Skip to comments.
Taking his seat in the temple of God
triablogue ^
| December 10, 2014
| Steve Hayes
Posted on 06/21/2015 8:10:26 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Taking his seat in the temple of God
For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God
9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders (2 Thes 2:3-4,9).
There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God (WCF 25.6).
1) Traditionally, Protestants identified the papacy with the Antichrist. This post is not defending that identification. I think various individuals and institutions can exemplify the "spirit of the Antichrist" (
1 Jn 4:3).
My immediate point is not to discussion the traditional Protestant view of the papacy, but to discuss some allegations from Catholic sourcesallegations which, ironically mirror the traditional Protestant identification.
In his homily given on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul on June 29, 1972, Pope Paul VI made a famous remark about the smoke of Satan entering into the temple of God. The full text of the homily was not reproduced in the Vatican collection of Paul VIs teachings (Insegnamenti di Paulo VI Vol. X, 1972). Instead, a summary of the homily was given. Within the summary, however, there are some direct quotes from the Pontiff. Two of these are memorable for their references to Satan and the preternatural.
The Holy Father asserts that he has the feeling that from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God (da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio (Insegnamenti [1972], 707).
Later, he is quoted as saying: We believe
that something preternatural has come into the world specifically to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent the Church from breaking out in a hymn of joy for having recovered in fullness the awareness of herself (Crediamo
in qualcosa di preternaturale venunto nel mondo proprio per turbare, per soffocare i frutti del Concilio Ecumenico, e per impedire che la Chiesa prorompesse nellinno della gioia di aver riavuto in pienezza la coscienza di sé (Insegnamenti [1972], 708).
(notes and translations by R. Fastiggi)
In his general audience of Nov. 15, 1972, Paul VI addressed in more detail the reality of the Devil. He stated that one of the greatest needs of the Church today is the defense against that evil we call the Devil. (Insegnamenti [1972], 1168-1173).
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2009/02/paul-vi-on-smoke-of-satan-june-29-1972.html
Taken in isolation, the first statement about "Satan's smoke" could be purely figurative. However, the subsequent reference to "something preternatural," as well as his general audience about the reality of the devil, suggests that his statement about "Satan's smoke" did have reference to Satanic activity.
And what's the sphere of Satanic activity? He glosses that in terms of opposition to the Vatican II Council. That might also explain the reference to the "temple of God," since formal sessions of the Council took place in the native of St. Peter's Basilica.
Obviously, Paul VI isn't suggesting that Satan is the real power behind the papal throne. Nevertheless, this is an oddly self-incriminating statement for the pope to make about the headquarters of his own denomination.
Are there men of the curia who are followers of satan? "Certainly there are priests and bishops. I stop at this level of ecclesiastical hierarchy - (Archbishop Milingo) said - because i am an archbishop, higher than this I cannot go."
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr54/cr54pg11.asp
Emmanuel Milingo became an embarrassment to the Vatican. I believe he was subsequently excommunicated and laicized. Due to the prevalence of witchcraft in Africa, he was a strong proponent of exorcism or "deliverance ministry."
One can certainly question his credibility. However, I'm not the one who made him an archbishop of the Roman Catholic church. To the extent that he's a quack, that reflects poorly on the discernment of the Magisterium, which elevated him to its own ranks.
Next, let's consider some statements by the late Martin Malachi. He had an impressive resume:
He received doctorates from the universities of Louvain and Oxford and from Hebrew University in Jerusalem
he became Professor of Palaeontology and Semitic Languages at the prestigious Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and was a theological adviser to Cardinal Augustin Bea, the head of the Vatican's Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-malachi-martin-1110905.html
Among other things, he said:
A. Windswept House is a novel. But it is 85 percent based on actual fact, and most of the personages appearing in it are real even though I have given them fictional names.
Q. Your book [Windswept House] begins with a vivid description of a sacrilegious "Black Mass" held in 1963 in Charleston, South Carolina. Did this really happen?
A. Yes it did. And the participation by telephone of some high officials of the church in the Vatican is also a fact. The young female who was forced to be a part of this satanic ritual is very much alive and, happily, has been able to marry and lead a normal life. She supplied details about the event.
Q. In addition to the "Cardinal from Century City," you depict numerous other cardinals and bishops in a very bad light. Are these characterizations based on fact?
A. Yes, among the cardinals and the hierarchy there are satanists, homosexuals, anti-papists, and cooperators in the drive for world rule.
