The Little Horn--More

[Thomas the Doubter]

Moreover, this fact has been known for some time. The late Samuele Bacchiocchi, retired distinguished professor of Andrews University, was/is probably the best-known Adventist scholar outside of Adventism. In 2002 in his popular End Time Issues Newsletters he was humble enough to admit that, 

“The death of Pius VI [1798] can hardly be seen as the "abolishment" or "the downfall of the Papacy." It was simply a temporary humiliation of the prestige of the Papacy… The following years marked, not the downfall, but the resurgence of papal authority…” – Samuele Bacchiocchi, ‘A Reply To Criticism: Part I “The Use of E. G. White’s Writing in Interpreting Scripture,”’ End-Times Issues Newsletter, No. 87, (1 August 2002), <http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_87.html> [accessed 24 June 2017].

When will historical fact be accepted?

[Gregory Matthews]

HCH:  Please note that we have  restricted certain of your posts to another section of this forum.  That restriction still applies.  Please keep this in mind.

 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

When will historical fact be accepted?

Thank you, Thomas, for your excellent historical research.  It is good to see you back here.  Happy Holidays to you and yours!

[Thomas the Doubter]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Thank you, Thomas, for your excellent historical research.  It is good to see you back here.  Happy Holidays to you and yours!

You're very welcome Joe! It's been a while. So much to get done, I don't have too much time on my hands with child rearing and second year of my degree. Its just that I happened to finish off my research on 1798 last weekend since one of my degree modules happens to be on the French Revolution, and thought I'd check out if there was any discussion on it on the forums. Lo and behold there was! I was impressed by that Atoday article. Happy Holidays to you too!

[Thomas the Doubter]

Hi Wanderer.

Thank you for your comments (I won’t quote them since it would take up too much space).

I should remind you that what is at issue is a specific historical claim regarding 1798, which is tied into the Adventist interpretation of a prophetic passage, namely regarding the 1260 year period. That claim is that “the political rule of the papacy came to an end” (General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, Seventh-Day Adventists Believe… A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, (Review and Herald Publishing Assoc.: Maryland, 1988), p. 156), or that “papal supremacy… would terminate in 1798” (Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, (1911), p. 266), or that “the papacy was overthrown” (Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, “Dan. 7:25 ‘A Time and Times and the Dividing of Time,’” (Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1995).  And the question that needs to be addressed is did Papal rule/supremacy come to an end? The historians that I have quoted demonstrate emphatically that it did not. None of the quotes that you have selected refute this because they are not even dealing with it. History (I've restricted myself to quoting one or two authors for the sake of brevity), the Atoday article, Samuele Bacchiocchi, and even the SDA Bible Commentary acknowledge that the papacy’s temporal power came to an end not in 1798 but in 1870:

“In 1870 the Papal States were completely absorbed into the united kingdom of Italy, the temporal power the papacy had formally exercised for more than 1,000 years came to an end, and the pope voluntarily became “the prisoner of the Vatican” until his temporal power was restored in 1929.” - Francis D. Nichol ed., Raymond F. Cottrell, Don F. Neufeld assoc. eds., Julia Neuffer assist. ed., Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, “Daniel 7:28 ‘Additional Note on Chapter 7’” (Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1995), [CD-ROM].

“In my view, a more important humiliation of the papacy occurred on September 20, 1870, when, as mentioned earlier, Victor Emmanuel II, King of Sardinia and later first King of Italy, captured Rome and took over the States of the Church which included most of the central part of Italy from Naples to Ravenna. The annexation of these territories which the Pope had controlled since 756, was necessary in order to unify Italy into one nation. The loss of the States of the Church in 1870 marks the end of the temporal rule of the Papacy. The Pope was no longer a political ruler with his own territory, known, as "PATRIMONIUM PETRI - The Patrimony of St. Peter." He was left only with the Vatican, the Lateran, and Castel Gandolfo - a situation which has remained unchanged to this very day.” – Samuele Bacchiocchi, ‘A Reply To Criticism: Part I “The Use of E. G. White’s Writing in Interpreting Scripture,”’ End-Times Issues Newsletter, No. 87, (1 August 2002), <http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_87.html> [accessed 24 June 2017].

These are facts that are impossible to ignore. To ignore them would be to continue in ignorance and darkness. Are we not to have light?

