Author Topic: Indult (Read 2416 times)

Vladimir · « **on:** January 06, 2010, 10:15:23 AM »

I'd like to get the opinion of non-sedevacantist Catholics in this thread (independents are fine though).

What is your opinion on the Indult? Is there anything that would make their Masses harmful or even invalid? What about their priests?

Belloc · « **Reply #1 on:** January 06, 2010, 10:22:59 AM »

depends on priest and what restrictions, etc.

I attend a Diocesan "indult" Mass-daily Masses, Noon Sunday Masses and at least 1-2 Masses during Holy days are TLM.

TheD · « **Reply #2 on:** January 06, 2010, 09:56:32 PM »

I agree, the situation varies from place to place. I also attend an Indult.

Arborman · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2010, 10:20:49 PM »

We attend the Indult Mass on Sundays and I think they do a great job. The priests who say the Latin Mass I have known a long time and they are very good priests. I just wish the Mass was earlier in the day and they offered a daily TLM.

The NO Mass is so bad! :shocked:

008 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 07, 2010, 12:14:42 AM »

Quote

What is your opinion on the Indult? Is there anything that would make their Masses harmful or even invalid? What about their priests?

The following is an antidote to some Sedevacantist opinion which should be contemplated.

Christ Himself upholds the means of grace because He is no hireling who deserts HIS sheep when the wolf comes. Therefore He supplies (ecclesia supplet) and upholds both priests and sacraments, even if they are imperfect, or gone astray. In time it will all be corrected. Any malice will be judged by Christ the judge when the malicious priests or hierarchs face their judgment.

Those who suggest the means of grace has been annihilated because a Pope may have gone astray need to think this through more carefully. Even the New Mass must be valid since the Lord would never abandon 99.9% of the flock which is HIS, not the "popes". But certainly not all liturgical missals are of equal edification or without dangers.

It is good to remember that from 1900 to 1969 all the Modernists said the Tridentine Mass

008 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 07, 2010, 12:52:21 AM »

Hutton Gibson, in the alternative, sent this out to his list:

I hope I have made it clear that I never use the content of non-Scriptural prognostication as an argument. But now and then I encounter a prophecy worth passing on. The law of averages would seem to indicate that not all prophets are wrong. Try this one.

From "The Apocalypse of St. John"
Written in the 1920s by Fr. E. Sylvester Berry

Satan will first attempt to destroy the power of the papacy and bring about the downfall of the Church through heresies, persecutions and schisms that surely must follow. He will raise up antichrists and his Prophet to lead the faithful into error and destroy those who remain steadfast. (The faithful will be led astray by attacking the papacy.) [the office and its occupation--H. G.]

It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the church are times when the papal throne is vacant or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus will it also be in those evil days to come. As indicated by his resemblance to a lamb, the false prophet will probably set himself up in Rome as sort of an anti-pope during the vacancy of the papal throne. At the time of the French Revolution "the abomination of desolation" was wrought in many Catholic Churches by heretics and apostates who broke altars, scattered the relics of martyrs and desecrated the Blessed Sacrament. Such things thus faintly foreshadow the abominations that will desecrate Catholic churches in those sorrowful days when antichrists will see themselves at the altar. The Antichrist and his Prophet will introduce ceremonies that imitate the sacraments of the Church. In fact there will be a complete organization, a Church of Satan, set up in opposition of the Church of Christ. Satan's prophet will usurp the role of the Pope. Their ceremonies will counterfeit the sacraments. (end of excerpts)

This is what one clerical student of Scripture, in the days when nihil obstat and imprimatur meant something, extracted from the Apocalypse.

Defending the Faith of Our Fathers,

Hutton Gibson

www.HuttonGibson.com
____________

We will have to see. My problem is in seeing how Christ could possibly not uphold the means of grace, even in an interregnum. But Mr. Gibson concludes otherwise from the wicked fruits and the errors of Vatican II and post-conciliar teaching. His is an opinion---considering the apocalyptic nature of our times---that is also plausible. God help us then. We will have to see.

008 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 07, 2010, 01:34:18 AM »

The aforementioned book can be seen here, whether in part or whole:

http://www.archive.org/stream/theapocalypseofs00berruoft#page/78/mode/2up

...and become very dramatic here

http://www.archive.org/stream/theapocalypseofs00berruoft#page/124/mode/2up/search/vacant

Is this book an inferential exegesis?