The Catholic Church in Crisis, The New American, June 9, 1997.
http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?action=printpage;topic=2940508.0
Indeed Paul [Pope Paul VI] had alluded somberly to the smoke of Satan which has entered the Sanctuary. . . an enthronement ceremony by Satanists in the Vatican. Besides, the incidence of Satanic pedophiliarites and practices was already documented among certain bishops and priests as widely dispersed as Turin, in Italy, and South Carolina, in the United States. The cultic acts of Satanic pedophilia are considered by professionals to be the culmination of the Fallen Archangels rites. The Keys of This Blood.
This requires some sifting. With reference to the Black Mass in South Carolina, I believe he's alluding to an allegation concerning Bishop Russell and Joseph Bernardin. There is some partial, independent corroboration of this incident:
Among the hundreds of clerical sex abusers is one Msgr. Frederick J. Hopwood, a priest of the Diocese of Charleston, S.C., whose early career was closely linked to Bernardin's; and when Hopwood's sex abuse victims pressed damages against the Diocese of Charleston, attorneys for the Archdiocese of Chicago, during Bernardin's tenure, worked out the terms of settlement.
In March, 1994, six months before a former Cincinnati seminarian named Steven Cook publicly accused Bernardin of sexual abuse, newspapers in South Carolina reported that nine men had come forward to accuse Hopwood of sexual abuse in cases dating back to the 1950s.
On March 21st, 1994, Hopwood pleaded guilty to one charge of sex abuse, performed on a minor while Hopwood was rector of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist sometime in 1970-1971, in a plea agreement that put him in a therapy program instead of jail.
About the same time that Hopwood was making the news in Charleston, The Wanderer received an anonymous "fact sheet" (subsequently investigated and substantiated) that drew connections between Bernardin and Hopwood.
Both men, who were roommates at the Charleston seminary, were ordained by the late Bishop John J. Russell of Charleston (1950-1958), later bishop of Richmond; Hopwood in 1951, Bernardin in 1952. Bishop Russell was himself accused of sexual abuse.
Immediately upon Hopwood's Ordination, Russell appointed him chancellor of the diocese, a post at which he served for a few years, with Bernardin coming on as assistant chancellor in 1953, and replacing Hopwood as chancellor in 1954.
For much of the time until Bernardin was named in 1966 as an auxiliary bishop of Atlanta under his mentor, Archbishop Paul J. Hallinan, who had been bishop of Charleston from 1958-1962, Bernardin and Hopwood resided together at the cathedral rectory.
What made the Hopwood pedophilia case of more than just passing interest was the involvement of attorneys from Mayer, Brown, and Platt, the Archdiocese of Chicago's law firm, which brokered the settlement for some of Hopwood's victims.
According to an attorney familiar with the cases against Hopwood, "he was not your ordinary pedophile. He did hundreds and hundreds of boys, and I can't imagine Bernardin not being aware of it, since they lived together for such a long time.
|
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/1998_06_18_Likoudis_EpiscopalScandal.htm
The allegation of a satanic enthronement ceremony at the Vatican occurs in both his nonfiction book (The Keys of This Blood) and his historical novel (Windswept House). As a Vatican insider, who worked there from about 1958 until 1965, he might well be in position to know about Satanists at the Vatican conducting blasphemous ceremonies.
However, I have reservations about the details of Malachi's allegation:
i) The allegation about the South Carolinian incident seems to trade on the craze of recovered memories involving ritual satanic abuse and/or sexual abuse. So I find that suspect.
ii) Sodomy and heterosexual rape are hardly interchangeable. But perhaps the motivation wouldn't be so much sexual as sacrilegious.
iii) There's the question of relative chronology. Were these in fact simultaneous events, or does his synchronization reflect artistic license in writing a historical novel?
Finally:
In a book of memoirs released in February, the noted Italian exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth affirmed that "Yes, also in the Vatican there are members of Satanic sects." When asked if members of the clergy are involved or if this is within the lay community, he responded, "There are priests, monsignors and also cardinals!"
The book, "Father Amorth. Memoirs of an Exorcist. My life fighting against Satan." was written by Marco Tosatti, who compiled it from interviews with the priest.
Fr. Amorth was asked by Tosatti how he knows Vatican clergy are involved. He answered, "I know from those who have been able to relate it to me because they had a way of knowing directly."
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/spanish_exorcist_addresses_claims_of_satanic_influence_in_vatican/
As the long-time (but now retired) Chief Exorcist of Rome, I'd expect Amorth to have extensive inside information about clerical satanism, both inside the Vatican and in the city of Rome, where many priests live and work. By that I mean, if it exists, he ought to know better than anyone.
