단12장 재림운동과 세 천사의 기별
“다니엘서와 계시록은 하나이다. 전자는 예언이요, 후자는 계시이다.전자는 봉함되었고,
후자는 봉함되지 않았다.”(화잇주석, 계 10:1-11)
“요한에게는 작은 책과 관련하여 다니엘서에 관한 명령이 주어졌다. 이것들은
미래의 사건들과 관계가 있는 것으로써 순서에 따라 전개될 것이다.다니엘서는 종말과 관계가 있다. 요한은 작은 책이 봉함되지 않은 것을 보았다.
그러므로 다니엘의 예언은 첫째, 둘째, 셋째 천사의 기별이 세상에 주어질 적당한 때를예언하고 있다. 봉함되지 않은 그 작은 책은 때와 관련된
기별이었다.”(화잇주석,계 10:1-11)
영생하시는 자를 가리켜 맹세하여 가로되(단12:7) / 창조하신 이를 가리켜 맹세하여
가로되(계10:5)
반드시 한 때 두 때 반 때를 지나서 성도의 권세가 다 깨어지기까지니 지체하지 아니하리니그렇게 되면 이 모든
일이 다 끝나리라 하더라”(단 12:7) / 일곱째 천사가 소리내는 날 그 나팔을 불게 될 때에 … 복음과 같이 이루리라”(계
10:5-7)
“기다려서 일천삼백삼십오 일까지 이르는 그 사람은 복이 있으리라”(단 12:12) / “자금 이후로 주 안에서 죽는
자들은 복이 있도다 ”(계 14:13)
“너는 가서 마지막을 기다리라 이는 네가 평안히 쉬다가 끝날에는 네 업을 누릴
것임이니라”(단 12:13) / “저희 수고를 그치고 쉬리니 이는 저희의 행한 일이 따름이라 하시더라”(계 14:13)
►자금
이후로 - “셋째 천사의 기별의 기간을 언급함에 틀림이 없다.”(성경주석, 계 14:13) 따라서 일천삼백삼십오 일은 셋째 천사의 기별과 관계가
있다.
★ 기존 주석의 문제점
“ 매일 드리는 제사를 폐하며 멸망케 할 미운 물건을 세울 때부터 일천이백구십 일을 지낼 것이요
기다려서 일천삼백삼십오 일까지 이르는 그 사람은 복이 있으리라”(단 12:11-12)
1, 역산하게 된 원인은?
(역자 주 -
화잇주석이 잘못되었다는 것이 아니라 주석의 의미를 잘못 적용하였다)
“그 천사가 가장 엄숙한 맹세로 선포한 이때는 이 세계 역사의
끝을 말하는 것도 아니고 은혜의 시간을 말하는 것도 아니다. 그것은 우리 주님의 재림에 선행되는 예언적인 때를 말하는 것이다. 이 말의 뜻은,
명확한 때에 기초한 또 다른 기별은 없을 것이라는 말이다. 가장 긴 예언적인 때의 계산은 1844년 가을에까지 이른다.”(화잇주석, 계
10:1-11)
문제점은?
1) 삼중기별은 영원한 복음으로서 때에 기초한 기별이 아니라는 점
“주님께서는 내게
셋째 천사의 기별이 전파되어야 할 것과 특별히 그것은 흩어진 주님의 자녀들에게 선포되어야할 것을 보여 주셨다. 그러나 그것은 시기에 구애
받아서는 안 된다. 나는 어떤 이들이 시기를 가르치므로 일어나는 거짓 흥분에 사로잡혀 있는 것을 보았다. 그러나 셋째 천사의 기별은 시기보다
훨씬 강한 힘을 갖고 있으며 그 기별 자체의 기초 위에 서 있으므로 시기가 그것을 강하게 할 필요가 없음을 보았다. 그리고그것은 강한 능력으로
전파될것이며 그의 사명을 이루고 예정보다 빨리 마쳐질 것이다.”(초기, 75)
“그리스도의 초림에 대한 기별이 당신의 은혜의 왕국을
공포하였던 것처럼 그의 재림에 대한 기별은 그의영광의 왕국을 공포한다. 그리고 첫째 기별과같이 둘째 기별도 그 예언의 말씀에 기초를 두고
있다.”(소망, 234-235)
영원한 복음은 창세이후로 항상 존재하여 왔다. 다만 심판의 기별은 말세에만 전해질 기별이지만
"노아의 홍수" "출애굽사건" "단2,3,4장의 느부갓네살의 경험" "유대인의 경험"의 표상적인 사건을 통하여 삼중기별이 이미 전파된바
있다.
2) 다니엘의 예언은 삼중기별이 세상에 주어질 적당한 때를 예언하고 있음.
“다니엘서와 계시록은 하나이다.
전자는 예언이요, 후자는 계시이다.전자는 봉함되었고, 후자는 봉함되지 않았다.”(화잇주석, 계 10:1-11)
“요한에게는 작은
책과 관련하여 다니엘서에 관한 명령이 주어졌다. 이것들은미래의 사건들과 관계가 있는 것으로써 순서에 따라 전개될 것이다.다니엘서는 종말과 관계가
있다. 요한은 작은 책이 봉함되지 않은 것을 보았다. 그러므로 다니엘의 예언은 첫째, 둘째, 셋째 천사의 기별이 세상에 주어질 적당한
때를예언하고 있다. 봉함되지 않은 그 작은 책은 때와 관련된 기별이었다.”(화잇주석,계 10:1-11)
기존 주석은 첫째 천사의
기별은 1843년에 주어졌지만 둘째와 셋째는 어디에 있는가?
538년 1798년
←---------------------1260
------------------------------→
←------------------------------1290
------------------------------→
←----------------------------- 1335
-----------------------------------------→
508년 1843년
2,
508년
1) 로마 법왕권과 관련하여 성경 어디에도 이 연대에 대한 언급이 전혀 없다는 점이다.
2) 로마 법왕권의
활동기간은?538년~1798년 즉 1260년이다.
3) 아래의 성경절들은 동일한 사건이다.
“ 매일 드리는 제사를
폐하며 멸망케 할 미운 물건을 세울 때부터 일천이백구십 일을 지낼 것이요 기다려서 일천삼백삼십오 일까지 이르는 그 사람은 복이 있으리라”(단
12:11-12)
“ 군대는 그의 편에 서서 성소 곧 견고한 곳을 더럽히며 매일 드리는 제사를 폐하며 멸망케 하는 미운 물건을
세울 것이며”(단 11:31)
“또 스스로 높아져서 군대의 주재를 대적하며 그에게 매일 드리는 제사를 제하여 버렸고 그의 성소를
헐었으며 범죄함을 인하여 백성과 매일 드리는 제사가 그것에게 붙인 바 되었고 그것이 또 진리를 땅에 던지며 자의로 행하여 형통하였더라”(단
8:11-12)
“ 그가 장차 말로 지극히 높으신 자를 대적하며또 지극히 높으신 자의 성도를 괴롭게 할 것이며 그가 또 때와 법을
변개코자 할 것이며 성도는 그의 손에 붙인 바 되어 한 때와 두 때와 반 때를 지내리라 ”(단 7:25)
“매일 드리는 제사를
폐하며"(단12:11). - 이 구절의 내용은 8:11,12; 11:31의 내용과 매우 흡사하기 때문에(해당 주석을 참조하라), 그것들은 모두
같은 사건을 가리키는 것이 틀림없다.”(성경주석, 단 12:11) 고 설명한다.
그렇다면 단7:25절의 사건과는 다른 사건인가?
동일한 사건이다.
“저 불법의 사람 곧 멸망의 아들이 나타나기 전에는 이르지 아니하리니”(살후 2:3). 큰 배도와 장기간에 걸친
“불법의 사람”의 전성 시대가 그친 다음에야 비로소 주님의 재림을 기대할 수 있을 것이었다
(단8:11-12절 인용) "불법의 사람"이
대제사장이신 그리스도의 계속적인 봉사와 성소를 교회에서 제하여 버리고 세상이 알지 못하도록 하여 땅에 던지고 발로 짓밟았으며 그 대신에 "멸망케
하는 미운 물건"을세웠다.
전 로마는 "참 것의 그림자인" 보이는 성소, 곧 지상 성소에 물리적으로 행하였으나(단9:26, 27;
마24:15)
후 로마는 바로 "참 것"인 보이지 않는 성소, 곧 하늘 성소에 영적으로 행하였다.(단 11:31;12:11; 8:11,
13)”(완전, 13 불법과 멸망의 가증한 것)
"불법의 사람"이 전성시대가 언제인가? "한 때와 두 때와 반
때"(단7:25)이다.
단8:11-12절에서 “백성과 매일드리는 제사”가 누구에게 붙인 바되었는가? 그것(작은 뿔)에게 붙인 바
되었다.
“붙인 바 되었다”는 말은 ‘폐하여 졌다’는 말과 상통한다. 그러므로 단7:25절의“성도”는 단8:12절의 “백성”과 같다.
누구에게 붙인 바 되었는가? 작은 뿔이다.
작은 뿔은 또 누구를 대적하는가? 단8:11 “군대의 주재”, 단7:25“지극히
높으신 자”
작은 뿔이 " 미운 물건을 세우는 때", “매일 드리는 제사를 폐하는 때”, “성도(백성)가 붙인 바 된 때”는
동일하며 538년이다.
이것은 저의 생갹입니다.
오래전부터 한 집사님의 도움으로 연구를 하게 되었는데 관심이
없더군요
이번주 재림신문에 이 기사가 나왔길래 토론의 주제로 삼고자 합니다.
이곳에 문제점만 제시를 했습니다. 저의 대안은
가지고 있지만 성도님들의 기도와 연구를 통하여 함께 토론해 보고자 합니다.