Then we have this:

The Pope will flee Rome in the company of several other cardinals and go into hiding, be found, and cruelly murdered (Birch, p. 553).

Anne Catherine Emmerich (October 1, 1822) "The Church," she groaned, "is in great danger. I must ask every one who comes to see me to say an Our Father for that intention. We must pray that the Pope may not leave Rome, for unheard-of evils would result from such a step. We must pray the Holy Ghost to enlighten him, for they are even now trying to exact something of him...Two men live at this time who long to ruin the Church, but they have lost one who used to help them with his pen. He was killed by a young man about a year ago, and one of the two men of whom I speak left Germany at the same time. They have their employees everywhere. The little black man in Rome, whom I see so often, has many working for him without their clearly knowing for what end. He has his agents in the new black church also. If the Pope leaves Rome, the enemies of the Church will get the upper hand. I see the little black man in his own country committing many thefts and falsifying things generally. Religion is there so skillfully undermined and stifled that there are scarcely one hundred faithful priests. I cannot say how it is, but I see fog and darkness increasing. There are however, three churches that they cannot seize: St. Peter's, St. Mary-Major's and St. Michael's. Although they are constantly trying to undermine them, they will not succeed. I help not. All must be rebuilt soon for every one, even ecclesiastics are laboring to destroy--ruin is at hand. The two enemies of the Church who have lost their accomplice are firmly resolved to destroy the pious and learned men that stand in their way." (Emmerich AC. The Life of Lord Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations. Schmöger edition, Vol. IV. Nihil Obstat: D. Jaegher, 14 Februari 1914. Imprimatur: A.C. De Schrevel, Brugis, 14 Februari 1914. Reprint TAN Books, Rockford (IL), 2004, p.298)

A man who will subsequently be known as a great saint will ultimately be elected pope near the end of the Chastisement. He will be heavily responsible for the French acceptance of a king to be their military and civil leader...(Birch, p. 553)

Bl. Anna-Maria Taigi (19th Century)..."After the three days of darkness, St. Peter and St. Paul, having come down from Heaven, will preach in the whole world and designate a new Pope. A great light will flash from their bodies and will settle upon the cardinal who is to become Pope. Christianity, then, will spread throughout the world. He is the Holy Pontiff, chosen by God to withstand the storm. At the end, he will have the gift of miracles, and his name shall be praised over the whole earth (Birch, pp. 362-363).

008 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 07, 2010, 01:47:11 AM »

More, to add in the fog...

St. Hildegard (d. 1179): ...this cardinal will proclaim himself Anti-Pope, and two thirds of the Christians will go with him. He, also well as Antichrist, are descendants of Dan (Culleton, R. Gerald. The Reign of Antichrist, Reprint TAN Books, Rockford, IL, 1974, p. 128).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century) ..."This aforementioned Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire have been fulfilled and the end of the world is drawing near" (Birch, p. 227).

Dionysius...Antichrist will be an iconoclast. Most in the world will adore him. He will teach that the Christian (Catholic) religion is false, confiscation of Christian (Catholic) property is legal, Saturday is to be observed instead of Sunday, and he will change the ten commandments...He will read people's minds, raise the dead, reward his followers, and punish the rest (Connor Edward. Prophecy for Today, 4th ed. TAN Books, Rockford (IL) 1984, p.85).

During this period, Enoch and Elijah, who have never died but have been maintained in "Paradise" return to the presence of men and preach to the people against Antichrist...It is the arrival of these "Two Witnesses"...

After the death of Antichrist...Then Jesus comes in glory to judge the living and the dead. It is the end of the world and time. (Birch, pp.556,557)

008 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 07, 2010, 02:51:45 AM »

Another passage from The Apocalypse of St. John by Fr. Berry

The author suggests that the interregnum which begins the Hour for the Powers of darkness will begin with the martyrdom of a Pope---"snatched away by martyrdom"--- who until then had been "that which witholdeth" against the coming of this Hour (2 Thess 2, etc).

http://ia301139.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/3/items/theapocalypseofs00berruoft/theapocalypseofs00berruoft_jp2.zip&file=theapocalypseofs00berruoft_jp2/theapocalypseofs00berruoft_0128.jp2&scale=4&rotate=0

The pages have a zoom-in capability for viewing.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 07, 2010, 03:37:36 AM »

008 said:

Quote

Christ Himself upholds the means of grace because He is no hireling who deserts HIS sheep when the wolf comes. Therefore He supplies (ecclesia supplet) and upholds both priests and sacraments, even if they are imperfect, or gone astray.

