Well, it is a good thing that the prophets of old didn't have the concern of being politically correct (or whatever the name we give to it). I remember the prophets speaking of Syria or Egypt or Babylon in... well... not very flattery ways. Should we consider these prophecies hate-speeches?
These ancient prophets are so lucky to be already dead... They could have been sued.
Though 538 is not when the fighting stopped with the Ostrogoths, the defeat by Belisarius was a great victory for freeing the church from the potential interference from the Germanic Church, and paved the way for elevating the pope as "Head of all Churches".
"The fall of all three Arian kingdoms is not the prophetic marker associated with 538. The issue is the recognition of prophetic fulfillment in the rise to power of the little horn (the beast), primarily because of its prophesied attack against God's plan of salvation, His Law, and His people". Heidi Heiks, 508,538,1798,1843 Source Book.
"In the sixth century the Papacy had become firmly established. It's seat of power was fixed in the imperial city, and the bishop of Rome was declared to be the head of the entire church. Paganism had given place to the Papacy....and now began the 1260 years of papal oppression foretold in the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. Christians were forced to choose, either to yield their integrity and accept the papal ceremonies and worship, or to wear away their lives in dungeons ....." Great Controversy, EGW
"But was there really such a linkage in Justinian’s time? His famous Codex Justinianeus,also known as the Corpus Juris Civilis (Collection of Civil Law) consolidated and clarified the Roman legal system down to his time. It includes a correspondence between “the Emperor Justinian, Victorious, Pious, Happy, Renowned, Triumphant, always Augustus, to John, Patriarch, and the most Holy Archbishop of the fair City of Rome,” informing the pope that all the other churches in the empire have been subjected to him. It even forbids “certain infidels and persons who do not belong to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God . . . like Jews and apostates” to dispute or even discuss any “matters which are properly accepted, glorified, and preached by all priests in accordance with your doctrines.” Another section of the Code, entitled “Concerning Festivals,” quotes and revalidates Sunday laws made by previous emperors over a period of more than one hundred and fifty years, from A.D. 311 to 469, including Constantine, Valentinian, Theodosius, Arcadius, Leo, and Anthemius. That was previous to the Belisarius invasion of Italy." Edwin deKock, The Truth About 666.
Furthermore, in 538—that momentous date when the 1260 year-days began—additional and stricter Sunday legislation was adopted in France, where Clovis had been baptized thirty years earlier. This happened at the third synod of Orléans, which was no local gathering but one that widely represented the territories ruled over by the Franks. “The president was the Metropolitan Lupus of Lyons, although the city and diocese of Orleans did not belong to his province, but to that of Sens. Besides him were present the Metropolitans Pantagathus of Vienne, Leo of Sens, Arcadius of Bourges, and Flavius of Rouen. The Archbishop of Tours, Injurious, was represented by a priest. The Acts were subscribed by nineteen bishops, and seven priests as representatives of absentees.” We note that all these clerics fell under the jurisdiction of the pontiff. In the very month when the year-long siege of Rome was lifted, Pope Vigilius sent a letter to France. “On 6 March, 538, he wrote to Bishop Caesarius of Arles concerning the penance of the Austrasian King Theodobert [I, c.495/500–547/548] on account of his marriage with his brother’s widow.” Working from a facsimile reproduction of Johannes Dominicus Mansi’s Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (a new and great collection of the holy councils), 1759, the Florence edition, Mr. Heidi Heiks pinpointed the twenty-eighth canon adopted on that occasion and provided the following text, “translated from the original Latin document into fluent English”:
“28. Whereas the people are persuaded that they ought not to travel on the Lord’s day with the horses, or oxen and carriages, or to prepare anything for food, or to do anything conducive to the cleanliness of houses or men, things which belong to Jewish rather than Christian observances; we have ordained that on the Lord’s day what was before lawful to be done may still be done. But from rural work, i.e. plowing, cultivating vines, reaping, mowing, thrashing, clearing away thorns or hedging, we judge it better to abstain, that the people may the more readily come to the churches and have leisure for prayers. If any one be found doing the works forbidden above, let him be punished, not as the civil authorities may direct, but as the ecclesiastical powers may determine.” Edwin deKock, Truth About 666
It saddens me how little selectively you continue to look at the historical facts. I would have hoped that over the years your arguments would have improved'; unfortunately, they remained unchanged, and so must my response to them.
Anyone reading can find comment after comment on long ago threads outlining my points below:
1. Justinian recognized the pope as already being* the head of the holy churches, in conformity with the declarations of past fathers and councils. Nothing in 538 "paved the way" to "elevate" the pope to such a status--neither in historical fact or in Justinian's mind. Read the documents. Justinian HIMSELF does not suggest that the military operation will elevate the pope to such a status. He acknowledges an existing status. How then will you inject that narrative into the 6th century?
2. The concept that Justinian's invasion "freed" Rome from the interference of the Germanic kingdom ignores the fact that the Byzantine occupation only subjected Rome to Byzantine interference, a condition even less tolerable to Romans of the 6th century.
3. You continue to cite the 3rd Synod of Orleans as "additional and stricter Sunday legislation" to appeal to Adventist sensitivities despite the fact that the council restated the decisions of earlier councils, and in fact moderated/reduced the extent to which certain people were observing Sunday (those who avoided food reparation and travel on Sunday after the pattern of the old Sabbath ceremonial laws). You also attempt to link this council to the fortunes of the papacy even though (1) this was a local synod that affected the French bishops and was not dependent upon the activities on Rome, nor in fact requested Roman assistance or approval so far as I have read, and (2) the synod has nothing to do with your main narrative: namely, 538 was a pivotal year in the "elevation" of the papacy. Compiling everything that occurred in the church in 538, even things of interest to Adventists, will not add one support to your overall argument if it has no links to that argument.
And to support your views? You cite Adventist sources throughout. Apparently, you cannot but approach history except through Adventist views.
1. The Arian Ostrogoths most certainly stood in the way of papal primacy. I have no doubt that had the Ostrogoths had won the battle and not been overthrown there just may not be a Catholic Church at all.
2. What is significant is the legislative support of the state that the church canons received. Justinian, for the first time gave the church total jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters. From Oct. 18, A.D. 530 onward, whenever the church passed any canon law in one of its synods, it was immediately supported and enforced by the civil authorities.