관심있는 분들이 참여를 소망합니다.
[마지막 수정
: 2013년 3월 29일 10시 24분 53초]
[마지막 수정 : 2013년 3월 30일 09시 49분 21초]
은혜를 구하는자 (2013-04-02 04:36:12)
미운 물건이란 교황권을 뜻하고 교황권은 곧 일요일 제도이며 매일 드리는 제사는 성도들의
그리스도께 대한 죄의 고백으로서 이것을 로마교가 교황과 사제와 마리아와 죽은 성인들에게 하게 함으로서 말씀이 성취되었읍니다.
소위
고해성사라는 것은 아일랜드에서부터 시작되었다고 하는데 정확하게 언제부터인지는 모르겠으나 500년대 이후에 시작된 것으로 보여집니다.
에녹처럼살고픈자 (2013-04-02 08:30:52)
고해성사의 기원이 아래의 인용문보다 더 과거로 올라갈 수도 있겠지만, 아래 서적의
저자에 의하면 1215년에 공식적으로 인정한 것 같다.
-------
"교회사에서 천주교의 고해성사의 유래를 살펴보면,
현행 개인 고해성사가 모든 신자를 위해 일년에 한 번은 지켜야 하는 의무로 정한 것은 제4차 라테란 공의회(1215년)였다. 이 공의회 규정
21항은 다음과 같이 표현하고 있다.
남녀 모든 신자는 철들 나이가 되면 적어도 일 년에 한 번 자기 본당신부에게 모든 죄를 충실히
고백해야 한다. 그리고 그 신부가 정해준 보속을 가능한 한 정성을 드려 해야 한다. 자기 본당신부가 합당한 이유로 권고한 바가 있어 본인 스스로
당분간 성체를 모시지 않는 것이 낫다고 판단한 경우를 제외하고는, 최소한 부활축일에는 존경심을 가지고 성체를 모셔야 한다. 이것을 지키지
않으면, 그가 살아있는 동안에는 성당에 들어오지 못하게 할 것이며, 죽은 후에는 그리스도교적 장례를 거부할 것이다. 이 구원적 결정을 성당
안에서 자주 공지하여 아무도 몰라서 장님이었다는 구실을 갖지 못하게 해야 한다.
이 규정은 16세기 종교개혁 이후에 개신교와는 달리,
구교의 내부 체제와 교리를 정비하기 위해 개최된 트렌트 공의회(1546년)에서도 약간 수정되어 오늘날까지도 참회 규정을 위한 기본법이 되어
있다.
그리고 트렌트 공의회로부터 제2차 바티칸 공의회(1962년)에 이르는 4세기 동안 매년 한번은 의무적으로 고해성사를 보아야 한다는
법은 세상 안의 모든 가톨릭 신앙인에게 적용되는 하느님의 법으로 인식되었다. 고해성사를 보지 않는 사람은 성체성사에 참여할 수 없고, 교회의
친교에서 스스로를 격리하는 것이며, 죽기 전에 고해성사를 보지 않으면 하늘나라에 갈 수도 없고 교회 무덤에 묻힐 수도 없었다(<한국가톨릭교회
이대로 좋은가>, 서공석, 분도출판사, 161~168쪽)."
에녹처럼살고픈자 (2013-04-02 08:45:02)
아래 인용문에 따르면, 카톨릭 교회는 고해성사의 기원을 트렌트 종교회의에서 공식적으로
시작된 것으로 묘사되어 있지만, 그러나 고해성사의 근본 시작은 요한복음 20:22-23의 그리스도의 가르침에그 근거를 두고 있다고 주장함.
아래는 카톨릭 백과사전에서 인용한 고해성사에 대한 내용임.
-------
Penance is a sacrament of
the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after
baptism is granted through the priest's absolution to those who with true sorrow
confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same. It is called a
"sacrament" not simply a function or ceremony, because it is an outward sign
instituted by Christ to impart grace to the soul. As an outward sign it
comprises the actions of the penitent in presenting himself to the priest and
accusing himself of his sins, and the actions of the priest in pronouncing
absolution and imposing satisfaction. This whole procedure is usually called,
from one of its parts, "confession", and it is said to take place in the
"tribunal of penance", because it is a judicial process in which the penitent is
at once the accuser, the person accused, and the witness, while the priest
pronounces judgment and sentence. The grace conferred is deliverance from the
guilt of sin and, in the case of mortal sin, from its eternal punishment; hence
also reconciliation with God, justification. Finally, the confession is made not
in the secrecy of the penitent's heart nor to a layman as friend and advocate,
nor to a representative of human authority, but to a duly ordained priest with
requisite jurisdiction and with the "power of the keys", i.e., the power to
forgive sins which Christ granted to His Church.
By way of further
explanation it is needful to correct certain erroneous views regarding this
sacrament which not only misrepresent the actual practice of the Church but also
lead to a false interpretation of theological statement and historical evidence.
From what has been said it should be clear:
•that penance is not a mere
human invention devised by the Church to secure power over consciences or to
relieve the emotional strain of troubled souls; it is the ordinary means
appointed by Christ for the remission of sin. Man indeed is free to obey or
disobey, but once he has sinned, he must seek pardon not on conditions of his
own choosing but on those which God has determined, and these for the Christian
are embodied in the Sacrament of Penance.
•No Catholic believes that a
priest, simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to
forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it
through the ministration of men. Since He has seen fit to exercise it by means
of this sacrament, it cannot be said that the Church or the priest interferes
between the soul and God; on the contrary, penance is the removal of the one
obstacle that keeps the soul away from God.
•It is not true that for the
Catholic the mere "telling of one's sins" suffices to obtain their forgiveness.
Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the
pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is
greater than before.
•While this sacrament as a dispensation of Divine mercy
facilitates the pardoning of sin, it by no means renders sin less hateful or its
consequences less dreadful to the Christian mind; much less does it imply
permission to commit sin in the future. In paying ordinary debts, as e.g., by
monthly settlements, the intention of contracting new debts with the same
creditor is perfectly legitimate; a similar intention on the part of him who
confesses his sins would not only be wrong in itself but would nullify the
sacrament and prevent the forgiveness of sins then and there confessed.
•Strangely enough, the opposite charge is often heard, viz., that the
confession of sin is intolerable and hard and therefore alien to the spirit of
Christianity and the loving kindness of its Founder. But this view, in the first
place, overlooks the fact that Christ, though merciful, is also just and
exacting. Furthermore, however painful or humiliating confession may be, it is
but a light penalty for the violation of God's law. Finally, those who are in
earnest about their salvation count no hardship too great whereby they can win
back God's friendship.
Both these accusations, of too great leniency and too
great severity, proceed as a rule from those who have no experience with the
sacrament and only the vaguest ideas of what the Church teaches or of the power
to forgive sins which the Church received from Christ.
Teaching of the
Church
The Council of Trent (1551) declares:
As a means of regaining
grace and justice, penance was at all times necessary for those who had defiled
their souls with any mortal sin. . . . Before the coming of Christ, penance was
not a sacrament, nor is it since His coming a sacrament for those who are not
baptized. But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance,
when, being raised from the dead, he breathed upon His disciples saying:
'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven
them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained' (John 20:22-23). By
which action so signal and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has
ever understood that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated
to the Apostles and to their lawful successors, for the reconciling of the
faithful who have fallen after Baptism. (Sess. XIV, c. i)
Farther on the
council expressly states that Christ left priests, His own vicars, as judges
(praesides et judices), unto whom all the mortal crimes into which the faithful
may have fallen should be revealed in order that, in accordance with the power
of the keys, they may pronounce the sentence of forgiveness or retention of
sins" (Sess. XIV, c. v)
Power to forgive sins
It is noteworthy that
the fundamental objection so often urged against the Sacrament of Penance was
first thought of by the Scribes when Christ said to the sick man of the palsy:
"Thy sins are forgiven thee." "And there were some of the scribes sitting there,
and thinking in their hearts: Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who
can forgive sins but God only?" But Jesus seeing their thoughts, said to them:
"Which is easier to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or
to say, Arise, take up thy bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of
man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I
say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house" (Mark 2:5-11;
Matthew 9:2-7). Christ wrought a miracle to show that He had power to forgive
sins and that this power could be exerted not only in heaven but also on earth.
This power, moreover, He transmitted to Peter and the other Apostles. To Peter
He says: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And
whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven"
(Matthew 16:19). Later He says to all the Apostles: "Amen I say to you,
whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and
whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew
18:18). As to the meaning of these texts, it should be noted:
•that the
"binding" and "loosing" refers not to physical but to spiritual or moral bonds
among which sin is certainly included; the more so because
•the power here
granted is unlimited — "whatsoever you shall bind, . . . whatsoever you shall
loose";
•the power is judicial, i.e., the Apostles are authorized to bind
and to loose;
•whether they bind or loose, their action is ratified in
heaven. In healing the palsied man Christ declared that "the Son of man has
power on earth to forgive sins"; here He promises that what these men, the
Apostles, bind or loose on earth, God in heaven will likewise bind or loose.
(Cf. also POWER OF THE KEYS.)
But as the Council of Trent declares, Christ
principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance after His Resurrection, a
miracle greater than that of healing the sick. "As the Father hath sent me, I
also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them:
Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them;
and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained' (John 20:21-23). While the
sense of these words is quite obvious, the following points are to be
considered:
•Christ here reiterates in the plainest terms — "sins",
"forgive", "retain" — what He had previously stated in figurative language,
"bind" and "loose", so that this text specifies and distinctly applies to sin
the power of loosing and binding.