Your logic is dangerous and completely obliterates the very idea of the Abomination of Desolation. Not that I think this is necessarily THE abomination, but it's at least another precursor, like the rise of the jureur priests during the French Revolution, or the Arian crisis. Would you attend a "Mass" of a heretic where a prostitute is enthroned on the altar? Would God uphold the means of grace there?

Christ tells those living during the abomination of desolation to head for the hills above Jerusalem. One could easily read this as meaning "Do not go to Mass." In any event, he's telling you to flee the place that SEEMS holy, but where an atrocious blasphemy has been set up.

The abomination of desolation, as well as any precursor, is overwhelmingly offensive and noxious to God. Any so-called "Pope" who is responsible for encouraging this abomination is likewise offensive. Hence my stand against SSPX and the una cuм Mass.

If God can supply the grace directly for those attending the Mass of a heretic priest -- I'm not saying He does, I haven't researched that question yet -- what is more sure is that He can also supply it directly to those who stay out of the rotten temples while DESIRING the Eucharist and confession ( and in my case, confirmation ). There is also the chance that you are receiving the exact opposite of grace at the Mass of a heretic. Heretics are deadly to the faith, and the fact that you're apparently defending the Indult already shows that.

A valid priest who uses the proper matter and form does confect validly, and that may or may not happen in the Indult ( I don't know about the formula for the consecration of the wine in the Indult, and the priests have possibly been falsely ordained by false bishops consecrated with the New Rite ). But even if the Eucharist is confected validly, it still doesn't mean you should go there. The Blessed Sacrament can also be confected validly at a black mass, and that is what I've heard is done so that the loathsome monsters there can desecrate what they actually know and believe is the body and blood of Christ in the bread.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 07, 2010, 03:38:10 AM »

St. Thomas says that those who attend the Masses of heretics are sharers in their sin. Then he seems to contradict himself; but actually he doesn't. I was just reading him with one eye open, I guess.

There has been some confusion about this, especially from me -- whether or not to attend the Masses of heretics -- and I urge everyone to research it on their own.

Martin V said we CAN attend Masses of heretics until they are expressly denounced by name:

Ad Evitanda Scandala --

Quote

"To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous consciences by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ's faithful that henceforth no one henceforth shall be bound to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university, church, community or place.

However, read this again. He says no one will be "bound" to abstain. That also means that they are not bound to go to the Mass of an undeclared heretic. I mention this for the benefit of those who say home-aloners are committing a mortal sin every Sunday.

The Council of Basel, before it was broken up, promoted another Bull that takes up Ad Evitanda Scandala almost word-for-word but then adds a new clause to it:

Council of Basel, Session 20:

Quote

"To avoid scandals and many dangers and to relieve timorous consciences, this holy synod decrees that henceforth nobody shall be obliged to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration and reception of sacraments or in any other sacred or profane matters, or to shun someone or to observe an ecclesiastical interdict, on the ground of any ecclesiastical sentence, censure, suspension or prohibition that has been promulgated in general by a person or by the law, UNLESS the sentence, prohibition, suspension or censure was specifically or expressly promulgated or pronounced by a judge against a specified person, college, university, church or place, or if it is clear that someone has incurred a sentence of excommunication with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law. For the synod wishes such persons to be avoided in accordance with canonical sanctions.

Someone who cannot be excused in law would be a public heretic.

I thank CM for pointing out to me that this supersedes Ad Evitanda. He is right, as I now realize -- it postdates Ad Evitanda and also uses the same language to refine the teaching of Martin V.

Also, consider the context of both these bulls. They presume a central authority which we do not have. The devil would make a mockery of anyone who went to the Mass of heretics now, because no authoritative ecclesiastical censure is foreseeable in the near future. We can't go to a bishop and complain about a priest, because no bishop can go to the Pope -- because we don't have one. The hierarchy lays in ruins, and all the trads that I know of are heretics too.

008 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 07, 2010, 03:51:02 AM »

Quote

Your logic is dangerous and completely obliterates the very idea of the Abomination of Desolation.

The logic of indefectibility can never do as you suggest. Now you will quibble as always, but at least see how the vast majority of traditional Catholics see it and why. If the interpretation is wrong it is not clear from the fathers.