The rise of the little horn did not happen over night. "In Rome and elsewhere on the Italian peninsula the papacy had secured a territorial base to maintain itself. As yet, the political clout of the pontiffs was limited. But in the heartland of the original Roman Empire their great religious opponent, the Germanic Church, had been liquidated through the elimination of the Odovacar, Vandal, and Ostrogoth kingdoms. As foretold in the symbolic prophecy of Dan. 7:8, 24, and 25, three horns had fallen before the Little Horn." Edwin deKock, Truth About 666
3. Third Synod at Orleans, A.D 538
"The third Synod of Orleans, like the second, was not merely a provincial Synod, since bishops of several ecclesiatical provinces took part in it. The president was the Metropolitan Lupus of Lyons, although the city and diocese of Orleans did not belong to his province, but to that of Sens. Beside him were present the Metropolitans Pantagathus of Vienna, Leo of Sens, Arcadius of Bourges, and Flavius of Rouen. The Archbishop of Tours, Injurious, was represented by a priest. The Acts were subscribed by nineteen bishops, and seven priests as representatives of absentees. In the subscription of Archbishop Lupus, the time of the holding of the Synod is given as Die Nonarum mensis tertii, quarto post consulatum paulini junioris V.C.anno 27 regni Domini Childeberti Regis. This indicates the year 538, and probably the 7th of May, since in ancient times it was common to begin the year with the 25th of March. The assembled bishops declare their aim to be the re-establishment of the old laws of the church and the passing of new ones. This they accomplished in thirty-three canons, many of which contain several ordinances". Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church.
Canon 28 is irrefutable evidence of the compelling of the conscience by the church.
Hefele paraphrases canon 33 "no bishop may trangress these canons" Ibid.
>"I have no doubt that had the Ostrogoths had won the battle and not been overthrown there just may not be a Catholic Church at all."
And yet, the Ostrogoths had not eliminated the papacy previous to Justinian, but tolerated it. Furthermore, historians have noted that the Byzantine presence did no more for papal primacy than Ostrogothic presence had. It was, in fact, the departure of the Byzantines, that was key for the rise of the pope's secular power.
>2. What is significant is the legislative support of the state that the church canons received.
(1) Each of the councils underlying the title "head of all the churches" also had imperial/state support. (2) Justinian made this claim in imperial correspondence, not legislation. (3) We still have not broached the fact that Rome was under Byzantine control, and therefore, under its laws, beginning in 536.
>"Canon 28 is irrefutable evidence of the compelling of the conscience by the church."
...and not the 'elevation' of the pope.
Again, you cited a paragraph that has nothing to do with the question at hand: how is this at all related to papal primacy? It is not.
>"The rise of the little horn did not happen over night."
And it absolutely did not find any 'pivotal' turning point in 538 that would mark the beginning of any prophetic period.
***
Arik, please... your reading of history is still selective, disingenuous, and spoon fed to you by polemicists trying to uphold the same tired tradition/view you are also bound to defend. It's time to reconsider it.
No I don't see it your'e way Hugo. What I do see is you concentrating so much on trees you are blind to the forest. You will not admit that the Papacy blasphemes God or changed God's laws, so in your essay you only cite persecution as the only characteristic that could possibly match the little horn. No doubt this is one of your'e greatest follies.
Did the church persecute before 538 A.D.? Absolutely! The little horn didn't spring up nor did it start out as a benevolent power and then in 538 A.D. change to a blasphemous, persecuting power. Is the prophecy dependant on the total elimination of the third horn in 538 A.D.? Absolutely not. The battle in 538 A.D. broke the back of the Ostrogoths and placed the papacy IN ROME now backed by law as head of all churches. Was the Church still subordinate to Byzantine rule? To aan extent yes. However from 538 A.D. on things changed rapidly for the Papacy. Justinian's 'pragmatic sanction' of 554 A.D. confirmed and increased the temporal power of the pope, who was henceforth to have a voice in the nomination of the governors of the Italian provinces of the empire and to participate in the control of their finances.” The edict should be seen against the background of the Ostrogoths’ defeat and the fact that the pontiffs literally owned so much of Italy. “This power was to grow so rapidly that Gregory the Great (c. 540–604, reigned from 590) could write, a generation later: ‘I should like to know whether the pope, in this world, is a spiritual leader or a temporal king.’”
So I think it is you who are being selective and disingenuous or down right stubborn. I have more to say about what you wrote about 1798.
"And to support your views? You cite Adventist sources throughout. Apparently, you cannot but approach history except through Adventist views."
Hugo, just a little comment in passing: what's wrong in using Adventist sources? The issue should not be whether they are Adventist or not but rather is they are accurate or not. Also, Catholics here use Catholic sources too. Should we automatically discard their comments because they rely on Catholic materials?
Of course, there is a risk of being biased (and we have to be honest enough to recognize that), but again human endeavors are often like this, this is why they have to be exposed to other eyes' scrutiny so that they can spot the weaknesses of a theory or reasoning.
After that, Hugo, you told Arik that:
"... your reading of history is still selective, disingenuous, and spoon fed to you by polemicists trying to uphold the same tired tradition/view you are also bound to defend. It's time to reconsider it."
I could say the same thing about you but will me saying that a proof it is so? You spoke about Arik being selective but what about you being selective? You spoke about the "same tired tradition/view" but what about the same tired views and traditions that you defend? It reminds me of this interesting quote (I don't know the author):
"We call tradition a routine that we like and we call routine a tradition that we would like other people to give up".
It is easy to qualify other people's views as "same tired traditions/views" or to accuse them of being selective. But let's be mindful to the fact that what we say may more reflect our own state of mind than the reality.
>>>You will not admit that the Papacy blasphemes God or changed God's laws, so in your essay you only cite persecution as the only characteristic that could possibly match the little horn. No doubt this is one of your'e greatest follies.
Your claim that I "only cite persecution as the only characteristic that could possibly match the little horn" because I "will not admit that the Papacy blasphemes God" is an incredible assertion, and one manifestly false. As I noted in my paper, Daniel explicitly links the 1,260 days to the persecution of the saints (Dan. 7:25). I don't doubt that blaspheming activity is included in this prophetic period, but the text itself links only the persecution to the period, so I address that phenomenon. (A paper on Rev. 13:5, however, might cover the phenomenon of blasphemy instead.)
>>Did the church persecute before 538 A.D.? Absolutely! The little horn didn't spring up nor did it start out as a benevolent power and then in 538 A.D. change to a blasphemous, persecuting power.