•He prefaces this grant of power by
declaring that the mission of the Apostles is similar to that which He had
received from the Father and which He had fulfilled: "As the Father hath sent
me". Now it is beyond doubt that He came into the world to destroy sin and that
on various occasions He explicitly forgave sin (Matthew 9:2-8; Luke 5:20; 7:47;
Revelation 1:5), hence the forgiving of sin is to be included in the mission of
the Apostles.
•Christ not only declared that sins were forgiven, but really
and actually forgave them; hence, the Apostles are empowered not merely to
announce to the sinner that his sins are forgiven but to grant him
forgiveness—"whose sins you shall forgive". If their power were limited to the
declaration "God pardons you", they would need a special revelation in each case
to make the declaration valid.
•The power is twofold — to forgive or to
retain, i.e., the Apostles are not told to grant or withhold forgiveness
nondiscriminately; they must act judicially, forgiving or retaining according as
the sinner deserves.
•The exercise of this power in either form (forgiving
or retaining) is not restricted: no distinction is made or even suggested
between one kind of sin and another, or between one class of sinners and all the
rest: Christ simply says "whose sins".
•The sentence pronounced by the
Apostles (remission or retention) is also God's sentence — "they are forgiven .
. . they are retained".
It is therefore clear from the words of Christ that
the Apostles had power to forgive sins. But this was not a personal prerogative
that was to erase at their death; it was granted to them in their official
capacity and hence as a permanent institution in the Church — no less permanent
than the mission to teach and baptize all nations. Christ foresaw that even
those who received faith and baptism, whether during the lifetime of the
Apostles or later, would fall into sin and therefore would need forgiveness in
order to be saved. He must, then, have intended that the power to forgive should
be transmitted from the Apostles to their successors and be used as long as
there would be sinners in the Church, and that means to the end of time. It is
true that in baptism also sins are forgiven, but this does not warrant the view
that the power to forgive is simply the power to baptize. In the first place, as
appears from the texts cited above, the power to forgive is also the power to
retain; its exercise involves a judicial action. But no such action is implied
in the commission to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20); in fact, as the Council of
Trent affirms, the Church does not pass judgment on those who are not yet
members of the Church, and membership is obtained through baptism. Furthermore,
baptism, because it is a new birth, cannot be repeated, whereas the power to
forgive sins (penance) is to be used as often as the sinner may need it. Hence
the condemnation, by the same Council, of any one "who, confounding the
sacraments, should say that baptism itself is the Sacrament of Penance, as
though these two sacraments were not distinct and as though penance were not
rightly called the second plank after shipwreck" (Sess. XIV, can. 2 de sac.
poen.).
These pronouncements were directed against the Protestant teaching
which held that penance was merely a sort of repeated baptism; and as baptism
effected no real forgiveness of sin but only an external covering over of sin
through faith alone, the same, it was alleged, must be the case with penance.
This, then, as a sacrament is superfluous; absolution is only a declaration that
sin is forgiven through faith, and satisfaction is needless because Christ has
satisfied once for all men. This was the first sweeping and radical denial of
the Sacrament of Penance. Some of the earlier sects had claimed that only
priests in the state of grace could validly absolve, but they had not denied the
existence of the power to forgive. During all the preceding centuries, Catholic
belief in this power had been so clear and strong that in order to set it aside
Protestantism was obliged to strike at the very constitution of the Church and
reject the whole content of Tradition.
Belief and practice of the early
Church
Among the modernistic propositions condemned by Pius X in the Decree
"Lamentabili sane" (3 July, 1907) are the following:
•"In the primitive
Church there was no concept of the reconciliation of the Christian sinner by the
authority of the Church, but the Church by very slow degrees only grew
accustomed to this concept. Moreover, even after penance came to be recognized
as an institution of the Church, it was not called by the name of sacrament,
because it was regarded as an odious sacrament." (46)
•"The Lord's words:
'Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven
them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained' (John 20:22-23), in no
way refer to the Sacrament of Penance, whatever the Fathers of Trent may have
been pleased to assert." (47)
According to the Council of Trent, the
consensus of all the Fathers always understood that by the words of Christ just
cited, the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the
Apostles and their lawful successors (Sess. XIV, c. i). It is therefore Catholic
doctrine that the Church from the earliest times believed in the power to
forgive sins as granted by Christ to the Apostles. Such a belief in fact was
clearly inculcated by the words with which Christ granted the power, and it
would have been inexplicable to the early Christians if any one who professed
faith in Christ had questioned the existence of that power in the Church. But
if, contrariwise, we suppose that no such belief existed from the beginning, we
encounter a still greater difficulty: the first mention of that power would have
been regarded as an innovation both needless and intolerable; it would have
shown little practical wisdom on the part of those who were endeavouring to draw
men to Christ; and it would have raised a protest or led to a schism which would
certainly have gone on record as plainly at least as did early divisions on
matters of less importance. But no such record is found; even those who sought
to limit the power itself presupposed its existence, and their very attempt at
limitation put them in opposition to the prevalent Catholic belief. Turning now
to evidence of a positive sort, we have to note that the statements of any
Father or orthodox ecclesiastical writer regarding penance present not merely
his own personal view, but the commonly accepted belief; and furthermore that
the belief which they record was no novelty at the time, but was the traditional
doctrine handed down by the regular teaching of the Church and embodied in her
practice. In other words, each witness speaks for a past that reaches back to
the beginning, even when he does not expressly appeal to tradition.
•St.
Augustine (d. 430) warns the faithful: "Let us not listen to those who deny that
the Church of God has power to forgive all sins" (De agon. Christ., iii).
•St. Ambrose (d. 397) rebukes the Novatianists who "professed to show
reverence for the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving sins.
Greater wrong could not be done than what they do in seeking to rescind His
commands and fling back the office He bestowed. . . . The Church obeys Him in
both respects, by binding sin and by loosing it; for the Lord willed that for
both the power should be equal" (On Penance I.2.6).
•Again he teaches that
this power was to be a function of the priesthood. "It seemed impossible that
sins should be forgiven through penance; Christ granted this (power) to the
Apostles and from the Apostles it has been transmitted to the office of priests"
(On Penance II.2.12).
•The power to forgive extends to all sins: "God makes
no distinction; He promised mercy to all and to His priests He granted the
authority to pardon without any exception" (On Penance I.3.10).
•Against the
same heretics St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona (d. 390), wrote to Sympronianus,
one of their leaders: "This (forgiving sins), you say, only God can do. Quite
true: but what He does through His priests is the doing of His own power" (Ep. I
ad Sympron., 6 in P.L., XIII, 1057).
•In the East during the same period we
have the testimony of St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 447): "Men filled with the
spirit of God (i.e. priests) forgive sins in two ways, either by admitting to
baptism those who are worthy or by pardoning the penitent children of the
Church" (In Joan., 1, 12 in P.G., LXXIV, 722).
•St. John Chrysostom (d. 407)
after declaring that neither angels nor archangels have received such power, and
after showing that earthly rulers can bind only the bodies of men, declares that
the priest's power of forgiving sins "penetrates to the soul and reaches up to
heaven". Wherefore, he concludes, "it were manifest folly to condemn so great a
power without which we can neither obtain heaven nor come to the fulfillment of
the promises. . . . Not only when they (the priests) regenerate us (baptism),
but also after our new birth, they can forgive us our sins" (On the Priesthood
III.5 sq.).
•St. Athanasius (d. 373): "As the man whom the priest baptizes
is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance
confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the
grace of Christ" (Frag. contra Novat. in P.G., XXVI, 1315).
These extracts
show that the Fathers recognized in penance a power and a utility quite distinct
from that of baptism. Repeatedly they compare in figurative language the two
means of obtaining pardon; or regarding baptism as spiritual birth, they
describe penance as the remedy for the ills of the soul contracted after that
birth. But a more important fact is that both in the West and in the East, the
Fathers constantly appeal to the words of Christ and given them the same
interpretation that was given eleven centuries later by the Council of Trent. In
this respect they simply echoed the teachings of the earlier Fathers who had
defended Catholic doctrine against the heretics of the third and second
centuries. Thus St. Cyprian in his "De lapsis" (A.D. 251) rebukes those who had
fallen away in time of persecution, but he also exhorts them to penance: "Let
each confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession can
be received, while satisfaction and the forgiveness granted by the priests is
acceptable to God" (c. xxix). (See LAPSI.) The heretic Novatian, on the
contrary, asserted that "it is unlawful to admit apostates to the communion of
the Church; their forgiveness must be left with God who alone can grant it"
(Socrates, Church History V.28). Novatian and his party did not at first deny
the power of the Church to absolve from sin; they affirmed that apostasy placed
the sinner beyond the reach of that power — an error which was condemned by a
synod at Rome in 251 (See NOVATIANISM.)
The distinction between sins that
could be forgiven and others that could not, originated in the latter half of
the second century as the doctrine of the Montanists, and especially of
Tertullian. While still a Catholic, Tertullian wrote (A.D. 200-6) his "De
poenitentia" in which he distinguishes two kinds of penance, one as a
preparation for baptism, the other to obtain forgiveness of certain grievous
sins committed after baptism, i.e., apostasy, murder, and adultery. For these,
however, he allows only one forgiveness: "Foreseeing these poisons of the Evil
One, God, although the gate of forgiveness has been shut and fastened up with
the bar of baptism, has permitted it still to stand somewhat open. In the
vestibule He has stationed a second repentance for opening to such as knock; but
now once for all, because now for the second time; but never more, because the
last time it had been in vain. . . . However, if any do incur the debt of a
second repentance, his spirit is not to be forthwith cut down and undermined by
despair. Let it be irksome to sin again, but let it not be irksome to repent
again; let it be irksome to imperil oneself again, but let no one be ashamed to
be set free again. Repeated sickness must have repeated medicine" (On Penance
7). Tertullian does not deny that the Church can forgive sins; he warns sinners
against relapse, yet exhorts them to repent in case they should fall. His
attitude at the time was not surprising, since in the early days the sins above
mentioned were severely dealt with; this was done for disciplinary reasons, not
because the Church lacked power to forgive.