The abomination of desolation is interpreted otherwise by many of the great fathers.

The Abomination of Desolation, Catholic Encyclopedia

The importance of this Scriptural expression is chiefly derived from the fact that in Matthew 24:15, and Mark 13:14, the appearance of the "abomination of desolation" standing in the "Holy Place" (Matthew), or where "it ought not" (Mark), is given by Our Lord to His disciples as the signal for their flight from Judea, at the time of the approaching ruin of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20). The expression itself is confessedly obscure. To determine its meaning, interpreters have naturally betaken themselves to the original Hebrew of the book of Daniel; for our first Evangelist distinctly says that "the abomination of desolation" he has in view "was spoken of by Daniel the prophet"; and further, the expression he makes use of, in common with St. Mark, is simply the Greek phrase whereby the Septuagint translators rendered literally the Hebrew words shíqqûç shômem found in Daniel 12:11; 9:27; 11:31.

Unfortunately, despite all their efforts to explain these Hebrew terms, Biblical scholars are still at variance about their precise meaning. While most commentators regard the first "shíqqûç", usually rendered by "abomination", as designating anything (statue, altar, etc.) that pertains to idolatrous worship, others take it to be a contemptuous designation of a heathen god or idol. Again, while most commentators render the second "shômem" by the abstract word "desolation", others treat it as a concrete form referring to a person, "a ravager", or even as a participial known meaning "that maketh desolate". The most recent interpretation which has been suggested of theseHebrew words is to the following effect: The phrase shíqqûç shômem stands for the original expression bá' ál shámáyîm (Baal of heaven), a title found in Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions, and the semitic equivalent of the Greek Zeus, Jupiter, but modified in Daniel through Jєωιѕн aversion for the name of a Pagan deity.

While thus disagreeing as to the precise sense of the Hebrew phrase usually rendered by "the abomination of desolation", Christian scholars are practically at one with regard to its general meaning. They commonly admit, and indeed rightly, that the Hebrew expression must needs be understood of some idolatrous emblem, the setting up of which would entail the ultimate desolation of the Temple of Jerusalem (1 Maccabees 1:57; iv, 38). And with this general meaning in view, they proceed to determine the historical event between Our Lord's prediction and the ruin of the Temple (A.D. 70), which should be regarded as "the abomination of desolation" spoken of in Matthew 24:15, and Mark 13:14. But here they are again divided. Many scholars have thought, and still think, that the introduction of the Roman standards into the Holy Land, and more particularly into the Holy City, shortly before the destruction of the Temple, is the event foretold by Our Lord to His disciples as the signal for their flight from Judea.

It is true that the standards were worshipped by the Roman soldiers and abhorred by the Jєωs as the emblem of Roman idolatry. Yet they can hardly be considered as the "the abomination of desolation" referred to in Matthew 24:15. The Evangelist says that this "abomination" is to stand in the "holy place", whereby is naturally meant the Temple (see also Daniel 9:27, where the Vulgate reads: "there shall be in the Temple the abomination of the desolation"), and the Roman standards were actually introduced into the Temple only after it had been entered by Titus, that, too late to serve as a warning for the Christians of Judea. Other scholars are of the mind that the desecration of the Temple by the Zealots who seized it and made it their stronghold shortly before Jerusalem was invested by Titus, is the event foretold by Our Lord. But this view is commonly rejected for the simple reason that "the abomination of desolation" spoken of by Daniel and referred to in St. Matthew's Gospel, was certainly something connected with idolatrous worship.

Others, finally, interpret Our Lord's warning to His disciples in the light of the history of attempt to have his own statue set up and worshipped in the Temple of Jerusalem. The following are the principal facts of that history. About A.D. 40, Caius Caligula issued a peremptory decree ordering the erection and worship of his statute in the Temple of God. He also appointed to the government of Syria, bidding him carry out that decree even at the cost of a war against the rebellious Jєωs. Whereupon the Jєωs in tens of thousands protested to the governor that they were willing to be slaughtered rather than to be condemned to witness that idolatrous profanation of their holy Temple. Soon afterwards Petronius asked Caligula to revoke his order, and Agrippa I, who then lived at Rome, prevailed upon the Emperor not to enforce his decree.