2) Whether or not we credit these specific allegations, we might assess their antecedent likelihood. If Satanists had access to venerable Christian shrines, it would not be surprising if they practice their rites there. The very point of the Black Mass is to defile sacred space.
3) In addition, this concretely illustrates how something analogous to 2 Thes 2 could happen in modern times. The point is not whether a Catholic shrine is, in fact, the "temple of God," but to play on the symbolism, to offend traditional reverence, to use that as a foil to defile everything it representsin the eyes of "the faithful." It could be the Vatican, Mount Athos, Santa Katarina, Canterbury cathedral, the Temple Mount, the Church of the Nativity, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Hallgrímskirkja, &c.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholicism; hermeneutics; martinmalachi; papacy; prophecy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
To: huldah1776
The word form is slightly different in the two passages:
Acts 21:21 apostasian ἀποστασίαν ; 2Thessalonians 2:3 apostasia ἀποστασία
Additionally, the Rheims bible changed the article from hē ἡ or The departure, to 'a revolt'.
21
posted on
06/21/2015 11:03:44 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: metmom; RnMomof7
>>Heck, THEY'RE even beginning to suspect it.<<
And it's only the beginning. It's going to be a rough road for Catholics.
22
posted on
06/21/2015 11:14:49 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: sasportas
You're cloying sarcasm side,
2Thess2: 1-8 Now, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to him, we ask you not to be quickly shaken in your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by letter as from us, saying that the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction, he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself up as God. 5 Don't you remember that, when I was still with you, I told you these things? Now you know what is restraining him, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness already works. Only there is one who restrains now, until he is taken out of the way. Then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will kill with the breath of his mouth, and destroy by the manifestation of his coming; [WEB]
There is a comma placed (yes, I know when the punctuations were added) between the clauses, telling readers these are two connected but distinct clauses for the same broader issue. The clause citing 'The Departure' is superior to the 'man of sin revealed'. we may make this discernment because Paul connects the removal of the restrainer to the revealing of the man of sin in the following verses. The Restrainer indwells The Church in ths Age, and when Christ gathers the wedding party the indwelling Spirit will be moved out of the way of the man of sin. The Holy Spirit indwelling believers will be ended, though His Spirit will still be around harvesting souls during the Tribulation to follow the snatching away of the Bride indwelt by His Spirit.
Scoff all you like. I have a few provisions you will be welcome to scavenge following the departure with My Lord's Bridal party. You will find them handy in the hellish environment His Bride will be taken away from.
23
posted on
06/21/2015 11:17:28 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: sasportas; MHGinTN
>>No commentary on this verse by anybody in church history, prior to the Rheims, understood apostasia to mean anything else.<<
Oh really?
646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."[http://biblehub.com/greek/646.htm}
You post verse 4 as if it's tied to "apostasia". Verse 3 says this.
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
That and in there shows it to be 2 separate and distinct happenings. Trying to tie the word "apostasia" to the man of lawlessness is totally wrong.
>>You dont even have to be a scholar to see what the word meant.<<
Are you claiming to be a better Greek scholar than Strong as I showed above?
Also, please show where the term the man of apostasy is written in scripture.
24
posted on
06/21/2015 11:28:56 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: MHGinTN; huldah1776
Acts 21:21 was talking about a departure from the teaching of being circumcised.
25
posted on
06/21/2015 11:33:38 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: CynicalBear
Yep, 'apostasian' ἀποστασίαν
26
posted on
06/21/2015 11:45:48 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: MHGinTN
My apologies to FReepers who are concerned with what this thread is supposed to be about. I apologize for helping MHGinTN hijack it.
But to insert a pretrib rapture in 2 Thess. 2, is to read into scripture something that isn't there. Jesus set the bar back in Matt. 24, no pretrib rapture there, Paul is merely following Jesus in 2 Thess. 2.
I quote here one of the foremost scholars of ancient times was Irenaeus, I am convinced he knew Greek at least as well as MHGinTN... and the pretrib preachers he follows! He said:
"The apostle thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: 'Unless there shall come [apostasia] first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God. The apostle therefore clearly points out his apostasy, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped... he will endeavor in a tyrannical manner to set himself forth as God."
To: MHGinTN
Don’t know Greek, so need to ask if it an entirely different term or as different as happy is to happily? Just wondering, and if it is used in any other historic texts for context?