In the minds, however, of some
people the idea was developing that not only the exercise of the power but the
power itself was limited. Against this false notion Pope Callistus (218-22)
published his "peremptory edict" in which he declares: "I forgive the sins both
of adultery and of fornication to those who have done penance." Thereupon
Tertullian, now become a Montanist, wrote his "De pudicitia" (A.D. 217-22). In
this work he rejects without scruple what he had taught as a Catholic: "I blush
not at an error which I have cast off because I am delighted at being rid of it
. . . one is not ashamed of his own improvement." The "error" which he imputes
to Callistus and the Catholics was that the Church could forgive all sins: this,
therefore, was the orthodox doctrine which Tertullian the heretic denied. In
place of it he sets up the distinction between lighter sins which the bishop
could forgive and more grievous sins which God alone could forgive. Though in an
earlier treatise, "Scorpiace" (chapter 10), he had said that "the Lord left here
to Peter and through him to the Church the keys of heaven" he now denies that
the power granted to Peter had been transmitted to the Church, i.e., to the
numerus episcoporum or body of bishops. Yet he claims this power for the
"spirituals" (pneumatici), although these, for prudential reasons, do not make
use of it. To the arguments of the "Psychici", as he termed the Catholics, he
replies: "But the Church, you say, has the power to forgive sin. This I, even
more than you, acknowledge and adjudge. I who in the new prophets have the
Paraclete saying: 'The Church can forgive sin, but I will not do that (forgive)
lest they (who are forgiven) fall into other sins" (On Pudicity 21.7). Thus
Tertullian, by the accusation which he makes against the pope and by the
restriction which he places upon the exercise of the power of forgiving sin,
bears witness to the existence of that power in the Church which he had
abandoned.
Not content with assailing Callistus and his doctrine, Tertullian
refers to the "Shepherd" (Pastor), a work written A.D. 140-54, and takes its
author Hermas to task for favouring the pardon of adulterers. In the days of
Hermas there was evidently a school of rigorists who insisted that there was no
pardon for sin committed after baptism (Similitude VIII.6). Against this school
the author of the "Pastor" takes a resolute stand. He teaches that by penance
the sinner may hope for reconciliation with God and with the Church. "Go and
tell all to repent and they shall live unto God. Because the Lord having had
compassion, has sent me to give repentance to all men, although some are not
worthy of it on account of their works" (Similitude VIII.2). Hermas, however,
seems to give but one opportunity for such reconciliation, for in Mandate IV.1,
he seems to state categorically that "there is but one repentance for the
servants of God", and further on in Mandate IV.3 he says the Lord has had mercy
on the work of his hands and hath set repentance for them; "and he has entrusted
to me the power of this repentance. And therefore I say to you, if any one has
sinned . . he has opportunity to repent once". Repentance is therefore possible
at least once in virtue of a power vested in the priest of God. That Hermas here
intends to say that the sinner could be absolved only once in his whole life is
by no means a necessary conclusion. His words may well be understood as
referring to public penance (see below) and as thus understood they imply no
limitation on the sacramental power itself. The same interpretation applies to
the statement of Clement of Alexandria (d. circa A.D. 215): "For God being very
merciful has vouchsafed in the case of those who, though in faith, have fallen
into transgression, a second repentance, so that should anyone be tempted after
his calling, he may still receive a penance not to be repented of" (Stromata
II.13).
The existence of a regular system of penance is also hinted at
in the work of Clement, "Who is the rich man that shall be saved?", where he
tells the story of the Apostle John and his journey after the young bandit. John
pledged his word that the youthful robber would find forgiveness from the
Saviour; but even then a long serious penance was necessary before he could be
restored to the Church. And when Clement concludes that "he who welcomes the
angel of penance . . . will not be ashamed when he sees the Saviour", most
commentators think he alludes to the bishop or priest who presided over the
ceremony of public penance. Even earlier, Dionysius of Corinth (d. circa A.D.
170), setting himself against certain growing Marcionistic traditions, taught
not only that Christ has left to His Church the power of pardon, but that no sin
is so great as to be excluded from the exercise of that power. For this we have
the authority of Eusebius, who says (Church History IV.23): "And writing to the
Church which is in Amastris, together with those in Pontus, he commands them to
receive those who come back after any fall, whether it be delinquency or
heresy".
The Didache written at the close of the first century or early
in the second, in 4.14 and again in 14.1, commands an individual confession in
the congregation: "In the congregation thou shalt confess thy transgressions";
or again: "On the Lord's Day come together and break bread . . . having
confessed your transgressions that your sacrifice may be pure." Clement I (d.
99) in his Epistle to the Corinthians not only exhorts to repentance, but begs
the seditious to "submit themselves to the presbyters and receive correction so
as to repent" (chapter 57), and Ignatius of Antioch at the close of the first
century speaks of the mercy of God to sinners, provided they return" with one
consent to the unity of Christ and the communion of the bishop". The clause
"communion of the bishop" evidently means the bishop with his council of
presbyters as assessors. He also says (Letter to the Philadelphians) "that the
bishop presides over penance".
The transmission of this power is plainly
expressed in the prayer used at the consecration of a bishop as recorded in the
Canons of Hippolytus: "Grant him, 0 Lord, the episcopate and the spirit of
clemency and the power to forgive sins" (c. xvii). Still more explicit is the
formula cited in the "Apostolic Constitutions": "Grant him, O Lord almighty,
through Thy Christ, the participation of Thy Holy Spirit, in order that he may
have the power to remit sins according to Thy precept and Thy command, and to
loosen every bond, whatsoever it be, according to the power which Thou hast
granted to the Apostles." (Apostolic Constitutions VIII.5). For the meaning of
"episcopus", "sacerdos", "presbyter", as used in ancient documents, see BISHOP;
HIERARCHY.
Exercise of the power
The granting by Christ of the power
to forgive sins is the first essential of the Sacrament of Penance; in the
actual exercise of this power are included the other essentials. The sacrament
as such and on its own account has a matter and a form and it produces certain
effects; the power of the keys is exercised by a minister (confessor) who must
possess the proper qualifications, and the effects are wrought in the soul of
the recipient, i.e., the penitent who with the necessary dispositions must
perform certain actions (confession, satisfaction).
Matter and form
According to St. Thomas (Summa Theologiæ III.74.2) "the acts of the penitent
are the proximate matter of this sacrament". This is also the teaching of
Eugenius IV in the "Decretum pro Armenis" (Council of Florence, 1439) which
calls the act's "quasi materia" of penance and enumerates them as contrition,
confession, and satisfaction (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", 699). The Thomists
in general and other eminent theologians, e.g., Bellarmine, Toletus, Francisco
Suárez, and De Lugo, hold the same opinion. According to Scotus (In IV Sent., d.
16, q. 1, n. 7) "the Sacrament of Penance is the absolution imparted with
certain words" while the acts of the penitent are required for the worthy
reception of the sacrament. The absolution as an external ceremony is the
matter, and, as possessing significant force, the form. Among the advocates of
this theory are St. Bonaventure, Capreolus, Andreas Vega, and Maldonatus. The
Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 3) declares: "the acts of the penitent, namely
contrition, confession, and satisfaction, are the quasi materia of this
sacrament". The Roman Catechism used in 1913 (II, v, 13) says: "These actions
are called by the Council quasi materia not because they have not the nature of
true matter, but because they are not the sort of matter which is employed
externally as water in baptism and chrism in confirmation". For the theological
discussion see Palmieri, op. cit., p. 144 sqq.; Pesch, "Praelectiones
dogmaticae", Freiburg, 1897; De San, "De poenitentia", Bruges, 1899; Pohle,
"Lehrb. d. Dogmatik". Regarding the form of the sacrament, both the Council of
Florence and the Council of Trent teach that it consists in the words of
absolution. "The form of the Sacrament of penance, wherein its force principally
consists, is placed in those words of the minister: "I absolve thee, etc."; to
these words indeed, in accordance with the usage of Holy Church, certain prayers
are laudably added, but they do not pertain to the essence of the form nor are
they necessary for the administration of the sacrament" (Council of Trent, Sess.
XIV, c. 3). Concerning these additional prayers, the use of the Eastern and
Western Churches, and the question whether the form is deprecatory or indicative
and personal, see ABSOLUTION. Cf. also the writers referred to in the preceding
paragraph.
Effect
"The effect of this sacrament is deliverance from
sin" (Council of Florence). The same definition in somewhat different terms is
given by the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 3): "So far as pertains to its
force and efficacy, the effect (res et effectus) of this sacrament is
reconciliation with God, upon which there sometimes follows, in pious and devout
recipients, peace and calm of conscience with intense consolation of spirit".
This reconciliation implies first of all that the guilt of sin is remitted, and
consequently also the eternal punishment due to mortal sin. As the Council of
Trent declares, penance requires the performance of satisfaction "not indeed for
the eternal penalty which is remitted together with the guilt either by the
sacrament or by the desire of receiving the sacrament, but for the temporal
penalty which, as the Scriptures teach, is not always forgiven entirely as it is
in baptism" (Sess. VI, c. 14). In other words baptism frees the soul not only
from all sin but also from all indebtedness to Divine justice, whereas after the
reception of absolution in penance, there may and usually does remain some
temporal debt to be discharged by works of satisfaction (see below). "Venial
sins by which we are not deprived of the grace of God and into which we very
frequently fall are rightly and usefully declared in confession; but mention of
them may, without any fault, be omitted and they can be expiated by many other
remedies" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 3). Thus, an act of contrition
suffices to obtain forgiveness of venial sin, and the same effect is produced by
the worthy reception of sacraments other than penance, e.g., by Holy Communion.