It seems, however, that Caligula soon repented of the concession, and that but for his untimely death (A.D. 41) he would have had his statue set up in Jerusalem (E. Schurer, History of the Jєωιѕн People in the Time of Christ, I Div. II, 95-105; tr.). In view of these facts it is affirmed by many scholars that the early Christians could easily regard the forthcoming erection of statues in the Temple as the act of idolatrous abomination which, according to the prophet Daniel 9:27, portended the ruin of the House of God, and therefore see in it the actual sign given by Christ for their flight from Judea.

This last interpretation of the phrase "the abomination of desolation" is not without its own difficulties. Yet it seems preferable to the others that have been set for by commentators at large.

APA citation. Gigot, F. (1907). The Abomination of Desolation. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved January 7, 2010 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046a.htm

008 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 07, 2010, 04:07:36 AM »

The Antichrist (Different interpretations)

This Rock

By Karl Keating

THE claim that the pope is the Antichrist has been part of anti-Catholic rhetoric since the Reformation, when it was needed to justify leaving the Catholic Church. The Lutheran Book of Concord states, "[T]he pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ . . . Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord" (Smalcald Articles 2:4:10, 14).

The Presbyterian and Anglican Westminster Confession states, "There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and that son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God" (25:6).

The Fathers of the Church would not have agreed. Rather than the bishop of Rome, they identified the Antichrist as a government official--a king coming to power in the ruins of the Roman Empire. He likely would be Jєωιѕн. Rather than claiming, like the pope, to be the vicar or representative of Jesus Christ, he would claim that Jesus was not the Christ but that he himself was. He would seduce the Jєωs by attempting to fulfill the political.aspirations they held for the Messiah.

Didache

"[T]he whole time of your faith will not profit you unless you are made complete in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and sheep shall be turned into wolves . . . and then shall the deceiver of the world appear, pretending to be the Son of God, and [he] shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands" (Didache 16:3-4 [A.D. 70]).

Polycarp

"Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist [1 John 4:2-3, 2 John 7]; whoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil; and whoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, such a one is the firstborn of Satan" (Letter to the Philippians 7:1 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

"By means of the events which shall occur in the time of the Antichrist it is shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God, and that although a mere slave, he wishes to be proclaimed as king. For he, being endued with all the power of the devil, shall not come as a righteous king nor as a legitimate king in subjection to God, but as an impious, unjust, and lawless one . . . . setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising himself up as the only idol . . . Moreover [Paul] has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways: that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God [2 Thess. 2:4] . . . in which the enemy shall sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ" (Against Heresies 5:25:1-2 [A.D. 189]).

"When he (Antichrist) is come, and of his own accord concentrates in his own person the (Great) Apostasy, and accomplishes whatever he shall do according to his own will and choice, sitting also in the temple of God so that his dupes may adore him as the Christ" (ibid. 5:28:2).

"Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of the Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number] when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him as supposing him not to be the expected one. These men, therefore, thought to learn and go back to the true number of the name that they be not reckoned among false prophets. But knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, 666, let them wait, in the first place, for the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order and advance their kingdom, [let them] acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself . . .and having a name containing the aforesaid number . . . And Jeremiah does not merely point out his sudden coming, but even indicates the tribe from which he shall come, where he says, 'We shall hear the voice of his swift horses from Dan . . .' [Jer. 8:16]. This too is the reason that this tribe is not reckoned in Revelation along with those which are saved [Rev. 7:5-7]. It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfillment of the prophecy than to be making surmises and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned, and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved" (ibid. 5:30:2-3).

Tertullian

"[T]he man of sin, the son of perdition, who must first be revealed before the Lord comes, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and who is to sit in the temple of God and boast himself as being God . . . According indeed to our view, he is Antichrist; as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies, and by the apostle John, who says that 'already many false prophets have gone out into the world,' the forerunners of Antichrist, who deny that Christ is come in the flesh, and do not acknowledge Jesus, meaning in God the Creator" (Against Marcion 5:16 [A.D. 209]).

Origen

"Observe, however, whether the prophecy regarding Antichrist is not as follows: 'And at the latter time of their kingdom, when their sins are coming to the full, there shall arise a king, bold in countenance, and understanding riddles . . .' [Dan. 8:23] What is stated by Paul in the words quoted from him, where he says, 'so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God' [2 Thess. 2:4] is in Daniel referred to in the following fashion: 'And on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations, and at the end of time shall an end be put to the desolation' [Dan. 9:27]" (Against Celsus 6:46 [A.D. 248]).