[JoeMo]

7 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I am not aware of HOW this could be called "excellent historical research"

You don't know Thomas.  I know him from this forum a few years ago; and he is an excellent researcher with an open and inquisitive mind.

[JoeMo]

9 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

The historic Adventist positions do hold up very well under the lens of Scripture:

I agree if you are a historicist or a preterist.  If one is a futurist (I am), a lot of what we have historically believed may no longer be valid in this day and age.  I have spoken much about an equal or greater probability that Islam rather than the Catholic Church will play the lead "bad guy" role in the end times.

[JoeMo]

5 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

discussing the person, rather than THE IDEA.

Okay.  I agree with the idea Thomas has posted.

[B/W Photodude]

14 hours ago, hch said:

I find it shocking that Gregory … has used his authority to close down threads that I have started that promote Bible study …

I rest on the word of God, "The Lord rebuke thee."

I have heard of some of your strange prophecies and reportedly, they have not come true. If I had made a prophecy of serious importance and it did not come true, I don't think I would again prophesy. I am not sure you are one to rebuke.

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Deut 18:20-22

[B/W Photodude]

22 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

…  Islam rather than the Catholic Church will play the lead "bad guy" role in the end times.

I think it might be Communist China, maybe it is the globalists, or perhaps the postmodern wannabe Christians! None of the make any since or fit the prophecies of Revelation. I think I will stick the the Roman church model of the interpretations of Revelation's prophecies.

[JoeMo]

2 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

I think I will stick the the Roman church model of the interpretations of Revelation's prophecies.

The church would agree with you.  The Q1 2019 Quarterly is on Revelation - a study I much look forward to.  I was perusing the quarterly, and it clearly states in some places that the Catholic Church/papacy is the end-time villain (e.g., the March 13 lesson, March 18 lesson, March 20 lesson, Feb. 21 lesson, Feb. 24 and 25  lessons).  So I can only assume that, in spite of this teaching not appearing in the 28, it is still an official position of the SDA Church.

[B/W Photodude]

1 minute ago, JoeMo said:

So I can only assume that, in spite of this teaching not appearing in the 28, it is still an official position of the SDA Church.

I do not see this position to be of such a significance to be a fundamental belief. However, it is significant enough that I really believe that with the church leaders promoting this idea, if it were wrong, likely it would have been corrected. God did promise to show people great things. To take on the Roman church and promote them as being the beast, if it were not true, would have been a serious error for a remnant church. The fact that you think it may be islam seems strange since there is thought that God's people could have been in heaven more than a hundred years ago. 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

you have not actually posted some specific quotes that would support what you are saying.

The Quarterly is a copyrighted publication that explicitly states that it cannot be copied or reproduced  without express written permission of the GC.  I guess you'll just have to get a quarterly and look it up yourself.  Trust me; it's there.

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I think it might be Communist China, maybe it is the globalists, or perhaps the postmodern wannabe Christians! None of the make any since or fit the prophecies of Revelation.

I'm not gonna disagree with you; but I will say that none of them fit your read of the prophecies in Revelation.  Rather than summarily dismiss those other possibilities you mentioned, I'd rather keep them filed away as possibilities, along with Islam.

In the end, it probably isn't as important to know this stuff as it is to be ready for Jesus to come through study of scripture, prayer, faith, and obedience.  That way, it won't matter how things unfold, we will be ready for the Kingdom.

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

I would hope that when you tell the public "what Adventists believe;" that you would include such as the following:

All of the quotes you posted below the line above are good advice.

2 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

there is thought that God's people could have been in heaven more than a hundred years ago. 

That hit me from left field.  I've never heard that before.  Maybe that's a subject for a different topic.

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

That hit me from left field.  I've never heard that before.  Maybe that's a subject for a different topic.

A quote from an article which discusses this idea:

In Christ's Object Lessons, we find the oft-quoted statement "When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.

"It is the privilege of every Christian not only to look for but to hasten the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:12, margin). Were all who profess His name bearing fruit to His glory, how quickly the whole world would be sown with the seed of the gospel. Quickly the last great harvest would be ripened, and Christ would come to gather the precious grain." 

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1988/02/have-we-delayed-the-advent

I have also heard some liken our still being on this earth to the 40 years Israel spent wandering in the desert. Perhaps it is the weariness of waiting or any number of reasons, but we have been waiting now some 174 years since the cleansing of the sanctuary began. Needless to say, it does raise some metaphysical quandries. Like if it had occurred long ago, many of us participating on these forums would never have been born! 

Now you can arrive at your own conclusions regarding this concept.

A different topic would be cool!

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

The Quarterly is a copyrighted publication that explicitly states that it cannot be copied or reproduced  without express written permission of the GC.  I guess you'll just have to get a quarterly and look it up yourself.  Trust me; it's there.

Well, let me ease your mind a bit on this one. There is a legal concept known as "fair use" which allows one to use quotes for the purpose of commentary. While not probably mandatory, you should provide cites so that in one hundred years no one will accuse you of violating the laws of that time! (Assuming that what you said was important enough to have survived the digital dark age.)

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

In the end, it probably isn't as important to know this stuff as it is to be ready for Jesus to come through study of scripture, prayer, faith, and obedience.  That way, it won't matter how things unfold, we will be ready for the Kingdom.

All the understanding of prophecy in the world will not save you. Who knows prophecy better than Satan and God will take him to ashes. I still say there is something that people are not understanding that we need to know before the return of Jesus and correct interpretation of prophecy is not one of them. "scripture, prayer, faith, and obedience" are going in the right direction. (imho)

[Gregory Matthews]

JoMo said in the quote below:

Copyright law has a "fair use" exception which allows for one to copy material without obtaining permission to do so.  Under those provisions I believe that it would have been permissible for JoMo to have copied brief statements from the Quarterly that supported the statements that he made.  As far as I am concerned, he can still do so.

 

 

Quote

 

The Quarterly is a copyrighted publication that explicitly states that it cannot be copied or reproduced  without express written permission of the GC.  I guess you'll just have to get a quarterly and look it up yourself.  Trust me; it's there. 

 

 

[hch]

8 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Well, let me ease your mind a bit on this one. There is a legal concept known as "fair use" which allows one to use quotes for the purpose of commentary. While not probably mandatory, you should provide cites so that in one hundred years no one will accuse you of violating the laws of that time! (Assuming that what you said was important enough to have survived the digital dark age.)

I used "fair use" material and Gregory the moderator stopped people from posting on that thread. 

[HCH:  I am well acquainted with the "fair use" provisions of the U.S. copyright law.  I have some questions as to its applications in the manner in which you used the material.  However, you may be correct that you did correctly use teh material.   However, copyright was not the only reason that I stopped people from posting in that thread.  I am attempting to contact Mark Finley on this matter.  Until I can do so, I have NOT mad a final decision on your post--GM.]

[Thomas the Doubter]

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Why is it "fact?" Because you quoted it? Unless I am corrected I would have to go with viewing your "facts" as a simple process of dickering over semantics, which do not really establish the facts of the matter.

It is important to stick to what is being discussed. Again, the fundamental belief claim is that the Papacy lost its supremacy in 1798. That claim is not verified by historical facts. And so are you saying that we should not read history books, encyclopedias, books of facts? If you read each point, I give the point and support it with historical evidence that historians have gathered. Quibbling with it over alleged 'semantics' doesn't do anything to remove the thrust of it.

Point 1: This outlines a clear criterion of papal sovereignty, namely temporal power, which was believed by Catholics and the Popes themselves during the period. Fact. 

Points 2-4: These points outline had the Papacy still retained temporal power, albeit reduced, by the simple historical fact that it was being taken from it piecemeal by Napoleon post-1798. 

Point 5: This point outlines how the Papacy had almost all territories restored to it at the Congress of Vienna in 1814. 

All these point prove that 1798 was not a marker for its loss of supremacy.

If one does not like that definition, then we can use the criterion of spiritual influence and popularity, hence Point 6, where the Papacy's influence, respectability and adoration during the French Revolution and after it was actually dramatically increased. This is historical fact. 

None of what you have said deals with these facts. All you have said is effectively you do not like such things like historical facts. But if you don't like historical facts then you've already removed the basis on which you can support your claim, and so it is self-refuting. In other words, if you say you don't like historical facts because they disagree with your belief, then you are effectively saying that there are no historical facts to support your belief. So why believe it? Because it is true? But how do you verify that it is true? Because you believe it on the basis that others claimed it? If what they say is true then surely after one hundred and fifty or so years we would be able to verify it. But we can't. 

 

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I noticed some of your quote is from the 27 Fundy book, but we all need to be reminded that most of the material in that book is NOT an official belief. The official belief is contained therein in a small paragraph at the top of each page that begins with a different belief.

I can't see where this helps your belief. What part of that book do you not like? So are you saying you disagree with it or not? This is a strange position to take, as it would mean that you are defending it whilst disputing it. The evidence used in it is to support the official belief. Without it the official belief has no ground. So are you saying you do not like the evidence that they use in support of the fundamental belief, and therefore aren't you removing the rug that you are standing on?

 

 

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

IF we go strictly with what you posted; we would have to deny that the Pope in fact has lost nothing from his "temporal" powers and influence. It is also FACT that the Vatican is a sovereign entity with all of the rights and privileges afforded to any other sovereign nation, which would include specific territories.

This is simply not following the definition that I outlined in Point 1. This territory has to cover quite an extensive bit of land that has a significant population in which to govern, implied in what I said about 'centralized governing power', and the power to coerce that population with force. Implied in that is the power to extract taxes. This the Papacy did have in the form of the Papal States. This is simply fact. And these Papal States were lost in 1870, as I said, which was acknowledged by both Samuele Bacchiocchi and the SDA Bible Commentary. The Papacy has never regained them. Fact.

So what you are saying is that what it presides over now is temporal power. But under what I said comprises temporal power it still at this present time does not fulfill that. Let's look at some more facts to understand this.

When the Papacy lost the Papal States and thus temporal power in 1870 every pope from then on up until 1929 restricted themselves to the Vatican. First point: if the Vatican on its own did not demonstrate temporal power post-1870 then how, still having only the Vatican, does that demonstrate its temporal power? Furthermore, in 1929 there was a public debate of what to do with the Papacy known as the 'Lateran Treaties'.[1] It was voted, almost as a token of pity and sympathy, of giving over 'Vatican City' to the Papacy, as opposed to Rome. 'Vatican City' is not a city at all, much less a state, much less territory in which to exert military force to extract taxes. If one surveys a map of the area it is simply a rich estate, and at 0.17 square miles[2] is the equivalent size of an industrial estate.[3] Its population numbers only 800 approximately[4] - this is less than the UK Parliamentary estate, which in 2017 numbered 2297 plus 650 MPs, not including temporary staff and contractors.[5] It has no domestic or foreign trade income as it is a non-commercial economy, and is reliant on charitable contributions as well as stamps, religious literature, mementos and from museum admissions – tourism essentially.[6] It carries out no taxation, and its judiciary only handle religious matters.[7] It has no army, navy or air force – its Swiss Guard, numbering at a meagre 100 members, are merely ceremonial decoration and are only permitted to be armed with harlberds, a spear with a battle axe attached to its spear end.[8] In reality Vatican City operates more like an embassy with unique long-standing religious heritage and authority. It ‘is not a state, nor does it claim to be one’,[9] and in spite of it being granted de jure sovereign status its de facto ‘temporal influence was not necessarily restored’.[10] It certainly is nothing like what it had prior to 1860.

So any appeal to its status since 1929 is forlorn. It operates nothing like it did pre-1870 and operates exactly like it did post-1870 when its temporal power was removed. 

 

---

[1] Encyclopedia.com, ‘Vatican,’ Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations, (2018), <https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/christianity/christianity-general/vatican> [accessed 23 December 2018].

[2] Ibid.

[3] NovaLoca, <https://www.novaloca.com/commercial-property/industrial%20properties%20in%20Isleworth,%20Greater%20London>. [accessed 23 December 2018].

[4] BBC, Vatican Country Profile, 31 January 2018, <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17994868> [accessed 23 December 2018].

[5] Parliament.uk, Staff Numbers (2017), https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/foi-and-eir/commons-foi-disclosures/human-resources/staff---numbers-2017/> [accessed 23 December 2018].

[6] Encyclopedia.com, ‘Vatican,’ Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations, (2018), <https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/christianity/christianity-general/vatican> [accessed 23 December 2018].

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Samuel W. Bettwy, ‘United States – Vatican Recognition: Background and Issues’, The Catholic Lawyer, vol. 29, No. 3, 1984, p. 225, <https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2193&context=tcl> [accessed 23 December 2018].

[10] Ibid., p. 231.

 

 

[hch]

20 hours ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

I am totally with JoMo on this, as well as what JoMo described accurately as the thrust of the anonymous Atoday article, namely the non-relevance of the 1798 date. For the sake of conciseness I'm only going to hone in on this key point.

All of the proponents of the 1798 date simply presume that what Adventists have said about it is true. But have any bothered to verify it historically?  If we do a quick survey of the historical facts we find that the traditional Adventist understanding of 1798 – namely, that it marked the end of papal supremacy – is utterly false. Here is a summary (as concise as I can) of some of the significant historical facts about thus period of the French Revolution and the Papacy:

1. The Criterion of Papal Spiritual Sovereignty is Temporal Power

At the time, what gave foundation, sustenance and validity to Papal religious authority and supremacy was temporal power – that is to say, possessing territory in which it alone was sovereign, having centralized governing power as well as the power to coerce within that territory through its own military force. Therefore to lose temporal power was to end de facto Papal supremacy. The Papacy possessed such power over the Papal States:

“Henry Edward Manning, future Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, declared that the temporal power of the Pope was the sign of ‘the freedom, the independence, the sovereignty of the kingdom of God upon earth’… In a sermon… identifying the cause of the temporal power with ‘the independence of the Universal Church’, he denounced the attack on it as a ‘falling away from the supernatural order, and a return to (merely) natural society’, the end of Christendom.” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 225.

2. The Coronation of the Next Papal Temporal Sovereign after 1798

The death of Pope Pius VI at this time was not the end of the papacy's temporal authority at all, since the subsequent coronation of a new sovereign over the Papal States, Pope Pius VII, was a clear indication of this:

“The coronation of the Pope was a symbol of his temporal sovereignty. To co-operate in the coronation would be to recognise the integrity of the Papal States, including the Legations.” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 204.

3. Emperor Napoleon’s Continued Annexation of Papal Territory After 1798

Emperor Napoleon’s continual attempt to annex Papal territory after 1798 proves that Pope Pius VII was still sovereign over these territories, thus retaining temporal sovereignty (one can only annex something that someone has not what they do not have):

“To secure the papal port of Ancona against British and Austrian forces, Napoleon annexed it in October 1805, a move which the Pope bitterly resented… In February 1806, using Ancona as a base, Napoleon annexed the kingdom of Naples and placed his brother Joseph on the throne. This was yet another insult to the Pope, for Naples was a papal fief, and the Pope had a right to be consulted about any transfer of rule. Finally, Napoleon wrote to the Pope demanding that he close all papal ports to the allies.” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 211.

4. The Pope’s Abdication of Temporal Power in 1813 (Retracted Later)

‘On 6 July [1808] a French general presented himself before the Pope and demanded his abdication as sovereign of the Papal States’ (Duffy, Saints and Sinners, p. 212) to which Pope Pius VII refused and was subsequently arrested. Napoleon continued on in his aggrandisement of territory and in 1810 he had ‘annexed Rome, declaring it the second city of the empire’ (Ibid.). Eventually, the Pope caved in to Napoleon’s harassments and signed away the Papal States:

“When the Emperor finally came to Fontainebleau on 19 January 1813… for six days the Emperor alternately wheedled and stormed at the Pope… Eventually the Pope gave in, and signed a draft agreement on a scrap of paper for the concordat which totally surrendered the temporal power. The Pope would be sovereign of Rome no longer… Pius immediately regretted this surrender…” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 213.

All of this demonstrates that even though the Papacy suffered a setback in 1798 it was not totally divested of its sovereignty or its political power, since both continued to exist, albeit diminished, up until 1813. 1813 was not the end however since Pope Pius VII retracted his agreement and therefore continued to be in possession of temporal power.

5. The Papal States Restored to the Papacy at the Congress of Vienna in 1814

After the defeat of Napoleon, European powers assembled at the Congress of Vienna in 1814 to discuss the redistribution of territory and ‘redraw the map of Europe’ (John Julius Norwich, The Popes: History, (London: Vintage Books, 2012), p. 375). In the process, ‘the papal representative… Cardinal Consalvi… recovered almost all the former papal territories’ (Ibid.). ‘This restoration of the Papal States is the single most important fact’ regarding the existential reality of the Papacy:

“This restoration of the Papal States is the single most important fact about the nineteenth-century papacy… On the lips of Napoleon the call for the Pope to lay down his temporal sovereignty and to rely solely on spiritual authority had been blatant code for the enslavement of the papacy to French imperial ambitions… If the Pope did not remain a temporal king, then it seemed he could no longer be the Church’s chief bishop.” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 214.