The reconciliation of the sinner with God has as a further consequence
the revival of those merits which he had obtained before committing grievous
sin. Good works performed in the state of grace deserve a reward from God, but
this is forfeited by mortal sin, so that if the sinner should die unforgiven his
good deeds avail him nothing. So long as he remains in sin, he is incapable of
meriting: even works which are good in themselves are, in his case, worthless:
they cannot revive, because they never were alive. But once his sin is cancelled
by penance, he regains not only the state of grace but also the entire store of
merit which had, before his sin, been placed to his credit. On this point
theologians are practically unanimous: the only hindrance to obtaining reward is
sin, and when this is removed, the former title, so to speak, is revalidated. On
the other hand, if there were no such revalidation, the loss of merit once
acquired would be equivalent to an eternal punishment, which is incompatible
with the forgiveness effected by penance. As to the further question regarding
the manner and extent of the revival of merit, various opinions have been
proposed; but that which is generally accepted holds with Francisco Suárez (De
reviviscentia meritorum) that the revival is complete, i.e., the forgiven
penitent has to his credit as much merit as though he had never sinned. See De
Augustinis, "De re sacramentaria", II, Rome, 1887; Pesch, op. cit., VII;
Göttler, "Der hl. Thomas v. Aquin u. die vortridentinischen Thomisten über die
Wirkungen d. Bussakramentes", Freiburg, 1904.
The minister (i.e., the
confessor)
From the judicial character of this sacrament it follows that not
every member of the Church is qualified to forgive sins; the administration of
penance is reserved to those who are invested with authority. That this power
does not belong to the laity is evident from the Bull of Martin V "Inter
cunctas" (1418) which among other questions to be answered by the followers of
Wyclif and Huss, has this: "whether he believes that the Christian . . . is
bound as a necessary means of salvation to confess to a priest only and not to a
layman or to laymen however good and devout" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.",
670). Luther's proposition, that "any Christian, even a woman or a child" could
in the absence of a priest absolve as well as pope or bishop, was condemned
(1520) by Leo X in the Bull "Exurge Domine" (Enchir., 753). The Council of Trent
(Sess. XIV, c. 6) condemns as "false and as at variance with the truth of the
Gospel all doctrines which extend the ministry of the keys to any others than
bishops and priests, imagining that the words of the Lord (Matthew 18:18; John
20:23) were, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, addressed to all the
faithful of Christ in such wise that each and every one has the power of
remitting sin". The Catholic doctrine, therefore, is that only bishops and
priests can exercise the power.
These decrees moreover put an end,
practically, to the usage, which had sprung up and lasted for some time in the
Middle Ages, of confessing to a layman in case of necessity. This custom
originated in the conviction that he who had sinned was obliged to make known
his sin to some one — to a priest if possible, otherwise to a layman. In the
work "On true penance and false" (De vera et falsa poenitentia), erroneously
ascribed to St. Augustine, the counsel is given: "So great is the power of
confession that if a priest be not at hand, let him (the person desiring to
confess) confess to his neighbour." But in the same place the explanation is
given: "although he to whom the confession is made has no power to absolve,
nevertheless he who confesses to his fellow (socio) becomes worthy of pardon
through his desire of confessing to a priest" (P.L., XL, 1113). Lea, who cites
(I, 220) the assertion of the Pseudo-Augustine about confession to one's
neighbour, passes over the explanation. He consequently sets in a wrong light a
series of incidents illustrating the practice and gives but an imperfect idea of
the theological discussion which it aroused. Though Albertus Magnus (In IV
Sent., dist. 17, art. 58) regarded as sacramental the absolution granted by a
layman while St. Thomas (IV Sent., d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, sol. 2) speaks of it as
"quodammodo sacramentalis", other great theologians took a quite different view.
Alexander of Hales (Summa, Q. xix, De confessione memb., I, a. 1) says that it
is an "imploring of absolution"; St. Bonaventure ("Opera', VII, p. 345, Lyons,
1668) that such a confession even in cases of necessity is not obligatory, but
merely a sign of contrition; Scotus (IV Sent., d. 14, q. 4) that there is no
precept obliging one to confess to a layman and that this practice may be very
detrimental; Durandus of St. Pourcain (IV Sent., d. 17, q. 12) that in the
absence of a priest, who alone can absolve in the tribunal of penance, there is
no obligation to confess; Prierias (Summa Silv., s.v. Confessor, I, 1) that if
absolution is given by a layman, the confession must be repeated whenever
possible; this in fact was the general opinion. It is not then surprising that
Dominicus Soto, writing in 1564, should find it difficult to believe that such a
custom ever existed: "since (in confession to a layman) there was no sacrament .
. . it is incredible that men, of their own accord and with no profit to
themselves, should reveal to others the secrets of their conscience" (IV Sent.,
d. 18, q. 4, a. 1). Since, therefore, the weight of theological opinion
gradually turned against the practice and since the practice never received the
sanction of the Church, it cannot be urged as a proof that the power to forgive
sins belonged at any time to the laity. What the practice does show is that both
people and theologians realized keenly the obligation of confessing their sins
not to God alone but to some human listener, even though the latter possessed no
power to absolve.
The same exaggerated notion appears in the practice of
confessing to the deacons in case of necessity. They were naturally preferred to
laymen when no priest was accessible because in virtue of their office they
administered Holy Communion. Moreover, some of the earlier councils (Elvira,
A.D. 300; Toledo, 400) and penitentials (Theodore) seemed to grant the power of
penance to the deacon (in the priest's absence). The Council of Tribur (895)
declared in regard to bandits that if, when captured or wounded they confessed
to a priest or a deacon, they should not be denied communion; and this
expression "presbytero vel diacono" was incorporated in the Decree of Gratian
and in many later documents from the tenth century to the thirteenth. The
Council of York (1195) decreed that except in the gravest necessity the deacon
should not baptize, give communion, or "impose penance on one who confessed".
Substantially the same enactments are found in the Councils of London (1200) and
Rouen (1231), the constitutions of St. Edmund of Canterbury (1236), and those of
Walter of Kirkham, Bishop of Durham (1255). All these enactments, though
stringent enough as regards ordinary circumstances, make exception for urgent
necessity. No such exception is allowed in the decree of the Synod of Poitiers
(1280): "desiring to root out an erroneous abuse which has grown up in our
diocese through dangerous ignorance, we forbid deacons to hear confessions or to
give absolution in the tribunal of penance: for it is certain and beyond doubt
that they cannot absolve, since they have not the keys which are conferred only
in the priestly order". This "abuse" probably disappeared in the fourteenth or
fifteenth century; at all events no direct mention is made of it by the Council
of Trent, though the reservation to bishops and priests of the absolving power
shows plainly that the Council excluded deacons.
The authorization which
the medieval councils gave the deacon in case of necessity did not confer the
power to forgive sins. In some of the decrees it is expressly stated that the
deacon has not the keys — claves non habent. In other enactments he is forbidden
except in cases of necessity to "give" or "impose penance", poenitentiam dare,
imponere. His function then was limited to the forum externum; in the absence of
a priest he could "reconcile" the sinner, i.e., restore him to the communion of
the Church; but he did not and could not give the sacramental absolution which a
priest would have given (Palmieri, Pesch). Another explanation emphasizes the
fact that the deacon could faithfully administer the Holy Eucharist. The
faithful were under a strict obligation to receive Communion at the approach of
death, and on the other hand the reception of this sacrament sufficed to blot
out even mortal sin provided the communicant had the requisite dispositions. The
deacon could hear their confession simply to assure himself that they were
properly disposed, but not for the purpose of giving them absolution. If he went
further and "imposed penance" in the stricter, sacramental sense, he exceeded
his power, and any authorization to this effect granted by the bishop merely
showed that the bishop was in error (Laurain, "De l'intervention des laïques,
des diacres et des abbesses dans l'administration de la pénitence", Paris,
1897). In any case, the prohibitory enactments which finally abolished the
practice did not deprive the deacon of a power which was his by virtue of his
office; but they brought into clearer light the traditional belief that only
bishops and priests can administer the Sacrament of Penance. (See below under
Confession.)
For valid administration, a twofold power is necessary: the
power of order and the power of jurisdiction. The former is conferred by
ordination, the latter by ecclesiastical authority (see JURISDICTION). At his
ordination a priest receives the power to consecrate the Holy Eucharist, and for
valid consecration he needs no jurisdiction. As regards penance, the case is
different: "because the nature and character of a judgment requires that
sentence be pronounced only on those who are subjects (of the judge) the Church
of God has always held, and this Council affirms it to be most true, that the
absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has not either
ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, is of no effect" (Council of Trent, Sess.
XIV, c. 7). Ordinary jurisdiction is that which one has by reason of his office
as involving the care of souls; the pope has it over the whole Church, the
bishop within his diocese, the pastor within his parish. Delegated jurisdiction
is that which is granted by an ecclesiastical superior to one who does not
possess it by virtue of his office. The need of jurisdiction for administering
this sacrament is usually expressed by saying that a priest must have
"faculties" to hear confession (see FACULTIES). Hence it is that a priest
visiting in a diocese other than his own cannot hear confession without special
authorization from the bishop. Every priest, however, can absolve anyone who is
at the point of death, because under those circumstances the Church gives all
priests jurisdiction. As the bishop grants jurisdiction, he can also limit it by
"reserving" certain cases (see RESERVATION) and he can even withdraw it
entirely.