And this is precisely where you err. You try to fit scripture into your historical narrative, rather than following the text of this prophecy. What does the Bible say? "They will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time." (Dan 7:25). What does this mean? The saints will be given into his power, persecuted, for 1,260 days. This is the extent of the persecution, the divinely-imposed limit. And yet, you admit that persecution is a phenomenon that occurred long before 538. Apparently, in your mind, the saints were given into his hand for 1400, 1500, 1700? days, even though the prophecy say 1,260. This is why I take great exception to your views Arik: because you literally need to disregard or twist scripture to continue implicating my faith in this prophecy. Find me a power to whom God has surrendered the saints for 1,260 prophetic days, and I will entertain your prophetic view. But don't begin forcing in an interpretation that simply does not fit 1,260 days. (It is partly on a similar basis that Adventists dismiss he Antiochus interpretation--the lack of an appropriate start and end point to his persecutions.) I believe scripture, and as an Adventist, I came to realize the papacy doesn't "add up" to this prophecy. Believe scripture, Arik.
>>>"The battle in 538 A.D. broke the back of the Ostrogoths and placed the papacy IN ROME now backed by law as head of all churches."
First, what do you mean "placed the papacy in Rome?" Secondly, Rome was under Byzantine control from 536. If you will link this issue to when a certain "law" came into force, 536 is the date, not the return of the Ostrogoths and their failed attempt to retake the now Byzantine city. The city was already under Byzantine law. (Numerous others have already made this point.) Secondly, do you not understand that when Justinian uses "head of all the churches," he is merely revisiting the claim that Rome is the "first See"? This was not a "legislative" matter to be "enforced" by the state, but the established order of precedence of Sees honored as far back as Nicaea I. This is why the Pope John responds to Justinian, "This See is indeed the head of all churches, as the rules of the Fathers and the decrees of the Emperors assert." Rome had been recognized for centuries as the first among churches. This was not a status threatened by the Ostrogoths, and for that reason, nor one that depended upon their elimination from Rome, or later failed attack against Rome. To pin your argument on that title being "backed by law" in Italy invents a legislative event that never existed.
Worse of all, you cite Justinian's letter without any care to understand its purpose. Justinian is writing the pope about the "disturbance" being created due to the Monophysite controversy. When Justinian tells Pope John that he has attempted "to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness," he is referring to attempts to resolve this doctrinal controversy, foster a compromise between East and West on this issue, and restore Church unity (read a history textbook). He does not reference the Italian invasions once in this letter to Rome; they were not related to the resolution of these doctrinal issues, and the restoration of communion between the Eastern and Western churches, which was at issue. His claim that Rome is "head of all the churches" has nothing to do with Ostrogoths on the battle field.
>> Was the Church still subordinate to Byzantine rule? To aan extent yes.
What does that even mean: "to an extent?" To what "extent" were they under Ostrogothic rule? And you failed to understand my argument: the issue was not that the Apostolic See found itself subordinate to Byzantine rule, but that it was in a worse position under Byzantine rule than under the Ostrogoths.
Belisarius enters Rome in 536, and deposed Pope Silverius (533-536) for alleged treason against the Byzantine empire (is this a See waiting with open arms for its Byzantine liberators?). Vigilius was enthroned in his place (537-555), but resisted Justinian's ecclesiastical programme. He was effectively imprisoned in 545, taken to Constantinople for eight years, and placed under duress to agree to condemn Origenism. This is what Byzantine rule was like for Rome.
>>However from 538 A.D. on things changed rapidly for the Papacy. Justinian's 'pragmatic sanction' of 554 A.D. confirmed and increased the temporal power of the pope, who was henceforth to have a voice in the nomination of the governors of the Italian provinces of the empire and to participate in the control of their finances.”
Notice, this decree in 554 is easily more important than any event that occurred in 538. Why not highlight this rather than the Ostrogoth's failed attempt to recapture Rome? The only reason you do not is that Adventist tradition has fixed 538 as the year when the 1,260 days has begun, and you will do anything to defend 538. Even still, this event still has nothing to do with the beginning of a persecutory period either, as you have already admitted.
First, why don't you actually participate in this discussion of history rather than critique my peripheral comments? Apparently, you have also realized the futility of Arik's project.
Secondly, you asked "Hugo, just a little comment in passing: what's wrong in using Adventist sources?" I said this as part of a personal appeal for Arik to reconsider his views. Arik more than "uses" Adventist sources. He relies on them almost exclusively. (Never mind the fact that I find these Adventist sources inaccurate in their portrayal of history.) In one post, he cited three of them to confirm his point. This betrays the fact that he probably does not spend time engaging the primary sources themselves, or other academic sources. I find this very disturbing. Very often, he merely uses the Adventist sources to restate his claim, and not to introduce new historical data into the picture, which wastes time.
"You spoke about Arik being selective but what about you being selective?"
I pointed out the weaknesses and omissions in his comments already. Where are mine, Still? What I am being selective about? Why don't you actually address the content of our discussion, rather than make blanket, cliche retorts? I do not make these charges in a vacuum. I do so as part of a continuing point-by-point discussion with Arik, where I point out particular weaknesses in his argumentation. Do the same, or stay on the sideline.
For the moment, I am just reading what people are writing. After all, this is the purpose of a blog, right?
This is an interesting exchange with good arguments and everything would be perfect without a few remarks which are not really productive. For example, you mentioned the Adventist sources and you made it sound as if it was a problem by definition. There are Adventist scholars and historians too. So they are sources as good as any other ones (I agree, and I mentioned it, that we have to be careful to avoid being biased).
As for being selective, I was not speaking about this discussion per se but about some of your writings in which you selected particular points of view and neglected others (for example, when we discussed about the dreams about the ram and the goat). Does it mean that you were "disingenuous and spoon fed" by "by polemicists trying to uphold the same tired tradition/view you are also bound to defend", like you said before? Of course not. You were just following a line of reasoning and some theories and trying to see the end result of them. That's fine with me even if I didn't always agree with your conclusions.
I can admit easily that persecution took place before 538, I can admit the Bishop of Rome was seeking Primacy before 538 too. You see I do not believe the 1260 years begin until the little horn is standing up and given eyes like a man. So of course it had activity before 538. Like I said it did not spring up but rather "came up".
Also persecution is not the only identifying marker of the 1260 years. Blasphemy and (think)to change God's laws also fit into this time period. But speaking of only persecution limits you.
How about you identifying the little horn, give me something better. Until then, the Papacy fits all too well.
>>"I can admit easily that persecution took place before 538."
Then you have overstepped the parameters of the prophecy, and have lost my attention.
>>"I do not believe the 1260 years begin until the little horn is standing up and given eyes like a man."
So you would put the beginning of the 1,260 days at the point when the horn manifests "eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things"? But haven't you also admitted that the papacy 'blasphemed' long before 538? What do "eyes of man" represent, and how does that figure into the year 538?
