around which I could feel authentic positivity.
If the Good News that Christ rose from the dead (and all it implies) is not true, then I doubt there is anything that could be viewed as authentically positive, in the final analysis.
Was there some influence from this on your username, by chance?
I don't know if Capricorns are known for peace seeking. Are they? I just know Taurus is very war-like, and that was definitely the environment I grew up in, and so it was a reaction to that that led me to development a conciliatory personality.
A question for you and : you both seem to take Christianity very seriously, in varying respects. I don't know KOWA's background exactly. My question concerns the sacraments. The only sacrament that Protestant Christians have retained is baptism. The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Church, and it is baptism alone that brings one into the Church (Protestant baptisms, if performed validly, also lead one into partial communion with the Catholic Church).
But baptism is also the door to all the other sacraments. Confession to restore the bond of charity if broken by mortal sin after baptism. The Eucharist, source and summit of the faith and wellspring of grace - devotion to and reception of which will become more critical as time goes on, I think.
But what I wanted to ask specifically, and the reason I raise this now, is about the sacrament of Confirmation, an anointing with oil. Like all the other sacraments, it can only be received after baptism. But the reason this is relevant to the current thread is that there are some Catholic commentators who have suggested that only those who have been Confirmed will be able to resist the Mark of the Beast. I'll try to find sources for that another time for reference.
Now, this is where we enter territory where I am lost. I will have to do some reading to even understand the significance of Confirmation. I have a better grasp of the Eucharist, but even Baptism is somewhat of a mystery to me.
But, this connection to the mark makes it very interesting.
is where I first heard about this particular importance of Confirmation.
I've just done some research - looking into St. Vincent Ferrer for the first time - and I'm amazed that I haven't been familiar with him. Read to get an idea of who he was and why his words should be taken seriously - as if his canonization was not reason enough for that. He established himself as a capable prophet even in life, and performed quite a large number of miracles in name of Jesus Christ, including several resurrections. And of course his body was incorrupt after death. I might begin a devotion to this saint; I would like to know him better.
is the full letter he wrote to Pope Benedict XIII, explaining his Apocalyptic prophecies, which is referenced in that previous article to which I linked.
And is an article that references the same prophecy that Dr. Taylor Marshall references in that video I shared. The prophecy reads:
“In the days of peace that are to come after the desolation of revolutions and wars, before the end of the world, the Christians will become so lax in their religion that they will refuse to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, saying, ‘It is an unnecessary Sacrament.’; and when the false prophet and the Anti-Christ comes, all who are not confirmed will apostatize, while those who are confirmed will stand firm in the faith, and only a few will renounce Christ.”
The first time you demonstrated being really compelled by something I said about the Catholic faith, Chiro, it was with respect to the sacraments - I pointed out that man, being both spiritual ad corporeal, ought to have something like sacraments, which are actually corporeal and yet simultaneously spiritual in their efficacy and power, and that one would expect the True God, in establishing a Church, or any structure for those He seeks to save, to do so with sacraments for this reason. Sacraments are readily pursued and abundantly powerful. They should not be overlooked.
What St. Vincent predicts in this prophecy, that people will view Confirmation as something superfluous, and thus avoid it, is very realistic a prediction from my perspective. The Church teaches that Baptism and Confession are the only sacraments technically necessary for salvation (since baptism forgives original sin, which is mortal, and confession removes mortal sins committed after baptism, and mortal sin is just that that keeps us from being able to unify with God), although of course one if Her precepts is that the Eucharist should be received by all Catholics at least once a year, since those who do not receive it "have no life in them" (). Honestly, John 6:54 itself should be enough to convince anyone who takes Christianity even a little seriously just how important sacraments are.
My point is, at most, those three sacraments are considered indispensable. But they are all indispensable (can we really argue that Christ established seven sacraments just so it would be a holy number?). Holy Orders brings one into the priesthood, without which there can be no sacraments (except baptism technically, since anyone can baptize, but the efficacy of baptism comes through Christ's Church, and without the priesthood there is no Church, in a very real sense, since without the priesthood there is no Eucharist). Holy Matrimony joins man and woman together in marriage, without which there can be no licit sexual union, no moral raising of offspring. Obviously there are non-sacramental "marriages" that the Church would still consider permissive of sexual union, but you take my point that Matrimony, as a sacrament, cannot rightly be called dispensable. Last Rites is basically the administering of Confession, if the dying is conscious, before death, and the blessing of their death so they may receive the grace they need to enter heaven - not exactly unimportant.