Recipient (i.e., the penitent)
The Sacrament of Penance
was instituted by Christ for the remission of Penance was instituted by Christ
for the remission of sins committed after baptism. Hence, no unbaptized person,
however deep and sincere his sorrow, can be validly absolved. Baptism, in other
words, is the first essential requisite on the part of the penitent. This does
not imply that in the sins committed by an unbaptized person there is a special
enormity or any other element that places them beyond the power of the keys; but
that one must first be a member of the Church before he can submit himself and
his sins to the judicial process of sacramental Penance.
Contrition and
attrition
Without sorrow for sin there is no forgiveness. Hence the Council
of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 4): "Contrition, which holds the first place among the
acts of the penitent, is sorrow of heart and detestation for sin committed, with
the resolve to sin no more". The Council (ibid.) furthermore distinguishes
perfect contrition from imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, and
which arises from the consideration of the turpitude of sin or from the fear of
hell and punishment. See ATTRITION; CONTRITION, where these two kinds of sorrow
are more fully explained and an account is given of the principal discussions
and opinions. See also treatises by Pesch, Palmieri, Pohle. For the present
purpose it need only be stated that attrition, with the Sacrament of Penance,
suffices to obtain forgiveness of sin. The Council of Trent further teaches
(ibid.): "though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect and that
it reconciles man with God before the actual reception of this sacrament, still
the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to the contrition itself apart from the
desire of the sacrament which it (contrition) includes". In accordance with this
teaching Pius V condemned (1567) the proposition of Baius asserting that even
perfect contrition does not, except in case of necessity or of martyrdom, remit
sin without the actual reception of the sacrament (Denzinger-Bannwart,
"Enchir.", 1071). It should be noted, however, that the contrition of which the
Council speaks is perfect in the sense that it includes the desire (votum) to
receive the sacrament. Whoever in fact repents of his sin out of love for God
must be willing to comply with the Divine ordinance regarding penance, i.e., he
would confess if a confessor were accessible, and he realizes that he is obliged
to confess when he has the opportunity. But it does not follow that the penitent
is at liberty to choose between two modes of obtaining forgiveness, one by an
act of contrition independently of the sacrament, the other by confession and
absolution. This view was put forward by Peter Martinez (de Osma) in the
proposition: "mortal sins as regards their guilt and their punishment in the
other world, are blotted out by contrition alone without any reference to the
keys"; and the proposition was condemned by Sixtus IV in 1479
(Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", 724). Hence it is clear that not even heartfelt
sorrow based on the highest motives, can, in the present order of salvation,
dispense with the power of the keys, i.e., with the Sacrament of Penance.
Confession (necessity)
"For those who after baptism have fallen into
sin, the Sacrament of Penance is as necessary unto salvation as is baptism
itself for those who have not yet been regenerated" (Council of Trent, Sess.
XIV, c. 2). Penance, therefore, is not an institution the use of which was left
to the option of each sinner so that he might, if he preferred, hold aloof from
the Church and secure forgiveness by some other means, e.g., by acknowledging
his sin in the privacy of his own mind. As already stated, the power granted by
Christ to the Apostles is twofold, to forgive and to retain, in such a way that
what they forgive God forgives and what they retain God retains. But this grant
would be nullified if, in case the Church retained the sins of penitent, he
could, as it were, take appeal to God's tribunal and obtain pardon. Nor would
the power to retain have any meaning if the sinner, passing over the Church,
went in the first instance to God, since by the very terms of the grant, God
retains sin once committed so long as it is not remitted by the Church. It would
indeed have been strangely inconsistent if Christ in conferring this twofold
power on the Apostles had intended to provide some other means of forgiveness
such as confessing "to God alone". Not only the Apostles, but any one with an
elementary knowledge of human nature would have perceived at once that the
easier means would be chosen and that the grant of power so formally and
solemnly made by Christ had no real significance (Palmieri, op. cit., thesis X).
On the other hand, once it is admitted that the grant was effectual and
consequently that the sacrament is necessary in order to obtain forgiveness, it
plainly follows that the penitent must in some way make known his sin to those
who exercise the power. This is conceded even by those who reject the Sacrament
of Penance as a Divine institution. "Such remission was manifestly impossible
without the declaration of the offences to be forgiven" (Lea, "History etc.", I,
p. 182). The Council of Trent, after declaring that Christ left his priests as
His vicars unto whom as rulers and judges the faithful must make known their
sins, adds: "It is evident that the priests could not have exercised this
judgment without knowledge of the cause, nor could they have observed justice in
enjoining satisfaction if (the faithful) had declared their sins in a general
way only and not specifically and in detail" (Sess. XIV, c. 5).
Since
the priest in the pardoning of sin exercises a strict judicial function, Christ
must will that such tremendous power be used wisely and prudently. Moreover, in
virtue of the grant of Christ the priest can forgive all sins without
distinction, quoecumque solveritis. How can a wise and prudent judgment be
rendered if the priest be in ignorance of the cause on which judgment is
pronounced? And how can he obtain the requisite knowledge unless it come from
the spontaneous acknowledgment of the sinner? This necessity of manifestation is
all the clearer if satisfaction for sin, which from the beginning has been part
of the penitential discipline, is to be imposed not only wisely but also justly.
That there is a necessary connection between the prudent judgment of the
confessor and the detailed confession of sins is evident from the nature of a
judicial procedure and especially from a full analysis of the grant of Christ in
the light of tradition. No judge may release or condemn without full knowledge
of the case. And again the tradition of the earliest time sees in the words of
Christ not only the office of the judge sitting in judgment, but the kindness of
a father who weeps with the repentant child (Aphraates, "Ep. de Poenitentia",
dem. 7) and the skill of the physician who after the manner of Christ heals the
wounds of the soul (Origen in P.G., XII, 418; P.L., XII, 1086). Clearly,
therefore, the words of Christ imply the doctrine of the external manifestation
of conscience to a priest in order to obtain pardon.
Confession (various
kinds)
Confession is the avowal of one's own sins made to a duly authorized
priest for the purpose of obtaining their forgiveness through the power of the
keys. Virtual confession is simply the will to confess even where, owing to
circumstances, declaration of sin is impossible; actual confession is any action
by which the penitent manifests his sin. It may be made in general terms, e.g.,
by reciting the "Confiteor", or it may consist in a more or less detailed
statement of one's sins; when the statement is complete, the confession is
distinct. Public confession, as made in the hearing of a number of people (e.g.
a congregation) differs from private, or secret, confession which is made to the
priest alone and is often called auricular, i.e., spoken into the ear of the
confessor. We are here concerned mainly with actual distinct confession which is
the usual practice in the Church and which so far as the validity of the
sacrament is concerned, may be either public or private. "As regards the method
of confessing secretly to the priest alone, though Christ did not forbid that
any one, in punishment of his crimes and for his own humiliation as also to give
others an example and to edify the Church, should confess his sins publicly,
still, this has not been commanded by Divine precept nor would it be prudent to
decree by any human law that sins, especially secret sins, should be publicly
confessed. Since, then, secret sacramental confession, which from the beginning
has been and even now is the usage of the Church, was always commended with
great and unanimous consent by the holiest and most ancient Fathers; thereby is
plainly refuted the foolish calumny of those who make bold to teach that it
(secret confession) is something foreign to the Divine command, a human
invention devised by the Fathers assembled in the Lateran Council" (Council of
Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 5). It is therefore Catholic doctrine, first, that Christ
did not prescribe public confession, salutary as it might be, nor did He forbid
it; second, that secret confession, sacramental in character, has been the
practice of the Church from the earliest days.
Traditional belief and
practice
How firmly rooted in the Catholic mind is the belief in the
efficacy and necessity of confession, appears clearly from the fact that the
Sacrament of Penance endures in the Church after the countless attacks to which
it has been subjected during the last four centuries. If at the Reformation or
since the Church could have surrendered a doctrine or abandoned a practice for
the sake of peace and to soften a "hard saying", confession would have been the
first to disappear. Yet it is precisely during this period that the Church has
defined in the most exact terms the nature of penance and most vigorously
insisted on the necessity of confession. It will not of course be denied that at
the beginning of the sixteenth century confession was generally practised
throughout the Christian world. The Reformers themselves, notably Calvin,
admitted that it had been in existence for three centuries when they attributed
its origin to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). At that time, according to Lea
(op. cit., I, 228), the necessity of confession "became a new article of faith"
and the canon, omnis utriusque sexus, "is perhaps the most important legislative
act in the history of the Church" (ibid., 230). But, as the Council of Trent
affirms, "the Church did not through the Lateran Council prescribe that the
faithful of Christ should confess — a thing which it knew to be by Divine right
necessary and established — but that the precept of confessing at least once a
year should be complied with by all and every one when they reached the age of
discretion" (Sess., XIV, c. 5). The Lateran edict presupposed the necessity of
confession as an article of Catholic belief and laid down a law as to the
minimum frequency of confession — at least once a year.