6. 1798 Marked the Beginning of a Renewed and Enlarged Supremacy of the Papacy, Not the End

Lastly, what is absolutely damming to the traditional Adventist claim is that the Papacy, having suffered the worst excesses in all papal history under the Revolution and Napoleon, emerged victorious as the personification of resistance receiving untold acclaim, respect, and adoration, and was recognised widely as the supreme religious authority:

“The Pope was now seventy-two, and respected in Europe more than he had ever been. The cruelties and excesses of the Revolution and the megalomaniac ambitions of Napoleon had brought about a vigorous spirit of reaction of which the Church, which had endured persecution from the one and consistently harsh treatment from the other, had emerged as the leading symbol; and Pius, whose pontificate had been one of the most troubled in all history and whose own personal suffering had been acute, was now seen as the personification of resistance, which had ultimately led to the destruction of both. No longer was the Pope looked upon – as he had been in the previous century – as a fairly insignficant anachronism; he was once again back on the map of Europe, recognised by the Catholic princes as a temporal ruler as well as the supreme spiritual authority… The prospects for the papacy looked brighter than they had for half a century.” – John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History, (London: Vingtage Books, 2012), p. 376.

Rather than bringing the Papacy to a halt, the French Revolution only served to revive its image, garner widespread recognition of its spiritual authority, and restore its supremacy, more than what it had prior to the Revolution. 1798 marked not the end but the beginning of the road to redemption for the Papacy and a renewed and enlarged spiritual hegemony.

The Wanderer alleged that JoMo’s post was ‘a reflection of History Revisionism at best’. But in truth, it has been and continues to be Adventism’s founders and subsequent propagators who are historical revisionists. What history says is the utter opposite of what they have said and continue to say. It is no wonder that the Atoday article’s authors said of Adventism’s prophetic relevance, “Prophecy is to us Seventh-day Adventists an old rusty tool, a tool that we proudly display in our museum, but we are no longer capable of using”. Will Adventists continue to propound such falsehoods in the face of historical facts? Or is loyalty to a false belief much too painful to admit.

Thomas,

Thanks for sharing that material. here is my thought: For the 1798 date to have any merit in relation to the prophecy as it relates to the papacy, something had to happen that fulfills the prophecy in 1798 if the start date is correct.

History tells us that pope Vigilius was appointed by the Eastern Roman Emperor rather than the Roman Catholic Church (the church approved him after he was appointed because the Roman army was occupying Rome). They had a pope in 537 that had been chosen by the influence of the Arian Ostrogoths (they were the power in Rome at that time). When the Eastern Roman army returned from the African campaign against the Vandals, they ousted Pope S...and enthroned Pope Vigilius. Then Witigis the king of the  Ostrogoths returned to Rome his army sieged Rome until 538 when the Eastern Roman Army broke out. So the beginning date for the changed papacy under Pope Vigilius fits 538 when the appointee of the Eastern  emperor was free to govern the whole Church.

The prophecy states that there will be a deadly wound in 1260-years. The math says that if this is the right beginning date (538), then the wound must come in 1798. In that year the French took Pope Pius VI prisoner. (that is interesting because the French under King Clovis had been instrumental in elevating the pope's status to be the head of all the churches). The French did not KILL the papacy, they wounded it with a DEADLY WOUND according to the prophecy.

Christ received a deadly wound at Calvary. His friend (Judas) who had wanted Jesus to be King betrayed Him like the French betrayed the pope that they had supported in times past. Christ died; But he did not stay dead. (Adventists use a day for a year to explain some prophecies.) Christ received His deadly wound on Friday. Pope Pius VI received his deadly wound in 1798 when he was imprisoned in 1798 (he actually died early in 1799). Christ rested in His tomb on Sabbath, and there was no pope for most of 1799 (much like Christ's remaining in the tomb Sabbath). Christ arose on Sunday, and Pope Pius VII was installed in 1800 (like Christ rising from His deadly wound on Sunday...the first day of the new week, the papacy recovered from it's deadly wound on the first day of the new century).

When the papacy's deadly wound is  compared to Christ's deadly wound the 1260 years from 538 to 1798 are a mirror image of Christ's 1260 day ministry (3.5 years). Christ had been anointed by the King of the universe and Pope Vigilius had been appointed by the world's emperor.