Hippolytus

"It is to the fourth kingdom, of which we have already spoken, that he (Daniel) refers (in Dan. 7:19)--that kingdom, than which no greater kingdom of similar nature has arisen upon the earth, from which also ten horns are to spring, and to be apportioned among ten crowns. And amid these another, little horn shall arise, which is that of Antichrist. And it shall pluck by the roots the three others before it; that is to say, he shall subvert the three kings of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, with the view of acquiring universal dominion. After conquering the remaining seven horns, he will at last begin, inflated by a strange and wicked spirit, to stir up war against the saints and to persecute everywhere, with the aim of being glorified by all and being worshiped as God" (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 217]).

"Now as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of his royalty and glory, in the same way have the Scriptures also beforehand spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion. Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king The Savior was manifested as a lamb, so he too in like manner will appear as a lamb without; within he is a wolf. The Savior came into the world in the circuмcision [i.e., the Jєωιѕн race] , and he will come in the same manner. . . . The Savior raised up and showed his holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem" (The Antichrist 6 [A.D. 200]).

"We find it written regarding Antichrist . . . 'Dan is a lion's whelp, and he shall leap from Bashan' [Deut. 33:22]. But that no one may err by supposing that this is said of the Savior, let him attend carefully to the matter. Dan, he says, is a lion's whelp. And in naming the tribe of Dan, he declared clearly the tribe from which Antichrist is destined to spring. For as Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so Antichrist is to spring from the tribe of Dan. And that the case stands thus, we see also from the words of Jacob: 'Let Dan be a serpent, lying upon the ground, biting the horse's heel' [Gen. 49:17]. What then is meant by the serpent but Antichrist, that deceiver who is mentioned in Genesis [Gen. 3:1], who deceived Eve and supplanted Adam? . . . It is in reality out of the tribe of Dan then that that tyrant and king, that dread judge, that son of the devil, is destined to spring and arise" (ibid. 14).

"Above all, moreover, he will love the nation of the Jєωs. And with all these [Jєωs] he will work signs and terrible wonders, false wonders and not true, in order to deceive his impious equals. . . . And all this he will do corruptly and deceitfully, and with the purpose of deluding all to make him king. For when the peoples and tribes see so great virtues and so great powers in him, they will all with one mind meet together to make him king. . . Then when he is elevated to his kingdom he will marshal war, and in his wrath he will smite three mighty kings--those namely of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia. And after that he will build the temple in Jerusalem and will restore it again speedily and give it over to the Jєωs" (Discourse on the End of the World 23-25 [A.D. 217]).

Cyprian

"If they (the heretics) desire peace, let them lay aside their arms. If they make atonement, why do they threaten? Or if they threaten, let them know that they are not feared by God's priests. For even Antichrist, when he shall begin to come, will not enter into the Church (even though) he threatens; neither shall we yield to his arms and violence, (though) he declares that he will destroy us if we resist" (Letters 54[69]:19 [A.D. 252]).

"Both baptism is one and the Holy Spirit is one and the Church, founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also. Hence it results that with them [heretics and schismatics] all things are futile and false, nothing that which they have done ought to be approved by us. . . . And the blessed apostle John also, keeping the commandments and precepts of the Lord, has laid it down in his epistle and said, 'You have heard that Antichrist shall come; even now there are many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time . . .' [1 John 2:18]. Wherefore we who are with the Lord and maintain the unity of the Lord, and according to his condescension administer his priesthood in the Church, should repudiate and reject and regard as profane whatever his adversaries and the antichrists do; and to those who, coming about of error and wickedness, acknowledge the true faith of the one Church, we should give the truth both of unity and faith, by means of all the sacraments of divine grace" (Letters 69[70]:3 [A.D. ]).

"Because there can be nothing common to falsehood and truth, to darkness and light, to death and immortality, to Antichrist and Christ, we ought by all means to maintain the unity of the Catholic Church and not to give way to the enemies of the faith and truth in any respect. Neither must we prescribe the form of custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason. Neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose and upon whom he built his Church . . . despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church, but admitted the counsel of truth [that Paul gave] . . . furnishing thus an illustration to us of concord and of patience" (Letters 70[71]:2-3 [A.D. ]).