To: sasportas
Rev 3:7 "To the angel of the assembly in Philadelphia write: ... 10 Because you kept my command to endure, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, which is to come on the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.
They are told they will be kept from even the hour of the testing, not just the testing. The seven years of Tribulation are the 'hour of testing'.
Now back to our program, 'Taking his seat in the temple of Gpd' ...
29
posted on
06/21/2015 11:56:24 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: huldah1776
Nouns in Koine Greek derive from the verbs. The first few bibles had the definite article ‘the’ in front of the ‘apostasi’. so we know immediately this refers to a specific thing or event. When the word is changed along with the article to an indefinite article “a” the meaning is blurred out from the original intent. The use in Acts 21:21 refers to a process whereas in 2Thess2:3 it refers to a specific thing or event.
30
posted on
06/21/2015 12:01:16 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: CynicalBear
Yes, but it is a departure from teaching, so is the word “departure” used to translate the same Greek word? If so, then we are witnesses of a great departure from the teaching of Truth. In fact, today it is taught that there is no absolute truth bringing with it a hatred of The Truth and His followers of every nation, tribe, tongue, and people.
To: huldah1776
That is in fact an excellent notion. It can be valued as a teacher for our epoch. As used in 2Thess2:3 the meaning could be as you infer. However, we have the passages following that verse which point to the restrainer being removed. The Restrainer is the Holy Spirit Who indwells the Bride of Christ, The Church.
32
posted on
06/21/2015 12:06:52 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: CynicalBear
James Strong wrote his famous concordance in 1890, he thus could have been a pretribber, the influence of Darbyism was considerable by that time. Was he a pretribber, I don’t know, he may have been one of those who rejected Darby’s pretrib rapture, for all we know, many in England did.
At any rate, I rather doubt we can use his concordance as the last word on 2 Thess. 2:3. Like I said, the context of 2 Thess. 2 literally bristles with evidence as to what Paul meant. Not to mention men like Irenaeus, who knew Greek quite well, I’d say.
I think it’s folly to pit James Strong against men like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. For all we know, were he to join this thread, we might find him siding with Irenaeus.
To: sasportas
If Ephraem the Syrian (306 - 373AD) joined this thread, what do you think he would side with? ...
"For all the saints and elect of God are gathered prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our siin." ['On The Last Times, the Antichrist and the End of the World' Ephraem of Nisibis (Ephraem The Syrian)]
34
posted on
06/21/2015 12:15:39 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: MHGinTN
Because you kept my command to endureYou find that command in Matt. 24:13, the command to endure to the end. What end? The end the disciples asked him about in verse 3. The disciples there tied that "end," "the end of the world," or the end of the age, to Christ's 2nd coming. In answer to their question, so did Christ... throughout the discourse, including verse 13. The "end of the age" in his discourse, being "immediately after the tribulation of those days," verses 29-31.
Like I said in previous post, there is no pretrib rapture in Matt. 24, Paul merely follows Jesus in 2 Thess. 2.
To: MHGinTN
CynicalBear wants to pit James Strong against Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, you want to pit Ephraem against Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Ephraem is Pseudo-Ephraim, pseudo meaning false. The mass of historical evidence is against the Pretribs, neither Strong nor Pseudo-Ephraim can tip the balance.
I apologize again to FReepers for assisting the hijacking of this thread. I leave it to MHGinTN and CB to continue the hijacking. Later alligator.
To: sasportas
Pseudo-Ephraim = Pseudo-Ephraem
To: sasportas
How very specious of you. Is not the thread addressing ‘taking his seat in the temple of God’ as in the antichrist at mid tribulation? Yeah, don’t like seeing it in perspective eh?
38
posted on
06/21/2015 12:37:29 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: sasportas
What particular verses are the central focus of the thread, smarty? Who is served by trying to sow deceit?
39
posted on
06/21/2015 12:39:21 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: sasportas
I use dispensations as a tool to help organize reasoning. The Olivet6 Discourse to which you refer is given regarding the actual end times as spoken of by Daniel the Prophet. The discernment for this is found in what prompted Jesus to launch into the teaching of James, John, Andrew and Peter regarding the destruction of Jerusalem. As such we can reason that Jesus is address specifically the future of Jerusalem and Israel. The seven years of tribulation are all about God ending His dealing with sin and Israel. The Jews are even the ones evangelizing the world during that horrific period of Tribulation. Today, there is no differentiation between Jew and Gentile in the Church. During the dispensation of Tribulation the Jews specifically will be the evangelists.
40
posted on
06/21/2015 12:44:40 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson