Letter to a spiritually struggling friend

Dear Friend of Mine,

Do not fret the spiritual struggles you face. You will face plenty. It is important to understand the causes of these. Part of the reasons why we struggle is because we are facing demonic temptation that we fall into. For according to the Blessed Synkletike, "just as those who want to kindle a fire choke from the smoke and the tears at the start, but later on accomplish what they are seeking, so it happens with us in precisely the same way, if we really want to ignite the Divine fire in our hearts" (Evergetinos, Hypothesis XXVIII). There was an Elder who was by someone "why am I continually negligent?" and the Elder answered, "Because you have not yet seen the sun." If we force ourselves to get closer to God, we are "like a Confessor (of the Faith") (ibid). I encourage you, friend, to keep forcing yourself to keep in this spiritual struggle. The flesh will fade away someday.

A monk once found himself in a state of negligence. He quickly reproved himself and ceased not to be negligent recalling every day could ultimately be his judgment day. He was then greatly attacked by demons one time while doing his service and when he challenged the demons as to why they attack him, they responded, "When you were in a state of negligence...we had no interest in you; but as soon as you rose up against us, we rose up against you" (XXIX). We see how frightened the demons are of us when we remain steadfast. Perhaps your minor slip is troubling you, confess this sin and conceal nothing from your confessor! No blasphemous thought, no temptation, and no sin should ever cause you shame when face to face with Our Lord in the great sacrament of reconciliation! He instituted this blessed sacrament as a weapon for our spiritual combat. Turn to Him for He already knows your fallings and your shortcomings and yet He refuses to condemn you.

Finally, remember, in the spiritual life, there are moments of calm and there are moments of storm. Do not fear the storm. Strive to remain in the stormy moments the most for it is these moments in which we are brought closer to God. Is not iron strengthened through the fire which burns it? During moments of calm is when we are most easily deceived. We step out for a moment thinking that all is safe only to realize it was but the eye of a passing hurricane. Rather than being at the end, we are in the very center and now we have found ourselves defenseless against the passions. The demons will fear your soul the most if they see it constantly forcing itself to get closer to God. Do not fear when this happens but continue to wrestle toward this goal remembering the great joys of Heaven you will be rewarded for your perseverance. Get back up again for every single time you fall that you may be found getting back up or upright when He comes for you. And remember that God loves you!

Christians in Hell

There is a story related in the Gerontikon and also in the Evergetinos of Abba Makarios the Egyptian traveling through the desert and coming across a skull. The skull speaks out to him and identifies itself as having once belonged to one of the high priests of the Pagan religion. It describes its torments in Hell but when the Christians pray, there is a temporary moment in which the tormented in Hell are allowed for a moment to look at each other. Abba Makarios, curious for more about the fate of the damned, inquires the skull as to whether there are even greater sufferings than what the skull speaks of. The skull announces that there are indeed, below the Pagans, the souls of Christians who disobeyed the commandments of God and their sufferings are even worse for they knew what they ought to have done.

Yes, there will be Christians in Hell. I remember seeing this obvious truth in high school and going up to my non-denominational pastor who would quiz me on whether or not I believed that Jesus was the Son of God, risen from the dead, and that I was a sinner who he died for. I'd answer in the affirmative. He would tell me then that I was not going to Hell. But there was always those texts in the Scriptures that continued to disturb me. The thought of entering before Heaven, being one who would be denied for not all who say "Lord, Lord" will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Then there was the thought of the judgment in the Book of Revelation, every man being judged according to his works. Those who's names are not written in the Book of Life will be sent to the Lake of Fire for eternity. That faith without works is dead. But these were such Catholic doctrines, they couldn't have been real!

The problem with this strict definition of sola fide is that it ends up ultimately doing nothing more than turning faith into a work. For one must constantly, intellectually profess the same thing over and over again and the moment that one stops, faith departs. But faith is more than just intellectual profession. Faith comes in all shapes and sizes. It can be as tiny as a mustard seed but still move the largest of mountains. It can even be tinier than a mustard seed as emphasized by all who cannot move mountains. Faith is an action. Faith is not an intellectual profession. Faith is making it to church every Sunday morning. Faith is attending the Divine Liturgy attentively and with attunement of the soul to the Will of God. Faith is being entirely consumed by the Divine Will that there is nothing of your own human will left. The Catholic doctrine is not against sola fide but against the doctrine that faith is an intellectual profession. The Catholic doctrine is sola fide formata. Formed faith alone is the doctrine. This faith is formed through the acts of charity and repentance required of a Christian. Those Christians who practice wickedness will not make it to Heaven just because they intellectually professed to faith. Rather, they will be sentenced to Hell for a grueling eternity. And many Christians nowadays who proceed to persecute their fellow brethren for following the ancient tradition of the Church over the modernist infiltrations will be sentenced to far greater tortures than the Pagans who did the same.

I had a dream the other day. My confessor was in it. My godmother was in it. No one else was. We were talking together when my godmother told me to follow my confessor into the nave. I did. Only there was no narthex. Leading into the nave was a hall suspended in the air. The hall was sloped downward but it was so high above the ground, you could see the clouds below. I saw my confessor walk through this hall and leap into the nave. I walked through this hall and began slipping. Not certain as to whether to jump, I hesitated. I saw my confessor reaching toward me but I was too far. I began falling.

This is what the betrayal of the faith looks like. It is this eternal slipping and falling down through the clouds all the way to the ground. It is important that we always pay heed to the fact that we will all die some day. Man doesn't want to deal with this any more. He wants to create medical experiments that prolong his own life and make him immortal. You cannot do this though. You can never become immortal. You may try all you want but God will have the last say in things and His rules are final. It is important that we make the jump and reach for the hands of wise men. It is important we obey the advice of those who have been entrusted with spiritual care over us. They may not always be right, but unless they are telling you something that you know to be a violation of divine law, you ought to follow them. I am well aware that Crazy Church Lady would never tell me to do anything that would be a violation of divine law. And my priest will always be there to help me move up the ladder of divine ascent.

But there is always the possibility of Hell. The moment you turn away from God is the moment that you could then speedily repose and find yourself there for the rest of your eternity. A Christian who does this, paying no heed to the commandments, will suffer even worse pain than the skull which was encountered by St. Makarios as he walked through the desert of Egypt. The experience of Hell will be unbearable. They will be shocked to find themselves in Hell and they will be horrified by the fact that they were serving the legions of the Devil while dressed up as a Christian the entire time. The road to Heaven is narrow and few will make it, but the path to destruction is broad and many will be lost.

Historicism Debunked, Pt. 4 - The Fall of Rome

One of the many claims made by historicists, and their entire theology rests on this, is that Rome fell in 476 A.D. This is the foundation claim of historicists because they insist that the ten horns on the beast are the barbarian tribes that sacked the Western half of the Roman Empire. David Nikao Wilcoxson maintains this view. But if the view is historically untenable, then of course, it collapses in toto. Indeed, the view is actually highly historically untenable. There is a German thesis that has also been developed on the subject of the history of imperial claims to the title of Roman Emperor called the zweikaiserproblem or "problem of two emperors". It reflects on the fact there often was not a single Roman Emperor in charge of the entire territories of the Roman Empire at a given time.

It was during the reign of the Emperor Diocletian that the Roman Empire was first divided into a tetrarchy of two Augusti or ruling Emperors and two Ceasares or designated successors. "The system, often called the Dominate, soon fell apart and Constantine restored the monarchy by defeating all his rivals (313 AD). Later, however, the Empire was permanently split between the two sons of Theodosius, in 395 AD. The Eastern half, with its capital in Constantinople, is also known as the Byzantine Empire." (Francois Velde, "The Title of Emperor") Those Eastern Emperors reigned in an unbroken line of succession through until the sack of Constantinople in 1453 A.D.! The problem is that a modernist historians typically try to negate the impact of Christianity on the Empire and proclaim that Rome was inherently Pagan. Thus, when the Western half was sacked in 476 A.D., the entire Empire fell. But how could that be if the Empire's capital wasn't even in Rome at the time?

Another further point to make is the succession through the West of the Emperor Charlemagne. Some may not recognize his legitimacy to the claim of Roman Empire, but the West did. And they may have had a solid basis for it too. The West eventually claimed a thesis of translatio imperii on the grounds that it too was permitted to have a Western Emperor and that the Empress Theodora arose through questionable means.

"While in practice there had been no emperor in the West since 480, this does not mean the position was vacant. In Roman political thought the empire was universal and indivisible. When in the fourth and fifth centuries there had been separate emperors in East and West, they were seen as colleagues ruling a single empire. This view of the indivisible nature of the empire survived in eight-century Constantinople, whose citizens still saw themselves as Romans. It was also shared by the Western kings who continued to recognize the superior status of the emperors in Constantinople. So, Charles could not be proclaimed Emperor without Eastern agreement, which was unlikely to be forthcoming.

Pope Leo, however, had a solution to this constitutional issue. The young emperor Constantine VI had been blinded and killed by his mother in 797 when he tried to revive the iconoclast policies of his predecessors. She had then taken the throne for herself, the first woman to rule in her own right in the history of the Roman empire, but the uneasy nature of her position was indicated by her using the male form of the imperial title. Her regime remained weak until her overthrow in 802. However, in the West in 800 the fact that she was a woman allowed it to be claimed that the imperial office was vacant, and thus no Eastern consent was needed." (Roger Collins, Keeper of the Keys of Heaven, 147)

Philotheus of Pskov, in the 16th century, developed an idea of understanding Russia as the Third Rome. To him, there couldn't be a "Fourth Rome". Russia was the final Rome. Rome had to be led by a Christian in accordance with his interpretation of prophecy. (Marshall T. Poe, "Moscow, the Third Rome", in The National Council for Soviet and East European Research, 4) This, of course, led to a development of another translatio imperii thesis among the Russians. Also justified by the fact that Ivan III was wed to the niece of the last Paleologue emperor in 1472. Peter the Great showed the Holy Roman Emperor in Vienna a letter signed by Maximilian I recognizing the title of Emperor and Autocrat of All Russians as applied to the Czar Ivan III. (Velde) This indicates that the Russians even acknowledged the legitimacy of the Holy Roman Empire.

There was even reference to the Ottoman Emperor, after the sack of Constantinople in 1453 A.D., as the "Prince of Turkish Romans" (Katharina Süß, "Der 'Fall' Konstantinople(s)"). Considering that often in the Roman Imperial of ancient, and even through the Byzantine medieval period, Emperors often arose through treacheries, civil wars (as did the Paleologues), and other means, the Ottoman Emperor would have just as much claim to legitimacy as soon as he inherited the throne as any one else. Certainly, partisans will view the date of the Fall of Rome differently but the established evidence shows that only a hack could trace the Fall of Rome back to 476 A.D.! Considering this is the basis of the historicist school of the interpretation of the Book of Revelation, the actual facts of history show the entire interpretation sorely wanting. Of course, the Fourth Beast subdues the entire world under its dominion. Perhaps we can see this with the claims of legitimacy made to being the genuine successor of the Roman Empire? Maybe there is something to say on this as to how everyone wants to rule the Roman Empire. From France and Germany to Constantinople to Moscow. All roads lead to Rome, don't they? This raging beast ultimately sees kings divide it into ten parts. Was that really fulfilled with the barbarian invasions? But Rome hadn't conquered the world just yet!

To Sedevacate? - Pt. 1

I decided to pick up St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine as I wrestle with the question of what to do regarding Pope Francis. It is possible he is an Antipope and I have indeed referred to him as such before and while the sedevacantist position has its grounding in historical theology, I don't think one should ever jump to it rashly on the basis of a few texts. In the next part, I'll show that St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine can definitely be read to support the sedevacantist position but for now, I want to go over some of the things he states about whether or not the Pope could be a heretic. There is a distinction he makes between occultic (hidden) heretics and manifest heretics. Only the latter is ipso facto excommunicated but the former, while holding error, can still in fact be full members of the Church. I'll discuss this distinction more in my next post too. Bellarmine has this to say about four opinions on whether the Pope can err:

"1) Should the Pope define something, even as Pope, and even with a general Council, it can be heretical in itself, and he can teach others heresy and that this has in fact happened thus. This is the opinion of all the heretics of this time, and especially of Luther, who in his book on councils recorded the errors of even general councils that the Pope approved. It is also the opinion of Calvin, who asserted that at some time the Pope with the whole college of Cardinals manifestly taught heresy on that question of whether the soul of man is extinguished with the body, which is a manifest lie, as well show a little later. Next, he teaches in the same book that the Pope can err with a general council.

2) The second opinion is that the Pope even as Pope can be a heretic and teach heresy, if he defines something without a general Council, something that this opinion holds did in fact happen. Nilos Cabásilas has followed this opinion in his book against the primacy of the Pope; a few others follow the same opinion, especially amongst the Parisian theologians such as John Gerson, Almain and still, Alonso de Castro as well as Pope Adrian VI in his question on Confirmation; all of these constitute infallibility of judgment on matters of faith not with the Pope but with the Church or with a General Council.

3) The Third opinion is another extreme, that the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy, even if he alone should define some matter, as Albert Pighius says.

4) The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of nearly all Catholics. ...

From these four opinions, the first is heretical; the second is not properly heretical, for we see that some who follow this opinion are tolerated by the Church, even though it seems altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy. The third is probable, though it is still not certain. The fourth is very certain and must be asserted." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. IV, ch. II)

We see that the opinion that the Pope can only be deemed infallible when speaking in agreement with the Church and with the Councils on his own is not necessarily heretical as determined by Bellarmine. Of course, Vatican I seems to suggest that this opinion is now a heresy but, it limits the Papal authority to a matter of ex cathedra statements. If the Chair of St. Peter is derived from the Church, then only speaking in accordance with the Councils and the Church, and not of himself, can the Pope be said to be speaking infallibly. So there is a legitimate case to be made still for the second opinion. That said, regardless of how the ex cathedra statement is interpreted as, it is only when he is defining a matter of faith. We have had multiple encyclicals and councils containing errors as of recently that have never been submitted as de fide statements. To say the Church is bound to error when it is only made pastoral and not as a matter of dogma is erroneous. For the Church is only bound to that which is a de fide matter. Neo-Catholics aren't particularly conservative as they pretend to be. They've only been concerned with conserving the mistakes made by liberals. Some of them have even insisted the Church is bound by everything a Pope says or does, which is highly inaccurate. This is why Bellarmine also states that, "just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more should he endeavor to destroy the Church" (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. II, Ch. XXIX)

Now, Pope Celestine I shows in his epistle that Nestorius lost authority the moment he began to preach his heresies. But we note in the case of St. Cyprian that he viciously disagreed with the Pope's question on whether or not heretics should be rebaptized. Dom John Chapman notes this instance, commenting that "St. Jerome...tells us: 'Bl. Cyprian attempted to avoid heresy, and therefore rejecting the baptism conferred by heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then bishop of the city of Rome, and twenty-second from St. Peter; but his attempt was in vain." (Studies on the Early Papacy, 48) The Pope had Tradition on his side in this matter. Though he never defined the position as a de fide statement, the Pope had the Tradition on his side, St. Cyprian did not. St. Cyprian could have definitely been considered a Donatist heretic but he was not. He was not because he was moved for what he felt was orthodoxy and his push toward his position was for what he resisted as a heresy. Citing St. Vincent of Lerins Chapman writes, "For who is so mad as to doubt that blessed Cyprian, that light of all saints and martyrs, with his colleagues shall reign for eternity with Christ? Or who, on the contrary, so sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and the other plagues, who boast that it is by the authority of that Council that they rebaptize, shall burn with the Devil for ever?" (50)

We might finish this section with words of the Great Enunciator, Marcel Lefebvre,

"To be a heretic, it is necessary to be pertinacious in adhering to the error; it is not enough to have uttered an heretical phrase. For example, on the subject of the Blessed Trinity―a very difficult subject subject―we might make a mistake or blunder in speech and say something that is not very orthodox. If someone points it out to us we retract; but if they accuse us of heresy, or excommunicate us...how frightful." (Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, 16)

I want to also add that sedevacantists should not be treated as heretics or Protestants. That is grotesque slander from the Neo-Catholics who have shown that they only intend to conserve every single mistake the liberals in the Church have made via "pastoral" decisions any way. Sedevacantists may adhere to the position that the See of Peter remains vacant as a heretic holds that position but they are still in a valid Apostolic Succession. The current situation the Church is in right now is comparable to the Great Schism of the 14th century. That year in which we had a multitude of claimants to the Papal Throne and holy people on both sides adhering to the other as legitimate. We are in that situation currently. Sedevacantists must be treated as our fellow brethren. They are often better Catholics than some of those who uphold the current Pope as legitimate too.

American Harlot

"Behold, I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast" (Rev. 17:4). She had the name, "Mystery, Babylon the Great" (17:5). There are metaphorical symbols that we may not fully understand but we are given to know that the Antichrist will find himself opposed to the Whore of Babylon just before her judgment. He will be God's instrument of vengeance against the Great Harlot. The Harlot has carried out great influence and has even gone to cause these kings who will work together with the Antichrist to overthrow the Harlot. We don't know who the Harlot is. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman has the following to say about what tradition has stated about her:

"Secondly, let it be considered, that as Babylon is a type of Rome, and of the world of sin and vanity, so Rome in turn may be a type also, whether of some other city, or of a proud and deceiving world. The woman is said to be Babylon as well as Rome, and as she is something more than Babylon, namely, Rome, so again she may be something more than Rome, which is yet to come. Various great cities in Scripture are made, in their ungodliness and ruin, types of the world itself." ("Lectures on Antichrist", Part 4)

In reading Richard Bauckham's The Theology of the Book of Revelation, he writes the following about this Mother of Harlots:

"From John's perspective Rome's evil lay primarily in absolutizing her power and prosperity. Consequently she pursued and maintained them at the expense of her victims. According to 18:24, it is not just for the martyrdom of Christians, but for the slaughter of all her innocent victims that Rome will be judged: 'in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who have been slain on earth'. There is therefore a sense in which Revelation takes a view from the 'underside of history', from the perspective of the victims of Rome's power and glory. It takes this perspective not because John and his Christian readers necessarily belonged to the classes which suffered rather than shared Rome's power and prosperity. It takes this perspective because, if they are faithful in their witness to the true God, their opposition to Rome's oppression and their dissociation of themselves from Rome's evil will make them victims of Rome in solidarity with the other victims of Rome. The special significance of Christian martyrdom is that it makes the issue clear. Those who bear witness to the one true God, the only true absolute, to whom all political power is subject, expose Rome's idolatrous self-deification for what it is." (38-39)

It is interesting that everything that Bauckham writes here can very elaborately be applied to the United States of America today. In the Harlot is found the blood of all the innocent, oppressed, prophets, and saints. It is her judgment that reveals to the world the evils of Babylon the Great and yet, the world, participating in her sins, has also become and taken part in the sins of Babylon the Great to such an extent that they mourn her death. Christians are told to join the courts of Heaven in celebrating the triumph of Heaven over the Whore of Babylon as she is ultimately devoured by even the very barbarous enemies of the Antichrist. Her sins have worn down the saints of the Most High to such an extent that those who provide faithful witness will already be in a state of desiring the ultimate triumph over the Great Harlot. They will not mourn for the rest of the world who partakes in her sins for next, the Antichrist who leveled her will also be slain.

But does this apply so strongly to Rome? Maybe the ancient readers viewed it as such but Babylon is called "Mystery" here. A "mystery", as the ancient Christians understood the term, was something that one was to be initiated into. As Newman gives us Babylon as a type, and Rome as a type, so maybe also the great misunderstanding of this Evil Harlot that extended her sins to the Heavens. On many issues, St. Augustine not only exonerated, but also proved why God allowed Rome to blossom and grow. It was not because of her wickedness, certainly not. But because she was morally superior to the other nations. Yet Rome became infatuated with its false deities and so it refused to acknowledge that it was the true God who delivered the Carthaginians and the Druids into her hands.

According to the Romans, the Carthaginians were slain for their infatuation with the evils and horrors of infanticide. There is some speculation that the Carthaginians might have even come from the same bloodlines as the Philistines and worshiped the same demons as the Philistines. This horrified the far more civilized Romans and they declared war on Carthage and subdued it. Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars, recounts the horrifying details of the Druid practice of human sacrifice. Horrified by this, Caesar, in his highest and most civil sensibilities, declared all-out war on the Druids until they put an immediate end to the practice. But Rome refused to admit that God had delivered these into her hands.

Rome's chief sin was not its immorality but its haughtiness and its self-deification.

Certainly Christians underwent many persecutions under Rome but these were at different intervals of time, with some persecutions being worse, some Emperors being more tolerable toward the Christian religion, and then settling down the next minute. These were persecution cycles they went through. Candida Moss declares it The Myth of Persecution but that is an instance of extreme nonsense from the anti-Christian world. There was persecution, but it exited at differing intervals until the Holy Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be legal. Even during and after Constantine, orthodox Christians still experienced different intervals of persecution which depended on the governing authorities of the Roman Empire. The sack in 476 A.D. spared the West and enabled Christianity to rule the Empire as Charlemagne was soon crowned as Emperor Augustus by the Pope of Rome. To the great fury of the Roman Emperor in Constantinople. But the result is clear. The subjection of the Roman Emperor, whether in the West or in the East, to the Church, proved decisive in Rome's survival. This is the argument that St. Augustine makes in The City of God. Though pride is the deadliest of all sins, it is hard to see that as extending to the offense of Heaven as greatly as the Harlot's sins. No, the sin here must be seen as unforgivable. Pride is a deadly sin but it is forgivable through the greatest acts of humility.

There are some who revel in the sins they commit and they look for ways to commit even greater sins. This is the manifestation of the sin of the Whore of Babylon. We have seen with our governors here in America how they revel and glorify in the sin of murder. One governor says, "I can kill them when they're 24 weeks in the womb!" And the next governor says, "I can kill them when they're outside the womb!" It's no longer that they are horrified by the sinfulness of their perversities but instead they go out of their way to increase the number of their sins! They bask in these sins. They raise their hearts to the skies and say, "Nothing shall happen to us! Those who criticize us are morons! Nothing to see here!" Everything of the Whore of Babylon, from persecution of the saints through murderous campaigns of the Ku Klux Klan's assaults and killings of Catholics, to the chaining of slaves, to the leveling of innocent civilians overseas, to even the slaying of infants! Everything of the Whore of Babylon is a sin of which the stench reaches to the heights of the Most High.

The religion of Antichrist is rather interesting. He will honor a god of forces and yet exalt himself above all that which is called God. Much the same, the Whore of Babylon seems to mimic or even foreshadow the religion of Antichrist in a sense. St. Hippolytus tells us that when Rome is subdued by the ten kings, these kings will hold sovereignty over democracies that resemble kingdoms. "As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies, and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms" (On Christ and Antichrist, 27). And St. John Henry Cardinal Newman remarks on the lust of the United States of America for its state religion:

"On the other hand, after having broken away from all restraint as regards God and man, they gave a name to that reprobate state itself into which they had thrown themselves, and exalted it, that very negation of religion, or rather that real and living blasphemy, into a kind of god. They called it LIBERTY, and they literally worshipped it as a divinity. It would almost be incredible, that men who had flung off all religion should be at the pains to assume a new and senseless worship of their own devising, whether in superstition or in mockery, were not events so recent and so notorious. After abjuring our Lord and Saviour, and blasphemously declaring Him to be an impostor, they proceeded to decree, in the public assembly of the nation, the adoration of Liberty and Equality as divinities: and they appointed festivals besides in honour of Reason, the Country, the Constitution, and the Virtues. Further, they determined that tutelary gods, even dead men, may be canonized, consecrated, and worshipped; and they enrolled in the number of these some of the most notorious infidels and profligates of the last century. The remains of the two principal of these were brought in solemn procession into one of their churches, and placed upon the holy altar itself; incense was offered to them, and the assembled multitude bowed down in worship before one of them—before what remained on earth of an inveterate enemy of Christ." ("Lectures on Antichrist", Part 2)

He further states of the American religion, "And further, let it be remarked, that there was a tendency in the infatuated people I have spoken of, to introduce the old Roman democratic worship, as if further to show us that Rome, the fourth monster of the prophet's vision, is not dead. They even went so far as to restore the worship of one of the Roman divinities (Ceres) by name, raised a statue to her, and appointed a festival in her honour."

Babylon is a type, Rome is a type, and currently, America is a type. If course for our history is not reversed drastically, the current state of both political affairs and religious affairs could usher in the Reign of Antichrist sooner than we imagine. Of the day and hour no one knows. And the Great Harlot shall not be revealed to us until her destruction. But we can clearly see how the United States of America fulfills so many characteristics. The question is whether it will continue to harden and claim that she is Queen, not a widow. Will she begin an even greater persecution of Christians than did even the Soviet Union? I resist speculating more for while the United States clearly fits the description of this effeminate Harlot, I do not believe any one will know until the coming of Antichrist who she actually is.

Historicism Debunked, Pt. 3 - The Myth of Persecution

In order to bolster their claims that the Papacy is the Antichrist, Protestants are obliged to come up with a whole persecution legend of how the Papacy somehow rose up to persecute the "true Christians" and was in power performing this action the whole time. This is historically problematic to say the least. Numerous details are left out. Numbers from the Inquisitions, Religious Wars, and individual massacres are grotesquely inflated, context is ignored, and they'll even claim certain sects as their own. Let's just state this, it's a fictitious claim to begin with so naturally, numbers have to be inflated. One source claims that the Inquisitions killed an estimated 50,000,000-150,000,000 people! I tried to contact the author of that website in the past, ages ago, asking him what his credentials were. His health seems to be poor and at the time, his wife was also battling a serious illness. It seems she has since reposed as well. He never got back to me. I contacted him recently but have still not heard a response. I don't know if it's because he is simply so caught up in this fictitious narrative that he thinks any one who disagrees with him is a Satanic Beast or simply that he doesn't want to engage in counter-arguments. Regardless, he needs serious prayer so if you can commend him to your prayers, that would be the Christian thing to do.

But again, these numbers are grotesquely exaggerated and there is a huge context missing. Since all historicists maintain that the Papacy is a persecuting power, let's see if they can actually back those claims up. Albert Barnes, in his Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel states the following,

"This would be a persecuting power - "making war with the saints," and "wearing out the saints of the Most High." Can anyone doubt that this is true of the Papacy? The Inquisition; the "persecutions of the Waldenses;" the ravages of the Duke of Alva; the fires of Smithfield; the tortures at Goa - indeed, the whole history of the Papacy may be appealed to in proof that this is applicable to that power. If anything could have "worn out the saints of the Most High" - could have cut them off from the earth so that evangelical religion would have become extinct, it would have been the persecutions of the Papal power. In the year 1208, a crusade was proclaimed by Pope Innocent III against the Waldenses and Albigenses, in which a million of men perished. From the beginning of the order of the Jesuits, in the year 1540 to 1580, nine hundred thousand were destroyed. One hundred and fifty thousand perished by the Inquisition in thirty years. In the Low Countries fifty thousand persons were hanged, beheaded, burned, or buried alive, for the crime of heresy, within the space of thirty-eight years from the edict of Charles V, against the Protestants, to the peace of Chateau Cambresis in 1559. Eighteen thousand suffered by the hands of the executioner, in the space of five years and a half, during the administration of the Duke of Alva. Indeed, the slightest acquaintance with the history of the Papacy, will convince anyone that what is here said of "making war with the saints" Daniel 7:21, and "wearing out the saints of the Most High" Daniel 7:25, is strictly applicable to that power, and will accurately describe its history."

If I count correctly, that is a grand total of 2,280,000 Protestants killed by the Papacy. Definitely no where near the number claimed by the previous source cited. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Book of Revelation also cites Bp. Thomas Newton saying the exact same thing. But here's the full context.

Heretics are a pestilence upon the Church. When one actually studies the context of these "persecutions", one will see that not only have Protestants committed equal crimes against Catholics throughout the years, but also that in many instances, Protestants were the instigators. Who exactly were the Waldensians, the Lollards, and the Albigensians? It's important to start with the Albigensians. The Albigensians, or the Cathar movement, was a sect that "believed the material world was the creation of an evil deity, and that the pope's church was not only corrupt, but also false and evil...[they] also believed in reincarnation and rejected the sacraments, prayers for the dead, and the veneration of images and relics" (47)

Waldensians initially sought approval for their order from the Pope, but somewhere down the line, distanced themselves even more overtly from him and began "to argue that that the ultimate supreme authority was the Bible, not the pope. In addition, much like the Cathars, the Waldenses also questioned the validity of the church's sacraments, prayers for the dead, and the veneration of saints and icons." (Carlos M.N. Eire, Reformations: The Early Modern World, 48)

The Lollards who followed Wycliffe's sacramentarian movement gained incredible popularity in England but then showed a demonic hostility toward iconography, "On taking an image of St. Catherine [of Alexandria] from a chapel, one Lollard said to another: Aha...my dear chap, now God has sent us fuel to cook our cabbage and appease hunger. This holy image will make a bonfire for us. By axe and fire she will undergo a new martyrdom, and perhaps through cruelty of those new torments she will come at last to the kingdom of heaven." (52)

Anabaptists weren't all peaceful either. One sect, "a group of fanatics under Jan van Batenburg (1495-1538" were known as "swordsmen" and "indulged in sporadic terrorism in the Netherlands for nearly a decade after 1535" (Euan Cameron, The European Reformation, 333).

St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine highlights the fact of religious wars ongoing between Protestants and Catholics and notes that,

"St. Augustine, disputing on this citation, says in the time of Antichrist the Devil will be loosed, and hence that persecution will be much more severe than all the ones that preceded it; the Devil can do so much more cruelly loosed than bound....Hippolytus the Martyr and St. Cyril say that the martyrs whom Antichrist will kill are going to be more illustrious than all the previous ones, because the old martyrs fought against the human ministers of the devil, but these will fight against the Devil himself...we have experienced nothing like that from the year 600 or even 1000." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. III, ch. VII)

He then challenges the heretics, "what comparison is there of that sort of persecution with that carried out by Nero, Domitian, Decius, Diocletian, and others? Accordingly, for one heretic who is burned, a thousand Christians formerly were burned—and that was exercised in the whole Roman world, not only in one place. Furthermore, at present when the supreme penalty is given a man is merely burned, but in ancient times they exercised the most unbelievable torments." (ibid)

And this is evident when one examines the martyrdom of St. Catherine of Alexandria, the Forty Martyrs who had rocks thrown at them, the martyr Barbara who was locked in the tower by her father, the martyr Irene who escaped numerous tortures before finally laying down in a coffin having converted thousands to Christianity, St. George who was brutally tortured multiple times before finally being being beheaded, etc. And further, "the fact is that heretics killed many more Catholics in the last ten or fifteen years in France and Flanders than inquisitors burned heretics in perhaps the last hundred." (ibid)

One could even add that if one takes the date of 538 as the start of supposed "Antichrist" reign, you have to take into account the Holy Emperor Justinian's torments of a demon that caused him to turn on numerous orthodox Christians, the iconoclastic Roman Emperors who persecuted men such as St. John of Damascus, framing him for a crime that had the Muhammadans cut his hand off, the imprisonment of St. Maximus the Confessor whose tongue was cut out, and numerous Patriarchs of Constantinople who were deposed by these Emperors for upholding the orthodox Catholic doctrine. And yet it's the Papacy who is the persecuting power? Clerics don't even have the authority to kill or maim a heretic. Only the legitimate authorities of a State have that right! (St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. IV, 378)

Now, let's not sanitize history. Catholics have done some wretched things, especially to the Waldensians.

"Those in the Piedmont valleys enjoyed religious peace from 1536-1559, owing to the political dependence of the districts upon France. A contrary policy was pursued by the Dukes of Savoy; but the Waldenses at the very outset successfully resisted, and in 1561 were granted in certain districts the free exercise of their religion. In 1655 violence was again fruitlessly resorted to. Later in the same century (1686, 1699) some of them, under stress of renewed persecution, emigrated to Switzerland and Germany." (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Waldenses")

Catholics are not perfect but indeed are sinners too. That said, the Protestants have done some nasty things to Catholics. And sites that claim this exaggerated number do a grotesque disservice to Christianity in toto by claiming such egregious absurdities as it clearly leads men away from God. 2,300,000 still seems like an exaggeration but when you give about 1,260 years for "beast power" to reign, that is remarkably light. Especially when you consider how much Adolf Hitler massacred in regards to innocent non-combatants in the years of 1939-1945. Or even how much Stalin was able to kill during his great persecutions of political opponents. And one final note, we may not ever know the exact total of numbers but...

"These data and others of the same nature bear out the assertion that the Inquisition marks a substantial advance in the contemporary administration of justice, and therefore in the general civilization of mankind. A more terrible fate awaited the heretic when judged by a secular court. In 1249 Count Raymund VII of Toulouse caused eighty confessed heretics to be burned in his presence without permitting them to recant. It is impossible to imagine any such trials before the Inquisition courts. The large numbers of burnings detailed in various histories are completely unauthenticated, and are either the deliberate invention of pamphleteers, or are based on materials that pertain to the Spanish Inquisition of later times or the German witchcraft trials (Vacandard, op. cit., 237 sqq.)." (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Inquisition")

Overall, the numbers of 50,000,000-150,000,000 given by our first source are a drastically unverified claim and to insist that the Catholic Church is just covering up the true numbers to "hide itself" from being identified as "the Antichrist" is just absurd. It's a blanket statement. Protestants underwent no where near the persecution that was let loose by the Roman Empire on the faithful Christians. That's just an historic fact. Much of their claim is based on a moronic persecution complex built on inflated pride. The Waldensians clearly disturbed public peace in preaching and spreading their errors into the Church much like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons go door-knocking on everyone's house nowadays disturbing them. The State's response toward them was brutal at times, and possibly over-the-top, but no where near the level of persecution. The Albigensians weren't even Christians but were Gnostics who held to "Good-god, bad-god" ideology and other Gnostic theology. The Lollards themselves persecuted and smashed churches much like the Black Lives Matter idiot, Shaun King, commands that his demented followers destroy all images of "White Jesus". At certain points, the Protestant killings of Catholics rivaled, if not even flat-out exceeded the numbers killed by Catholics. So the "beast" is not the Papacy. The Papacy never persecuted Christians. This is just simple nonsense.

Nevertheless, keep the man who wrote the article linked in your prayers. He needs healing. Both from his heresy and from the ailments he faces. God bless his soul!