>>"Like I said it did not spring up but rather "came up".
The verb "came up" does not give you license or precedent to extend the time prophecies of scripture to fit your a priori conclusions as to the identity of this power. The Bible says the saints are given over to the little horn for "1,260 days." You say it was for longer. God's word v. yours.
>>"Blasphemy and (think)to change God's laws also fit into this time period."
And yet you can fit neither into this time period either. The "blasphemy" and "changing of God's Law" you perceive in the papacy began long before 538. Follow scripture.
>>"How about you identifying the little horn, give me something better. Until then, the Papacy fits all too well."
Arik, I am on a quest for truth. If I have not come to a settled conclusion on Daniel 7, it is because I am not willing to twist scripture and force wrong identifications into it. I will not disregard its clear parameters. Nothing says a prophecy must be interpreted today, tomorrow, or next week. It took until 1844 before certain Christians came to the allegedly "right" interpretation of Daniel 8 (cleansing of a heavenly, not earthly sanctuary). Why you should rush me in the last 5 years, while pressing a view that transgresses the text of scripture, is beyond me. Instead, why don't you focus on all the prophecies of the Bible Adventists have not yet definitively interpreted (Zechariah, trumpet and last plagues sequence in Rev., etc.)?
Arik’s quote: >>>>>>> “1. The Arian Ostrogoths most certainly stood in the way of papal primacy.”
If you said that the Arian Ostrogoths stood in the way of Catholic hegemony throughout Italy, I would agree. But it cannot be said that the Ostrogoths stood in the way of papal primacy; the historical record is pretty clear that the Ostrogothic monarchs protected the Catholic Church and strengthened the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman bishops.
Arik’s quote: >>>>>>> I have no doubt that had the Ostrogoths had won the battle and not been overthrown there just may not be a Catholic Church at all.“
You should have plenty of doubt, Arik, since the Goths under King Totila actually ended up winning the battle for Rome (twice), and in both instances Catholicism was not overthrown. Totila continued Theodoric’s policy of religious freedom and toleration throughout his reign. If the Ostrogoths in Italy really were a serious threat to Catholicism’s survival, then how do you explain the fact that the Ostrogoths ruled Italy uncontested for a period of over 40 years, and yet at no point was Catholicism overthrown during that time? On the contrary, the Gothic monarchs habitually enriched and supported the Roman Church during that era. Again, we’re talking about a 40-year period with nary a Byzantine army in sight to keep the Goths on good behavior. If the Gothic monarchs had wanted to force Arianism upon the Roman populace, they could have done so.
Arik’s quote: >>>>>>> “2. What is significant is the legislative support of the state that the church canons received. Justinian, for the first time gave the church total jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters. From Oct. 18, A.D. 530 onward, whenever the church passed any canon law in one of its synods, it was immediately supported and enforced by the civil authorities.“
LOL, you can’t be serious? If there is one thing Emperor Justinian is known for it was his heavy-handed meddling in Church affairs. Sorry, but neither Justinian nor any of his successors gave the clergy “total jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters”: quite the opposite, in fact. Just five years after 530AD, the emperor issued Novel #9 which stated that he, Justinian, was the source of “ecclesiastical jurisprudence”, which should put to rest any notion that the clergy was given carte blanche to run the Church as they saw fit.
And this entire notion, that “any canon law” was immediately supported and enforced by civil authorities, can be easily disproved just by using your Orleans III Sunday law as an example. Canon 28 forbade “field labors”, or agricultural work on Sundays. However, Justinian’s 534AD edition of his code contained Emperor Constantine’s protection of agricultural labor, and Justinian never repealed it in his subsequent Novels. It wasn’t until Emperor Leo VI at the beginning of the 10th Century that Sunday field labor was finally outlawed in Byzantine territory…but we’re talking almost 400 years after the Orleans III synod. Also, previously in our other blog discussion, I mentioned that Charlemagne had to issue a Sunday law forbidding “husbandry” (ie; agricultural labor) in 800AD. So not only was the Orleans III Sunday law ignored by the Eastern Empire, but it doesn’t seem to have been “supported and enforced” even in Frankish territory.
Arik’s quote: >>>>>>> 3. “Third Synod at Orleans, A.D 538 "The third Synod of Orleans, like the second, was not merely a provincial Synod, since bishops of several ecclesiatical provinces took part in it.”
Sure, it wasn’t a provincial synod; Heidi Heiks’ source, Karl Hefele, said Orleans III was “a kind of Frankish national synod”, and I believe that is the Catholic Church’s position on the matter. However, Heiks’ tried to use Hefele’s words to prove that Orleans III was not a local synod and was not “narrow or limited in scope”. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the canons/statutes of national, provincial, or diocesan councils constitute local law, thereby limiting their scope. If I am in error about this, maybe Hugo could clarify?
“Next to the pope, the bishops united in local councils, and each of them individually, are sources of law for their common or particular territory; canons of national or provincial councils, and diocesan statutes, constitute local law.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon Law entry)
Arik’s quote: >>>>>>> “Canon 28 is irrefutable evidence of the compelling of the conscience by the church.”
No more so than the regional Council of Laodicea in the 4th Century, a synod that not only demanded Christians work on the Sabbath, but Canon 29 even stated that Christians should do no work on Sundays. Not just agricultural labor, Arik, but NO WORK at all. And the Laodicean synod had the benefit of convening at a time when the Roman Empire was still intact.
Arik’s quote: >>>>>>> “Hefele paraphrases canon 33 "no bishop may trangress these canons" Ibid.” Sure…but this admonition would have only applied to bishops within a particular territory since Orleans III constituted local law.
God's servants have always been persecutedsince the beginning of time. "They will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time." (Dan 7:25). That verse is indicating the fact that this power would have temporal control over the affairs of God's people. Just like the USA has affairs over its people. Did it do good to His people? No, the bible gave the clue that it had Satan's spirit and decided to try and make God's followers extinct. Satan is the god of this world and used this system during this time. It is a characteristic of the power. Just because you cant see that it started persecuting on the 1st day of 538AD doesnt mean this power didnt fulfil the indicating verse here. This verse plays right into there rise and then the 1260 year describes there fall. It takes a denying of all the facts of the bible to try and pawn it of on another power. The papacy is indeed the antichrist power face it. Because the USA is next to fulfil its purposes in rebelling against God.
19 comments:
Ahhh, Spectrum...
Well, it is a good thing that the prophets of old didn't have the concern of being politically correct (or whatever the name we give to it). I remember the prophets speaking of Syria or Egypt or Babylon in... well... not very flattery ways. Should we consider these prophecies hate-speeches?
These ancient prophets are so lucky to be already dead... They could have been sued.
Oops, my previous comment should have been placed in the "Another great controversy" post.
Objection 1 of your'e essay:
Though 538 is not when the fighting stopped with the Ostrogoths, the defeat by Belisarius was a great victory for freeing the church from the potential interference from the Germanic Church, and paved the way for elevating the pope as "Head of all Churches".
"The fall of all three Arian kingdoms is not the prophetic marker associated with 538. The issue is the recognition of prophetic fulfillment in the rise to power of the little horn (the beast), primarily because of its prophesied attack against God's plan of salvation, His Law, and His people". Heidi Heiks, 508,538,1798,1843 Source Book.
"In the sixth century the Papacy had become firmly established. It's seat of power was fixed in the imperial city, and the bishop of Rome was declared to be the head of the entire church. Paganism had given place to the Papacy....and now began the 1260 years of papal oppression foretold in the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. Christians were forced to choose, either to yield their integrity and accept the papal ceremonies and worship, or to wear away their lives in dungeons ....."
Great Controversy, EGW
"But was there really such a linkage in Justinian’s time?
His famous Codex Justinianeus,also known as the Corpus Juris Civilis
(Collection of Civil Law) consolidated and clarified the Roman legal system down to his time. It includes a correspondence between “the
Emperor Justinian, Victorious, Pious, Happy, Renowned, Triumphant,
always Augustus, to John, Patriarch, and the most Holy Archbishop of the fair City of Rome,” informing the pope that all the other churches in the empire have been subjected to him. It even forbids “certain infidels and
persons who do not belong to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God . . . like Jews and apostates” to dispute or even discuss any “matters which are properly accepted, glorified, and preached by all priests in
accordance with your doctrines.” Another section of the Code, entitled “Concerning Festivals,” quotes and revalidates Sunday laws made by previous emperors over a period of more than one hundred and fifty years, from A.D. 311 to 469, including Constantine, Valentinian, Theodosius, Arcadius, Leo, and Anthemius. That was previous to the Belisarius invasion of Italy." Edwin deKock, The Truth About 666.
Furthermore, in 538—that momentous date when the 1260 year-days
began—additional and stricter Sunday legislation was adopted in France, where Clovis had been baptized thirty years earlier. This happened at the third synod of Orléans, which was no local gathering but one that widely
represented the territories ruled over by the Franks. “The president was the Metropolitan Lupus of Lyons, although the city and diocese of Orleans did not belong to his province, but to that of Sens. Besides him were present
the Metropolitans Pantagathus of Vienne, Leo of Sens, Arcadius of
Bourges, and Flavius of Rouen. The Archbishop of Tours, Injurious, was
represented by a priest. The Acts were subscribed by nineteen bishops, and seven priests as representatives of absentees.”
We note that all these clerics fell under the jurisdiction of the pontiff. In the very month when the year-long siege of Rome was lifted, Pope Vigilius sent a letter to France. “On 6 March, 538, he wrote to Bishop Caesarius of
Arles concerning the penance of the Austrasian King Theodobert [I,
c.495/500–547/548] on account of his marriage with his brother’s
widow.”
Working from a facsimile reproduction of Johannes Dominicus Mansi’s Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (a new and great collection of the holy councils), 1759, the Florence edition, Mr. Heidi Heiks pinpointed the twenty-eighth canon adopted on that occasion and
provided the following text, “translated from the original Latin document into fluent English”:
“28. Whereas the people are persuaded that they ought not to travel on the Lord’s day with the horses, or oxen and carriages, or to prepare anything for food, or to do anything conducive to the cleanliness of houses or men, things which belong to Jewish rather than Christian observances;
we have ordained that on the Lord’s day what was before lawful to be done may still be done. But from rural work, i.e. plowing, cultivating vines, reaping, mowing, thrashing, clearing away thorns or hedging, we judge it
better to abstain, that the people may the more readily come to the churches and have leisure for prayers. If any one be found doing the works forbidden above, let him be punished, not as the civil authorities may direct, but as the ecclesiastical powers may determine.” Edwin deKock, Truth About 666
Arik,
It saddens me how little selectively you continue to look at the historical facts. I would have hoped that over the years your arguments would have improved'; unfortunately, they remained unchanged, and so must my response to them.
Anyone reading can find comment after comment on long ago threads outlining my points below:
1. Justinian recognized the pope as already being* the head of the holy churches, in conformity with the declarations of past fathers and councils. Nothing in 538 "paved the way" to "elevate" the pope to such a status--neither in historical fact or in Justinian's mind. Read the documents. Justinian HIMSELF does not suggest that the military operation will elevate the pope to such a status. He acknowledges an existing status. How then will you inject that narrative into the 6th century?
2. The concept that Justinian's invasion "freed" Rome from the interference of the Germanic kingdom ignores the fact that the Byzantine occupation only subjected Rome to Byzantine interference, a condition even less tolerable to Romans of the 6th century.
3. You continue to cite the 3rd Synod of Orleans as "additional and stricter Sunday legislation" to appeal to Adventist sensitivities despite the fact that the council restated the decisions of earlier councils, and in fact moderated/reduced the extent to which certain people were observing Sunday (those who avoided food reparation and travel on Sunday after the pattern of the old Sabbath ceremonial laws). You also attempt to link this council to the fortunes of the papacy even though (1) this was a local synod that affected the French bishops and was not dependent upon the activities on Rome, nor in fact requested Roman assistance or approval so far as I have read, and (2) the synod has nothing to do with your main narrative: namely, 538 was a pivotal year in the "elevation" of the papacy. Compiling everything that occurred in the church in 538, even things of interest to Adventists, will not add one support to your overall argument if it has no links to that argument.
And to support your views? You cite Adventist sources throughout. Apparently, you cannot but approach history except through Adventist views.
1. The Arian Ostrogoths most certainly stood in the way of papal primacy. I have no doubt that had the Ostrogoths had won the battle and not been overthrown there just may not be a Catholic Church at all.
2. What is significant is the legislative support of the state that the church canons received. Justinian, for the first time gave the church total jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters. From Oct. 18, A.D. 530 onward, whenever the church passed any canon law in one of its synods, it was immediately supported and enforced by the civil authorities.
The rise of the little horn did not happen over night.
