facebook script

Daniel Chapter 7

1.  Burt, Daniel S. (2001). The biography book: a reader’s guide to nonfiction, fictional, and film biographies of more than 500 of the most fascinating individuals of all time. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 315. ISBN 1-57356-256-4., Extract of page 315


2. Isaac Newton

 A.    “But it was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten kingdoms, having a life or soul peculiar to itself, with eyes and a mouth.  By its eyes it was a Seer; and by its mouth speaking great things and changing times and laws, it was a Prophet as well as a King.  And such a Seer, a Prophet and a King, is the Church of Rome.”  –Newton, ‘Observations’ pp. 16 ff.


3. King James:

 A.    James I, ‘Premonition, in Workes’ pp. 308-310 

 B.    James I, ‘Paraphrase, in Workes’ pp. 47, 57

 C.    James I, ‘Paraphrase, in Workes’ chap. 13, ‘Argument’ pg. 39

4. Luther

 A.    “We are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist, against whose deceit and vileness all is permitted for the salvation of souls.  Personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist.”  Luther, ‘Schriften’ vol. 15, col. 1639; see also ‘Schriften’  vol. 18, cols. 1470 ff, 1512, 1513


 5. John Calvin

 A.    I deny that See to be Apostolical, wherein nought is seen but a shocking apostasy – I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist…” —Calvin, ‘Tracts’ vol. 1, pp. 219, 220; see also Guiness, ‘Romanism,’ p. 236

 B.    “Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God.  The head of that cursed and abominable kingdom, in the Western Church, we affirm to be the Pope.  When his seat is placed in the temple of God, it suggests, that his kingdom will be such, that he will not abolish the name of Christ or the Church.  Hence it appears, that we by no means deny that churches may exist, even under his tyranny; but he has profaned them by sacrilegious impiety, afflicted them by cruel despotism, corrupted and almost terminated their existence by false and pernicious doctrines; like poisonous potions, in such churches, Christ lies half buried, the gospel is suppressed, piety exterminated, and the worship of God almost abolished; in a word, they are altogether in such a state of confusion, that they exhibit a picture of Babylon, rather than of the holy city of God.”–Calvin, ‘Institutes’ vol. 2, pp. 314, 315 The English translation of 1561, fol. 15V, gives the same thought, only in the quaint but often more vivid phrasing of the time.

 C.   “Some persons think us too sever and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt.  And lest any one should object that we improperly pervert to the Roman pontiff those words of Paul, which belong to a different subject, I shall briefly show that they are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy…”  —Calvin, ‘Institutes’ vol. 2, pp. 410, 411 (in 1561 ed., fol. 45v)


6. Wycliffe

 A.    “The pope is antichrist here on earth,” —The English Works of Wyclif Hitherto Unprinted,’ pp. 458 ff

 B.    Trench, op. cit., p. 312


7. Thomas Cramner

A.    “And as for the pope, I refuse him as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine.” — Cramner, ‘Works,’ vol. 2, appendix, p. 566


8. John Knox

A.    took the Text written in Daniel, the seventh Chapter, beginning thus:  And another King shall arise after them, and he shall be unlike unto the first, and he shall subdue three Kings, and shall speak words against the most High, and shall consume the Saints of the most High, and thinke that he can change Times and Lawes:  And they shall be given unto his hands until a time, and times, and dividing of times, &c. In the beginning of his Sermon, he shewed the great love of God towards his Church, whom he pleased to forewarne of dangers to come, so many yeers before they come to passe.  He briefly treated of the state of the Israelites, who then were in bondage in Babylon, The Persian, That of the Greeks, And the fourth of the Romanes;  in the destruction whereof, rose up that last Beast, which he affirmed to be the Romane Church; for to none other power that ever hath yet beene, do all the notes that God hath shewed to the Prophet appertain, except to it alone; And unto it they do so properly appertaine, that such as are not more then blinde, may cleerly see them.”  –Knox, ‘The Historie of the Reformatioun of Religioun Within the Realm of Scotland,’ book 1, pp. 75, 76


9. The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers’ Le Roy Edwin Froom


10. Daniel’s Historicist Description of Four Major Empires

A.    “The second prophecy is that…in the second chapter of Daniel relating to the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, to whom appeared the image consisting of four parts, signifying four monarchies, so that the head of gold represents the kingdom of the Assyrians, as Daniel explains in the same place, the second kingdom represented by the breast and arms of silver, was the kingdom of the Persians and the Medes, and the third kingdom, represented by the belly and thighs of brass, was the kingdom of the Greeks.  For in the eighth chapter of Daniel we read, how he saw a ram, brandishing his horns toward the west, toward the north, and toward the south, and how all beasts were unable to resist him, or to be freed from his hands. And afterward Gabriel explains this as related to the king of the Persians and Medes, and the vision in which he saw the he-goat with one notable horn conquering the ram; Gabriel explains as relating to the king of the Greeks, which he had proved after the occurrence of the event, as is shown in the eighth chapter of Daniel and the first of the Maccabees concerning Alexander the Great.  Moreover the fourth part of the image, represented by the feet of iron, is explained concerning the kingdom of the Romans, which by civil law and by wars overthrew the four horns coming forth from Alexander.Translated from Wyclif’s ‘De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae’ vol. 3, pp. 262, 263