Historicism Debunked, Pt. 2 - The Four Beasts

"The Second proof [that Antichrist has not come] is taken from another sign that will precede the times of Antichrist, which will be the desolation in every way possible of the Roman Empire. At length, it must be known that the Roman Empire was divided into ten kings, none of whom will be called 'King of the Romans,' although all will occupy some provinces of the Roman Empire in the same way that the King of France, the King Spain, the Queen of England, and by chance some others hold parts of the Roman Empire; at length they are not Roman kings or emperors, but until they cease to hold those dominions Antichrist cannot come." (St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. III, ch. V)

"In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings. It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord. For that the kingdom must be divided, and thus come to ruin, the Lord [declares when He] says: Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. It must be, therefore, that the kingdom, the city, and the house be divided into ten; and for this reason He has already foreshadowed the partition and division [which shall take place]." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. V, ch. 26)

It is clear that the beasts in the apocalyptic vision of Daniel 7 are accurately interpreted by the Protestant historicists as the succeeding Empires of the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, and Romans. I find the assertions of the Preterists to be baffling in regards to this text. For the symbolism of the third beast clearly depicts the division of the four generals of Alexander the Great and the Macedonian-Greek Empire. Further, this position is backed by St. Jerome as Bellarmine proves. Thus, Tradition establishes that the four beasts are the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, and the Romans. There is no need for Catholics to dispute this in order to shake off the false and blasphemous charge that the Papacy is Antichrist because the very St. Irenaeus who admits this also speaks of Our Lady such,

"And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience." (Against Heresies, Bk. V, ch. 19)

And what anti-Papist would speak of Our Lady like that? Indeed, they blasphemy Her and state that Our Lady could not possibly advocate for anybody attempting to claim that She's dead when in fact She was raised to life again three days after Her reposal!

So yes, the last beast is the Roman Empire. And there you have it. The heretics can now go on with their histories of the ten kings except...which one is even accurate? Adam Clarke teaches that it's the Lombards, the Exarchate of the Greeks in Ravenna, the Goths, Saxons, Saracens, Burgundians, Franks, Alemans, Buns, and the Roman Senate. John Gill holds that these are the Britons, Saxons, Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, Suevians and Alanes, Vandals, Almanes, Ostrogoths, Greeks (Exarchate of Ravenna, that is). Albert Barnes says that they are the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Sueves and Alans, Vandals, Franks, Burgundians, Heruli and Turingi, Saxons and Angles, Huns, and Lombards.

Still, the SDA heretics insist that the ten kings are the "Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Vandals, Suevi, Burgundians, Heruli, Anglo-Saxons, and Lombards" (Understanding Daniel and Revelation, 38). Barnes also gives the arrangement of Sir Isaac Newton, an Arian heretic himself, who gives the arrangement as the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa, the Suevians in Spain, the Visigoths, the Alans in Gallia, the Burgundians, the Franks, the Britons, the Huns, the Lombards, the Exarchate of Ravenna. The kingdoms are arranged differently in each narrative because none of the kingdoms actually exist. They are historical inventions of the heretics in order to indict the Papacy and justify their own blasphemies.

Is there a reason to provide further refutation at this point? The four beasts theory is solid and based in Tradition. It is given to us by men who believed in and affirmed the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady. It was not given to us by heretics. The problem as to their ten kings and why they cannot agree on an arrangement unless they plagiarize each other is that there were never ten kings who took over the western half of the Roman Empire. And there is the major problem as to their delusion. They think the Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D. That is false and it is generally upheld by secular classicists apologizing for the Pagan Roman Empire as distinct from the Christian Roman Empire. But the Roman Empire did under the Holy Emperor Constantine, declare Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. What else did Constantine do? He moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople. The "Western Roman Empire" is not what the fourth beast is. The fourth beast didn't split in half but remained whole while the ten horns reigned over it. It needs to be understood that the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire is the Fourth Beast because it is the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire fell to the Turks in 1453 A.D. So the heretics wishing to indict the Papacy on the Tradition that the beasts are understood as the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, and Romans, invent different arrangements of the ten kings because this was not what was prophesied in Scripture but rather the fall in 1453 A.D. was what was predicted. Their historical analysis of the Roman Empire is West-centered and neglects the totality of the Roman Empire either conscientiously or deliberately forgetting that the Roman Empire was still in-tact almost a millennium longer than they think it fell. Their ten kings simply cannot be because they never were.

Of course, this also should repudiate those who think the Antichrist is imminent in today's world. Considering that Bellarmine has indicated that as long as the ten kings reign, and Tradition affirms this, Antichrist will not come. John Gill cites St. Jerome, 

"all ecclesiastical writers, that when the Roman empire is destroyed, there shall be ten kings who shall divide it among them; and an eleventh shall arise, a little king, who shall conquer three of the ten kings; and having slain them, the other seven shall submit their necks to the conqueror:"

So if England, Spain, the Netherlands, Saudis, Emirates, Jordan, Liechenstein, all have their monarchies in-tact, and if the pretenders still have supporters to their claims of legitimacy, it cannot be said that the Antichrist will come. Until they cease holding the dominions of the Roman Empire, Antichrist will not come. The Protestant attempt to indict not only ignores the historical fact that the Roman Empire did not fall until 1453 A.D., but also it neglects that the Tradition upholds that the ten kings will lose their dominion over the former Roman provinces. Which they do not uphold. Antichrist is just not coming in our lifetime it seems.