"In Rome and elsewhere on the Italian peninsula the papacy had secured a territorial base to maintain itself. As yet, the political clout of the pontiffs was limited. But in the heartland of the original Roman Empire their
great religious opponent, the Germanic Church, had been liquidated through the elimination of the Odovacar, Vandal, and Ostrogoth kingdoms. As foretold
in the symbolic prophecy of Dan. 7:8, 24, and 25, three horns had fallen before the Little Horn."
Edwin deKock, Truth About 666
3. Third Synod at Orleans, A.D 538
"The third Synod of Orleans, like the second, was not merely a provincial Synod, since bishops of several ecclesiatical provinces took part in it. The president was the Metropolitan Lupus of Lyons, although the city and diocese of Orleans did not belong to his province, but to that of Sens. Beside him were present the Metropolitans Pantagathus of Vienna, Leo of Sens, Arcadius of Bourges, and Flavius of Rouen. The Archbishop of Tours, Injurious, was represented by a priest. The Acts were subscribed by nineteen bishops, and seven priests as representatives of absentees. In the subscription of Archbishop Lupus, the time of the holding of the Synod is given as Die Nonarum mensis tertii, quarto post consulatum paulini junioris V.C.anno 27 regni Domini Childeberti Regis. This indicates the year 538, and probably the 7th of May, since in ancient times it was common to begin the year with the 25th of March. The assembled bishops declare their aim to be the re-establishment of the old laws of the church and the passing of new ones. This they accomplished in thirty-three canons, many of which contain several ordinances". Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church.
Canon 28 is irrefutable evidence of the compelling of the conscience by the church.
Hefele paraphrases canon 33 "no bishop may trangress these canons" Ibid.
>"I have no doubt that had the Ostrogoths had won the battle and not been overthrown there just may not be a Catholic Church at all."
And yet, the Ostrogoths had not eliminated the papacy previous to Justinian, but tolerated it. Furthermore, historians have noted that the Byzantine presence did no more for papal primacy than Ostrogothic presence had. It was, in fact, the departure of the Byzantines, that was key for the rise of the pope's secular power.
>2. What is significant is the legislative support of the state that the church canons received.
(1) Each of the councils underlying the title "head of all the churches" also had imperial/state support. (2) Justinian made this claim in imperial correspondence, not legislation. (3) We still have not broached the fact that Rome was under Byzantine control, and therefore, under its laws, beginning in 536.
>"Canon 28 is irrefutable evidence of the compelling of the conscience by the church."
...and not the 'elevation' of the pope.
Again, you cited a paragraph that has nothing to do with the question at hand: how is this at all related to papal primacy? It is not.
>"The rise of the little horn did not happen over night."
And it absolutely did not find any 'pivotal' turning point in 538 that would mark the beginning of any prophetic period.
***
Arik, please... your reading of history is still selective, disingenuous, and spoon fed to you by polemicists trying to uphold the same tired tradition/view you are also bound to defend. It's time to reconsider it.
No I don't see it your'e way Hugo. What I do see is you concentrating so much on trees you are blind to the forest. You will not admit that the Papacy blasphemes God or changed God's laws, so in your essay you only cite persecution as the only characteristic that could possibly match the little horn. No doubt this is one of your'e greatest follies.
Did the church persecute before 538 A.D.? Absolutely! The little horn didn't spring up nor did it start out as a benevolent power and then in 538 A.D. change to a blasphemous, persecuting power.
Is the prophecy dependant on the total elimination of the third horn in 538 A.D.? Absolutely not. The battle in 538 A.D. broke the back of the Ostrogoths and placed the papacy IN ROME now backed by law as head of all churches.
Was the Church still subordinate to Byzantine rule? To aan extent yes. However from 538 A.D. on things changed rapidly for the Papacy. Justinian's 'pragmatic sanction' of 554 A.D. confirmed and increased the temporal power of the pope, who was henceforth to have a voice in the nomination of the governors of the Italian provinces of the empire and to participate in the control of their finances.”
The edict should be seen against the background of the Ostrogoths’ defeat and the fact that the pontiffs literally owned so much of Italy. “This power was to
grow so rapidly that Gregory the Great (c. 540–604, reigned from 590) could write, a generation later: ‘I should like to know whether the pope, in this world, is a spiritual leader or a temporal king.’”
So I think it is you who are being selective and disingenuous or down right stubborn. I have more to say about what you wrote about 1798.
Hugo wrote:
"And to support your views? You cite Adventist sources throughout. Apparently, you cannot but approach history except through Adventist views."
Hugo, just a little comment in passing: what's wrong in using Adventist sources? The issue should not be whether they are Adventist or not but rather is they are accurate or not. Also, Catholics here use Catholic sources too. Should we automatically discard their comments because they rely on Catholic materials?
Of course, there is a risk of being biased (and we have to be honest enough to recognize that), but again human endeavors are often like this, this is why they have to be exposed to other eyes' scrutiny so that they can spot the weaknesses of a theory or reasoning.
After that, Hugo, you told Arik that:
"... your reading of history is still selective, disingenuous, and spoon fed to you by polemicists trying to uphold the same tired tradition/view you are also bound to defend. It's time to reconsider it."
I could say the same thing about you but will me saying that a proof it is so? You spoke about Arik being selective but what about you being selective? You spoke about the "same tired tradition/view" but what about the same tired views and traditions that you defend? It reminds me of this interesting quote (I don't know the author):
"We call tradition a routine that we like and we call routine a tradition that we would like other people to give up".
It is easy to qualify other people's views as "same tired traditions/views" or to accuse them of being selective. But let's be mindful to the fact that what we say may more reflect our own state of mind than the reality.
>>>You will not admit that the Papacy blasphemes God or changed God's laws, so in your essay you only cite persecution as the only characteristic that could possibly match the little horn. No doubt this is one of your'e greatest follies.
Your claim that I "only cite persecution as the only characteristic that could possibly match the little horn" because I "will not admit that the Papacy blasphemes God" is an incredible assertion, and one manifestly false. As I noted in my paper, Daniel explicitly links the 1,260 days to the persecution of the saints (Dan. 7:25). I don't doubt that blaspheming activity is included in this prophetic period, but the text itself links only the persecution to the period, so I address that phenomenon. (A paper on Rev. 13:5, however, might cover the phenomenon of blasphemy instead.)
>>Did the church persecute before 538 A.D.? Absolutely! The little horn didn't spring up nor did it start out as a benevolent power and then in 538 A.D. change to a blasphemous, persecuting power.
