Is It Licit to Point Out Who the Man of Sin Is or Isn't? Overall Yes.

New blog on the kid: I have Consistently Said, a) I am Catholic, b) I'm a Writer, c) I Intend to Get Married · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:Is It Licit to Point Out Who the Man of Sin Is or Isn't? Overall Yes · All the Bible is Essential Doctrine, If You Have Time to Read

Breaking News: Bishop Strickland Challenges Bishops To Declare Against Francis
Return To Tradition | 7 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNK4SEekeEM

21:23 Sorry, what did you just say?

by the 20:58 way I thought I should reiterate this 20:59 because there's so many in my live chat 21:00 right now trying 21:01 to assume that political figures of the 21:04 B of sin um the church has 21:07 condemned Laymen, Bishops and Priests, anybody 21:11 from trying to identify the man of sin 21:13 based on the very simple reason is you 21:15 will be fooled by him when he comes if 21:17 you do 21:18 that don't play that game it's dangerous

I refuse to take "the Church has condemned" from an "everybody knows" or your priest's "I heard this in seminary" ...

A few years ago, perhaps as long as a decade ago, an Orthodox, i e a schismatic, said "we can ony safely identify the Antichrist" (or if it was "the false prophet") "if the Church as a whole does so" ...

No, the identity of the man of sin is not a theological point like fine but important shades of Christology. They are a practical point about the end times. It is also a conundrum, since there are chances a certain entity that rides the beast will be a false version of the Catholic Church. I e, in the end times, if not the Church, at least Catholics de jure belonging to it, will be divided. So, waiting for that ecclesial statement is tantamount to never identifying the Antichrist, and therefore to have no use for the actual directive in Apocalypse 13:18. One which clearly extends the power to do calculation, not to clergy, but to anyone who has understanding.

So, let's hope your priest was not referencing that Eastern Orthodox statement, if it was a tweet from Kirill or whatever it was.

Or you could be referencing a statement in Lateran V, which is disciplinary, and for the reasons stated above cannot be permanent. It was not formulated as a dogma. If it had been Church law already in for instance Patristic times, it would have been condemning a statement of St. Hilary of Poitiers.

So, I'd want to check with you where you have that "tout le monde sait" statement from ...

21:23 bis, it seems my previous comment on the issue disappeared:

by the 20:58 way I thought I should reiterate this 20:59 because there's so many in my live chat 21:00 right now trying 21:01 to assume that political figures of the 21:04 B of sin um the church has 21:07 condemned Laymen, Bishops and Priests, anybody 21:11 from trying to identify the man of sin 21:13 based on the very simple reason is you 21:15 will be fooled by him when he comes if 21:17 you do 21:18 that don't play that game it's dangerous

How does that even make sense?

a) How do you know that the Man of Sin is supposed to be in the future? Unlike the times of Lateran V, we live in a world without Roman Emperor, and the traditional understanding of "ho katekhon" the one withholding, in II Thessalonians 2 is, it's the Roman Emperor;
b) If identifying him correctly involves not being fooled by him, how does this restriction if it were really a ban, let alone a condemnation, in any way, shape or form help? Because i) if the ban is upheld when he comes, it blocks the purpose of identifying him, and ij) if the true Church is supposed to lift the ban, how will you identify the true Church? If Strickland said you could identify an Antichrist or a False Prophet, how would Michael Lofton not disagree? Or if Francis said one could, how could we be sure that you obeyed?
c) If not identifying him wrongly is supposed to help, well, Apocalypse 13:18 gives a criterium not fulfilled by everyone on Earth.

If we take the gematria to be in Latin alphabet and based off ASCII, I have calculated that there are for all combinations of 9 UPPER CASE letters c. 1 chance in 150 to add up to 666. However, the calculation is for ALL nine letter combinations which are pure upper case (a lower case letter has usually 32 more in value). From AAAAAAAAA to ZZZZZZZZZ. However, as the meaningful combinations are a selection, pretty random, from the possible ones, I think that any given person with any given name of 9 letters has no more than c. 1/150 chance to add up to 666.

This means that calculating ASCII combinations is a way of exonerating very many (I've so far exonerated Trump on this account), and for the record, I have a restricted, but more than two items, list of famous people who get 666 in upper case. The first of them to come on world stage was, though not yet with the gematria, Charles III. It also applies to any male heir of his.

A Welshman, as the PoW technically is, is safe. A monarch ruling from Buckingham or Balmoral is only safe if female. He's, in Swedish an "ENGELSMAN" but also a "skotte" ... the late Queen was "en engelska" and "en skotska" which has a different value. This is obviously a question for any male heir of his.

The second was Putin (WLADIMIRA in genitive and accusative, VLADIMIRB as in Vladimir B, Vladimir II, V POUTINE, like "V. POUTINE" but without the dot, also known as point, if he did something pointless in a French speaking country. He's still around. The third was "Pope Benedict" not just "Benediktos" in Greek gematria (500 + 150 + 16!), but also PAPABENTO and BENEDETTO, he's however not around any more. The newer ones after that have been BERGOGLIO, SEBASTIAN (Kurz, Maskenpflicht), who stepped back, and JRBIDENJR (J. R. Biden Jr.), now stepping back soon.

I'm leaving out where the gematrias are only lower case or only 616 or 665. Oh, just in case you wonder -- HGLUNDAHL is 663 and HANSGEORG is 670. I've checked.