B.    Over the centuries, scholars have proposed two alternative interpretations regarding the identification of the four kingdoms in Daniel 2. The oldest view holds that the Median and Persian empires were combined as one, as Medo-Persia. The alternate view considers that the empires were separate in relation to the Daniel narrative.


 Historicist interpretation

The following view has traditionally been more prevalent among Christian scholars, who identify the four kingdoms with unified Medo-Persia:

    1. Head of gold – Babylon
    2. Breast and arms of silver- Medo-Persia
    3. Belly and thighs of brass- Hellenistic Greece
    4. Legs of iron – Rome
    5. Feet partly of iron and partly of molded clay – The divided Roman Empire


Supporters of this view since classical antiquity through the middle ages are: Flavius Josephus, Hippolytus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther. Jewish expositors have also held this view, such as: Japet Ibn Ali, Saadia, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra. Modern scholars who hold this view are: E. J. Young, Seventh-day AdventistGerhard Pfandl, and John F. Walvoord.Evangelicals, such as Henrietta C. Mears, and Billy Graham also share this view.   —http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_2

11. “The Next World Superpower, Ancient Prophecies, Global Events, and Your Future” Mark Finley


12. “Kings” and “Kingdoms” are interchangeable concepts in Daniel 7.  Example: the four beasts of Daniel 7 are referred to as four “kings” in verse 17 and “kindgoms” in verse 23.


13. anti- L. anti- from Gk. Anti “against, opposite, instead of,” from PIE*anti. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti?s=t


14. 2 Thessalonians 2:3


15. Revelation 13:1


16. Daniel 7:8


17. Revelation 17:1


18. Translated from Wyclif’s De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, vol. 3, pp. 262, 263


19. “Daniel and the Revelation”  Uriah Smith p. 117


20. “Daniel and the Revelation” Uriah Smith pp. 121 – 128


21. Albert Barnes, “Notes on Daniel,”p. 328 comment on Daniel 7:25William E. H. Lecky, “History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe,” Vol. II pp. 35, 37John Dowling, “The History of Romanism,” p. 547


22. Three Arian Tribes

 A.    “Daniel the Seer of Bablyon,” p. 64 –Gerhard Pfandl;


 B.    “Future Glory,” pp. 24-27 –Angel Manuel Rodriguez



23. Persecution Statistics

 A.    “From the birth of Popery in 606 to the present time, it is estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than fifty millions of the human family, have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by popish persecutors, an average of more than forty thousand religious murders for every year of the existence of popery.”— “History of Romanism,” pp. 541, 542. New York: 1871.

B.    “The Catholic crusade against the Albigenses in Southern France (from 1209-1229), under Popes Innocent III., Honorius III. and Gregory IX., was one of the bloodiest tragedies in human history. … The number of Albigenses that perished in the twenty years’ war is estimated at from one to two millions.” Cushing B. Hassell, History of the Church of God, Chapter XIV.

C.   “That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history. The memorials, indeed, of many of her persecutions are now so scanty, that it is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no power of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings.” — “History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe,” Vol. II, p. 32. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1910. 

D.   “the whole number of victims who have been offered up in Europe since the beginning of the Reformation? Partly by war, partly by the Inquisition, and a thousand other methods of Romish cruelty? No less within forty years, if the computation of an eminent writer be just, than five and forty millions!” –John Wesley, “Doctrine of Original Sin”, Part I, section II.8, 1757, Wesley’s Works, edited by Thomas Jackson, vol. 9, pp. 217-19

E.     84 Page Doc. “Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages and Later”—David A. Plaisted

24. Change of Sabbath to Sunday

A.    “It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to the ‘Lord’s day’; for as much as on that day light first shone on the world; so by the resurrection of our Redeemer on that day, who opened to us the gate of life eternal, our life was recalled out of darkness into light; whence also the Apostles would have it named ‘the Lord’s day.’ Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 347

B.    “Question – Which is the Sabbath day?”

“Answer – Saturday is the Sabbath day.”

“Question – Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?”

“Answer – We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity  from  Saturday  to Sunday.”    -Peter Geiermann,  The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1946 ed.), p. 50. Geiermann received the “apostolic blessing” of Pope Pius X in his labors Jan. 25, 1910.