But then there is Confirmation. It gives us "bonus graces", and an opportunity for those baptized at birth to actually make baptismal promises and explicitly renounce Satan. "Big deal, right?"
No sacrament established by Christ is superfluous or dispensable, not properly speaking. Confirmation plays a vital role. The graces it grants are, according to the clearly holy St. Vincent Ferrer, are actually essential to be constitutionally capable of resisting the temptations of the Antichrist, to avoid succumbing.
And if you are now saying to yourself, "no way, I know too much, I see through the lies, I won't be fooled" - is that not pride in place of humility? Is that not trusting yourself instead of God? Isn't the trust of man, in place of the trust of God, precisely what the number of the beast represents? , or compare or to - as is usually the case, there are literal and symbolic meanings to these profound verses of Scripture. The Old Law commanded the "tying" of the Law itself to one's head and/or hands, and the Antichrist will mark those who follow him on the foreheads and/or hands. This is a sign, an anti-sacrament, something corporeal but also spiritually significant, that announces to the world "I think and act according, not to Christ, but Antichrist, the world!".
And how are we to avoid the anti-sacrament without the sacrament? If we trust in ourselves to avoid the anti-sacrament, if we believe in our own power to accomplish this, then we already affirm the anti-sacrament in spirit, because we trust ourselves, we trust man, instead of God.
Sanctus Vincentius Ferrerius, ora pro nobis!
some Catholic commentators ... have suggested that only those who have been Confirmed will be able to resist the Mark of the Beast.
I can see why they would say this. Faith itself is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8). The Latin Sacrament of Confirmation is basically the same as the Holy Mystery of Chrismation - being the occasion for the reception of the Gift of the Holy Spirit. In the Orthodox Church, Chrismation is typically received immediately after Baptism in all but the most unusual situations. I’m not familiar with the form the Rite takes in the West, but in my family’s Chrismation, we also received Tonsure, which to my understanding is reserved for monastics in the Roman Communion (correct me if I am wrong). In Orthodoxy, per 1 Peter 2:9, we’re all a “royal priesthood”, so everyone receives Tonsure - though only Clergy recieve Holy Orders.
So while the Mark of the Beast will be some innocuous ecumenical rite(s) that includes a conscious renunciation of Christ, the Mark of the Lamb by contrast is these Holy Mysteries that come with conscious acceptance of Christ and reception of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.
I suspect there will be people who, for political reasons, choose to reject both Marks, at least for a time. But Scripture seems strongly to affirm that the entire world is going to receive one or the other.
In light of all that, the picture I’m seeing is that either Mark, rather than being set-in-stone in any particular single event, implies a continual commitment to either one or the other; furthermore, that committed refusal of the Beast will absolutely require the Grace of God in a continual outpouring of the Holy Spirit - which as I mentioned is symbolically Gifted to us at Chrismation.
I think I see what they are saying.
I suspect the practical side of this will be that the only successful theriomachists will be active participants in the Holy Mysteries of the Church.
I suspect many would-be theriomachists will be deceived (per Matthew 24:24), trusting in a Communion without Grace, without power to save. Hence, the importance of sound Ecclesiology. There’s an alarming possibility this number may be very small, per Luke 18:8. Indeed, “will He find Faith on earth?” Christ refers to the “Little Flock” on a number of occasions, so it’s wisdom not to put ones’ Faith in the “majority”.
Gentlemen, the picture is quite bleak; but would we expect any different ? I trust in the Goodness of God, and I know He’s perfectly capable of delivering His Faithful Remnant through anything.
I suspect there will be people who, for political reasons, choose to reject both Marks, at least for a time. But Scripture seems strongly to affirm that the entire world is going to receive one or the other.
I agree. I think this could even be argued to be necessarily the case from Scripture itself. There will be no fence sitters in the end times. It's just like Yeats says in my favourite poem, **:
Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
I don't think this talk of the centre disappearing is coincidentally situated without a poem that is literally about the coming of the Antichrist.
Gentlemen, the picture is quite bleak; but would we expect any different ? I trust in the Goodness of God, and I know He’s perfectly capable of delivering His Faithful Remnant through anything.
Amen.
Both of your last comments in this thread were great.
(post is archived)