To understand if the 1798 deadly wound fulfilled prophecy we must understand 1) how it mirrored [counterfeited] the life of Christ, 2) what exactly the prophecy is calling a deadly wound, and 3) who the prophecy is talking about. 

God inspired His word and by faith, He will give us the understanding that we need at the right time. There is no promise in the Bible that everyone will understand or that everyone will believe the word of God. He will not remove every doubt, nor will God compel people to see that prophecy has been fulfilled when it happens. The best we can do is to reason together.

That's my understanding of the dates: 538-1798; of the role of the papacy in fulfilling the prophecy; of the meaning of the deadly wound; and of the necessity to depend on God for the ability to understand His word

Christian regards

 

[Thomas the Doubter]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

It is well known that much of history is activist in nature and based on people's opinions about what is meant or intended by said "history" or opinions thereof.

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

You just say it is and dig up a few "quotes" and think thats it. What you have "quoted" as evidence" here are in fact, historical opinion; not always the same thing as historical FACT.

Lets examine a shortened form the historical facts that I listed:

• Pope Pius VI organised the next coronation of the next pope as temporal sovereign prior to his death.
• Emperor Napoleon continued to annex papal territory after 1798.
• Pope Pius VII temporarily abdicated temporal rule over the Papal States in 1813.
• Almost full restoration of territory of the Papal States was returned to the Papacy in 1814 at the Congress of Vienna.
• Papal popularity and legitimacy amongst the nobles and population surged as a result of the French Revolution.

Which of these historical facts exactly do you charge as being merely opinion, please explain with your justifications for believing this. So far you have effectively said that you simply don't like them, not that they are invalid, since you provide no evidence that there is any reason to don't those facts that I cited, except to make generalizations. Where's your specific evidence?

 

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

THAT simply is opinion. Its NOT history. Where is this invisible rule that says the "territory" has to be over a certain size?

Lets just follow your logic to its natural conclusion. If what you say is true then anyone who possessed their own rich estate would be a temporal sovereign or have temporal power. But that is obviously not true since many people own land and do not claim such power.

Secondly, you ignored what I said comprised a sovereign and temporal power, namely, to have (1) centralized governing power with (2) coercive power to enforce its edicts, and (3) the power to extract taxes. All of these presuppose having control over a significantly large population, or else who would they have governing power, coercive power and taxing power over? And obviously, a large population covers a large territory. This is how a state works. I am currently studying a degree module called 'Rise of the Modern State' and all authors state this. It obviously makes sense. Simply having a small plot of land does not make you a temporal power. Please cite me any evidence that you have for this instead of just asserting claims that are evidently false.

Lastly, you also ignored what I said regarding the current status of the Vatican, which is no different to when it factually lost temporal power in the form of the Papal States after 1870. It has not expanded.

You would do well to read any online encyclopedia or history book from a library or bookstore. Simply repeating what one believes does not make it more true.

[Thomas the Doubter]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I have said no such thing; and you have no idea what I like or dont like; nor is any such garbled view a part of this threads topic. Looks like someone here does not like being questioned. I was always a thorn in the history teachers side, as one of the first questions I would ask is "why." And I believe that thats how I did it here with you. I will always ask "why" and you dont have to like that! In fact, you do have the option to just scroll on by if you dont like it.

Again, you have simply made a generalized assertion with nothing to support it. If you do like historical evidence and facts then why is it you dislike when I use it? And now you admit you seem to not like history teachers. Why not just cite some historical evidence for your points? So far you have provided none and cannot justify any of your opinions. Since you haven't refuted any of the facts except through broad dismissive generalizations about what you don't like about history, I leave them to stand on their own for all to see. The facts speak for themselves.  

[JoeMo]

15 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

yet you have not actually posted some specific quotes that would support what you are saying.

Based on the above discussion, I will quote a couple items from the Quarterly:

From Feb. 21 lesson - "Throughout the rest of the book [Revelation],the members of this satanic triad - paganism/spiritualism as symbolized by the dragon; Roman Catholicism, symbolized by the sea beast; and apostate Protestantism, symbolized by the lamblike, or earth beast - are inseparably united in opposing God's activities in the world."

From Feb. 24 lesson - ...These characteristics of the sea beast all point to the papacy ..."

I hesitate to quote more for concern over crossing the line between fair use and copyright infringement.