No, I don't "privately interpret". That's not the case. Rather, I publicly state my opinion, I publicly state that I have come to the conclusion that the Robber Council is the abomination of desolation.
The Protestant doctrine of private interpretation of Scripture does not mean you keep your interpretation to yourself. It means you interpret the Scriptures based on your own private judgement, and then use your private interpretation as the basis for your belief. That is precisely what you are doing.
Please pardon me for not being as well acquainted with Protestant doctrine as you are. As a Catholic I have dogma, the rule of faith, which enables me to recognise and to hold Catholic truth, in the midst of the darkness of so many errors
But It [the holy Synod] hath resolved to condemn whatsoever things are contrary thereunto, in express and specific canons, in the manner following; in order that all men, with the help of Christ, using the rule of faith, may, in the midst of the darkness of so many errors, more easily be able to recognise and to hold Catholic truth.
Using the rule of faith and my own upper storey, I can recognise a robber council as such. So, I can see that there was a most solemn revolt and that virtually all bishops are apostates or modernist heretics.
Then, reading scripture, like Catholics do, I use the comments of the fathers and doctors as well as authorized exegesis of the magisterium of the Church, to make sure I am on the right track.
It is St. John Chrysostom who says that the abominatio desolationis
is the hosts of heretics of the Antichrist which will render (reddidit) the souls of many desolate. And I laugh out loud, when freshmen call me a protestant for daring to again use my own upper storey to connect the last two dots.
Same thing with the consummatio saeculi
. I won't be bothered when you copy quotes of theologians and Popes, which just show that they have adopted Pastor aeternus
, which teaches that there will be shepherds usque ad consummationem saeculi
trad123 has posted the only quote so far, which addresses our question, at what time span or point in time the consummatio will happen. Up to when shepherds are promised by Our Lord. The only one, which contradicts my opinion. Augustine says usque ad finem saeculi et usque ad Domini iudicium
(EPISTOLA 208, A. Feliciae virgini
, choose elenchus = 208
) As you can see, Augustine distinguishes between finis saeculi
and iudicium Domini
. Following Augustine, the finis saeculi
obviously happens before the iudicium Domini
. Also note that Pastor aeternus
does not add a iudicium Domini
to usque ad consummationem saeculi
. So Augustine is opposed to my view, but if my view is correct, then he is not in accord with Pastor aeternus
Then we have John Chrysostom, who equates the consummatio
with the great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be.
(Mt 24,21) which is also annunciated by Daniel: a time shall come such as never was from the time that nations began even until that time.
(Dan 12,1) (see my previous post for links)
The Church, as well as theologians worth that designation, well know that Daniel 12 is about the end of the world
. The Douay-Rheims bible even has it in the title of the Chapter: Michael shall stand up for the people of God: with other things relating to Antichrist, and the end of the world.
At the end of the world, when the scattering of the band of the holy people shall be accomplished, all these things shall be finished.
(Dan 12,7) It is absurd to imagine, that a completely scattered band of the holy people is at the same time gathered by shepherds or even a Pope. Pastor aeternus
does not only say that there will be shepherds usque ad consummationem saeculi
, but also that they fulfill a purpose.Conclusion:
To defend your claim, that there will be shepherds even to the end of the great tribulation, you would have to furnish some sort of evidence other than your seemingly firm conviction.