Lactanius

"Aking shall arise out of Syria, born from an evil spirit, the overthrower and destroyer of the human race, who shall destroy that which is left by the former evil, together with himself...But that king will not only be most disgraceful in himself, but he will also be a prophet of lies, and he will constitute and call himself God and will order himself to be worshipped as the Son of God, and power will be given to him to do signs and wonders, by the sight of which he will entice men to adore him. He will command fire to come down from heaven and the sun to stand and leave its course and an image to speak, and these things shall be done at his word...Then he will attempt to destroy the temple of God and persecute the righteous people" (Divine Institutes 7:17 [A.D. 307]).

Victorinus

"'The seven heads are the seven hills on which the woman sits' [Rev. 17:9] --that is, the city of Rome. 'And there are seven kings: five have fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he is come, he will be for a short time' [Rev. 17:10]. The time must be understood in which the written Revelation was published, since then reigned Caesar Domitian [A.D. 81-96]; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains, under whom the Revelation was written --Domitian, to wit. 'The other has not yet come' speaks of Nerva, 'and when he is come he will be for a short time,' for he did not complete the period of two years. 'And the beast which you saw is of the seven' [Rev. 17:11], since before those kings Nero reigned. 'And he is the eighth.' He says only when this beast shall come, reckon it the eighth, since in that is the completion. He added, 'And shall go into perdition.' For that ten kings received royal power when he shall move from the east, he says. He shall be sent from the city of Rome with his armies. Daniel sets forth the ten horns and the ten diadems. And that these are eradicated from the former ones--that three of the principal leaders are killed by Antichrist; that the other seven give him honor and wisdom and power"(Commentary on Revelation 18:9-11 [A.D. 284]).

"These shall hate the whore, to wit, the city, and shall burn her with fire [Rev. 17:16]. Now that one of the heads was, as it were, slain to death, and that the stroke of his death was directed, he speaks of Nero. For it is plain that when the cavalry sent by the senate was pursuing him, he himself [Nero] cut his throat. Him therefore when raised up God will send as a worthy king, but worthy in such a way as the Jєωs merited. And since he is to have another name, he shall also appoint another name that so the Jєωs may receive him as if he were the Christ" (ibid. 18:16).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"Since the true Christ is to come a second time, the adversary makes use of the expectations of the simple, and especially of those of the circuмcision; and he brings in a certain man who is a magician, and who is quite expert in sorceries and enchantments of beguiling craftiness. This one shall seize for himself the power of the Roman Empire and shall falsely style himself Christ. By this name-- 'Christ'--he shall deceive the Jєωs, who are expecting the Anointed, and he shall seduce the Gentiles by his magical illusions" (Catechetical Lectures 15:11 [A.D. 348]).

"This aforementioned Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts, perhaps, but all reigning at the same time. After these there shall be an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by the evil craft of his magic shall seize upon the Roman power. Of the kings who reigned before him, three shall he humble [Dan. 7:24], and the remaining seven he shall have as subjects under him" (ibid. 15:12).

"Having beguiled the Jєωs by the lying signs and wonders of his magical deceit, until they believe he is the expected Christ, he shall afterwards be characterized by all manner of wicked deeds of inhumanity and lawlessness, as if to outdo all the unjust and impious men who have gone before him. He shall display against all men, and especially against us Christians, a spirit that is murderous and most cruel, merciless and wily. For three years and six months only shall h e be the perpetrator of such things; and then he shall be destroyed by the glorious second coming from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus, the true Christ, who shall destroy him and send him to Gehenna" (ibid.).

Augustine

"Daniel prophesies of the last judgment in such a way as to indicate that Antichrist shall first come and to carry on his destruction to the eternal reign of the saints. For when in prophetic vision he had seen four beasts, signifying four kingdoms, and the fourth conquered by a certain king, who is recognized as Antichrist, and after this the eternal kingdom of the Son of Man, that is to say, of Christ" (City of God 20:19 [A.D. 419]).

008 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 07, 2010, 09:30:11 AM »

Clarification----when I say Hutton Gibson's view is plausible, I am speaking of the Fr. Berry scenario only which he (H. Gibson) forwarded to his list. Whether Mr. Gibson agrees in all details with Fr. Berry is another matter.

Caraffa · « **Reply #14 on:** January 08, 2010, 05:45:58 PM »

I would agree with what Belloc, TheD, and Arborman have said. I myself attend the Indult most of the time. How traditional Indult priests are varies from place to place, though one does have to look out for the Anglo-Catholic problem that seems to affect Great Britain more than anywhere else though the US is not immune.