In the Middle
Ages
In constructing their systems of theology, the medieval doctors discuss
at length the various problems connected with the Sacrament of Penance. They are
practically unanimous in holding that confession is obligatory; the only notable
exception in the twelfth century is Gratian, who gives the arguments for and
against the necessity of confessing to a priest and leaves the question open
(Decretum, p. II, De poen., d. 1, in P.L., CLXXXVII, 1519-63). Peter Lombard (d.
about 1150) takes up the authorities cited by Gratian and by means of them
proves that "without confession there is no pardon" . . . "no entrance into
paradise" (IV Sent., d. XVII, 4, in P.L., CXCII, 880-2). The principal debate,
in which Hugh of St. Victor, Abelard, Robert Pullus, and Peter of Poitiers took
the leading parts, concerned the origin and sanction of the obligation, and the
value of the different Scriptural texts cited to prove the institution of
penance. This question passed on to the thirteenth century and received its
solution in very plain terms from St. Thomas Aquinas. Treating (Contra Gentes,
IV, 72) of the necessity of penance and its parts, he shows that "the
institution of confession was necessary in order that the sin of the penitent
might be revealed to Christ's minister; hence the minister to whom the
confession is made must have judicial power as representing Christ, the Judge of
the living and the dead. This power again requires two things: authority of
knowledge and power to absolve or to condemn. These are called the two keys of
the Church which the Lord entrusted to Peter (Matthew 16:19). But they were not
given to Peter to be held by him alone, but to be handed on through him to
others; else sufficient provision would not have been made for the salvation of
the faithful. These keys derive their efficacy from the passion of Christ
whereby He opened to us the gate of the heavenly kingdom". And he adds that as
no one can be saved without baptism either by actual reception or by desire, so
they who sin after baptism cannot be saved unless they submit to the keys of the
Church either by actually confessing or by the resolve to confess when
opportunity permits. Furthermore, as the rulers of the Church cannot dispense
any one from baptism as a means of salvation neither can they give a
dispensation whereby the sinner may be forgiven without confession and
absolution. The same explanation and reasoning is given by all the Scholastics
of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. They were in practical agreement as
to the necessity of jurisdiction in the confessor. Regarding the time at which
confession had to be made, some held with William of Auvergne that one was
obliged to confess as soon as possible after sinning; others with Albertus
Magnus and St. Thomas that it sufficed to confess within the time limits
prescribed by the Church (Paschal Time); and this more lenient view finally
prevailed. Further subjects of discussion during this period were the choice of
confessor; the obligation of confessing before receiving other sacraments,
especially the Eucharist; the integrity of confession; the obligation of secrecy
on the part of the confessor, i.e., the seal of confession. The careful and
minute treatment of these points and the frank expression of divergent opinions
were characteristic of the Schoolmen but they also brought out more clearly the
central truths regarding penance and they opened the way to the conciliar
pronouncements at Florence and Trent which gave to Catholic doctrine a more
precise formulation. See Vacandard and Bernard in "Dict. de theol. cath.", s.v.
Confession; Turmel, "Hist. de la theologie positive", Paris, 1904; Cambier, "De
divina institutione confessionis sacramentalis", Louvain, 1884.
Not only
was the obligation recognized in the Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages,
but the schismatic Greeks held the same belief and still hold it. They fell into
schism under Photius in 869, but retained confession, which therefore must have
been in use for some time previous to the ninth century. The practice, moreover,
was regulated in detail by the Penitential Books, which prescribed the canonical
penance for each sin, and minute questions for the examination of the penitent.
The most famous of these books among the Greeks were those attributed to John
the Faster and to John the Monk. In the West similar works were written by the
Irish monks St. Columbanus (d. 615) and Cummian, and by the Englishmen Ven. Bede
(d. 735), Egbert (d. 767), and Theodore of Canterbury (d. 690). Besides the
councils mentioned above (Minister) decrees pertaining to confession were
enacted at Worms (868), Paris (820), Châlons (813, 650), Tours (813), Reims
(1113). The Council of Chaleuth (785) says: "if any one (which God forbid)
should depart this life without penance or confession he is not to be prayed
for". The significant feature about these enactments is that they do not
introduce confession as a new practice, but take it for granted and regulate its
administration. Hereby they put into practical effect what had been handed down
by tradition.
St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) teaches "the affliction of
penance is efficacious in blotting out sins when it is enjoined by the sentence
of the priest when the burden of it is decided by him in proportion to the
offence after weighing the deeds of those who confess" (In I Reg., III, v, n. 13
in P.L., LXXIX, 207); Pope Leo the Great (440-61), who is often credited with
the institution of confession, refers to it as an "Apostolic rule". Writing to
the bishops of Campania he forbids as an abuse "contrary to the Apostolic rule"
(contra apostolicam regulam) the reading out in public of a written statement of
their sins drawn up by the faithful, because, he declares, "it suffices that the
guilt of conscience be manifested to priests alone in secret confession" (Ep.
clxviii in P.L., LIV, 1210). In another letter (Epistle 108), after declaring
that by Divine ordinance the mercy of God can be obtained only through the
supplications of the priests, he adds: "the mediator between God and men, Christ
Jesus, gave the rulers of the Church this power that they should impose penance
on those who confess and admit them when purified by salutary satisfaction to
the communion of the sacraments through the gateway of reconciliation. "The
earlier Fathers frequently speak of sin as a disease which needs treatment,
something drastic, at the hands of the spiritual physician or surgeon. St.
Augustine (d. 450) tells the sinner: "an abscess had formed in your conscience;
it tormented you and gave you no rest. . . . confess, and in confession let the
pus come out and flow away" (Enarration on Psalm 66, no. 6). St. Jerome (d. 420)
comparing the priests of the New Law with those of the Old who decided between
leprosy and leprosy, says: "likewise in the New Testament the bishops and the
priest bind or loose . . . in virtue of their office", having heard various
sorts of sinners, they know who is to be bound and who is to be loosed" . . .
(In Matt., xvi, 19); in his "Sermon on Penance" he says: "let no one find it
irksome to show his wound vulnus confiteri) because without confession it cannot
be healed." St. Ambrose (d. 397): "this right (of loosing and binding) has been
conferred on priests only" (On Penance I.2.7); St. Basil (d. 397): "As men do
not make known their bodily ailments to anybody and everybody, but only to those
who are skilled in healing, so confession of sin ought to be made to those who
can cure it" (Reg. brevior., 229).
For those who sought to escape the
obligation of confession it was natural enough to assert that repentance was the
affair of the soul alone with its Maker, and that no intermediary was needed. It
is this pretext that St. Augustine sweeps aside in one of his sermons: "Let no
one say I do penance secretly; I perform it in the sight of God, and He who is
to pardon me knows that in my heart I repent". Whereupon St. Augustine asks:
"Was it then said to no purpose, 'What you shall loose upon earth shall be
loosed in heaven?' Was it for nothing that the keys were given to the Church?"
(Sermo cccxcii, n. 3, in P.L., XXXIX, 1711). The Fathers, of course, do not deny
that sin must be confessed to God; at times, indeed, in exhorting the faithful
to confess, they make no mention of the priest; but such passages must be taken
in connection with the general teaching of the Fathers and with the traditional
belief of the Church. Their real meaning is expressed, e.g., by Anastasius
Sinaita (seventh century): "Confess your sins to Christ through the priest" (De
sacra synaxi), and by Egbert, Archbishop of York (d. 766): "Let the sinner
confess his evil deeds to God, that the priest may know what penance to impose"
(Mansi, Coll. Conc., XII, 232). For the passages in St. John Chrysostom, see
Hurter, "Theol. dogmat.", III, 454; Pesch, "Praelectiones", VII, 165.
The Fathers, knowing well that one great difficulty which the sinner has
to overcome is shame, encourage him in spite of it to confess. "I appeal to you,
my brethren", says St. Pacian (d. 391), ". . . you who are not ashamed to sin
and yet are ashamed to confess . . . I beseech you, cease to hide your wounded
conscience. Sick people who are prudent do not fear the physician, though he cut
and burn even the secret parts of the body" (Par
정원학 (2013-04-02 22:07:34)
위의 본문 마지막 부분을 약간 수정합니다.
[작은 뿔이 " 미운 물건을 세우는
때", “매일 드리는 제사를 폐하는 때”, “성도(백성)가 붙인 바 된 때”는 동일하며 538년이다.]
작은 뿔이 미운
물건(멸망의 가증한 것)입니다. "매일 드리는 제사와 성도가
이 작은 뿔에게 붙인 바 되었습니다.
또한 미운 물건은 우상입니다.
따라서 미운 물건이 세워지는 때는 그의 전성시대의 시작인 538년이다.
“ 매일 드리는 제사를 폐하며 멸망케 할 미운
물건을 세울 때부터 일천이백구십 일을 지낼 것이요”(단 12:11)
“ 누가 아무렇게 하여도 너희가 미혹하지 말라 먼저 배도하는
일이 있고 저 불법의 사람 곧 멸망의 아들이 나타나기 전에는 이르지 아니하리니”(살후 2:3)
“불법의 비밀이 이미 활동하였으나 지금
막는 자가 있어 그 중에서 옮길 때까지 하리라”(살후 2:7)
“그는 또한 계속하여 “불법의 비밀이 이미 활동하였”(살후
2:7)다고 형제들에게 경고하고 있다. 그는 초창기에 이미 교회 안에 오류들이 몰래 들어와서 법왕권이 자라날 길이 준비되고 있는 사실을
보았다.”(쟁투, 49)
“ "불법의 사람"이 이 봉사와 성소를 교회에서 제하여 버리고 세상이 알지 못하도록 하여 땅에 던지고
발로 짓밟았으며 그 대신에 "멸망케 하는 미운 물건"을 세웠다. 전 로마는 "참 것의 그림자인" 보이는 성소, 곧 지상 성소에 물리적으로
행하였으나(단 9:26, 27; 마 24:15) 후 로마는 바로 "참 것"인 보이지 않는 성소, 곧 하늘 성소에 영적으로 행하였다.(단
11:31; 12:11; 8:11, 13)”(완전, 13 불법과 멸망의 가증한 것)
“ “매일”은 “멸망케 하는 미운
물건”(11:31) 즉 교황권과 대조되는 “이교주의”를 의미한다. 두 용어는 모두 박해 세력의 정체를 드러내며, “매일”이라는 단어의 정확한
의미는 “계속적인”으로, 이교주의라는 매체를 통해 그리스도의 사업을 방해한 반대, 즉 사단의 반대가 오래 계속된 것을 언급한다. 매일 드리는
제사를 제하고 “멸망케 하는 미운 물건”을 세운다는 것은 교황 로마가 이교 로마의 자리를 차지하는 것을 나타내며, 이 사건은 살후 2:7과 계
13:2에 묘사된 것과 동일하다.”(성경주석, 단 8:12-2)
“멸망케 하는 미운 물건”을 세운다는 것은 교황 로마가 이교
로마의 자리를 차지하는 것이며, 그 시기는? 즉 언제까지 막고 있는가?
