Last issue’s article on the “Little Horn,” dealt primarily with the time “the abomination that maketh desolate” (Papacy) was “set up” in civil control (Daniel 12) This, by another contributor summarizes the development of the mass which caused “the daily sacrifice” (the ransom) to “be taken away” by declaring that Jesus’ sacrifice was regularly repeated in the mass, rather than once accomplished and all-sufficient. The prophetic days of Daniel were to begin when both things had happened. The development of the mass happened to occur first, as outlined here.

END OF 2nd CENTURY. IRENAEUS OF LYONS.

“With Irenaeus of Lyons [d. 2021 there comes a turning point, inasmuch as he, with conscious clearness, first puts forward ‘bread and wine’ as objective gift offerings, but at the same time maintains that these elements become the ‘body and blood’ of the Word through consecration; and thus by simply combining these two thoughts we have the Catholic Mass of today” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, “Sacrifice of the Mass,” Vol. 10, P. 11)

4th CENTURY. NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS.

“The doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass is much further developed in the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers, though amidst many obscurities and rhetorical extravagances, and with much wavering between symbolical and grossly realistic conceptions…” (History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, p. 506.)

“As regards the sacrificial aspect of the holy action, the most important development [in the 4th century] consists in the advance made in the transformation of the idea of sacrifice, for which the way had been already prepared in the third century. The offering of the elements, the memorial celebration of the sacrifice of Christ… was changed into an offering of the body, a propitiatory memorial sacrifice… Thus, owing to the influence of the heathen mysteries… the idea crept in that the body and blood of Christ were constantly offered to God afresh in order to propitiate Him … [Men] conceived of the Supper as a real renewal of the Sacrifice of Christ and of His saving death.” (History of dogma, Adolph Hamack, Vol. 4, p. 287.)

“The conception of the Eucharist as a sacrifice received considerable development during the period under discussion [3rd and 4th centuries]… The fullest statement of the sacrificial idea is found in Cyril of Jerusalem (about 348 AD). While repeating the language of the earlier period, and speaking of ‘the spiritual sacrifice: ‘the bloodless service,’ he definitely calls it ‘the holy and most awful sacrifice: ‘the sacrifice of propitiation: over which God is entreated for the common peace of the churches. It is Christ sacrificed for sins who is offered, while the loving God is propitiated on behalf of the living and the dead…” (Encyclopedia of religion and ethics, James Hastings, editor, Vol. 5, “Eucharist,” pp. 551, 552.) 5th century.

“The transformation of the idea of sacrifice, according to which the conception of the offering of the gifts and the memorial of the Passion passes into an offering of the body and blood as a propitiatory memorial sacrifice [received further accentuation in this period]… The practice of offering the Eucharist specially for the departed, which appears first in Tertullian and Cyprian, led gradually to the idea that each offering constituted a distinct sacrifice for sin. The transition was made slowly and almost imperceptibly. In popular religion the propitiatory conception doubtless received a considerable impetus from the influx of pagan ideas into the Church” (Encyclopedia of religion and Ethics, James Hastings, editor, Vol. 5, “Eucharist” pp. 553, 555.)

“From the beginning of the fifth century, conceptions of the Eucharist were very decidedly influenced by… Christological differences. If the conception of the Eucharist was connected with that of the Incarnation, then it could not be a matter of indifference to the former, whether in the latter the two natures were held to be fused in one or to remain separate, Monophysites and Orthodox, however, had always been and remained of one mind regarding the Lord’s Supper. Cyril argued over and over again from the Lord’s Supper in support of the Incarnation and vice versa, and it was strictly due to him that the Church learned the connection between the two and never lost it… Nay, the incorruptibility of the Eucharistic body was now accepted without question… The strict Monophysites … could bring the eucharistic and the earthly body quite closely together, because they also held the earthly body to be imperishable.” (History of Dogma, Adolph Hamack, Vol. 4, pp. 299-300.)

6th CENTURY

“Here we have above all and first to name Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople in the time of Justinian. He [contended] that the ascended body abides complete (in substance) and undivided in itself (in heaven), and yet is received completely by each communicant in the portion of bread dispensed to him. Eutychius teaches a real multiplication of one and the same body of Christ in its antitypes – for as such he still describes the consecrated elements… John of Damascus settled this question also… He was the first to perfect the conception of the identity of the eucharistic and the real body of Christ… ‘The body is truly made one with the deity, the body which came from the holy virgin, not that the body which was assumed comes down from heaven, but the very bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of God… The bread and wine are not types of the body and blood of Christ; not so, but the very body of the Lord deified.’ (History of Dogma, Adolph Harnack, Vol. 4, pp. 301-302.)