C.   “You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” – James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 ed.), pp. 72, 73.

D.    “Incidentally, there is no proof in scripture that God willed the Sabbath to be changed from Saturday to Sunday, so that those non-Catholics who do not accept the value of tradition as a source of faith, should logically still observe Saturday as the Sabbath.”  This Is The Faith – Catholic Theology For Laymen,  Francis  J. Ripley, p. 176 

25. “Accordingly, towards the close of the century of the Reformation, two of her most learned doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavouring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men’s minds from perceiving the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Antichrist, in the Papal system.  The Jesuit Alcasar devoted himself to bring into prominence the Preterist method of interpretation, which we have already briefly noticed, and thus endeavoured to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the popes ever ruled at Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy.  On the other hand the Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the Papal Power by bringing out the Futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly not to the career of the Papacy, but to that of some future supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and to continue in power for three and a half years.  Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580, may be regarded as the Founder of the Futurist system in modern times.” —Joseph Tanner, ‘Daniel and the Revelation,’ pp. 16, 17


26. “The line of prophecy in which these symbols are found begins with Revelation 12, with the dragon that sought to destroy Christ at His birth. The dragon is said to be Satan (Revelation 12:9); he it was that moved upon Herod to put the Saviour to death. But the chief agent of Satan in making war upon Christ and His people during the first centuries of the Christian Era was the Roman Empire, in which paganism was the prevailing religion. Thus while the dragon, primarily, represents Satan, it is, in a secondary sense, a symbol of pagan Rome.

In chapter 13 (verses 1-10) is described another beast, “like unto a leopard,” to    which the dragon gave “his power, and his seat, and great authority.” This symbol, as most Protestants have believed, represents the papacy, which succeeded to the power and seat and authority once held by the ancient Roman empire. Of the leopardlike      beast it is declared: “There was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies…. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to      make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” This prophecy, which is nearly identical with the description of the little horn of Daniel 7, unquestionably points to the papacy.

“Power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.” And, says the prophet, “I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death.” And again: “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.” The forty and two months are the same as the “time and times and the dividing of time,” three years and a half, or 1260 days, of Daniel 7 – – the time during which the papal power was to oppress God’s people. This period, as stated in preceding chapters, began with the supremacy of the papacy, A.D. 538, and terminated in 1798. At that time the pope was made captive by the French army, the papal power received its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled, “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity.”

 –”The Great Controversy” Ellen White pp.438, 439

27. Catholic Teaching on Separation of Church and State

A.    That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. . . . Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. –Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos §3.

B.    Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.Longinqua §6.

C.     There are [those] . . . who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation.—Libertas §18; cf. Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus §65ff. and John XXIII, Pacem in Terris §57

D.    Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power           and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide-as they should do-with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. –Libertas §21.

E.     As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it  to God, by the public profession of religion. . . . So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule.        –Immortale Dei §6.

F.     But this teaching is understood in two ways. Many wish the State to be separated from the Church wholly and entirely, so that with regard to every right of human society, in institutions, customs, and laws, the offices of State, and the education of youth, they would pay no more regard to the Church than if she did not exist; and, at most, would allow the citizens individually to attend to their religion in private if so minded. Against such as these, all the arguments by which We disprove the principle of separation of Church and State are conclusive; with this super-added, that it is absurd the citizen should respect the Church, while the State may hold her in contempt. –Libertas §39.

28. Luke 23:34


29. John 3:15, 16, 18; 5:24; 6:35, 40, 47; 11:25, 26

30. Indulgences:

 A.    “…the Catholic Church teaches instead that indulgences only relieve the temporal punishment due because of the sins…”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

B.    The mere fact that the Church proclaims an indulgence does not imply that it can be gained without effort on the part of the faithful. From what has been said above, it is clear that the recipient must be free from the guilt of mortal sin. Furthermore, for plenary indulgences, confession and Communion are usually required, while for partial indulgences, though confession is not obligatory, the formulacorde        saltem contrito, i.e. “at least with a contrite heart”, is the customary . Regarding the question discussed by theologians whether a person in mortal sin can gain an indulgence for the dead, see PURGATORY. It is also necessary to have the intention, at least habitual, of gaining the indulgence. Finally, from the nature of the case, it is obvious that one must perform the good worksprayers,almsdeeds, visits to a church, etc. — which are prescribed in the granting of an indulgence. For details see “Raccolta”.” –Catholic Encyclopedia

31. Luke 16:29; 24: 25, 45; John 5:39; Acts 17:11; Romans 15:4 Revelation 1:1-3


32. Counsil of Toulouse 1229 A.D.  Canon 14

A.    We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.–Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832,  pp. 192-194.