“누가 아무렇게 하여도 너희가 미혹하지 말라 먼저 배도하는
일이 있고 저 불법의 사람 곧 멸망의 아들이 나타나기 전에는 이르지 아니하리니
… 저로 하여금 저의 때에 나타나게 하려 하여 막는 것을
지금도 너희가 아나니 불법의 비밀이 이미 활동하였으나 지금 막는 자가 있어 그 중에서 옮길 때까지 하리라”(살후 2:3-7)
불법의 사람 곧 멸망의 아들이 나타나는 때가 언제인가? 즉 “불법의 사람”의 전성 시대의 시작은? 538년
[덧글 최종 수정 : 2013년 4월 03일 14시 27분 40초]
[덧글 최종 수정 : 2013년 4월
03일 14시 39분 19초]
[덧글 최종 수정 : 2013년 4월 03일 14시 58분 24초]
[덧글 최종 수정
: 2013년 4월 07일 11시 51분 53초]
정원학 (2013-04-07 11:48:42)
멸망의 가증한 것
“그러므로 너희가 선지자 다니엘의 말한 바 멸망의 가증한 것이
거룩한 곳에 선 것을 보거든 (읽는 자는 깨달을진저)”(마 24:15)
멸망의 가증한 것이 멸망케 하는 미운 물건이며, 일차적으론
전 로마이며(눅21:20) 이차적으론 후 로마이다.
“저 불법의 사람 곧 멸망의 아들이 나타나기 전에는 이르지 아니하리니”(살후
2:3). 큰 배도와 장기간에 걸친 “불법의 사람”의 전성 시대가 그친 다음에야 비로소 주님의 재림을 기대할 수 있을 것이었다
(단8:11-12절 인용) "불법의 사람"이 대제사장이신 그리스도의 계속적인 봉사와 성소를 교회에서 제하여 버리고 세상이 알지 못하도록
하여 땅에 던지고 발로 짓밟았으며 그 대신에 "멸망케 하는 미운 물건"을세웠다.
전 로마는 "참 것의 그림자인" 보이는 성소, 곧 지상
성소에 물리적으로 행하였으나(단9:26, 27; 마24:15)
후 로마는 바로 "참 것"인 보이지 않는 성소, 곧 하늘 성소에 영적으로
행하였다.(단 11:31;12:11; 8:11, 13)”(완전, 13 불법과 멸망의 가증한 것)
★ 멸망의 가증한 것(우상)이
거룩한 곳에 세워지는 때
전 로마: AD70년 거룩한 곳에 섬
“우상 숭배하는 로마의 군기(軍旗)가 예루살렘 성벽 밖
수마일까지 미치는 거룩한 땅(聖地)에 세워질 때에 그리스도를 따르는 사람들은 도망하여 안전을 얻어야 할 것이었다.”(쟁투, 26)
후 로마: 538년 거룩한 곳에 섬
“누가 아무렇게 하여도 너희가 미혹하지 말라 먼저 배도하는 일이 있고 저 불법의 사람
곧 멸망의 아들이 나타나기 전에는 이르지 아니하리니 저는 대적하는 자라 범사에 일컫는 하나님이나 숭배함을 받는 자 위에 뛰어나 자존하여 하나님
성전에 앉아 자기를 보여 하나님이라 하느니라”(살후 2:3-4)
후 로마는 “중세(1260년)”의 기간동안 거룩한 곳에 앉았고,
전성시대가 끝이 나면서 예언에 대한 지식이 증가하여 봉함되었던 다니엘의 예언을 깨닫게 되었으며, 재림운동이 전 세계적으로 울려 퍼졌다.
세마포 입은 자의 질문에 대한 설명 / 다니엘의 질문에 대한 설명
“ 이 기사의 끝이 어느 때까지냐 하기로 / “이 모든
일의 결국이 어떠하겠삽나이까
… 반드시 한 때 두 때 반 때를 지나서 성도의 권세가 다 깨어지기까지니 그렇게 되면 이 모든 일이 다
끝나리라 하더라”(단 12:6-7) / … 매일 드리는 제사를 폐하며 멸망케 할 미운 물건을 세울 때부터 일천이백구십 일을 지낼 것이요 기다려서
일천삼백삼십오 일까지 이르는 그 사람은 복이 있으리라”(단 12:8-12)
"한 때 두 때 반 때"를 지나서 다니엘의 예언이
개봉되고 재림이 전 세계적으로 전파되었다. (첫째 둘째 천사의 기별이 전파) 그러나 완전한 성취는 되지를 않았다.
그래서 다시 예언해야
하는 일이 남아있다(셋째 천사의 기별 - 첫째 둘째 포함)
“매일 드리는 제사를 폐하며 멸망케 할 미운 물건을 세운 때”는 “한
때 두 때 반 때”의 시작과 동일하다. 따라서 일천이백구십일과 일천삼백삼십오일은 538년부터 기산점을 잡아야 하며 이 시간적 예언은 삼중 기별과
관련이 있다.
[덧글 최종 수정 : 2013년 4월 07일 11시 56분 57초]
정원학 (2013-04-09 14:51:50)
“ 누가 아무렇게 하여도 너희가 미혹하지 말라 먼저 배도하는 일이 있고 저 불법의 사람
곧 멸망의 아들이 나타나기 전에는 이르지 아니하리니”(살후 2:3)
“불법의 비밀이 이미 활동하였으나 지금 막는 자가 있어 그 중에서
옮길 때까지 하리라”(살후 2:7)
“그는 또한 계속하여 “불법의 비밀이 이미 활동하였”(살후 2:7)다고 형제들에게 경고하고
있다. 그는 초창기에 이미 교회 안에 오류들이 몰래 들어와서 법왕권이 자라날 길이 준비되고 있는 사실을 보았다.”(쟁투, 49)
불법의 사람 곧 멸망의 아들이 나타나는 때가 언제인가? 538년이며, 이 때부터 1260년이 마치는 1798년이 지나야 주의
재림을 기대할 수가 있다
그러나 불법의 비밀은 이미 사도시대에 몰래 들어와서 법왕권이 자라날 길이 준비되고 있었으며 즉 배도하는 일이
시작되었음을 알 수가 있다, 508년의 시간대도 법왕권이 확립되기전의 한 과정으로 보아야 할 것입니다.
정원학 (2013-04-15 14:41:22)
◆ 일천이백구십 일을 지낼 것이요(단12:11)
1290년 =
1260년(538년~1798년) +30년 = 1828년
“다니엘아 마지막 때까지 이 말을 간수하고 이 글을 봉함하라 많은 사람이
빨리 왕래하며 지식이더하리라”(단 12:4)
“1798년 이후로 다니엘서가 개봉되고, 예언의 지식은 증가되었으며, 많은 사람이
심판(재림)이 가까웠다는 엄숙한 기별을 전하기 시작하였다.”(쟁투, 356)
30년은 예언의 지식이 증가하여 다니엘의 봉함되었던
예언이 개봉되어 온 세계에 선포할 최후의 영원한 복음인 세 천사의 기별을 전파하기 위한 준비로서 외방선교 운동이 태동하고 완성된 시기이다
“예언 해석의 부흥- 구대륙과 신대륙에서 서로 개별적으로연구했으나 같은 시대에 예언 해석의 조수가 있었는데 대 재림
운동과 기별을 이룩한 비슷한 의미와 놀라운 같은 결론들을 내렸다.”
“큰 영적 부흥 - 새롭게 하는 시대’는
1800년경에시작되었다. 그리고 이 큰 부흥은 약 30년간 계속되었는데 먼저는 동부주 등에서 시작되어 중서부와 남부변경으로 퍼지고 캐나다
동부까지 퍼졌다.그리고 불란서 혁명의 무신론과 불신, Hume, Volteure와 Rousseau의 사악한 철학에 대항하는 대등한 반항도
있었다.
“성경보급 - 특별히 주목할 것은 … 19세기 첫 30년에86개 언어가 더 번역된 놀라운 증가를 보였다”
“통신과 교통의 발달- 1800년에서 1844년 사이에놀라운 물질문명의 발달과 혁명적인 변화가 있었다. 운하의 관문에서 철도로의
전환이 생겼다. 1807년에 증기 기선이 나왔다. 1828년에철로가, 1837년에 전보가 수십가지 다른 혁명적인 발달이 신속히 뒤따랐는데 이
모두 19세기 초기에 되었다.”
“외방선교 운동이 태동하고 완성 - 1260년 교황권 시기가끝난 1798년에 불란서에서는 불신과
이상주의적 철학이 수반되었으나 기독교 내에서는 새로운 시대가 밝아왔다. 단지 잃어버렸던 교리적, 예언적 진리들을회복한 것뿐만 아니라 모든
예비적, 보조적 세력들이 포함된 것들과 함께 온 세계에 선포할 최후의 특별한 천국복음을 위한 준비로서 우리가곧 알게 될 일반적인 외방선교 운동이
태동하고 완성된 것이다. ”(운명, 47~84)