“The transition from the Eucharistic to the propitiatory view of the Eucharist is reflected in the Western Sacramentaries, when compared with the earlier prayers (e.g. the DE SACRAMENTIS). Thus in the Leonine Sacramentary (6th century), side by side with the older language, which speaks of ‘the sacrifice of praise,’ we find ‘sacrifice of propitiation and praise.” (Encyclopedia of religion and Ethics, James Hastings, editor, Vol. 5, “Eucharist,” p. 555.)

“The doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass… in all points… is brought to its settlement by Gregory the Great at the close of the sixth century. These points are the following:

1. The eucharistic sacrifice is the most solemn mystery of the church, and fills the faithful with a holy awe …
2. It is not a new sacrifice added to that of the cross, but a daily, unbloody repetition and perpetual application of that one only sacrifice…
3. The subject of the sacrifice is the body of Jesus Christ, which is as truly present on the altar of the church, as it once was on the altar of the cross, and which now offers itself to God through his priest…
4. The offering of the sacrifice is the exclusive prerogative of the Christian priest.” (History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, Vol. 3, pp. 506-509.)

(From this contributor we have similar summaries of Papal Growth in Temporal Power, Papal Decline in Temporal Power, Highlights of the Millerite Movement, and Early Bible Student Movement – these will appear in future issues – and the following reflections.)

The most crucial part of the prophecies of Daniel in the 12th chapter is in recognizing that the expression of verse 7, “time, times, and a half,” is the exact equivalent of the 1260 days (or years) of Rev. 12:6, as well as the “time, times, and half a time” and “42 months” of Rev. 12:14 and 13:5. When all of these expressions are recognized as being identical, and the year for a day principle applied, it indicates that a wicked ecclesiastical and political system is being identified with a period of 1260 years.

There is only one such wicked system that fits such a time setting, and it then becomes a relatively simple matter to obtain the correct starting and ending points. In the case of Papacy, the crisis year of 1799 is well marked in history, for at that point a blow was suffered which was of such proportion as to be recognized by all. Note some of these commentaries, including Catholic sources:

“[Pope] Pius VI was an… unfortunate pope and at his death [1799] the papacy was at its lowest ebb for many centuries past.” (The Popes, edited by Eric John, p. 406)

“This moment [1799] marked the nadir [lowest point] of papal fortunes in modern times… [Pius VI’s] death while a prisoner [1799] marked a low point in papal fortunes not plumbed for centuries and gave rise to a prophecy that the apostolic succession had come to a close with the demise of ‘Pius the Last’ “‘ (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, pp. 398-400, and Vol. 10, “Papacy from 1789 to 1815.”)

“The papacy reached a low point in power and influence during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic period, from which it gradually recovered…” (Collier’s Encyclopedia, 1957 edition, Vol. 18, p. 409)

With 1799 so clearly marked as the ending point of the 1260 year period of Papal dominion, the starting point is calculated to be the year 539 AD. But this is the starting point not alone for the 1260 year prophecy, but for the others as well, that is, the 1290 days and the 1335 days. This is not too clear from Daniel the 12th chapter, but it is interesting that the great majority of Bible expositors familiar with these prophecies, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries of awakened interest in Bible study, held that all three time prophecies of Daniel 12 did indeed have the same starting point. And literally scores of them came within a few years of making the correct application. Thus, and this is thrilling to my faith, what we believe is not simply the result of the interpretation of one individual, but represents the concerted and united teaching of a host of sincere, earnest students of the prophecies, handed on down to us through the ministry of that wise and faithful servant.

All of this, of course, is fundamental to an appreciation of how the 1874 date was arrived at for the invisible return of our Lord and the start of the Harvest period. The 1335 year prophecy, extending from the same starting point of 539 AD, brings us to the year 1874. Hence the importance to us of the basis for establishing the key points of 1799, and 539 AD, without which we could not arrive at the 1874 date for the 1335 year prophecy of Daniel 12…

The very fact that such a wonderful time of blessing did occur and a fresh flood of light upon the Scriptures and revealment of the divine plan given, in itself gives evidence of the correctness of the dates, both of 1874 and that which led up to it.

–     Contributed

Download PDF