And this is precisely where you err. You try to fit scripture into your historical narrative, rather than following the text of this prophecy. What does the Bible say? "They will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time." (Dan 7:25). What does this mean? The saints will be given into his power, persecuted, for 1,260 days. This is the extent of the persecution, the divinely-imposed limit. And yet, you admit that persecution is a phenomenon that occurred long before 538. Apparently, in your mind, the saints were given into his hand for 1400, 1500, 1700? days, even though the prophecy say 1,260. This is why I take great exception to your views Arik: because you literally need to disregard or twist scripture to continue implicating my faith in this prophecy. Find me a power to whom God has surrendered the saints for 1,260 prophetic days, and I will entertain your prophetic view. But don't begin forcing in an interpretation that simply does not fit 1,260 days. (It is partly on a similar basis that Adventists dismiss he Antiochus interpretation--the lack of an appropriate start and end point to his persecutions.) I believe scripture, and as an Adventist, I came to realize the papacy doesn't "add up" to this prophecy. Believe scripture, Arik.
>>>"The battle in 538 A.D. broke the back of the Ostrogoths and placed the papacy IN ROME now backed by law as head of all churches."
First, what do you mean "placed the papacy in Rome?" Secondly, Rome was under Byzantine control from 536. If you will link this issue to when a certain "law" came into force, 536 is the date, not the return of the Ostrogoths and their failed attempt to retake the now Byzantine city. The city was already under Byzantine law. (Numerous others have already made this point.) Secondly, do you not understand that when Justinian uses "head of all the churches," he is merely revisiting the claim that Rome is the "first See"? This was not a "legislative" matter to be "enforced" by the state, but the established order of precedence of Sees honored as far back as Nicaea I. This is why the Pope John responds to Justinian, "This See is indeed the head of all churches, as the rules of the Fathers and the decrees of the Emperors assert." Rome had been recognized for centuries as the first among churches. This was not a status threatened by the Ostrogoths, and for that reason, nor one that depended upon their elimination from Rome, or later failed attack against Rome. To pin your argument on that title being "backed by law" in Italy invents a legislative event that never existed.
Worse of all, you cite Justinian's letter without any care to understand its purpose. Justinian is writing the pope about the "disturbance" being created due to the Monophysite controversy. When Justinian tells Pope John that he has attempted "to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness," he is referring to attempts to resolve this doctrinal controversy, foster a compromise between East and West on this issue, and restore Church unity (read a history textbook). He does not reference the Italian invasions once in this letter to Rome; they were not related to the resolution of these doctrinal issues, and the restoration of communion between the Eastern and Western churches, which was at issue. His claim that Rome is "head of all the churches" has nothing to do with Ostrogoths on the battle field.
>> Was the Church still subordinate to Byzantine rule? To aan extent yes.
What does that even mean: "to an extent?" To what "extent" were they under Ostrogothic rule? And you failed to understand my argument: the issue was not that the Apostolic See found itself subordinate to Byzantine rule, but that it was in a worse position under Byzantine rule than under the Ostrogoths.
Belisarius enters Rome in 536, and deposed Pope Silverius (533-536) for alleged treason against the Byzantine empire (is this a See waiting with open arms for its Byzantine liberators?). Vigilius was enthroned in his place (537-555), but resisted Justinian's ecclesiastical programme. He was effectively imprisoned in 545, taken to Constantinople for eight years, and placed under duress to agree to condemn Origenism. This is what Byzantine rule was like for Rome.
>>However from 538 A.D. on things changed rapidly for the Papacy. Justinian's 'pragmatic sanction' of 554 A.D. confirmed and increased the temporal power of the pope, who was henceforth to have a voice in the nomination of the governors of the Italian provinces of the empire and to participate in the control of their finances.”
Notice, this decree in 554 is easily more important than any event that occurred in 538. Why not highlight this rather than the Ostrogoth's failed attempt to recapture Rome? The only reason you do not is that Adventist tradition has fixed 538 as the year when the 1,260 days has begun, and you will do anything to defend 538. Even still, this event still has nothing to do with the beginning of a persecutory period either, as you have already admitted.
Still,
First, why don't you actually participate in this discussion of history rather than critique my peripheral comments? Apparently, you have also realized the futility of Arik's project.
Secondly, you asked "Hugo, just a little comment in passing: what's wrong in using Adventist sources?" I said this as part of a personal appeal for Arik to reconsider his views. Arik more than "uses" Adventist sources. He relies on them almost exclusively. (Never mind the fact that I find these Adventist sources inaccurate in their portrayal of history.) In one post, he cited three of them to confirm his point. This betrays the fact that he probably does not spend time engaging the primary sources themselves, or other academic sources. I find this very disturbing. Very often, he merely uses the Adventist sources to restate his claim, and not to introduce new historical data into the picture, which wastes time.
"You spoke about Arik being selective but what about you being selective?"
I pointed out the weaknesses and omissions in his comments already. Where are mine, Still? What I am being selective about? Why don't you actually address the content of our discussion, rather than make blanket, cliche retorts? I do not make these charges in a vacuum. I do so as part of a continuing point-by-point discussion with Arik, where I point out particular weaknesses in his argumentation. Do the same, or stay on the sideline.
Hi Hugo,
For the moment, I am just reading what people are writing. After all, this is the purpose of a blog, right?
This is an interesting exchange with good arguments and everything would be perfect without a few remarks which are not really productive. For example, you mentioned the Adventist sources and you made it sound as if it was a problem by definition. There are Adventist scholars and historians too. So they are sources as good as any other ones (I agree, and I mentioned it, that we have to be careful to avoid being biased).
As for being selective, I was not speaking about this discussion per se but about some of your writings in which you selected particular points of view and neglected others (for example, when we discussed about the dreams about the ram and the goat). Does it mean that you were "disingenuous and spoon fed" by "by polemicists trying to uphold the same tired tradition/view you are also bound to defend", like you said before? Of course not. You were just following a line of reasoning and some theories and trying to see the end result of them. That's fine with me even if I didn't always agree with your conclusions.
I can admit easily that persecution took place before 538, I can admit the Bishop of Rome was seeking Primacy before 538 too. You see I do not believe the 1260 years begin until the little horn is standing up and given eyes like a man. So of course it had activity before 538. Like I said it did not spring up but
rather "came up".
Also persecution is not the only identifying marker of the 1260 years. Blasphemy and (think)to change God's laws also fit into this time period. But speaking of only persecution limits you.
How about you identifying the little horn, give me something better. Until then, the Papacy fits all too well.
>>"I can admit easily that persecution took place before 538."
Then you have overstepped the parameters of the prophecy, and have lost my attention.
>>"I do not believe the 1260 years begin until the little horn is standing up and given eyes like a man."
