. The priests, prophets, and kings of the old law were called “Christ”. This, however, did not hinder the Jews from believing in the coming of Christ, the Anointed par excellence, source of all sacerdotal, prophetic, and royal unction. And is not the same thing true of Antichrist and the Antichrists, that is, of the enemies of Christ? But there shall come an Antichrist of whom all the others are only the percusors. And this Man of Sin will combine in himself all the malice collectively found in all the others. All the Fathers and theologians unanimously concur in this belief as to Antichrist’s individuality.And consequently, his personal existence and future event must be considered as an object of divine faith, such as stated by Suarez and Bellarmine.
History of Antichrist. Rev. P. Huchede
Imprimatur: Edward Charles Fabre, Bishop of Montreal
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
When you begin to flirt with Manecheanism, it wasn’t I who led you there.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The UN Charter precludes a citizen of a state with permanent membership on the Security Council (states with a veto) from becoming Secretary General.However, if a certain former-President becomes Secretary General, I’m going to stock up on Holy Water and relics!
Of course that same former President also explained why we should amend the Constitution so he could run again.
B
bogeyjlg
Guest
vern humphrey:
What are you talking about?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Manecheanism or dualism – the concept that Satan is co-equal to God and will produce a son or messenger to duplicate Christ.
Go up a few posts and you will see that it is considered a heresy and denounced in the CCC.
B
bogeyjlg
Guest
vern humphrey:
I know what manicheanism is. I was puzzled because the message you quoted didn’t show it.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The specific phrase in question is, “Because Jesus was a person, and Satan most definitely would have his messenger too before the end of the world. It’s just common sense to believe, which is nothing wrong.”
L
Lovez4God
Guest
vern humphrey:
Look at my previous post. The word that I used for the figure Anti-christ, and why I think he will be a figure form!!! :banghead:
Of course you did, old man!!! I never heard of such term.
Look at my previous post. The word that I used for the figure Anti-christ, and why I think he will be a figure form!!!
:banghead:
L
Lovez4God
Guest
Does anyone understand this guy VERN? What is he saying? I don’t get his intentions in all of this. He makes it all sound too good to be true. Like he has the objective truth. I’m sure he doesn’t understand what objective truth is. If he did, he wouldn’t be so critical of others. He doesn’t have the authority to interpret the Catholic faith. He is not qualify to judge what the Church teaches. Christ would never want someone like him to interpret His Church’s teachings. It is not the way she teaches at all! He is putting burden on others because he cannot go after the doctrines themselves. So he comes after the more vulnerable members to denounce their views and subjecting his view over all others. I don’t get why he’s so harsh on Catholics when he is Catholic himself. Sometimes, I wonder if he’s for the Church or against her. In the court of God, who would be guilty, the accuser or the accused? Make no mistake about it, if you are hypercritical of others, Jesus would do the same to you. The way you live will be the way Christ will judge you. Practically everything he said were human knowledge and studies. There is absolutely no spirit of truth. Absolutely aggressive. What he rejects in living are the central teachings of Jesus. Love, faith, hope, humility, compassion, and meekness. He is so conceit that he never recognizes his past errors even if they are minor, whether it be in words or thoughts. Now, he is attacking other’s words for sure. He is so used to the life of governing others, demanding others, ordering others, and criticizing others. I’m sure in his state, people are more submissive and he recognizes that. He doesn’t know there is a whole world out there and people will think him differently. He doesn’t understand other’s intentions, if he did he wouldn’t be so critical to everyone. Half of the terms he mentioned, people aren’t even aware of. How can you accuse someone of something when they never heard of such a term? Now if Jesus was here, who would be guilt? This brings back stories in the Bible of the Pharisees and those erroneous leaders. They were always accusing others for not living right and not obeying the laws. We all know what Jesus said of them.
Just watch, he will analyze everything that I’ve just said above.
Just watch, he will analyze everything that I’ve just said above.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You didn’t say “Because Jesus was a person, and Satan most definitely would have his messenger too before the end of the world. It’s just common sense to believe, which is nothing wrong?”Of course you did, old man!!! I never heard of such term.
Look at my previous post. The word that I used for the figure Anti-christ, and why I think he will be a figure form!!!
I could have sworn you did.
R
raymonde
Guest
Left say that you fall for a person who is totally your opposite (we know opposite attracts), however, you just fall for that person, no matter what other people tell you, you do not believe them. You feel deep down that “he/she is the correct person”, the person you felt was for you (your soul-mate)! You have self-disciple, the person does not; the person tells you he/she loves you, yet turns around does the opposite, and when caught, tells you, “i am sorry, I really love, i did not know what i was doing.” He/she has you so “gagah” that you do whathever they ask you, even though you know deep down it is not right, however, because you believe that to love is to suffer and that love does not come easy, you keep on doing whatever he/she asks of you. That is temptation and the only one of does these things is Satan the anti-Christ. He is luring you over, pulling wool over your eyes(so to speak, so that you will only see what you want, as he knows), so that you will see only what he wants you to see and lures you in his side by taking you away from your faith, by making do all the things you would not do ordinarily, by using someone else to do his “worse deeds.” To take you away from Jesus/God. The anti-Christ will use anyone he can, family, friends, male friends, to take you away from Jesus; however, he is absolutely the opposite. Jesus is love, forgiveness, calm, peace and abundance of blessings. I pray that you follow your conscience. The anti-Christ is darkness, absolute darkness once he gets hold of you! With Jesus/God, there is eternal light, warmth, no hurt, no ill-feelings; one more thing about Jesus, among many, His mercy endures forever! That is the absolute truth. Remember, the anti-Christ is darkness, no way out; with Jesus Christ there is light, I mean really light. With Jesus Christ there is no doubt. Make Jesus Christ your best friend, He is here to listen, it makes no difference to him who you are or where you have been; believe in Him and He will be there for you no matter what. Just believe in Jesus. He will be there for you. If you listen closely, He will even speak to you. Speak to him, ask him the questions you are asking, if you have seen the “Passion,” you have seen Jesus Christ’s endurance. Ask Him questions! there is nothing more, I believe, That Jesus would like is for you to speak to him, friend-to-friend. God bless.
- Status