 B.    Bibles not to be read independent of priest’s interpretation/permission: “Since experience teaches that, if the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is permitted generally without discrimination, more damage than advantage will result because of the boldness of men, the judgment of bishops and inquisitors is to serve as guide in this regard. Bishops and inquisitors may, in accord with the counsel of the local priest and confessor, allow Catholic translations of the Bible to be read by those of whom they realize that such reading will not lead to the detriment but to the increase of faith and piety. The permission is to be given in writing. Whoever reads or has such a translation in his possession without this permission cannot be absolved from his sins until he has turned in these Bibles …”– The Reformation, by Hans J. Hillerbrand, copyright 1964 by SCM Press Ltd and Harper and Row, Inc., Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 64-15480, pages 474, 475.

 C.   From the Encyclical  UBI PRIMUM of POPE LEO XII, MAY 5, 1824:

17. You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,[16] it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil![17]

18. To prevent this evil, Our predecessors published many constitutions. Most recently Pius VII wrote two briefs, one to Ignatius, Archbishop of Gniezno, the other to Stanislaus, Archbishop of Mohileu, quoting carefully and wisely many passages from the sacred writings and from the tradition to show how harmful to faith and morals this wretched undertaking is.

19. In virtue of Our apostolic office, We too exhort you to try every means of keeping your flock from those deadly pastures. Do everything possible to see that the faithful observe strictly the rules of our Congregation of the Index. Convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language, wholesale and without distinction, would on account of human rashness cause more harm than good.

D.   From the encyclical  TRADITI HUMILITATI of Pope Pius VIII, May 24, 1829

5. We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new interpretations contrary to the Church’s laws. They skillfully distort the meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated. Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation. Long ago the Apostolic See warned about this serious hazard to the faith and drew up a list of the authors of these pernicious notions. The rules of this Index were published by the Council of Trent;[8] the ordinance required that translations of the Bible into the vernacular not be permitted without the approval of the Apostolic See and further required that they be published with commentaries from the Fathers. The sacred Synod of Trent had decreed[9] in order to restrain impudent characters, that no one, relying on his own prudence in matters of faith and of conduct which concerns Christian doctrine, might twist the sacred Scriptures to his own opinion, or to an opinion contrary to that of the Church or the popes. Though such machinations against the Catholic faith had been assailed long ago by these canonical proscriptions, Our recent predecessors made a special effort to check these spreading evils.[10] With these arms may you too strive to fight the battles of the Lord which endanger the sacred teachings, lest this deadly virus spread in your flock.

E.    From the encyclical  INTER PRAECIPUAS (On Biblical Societies) by Pope Gregory XVI, May 8, 1844:

1. Among the special schemes with which non-Catholics plot against the adherents of Catholic truth to turn their minds away from the faith, the biblical societies are prominent. They were first established in England and have spread far and wide so that We now see them as an army on the march, conspiring to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels. Then the biblical societies invite everyone to read them unguided. Therefore it is just as Jerome complained in his day: they make the art of understanding the Scriptures without a teacher” common to babbling old women and crazy old men and verbose sophists,” and to anyone who can read, no matter what his status. Indeed, what is even more absurd and almost unheard of, they do not exclude the common people of the infidels from sharing this kind of a knowledge.

4. Moreover, regarding the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, even many centuries ago bishops in various places have at times had to exercise greater vigilance when they became aware that such translations were being read in secret gatherings or were being distributed by heretics. Innocent III issued warnings concerning the secret gatherings of laymen and women, under the pretext of piety, for the reading of Scripture in the diocese of Metz.[12] There was also a special prohibition of Scripture translations promulgated either in Gaul a little later[13] or in Spain before the sixteenth century.[14]

[Footnote #13: Council of Toulouse (1229), can. 14., as listed at the beginning of this article]

11. … We again condemn all the above-mentioned biblical societies of which our predecessors disapproved. … Besides We confirm and renew by Our apostolic authority the prescriptions listed and published long ago concerning the publication, dissemination, reading, and possession of vernacular translations of sacred Scriptures.

12. … In particular, watch more carefully over those who are assigned to give public readings of holy scripture, so that they function diligently in their office within the comprehension of the audience; under no pretext whatsoever should they dare to explain and interpret the divine writings contrary to the tradition of the Fathers or the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

33. John 10:30-33, Mark 2:5-7

34. Pope Thought to Be God

A.    The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” –Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Cities Petrus Bertanous Chapter XXVII: 218;

B.    “To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be heretical…”The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, Cum. Inter, title 14, chapter 4, “Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium”, Column 140 (Paris, 1685). In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes, the words, Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam (“Our Lord God the Pope”) can be found in column 153. http://biblelight.net/Extravagantes.htm

C.   “The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth…” —New York Catechism

D.    “The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.” —Catholic National, July 1895


35. John 18:36


36.  See Reference #26


37. John 15:10


38. See Reference #23


39. Revelation 18:4