So you would put the beginning of the 1,260 days at the point when the horn manifests "eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things"? But haven't you also admitted that the papacy 'blasphemed' long before 538? What do "eyes of man" represent, and how does that figure into the year 538?
>>"Like I said it did not spring up but rather "came up".
The verb "came up" does not give you license or precedent to extend the time prophecies of scripture to fit your a priori conclusions as to the identity of this power. The Bible says the saints are given over to the little horn for "1,260 days." You say it was for longer. God's word v. yours.
>>"Blasphemy and (think)to change God's laws also fit into this time period."
And yet you can fit neither into this time period either. The "blasphemy" and "changing of God's Law" you perceive in the papacy began long before 538. Follow scripture.
>>"How about you identifying the little horn, give me something better. Until then, the Papacy fits all too well."
Arik, I am on a quest for truth. If I have not come to a settled conclusion on Daniel 7, it is because I am not willing to twist scripture and force wrong identifications into it. I will not disregard its clear parameters. Nothing says a prophecy must be interpreted today, tomorrow, or next week. It took until 1844 before certain Christians came to the allegedly "right" interpretation of Daniel 8 (cleansing of a heavenly, not earthly sanctuary). Why you should rush me in the last 5 years, while pressing a view that transgresses the text of scripture, is beyond me. Instead, why don't you focus on all the prophecies of the Bible Adventists have not yet definitively interpreted (Zechariah, trumpet and last plagues sequence in Rev., etc.)?
Arik’s quote: >>>>>>> “1. The Arian Ostrogoths most certainly stood in the way of papal primacy.”
If you said that the Arian Ostrogoths stood in the way of Catholic hegemony throughout Italy, I would agree. But it cannot be said that the Ostrogoths stood in the way of papal primacy; the historical record is pretty clear that the Ostrogothic monarchs protected the Catholic Church and strengthened the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman bishops.
Arik’s quote: >>>>>>> I have no doubt that had the Ostrogoths had won the battle and not been overthrown there just may not be a Catholic Church at all.“
You should have plenty of doubt, Arik, since the Goths under King Totila actually ended up winning the battle for Rome (twice), and in both instances Catholicism was not overthrown. Totila continued Theodoric’s policy of religious freedom and toleration throughout his reign. If the Ostrogoths in Italy really were a serious threat to Catholicism’s survival, then how do you explain the fact that the Ostrogoths ruled Italy uncontested for a period of over 40 years, and yet at no point was Catholicism overthrown during that time? On the contrary, the Gothic monarchs habitually enriched and supported the Roman Church during that era. Again, we’re talking about a 40-year period with nary a Byzantine army in sight to keep the Goths on good behavior. If the Gothic monarchs had wanted to force Arianism upon the Roman populace, they could have done so.
Arik’s quote: >>>>>>> “2. What is significant is the legislative support of the state that the church canons received. Justinian, for the first time gave the church total jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters. From Oct. 18, A.D. 530 onward, whenever the church passed any canon law in one of its synods, it was immediately supported and enforced by the civil authorities.“
LOL, you can’t be serious? If there is one thing Emperor Justinian is known for it was his heavy-handed meddling in Church affairs. Sorry, but neither Justinian nor any of his successors gave the clergy “total jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters”: quite the opposite, in fact. Just five years after 530AD, the emperor issued Novel #9 which stated that he, Justinian, was the source of “ecclesiastical jurisprudence”, which should put to rest any notion that the clergy was given carte blanche to run the Church as they saw fit.
And this entire notion, that “any canon law” was immediately supported and enforced by civil authorities, can be easily disproved just by using your Orleans III Sunday law as an example. Canon 28 forbade “field labors”, or agricultural work on Sundays. However, Justinian’s 534AD edition of his code contained Emperor Constantine’s protection of agricultural labor, and Justinian never repealed it in his subsequent Novels. It wasn’t until Emperor Leo VI at the beginning of the 10th Century that Sunday field labor was finally outlawed in Byzantine territory…but we’re talking almost 400 years after the Orleans III synod. Also, previously in our other blog discussion, I mentioned that Charlemagne had to issue a Sunday law forbidding “husbandry” (ie; agricultural labor) in 800AD. So not only was the Orleans III Sunday law ignored by the Eastern Empire, but it doesn’t seem to have been “supported and enforced” even in Frankish territory.
Arik’s quote: >>>>>>> 3. “Third Synod at Orleans, A.D 538 "The third Synod of Orleans, like the second, was not merely a provincial Synod, since bishops of several ecclesiatical provinces took part in it.”
Sure, it wasn’t a provincial synod; Heidi Heiks’ source, Karl Hefele, said Orleans III was “a kind of Frankish national synod”, and I believe that is the Catholic Church’s position on the matter. However, Heiks’ tried to use Hefele’s words to prove that Orleans III was not a local synod and was not “narrow or limited in scope”. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the canons/statutes of national, provincial, or diocesan councils constitute local law, thereby limiting their scope. If I am in error about this, maybe Hugo could clarify?
“Next to the pope, the bishops united in local councils, and each of them individually, are sources of law for their common or particular territory; canons of national or provincial councils, and diocesan statutes, constitute local law.”
(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon Law entry)
Arik’s quote: >>>>>>> “Canon 28 is irrefutable evidence of the compelling of the conscience by the church.”
No more so than the regional Council of Laodicea in the 4th Century, a synod that not only demanded Christians work on the Sabbath, but Canon 29 even stated that Christians should do no work on Sundays. Not just agricultural labor, Arik, but NO WORK at all. And the Laodicean synod had the benefit of convening at a time when the Roman Empire was still intact.
Arik’s quote: >>>>>>> “Hefele paraphrases canon 33 "no bishop may trangress these canons" Ibid.”
Sure…but this admonition would have only applied to bishops within a particular territory since Orleans III constituted local law.
God's servants have always been persecutedsince the beginning of time. "They will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time." (Dan 7:25). That verse is indicating the fact that this power would have temporal control over the affairs of God's people. Just like the USA has affairs over its people. Did it do good to His people? No, the bible gave the clue that it had Satan's spirit and decided to try and make God's followers extinct. Satan is the god of this world and used this system during this time. It is a characteristic of the power. Just because you cant see that it started persecuting on the 1st day of 538AD doesnt mean this power didnt fulfil the indicating verse here. This verse plays right into there rise and then the 1260 year describes there fall. It takes a denying of all the facts of the bible to try and pawn it of on another power. The papacy is indeed the antichrist power face it. Because the USA is next to fulfil its purposes in rebelling against God.
Post a Comment