Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Ladislaus on March 25, 2022, 11:46:37 AM
-
I'm watching the LiveStream. First search result that came up was on a channel called ... wait for it ... "Shalom World". Is this Irlmaeier's "peace, Shalom!" (as that's all this is about), and then there will suddenly be war?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrrcZ8CwlZg
So as Bergoglio walked over (hobbled really ... as he can barely walk) to make his confession, he walked in front of the statue of Our Lady of Fatima and didn't so much as look at her, much less bow or make some sign of reverence.
-
During his sermon, of course he couldn't help himself from denouncing "rigidity".
-
Who is this woman commentating?
-
The "consecration" is done. I see no immediate effects. Therefore, invalid.
-
Is it safe to emerge from our bomb shelters now?
-
I guess we get the far more dreadful scenario of having things continue along on their downward plunge.
-
The "consecration" is done. I see no immediate effects. Therefore, invalid.
I'm convinced that when the consecration DOES eventually get performed, there will be an immediate and dramatic effect, so that the entire world will recognize the power of Our Lady's intercession and also the papacy, so that the world will convert. I believe it'll happen either right before or during the 3 Days of Darkness, when all seems lost, and there will be such an unbelievably dramatic turn of events that everyone will have to admit that it was a miracle from God.
So ... I agree. Clearly invalid. Whether that's because Bergoglio is no pope or because he didn't consecrate Russia individually or because he didn't command all the bishops to do it or whether there was no mention of reparation for blasphemies against Our Lady ... or all of the above, that I can't say, but I agree that it's clearly invalid. No immediate effect whatsoever. If a few days, weeks, or months from now, say, Russia were to withdraw from Ukraine, nobody will necessarily link that effect to the consecration. Nobody will say, "Look what Our Lady did. We all need to become Catholic."
-
Is it safe to emerge from our bomb shelters now?
Perhaps. There was a chance that God would be so offended by this simulated consecration that He would hasten the actual physical chastisement. Of course, we don't know God's will. He's allowed the Vatican II destruction to go on this long already, so we simply don't know. Instead, it would appear as He completely ignored it.
-
I guess we get the far more dreadful scenario of having things continue along on their downward plunge.
Yep. Pretty much. The whole charade was an appeal to let the party continue, as evidenced by their worldly motivations in invoking the Wedding feast of Cana.
Is it safe to emerge from our bomb shelters now?
Might be prudent to prep our bomb shelters :laugh1:
-
I take it Bergoglio and Ratzinger are still alive?
-
I take it Bergoglio and Ratzinger are still alive?
Yes. St. Peter's didn't collapse on Francis, nor did a bolt of lightning strike him dead.
-
https://youtu.be/D01YrVweSMk
-
Yes. St. Peter's didn't collapse on Francis, nor did a bolt of lightning strike him dead.
I guess God wills those two worm ridden "popes" to still hang onto life.
-
I guess God wills those two worm ridden "popes" to still hang onto life.
I actually think that most of the bad stuff will happen in 2029 because because Our Lady requested the consecration in 1929 and then in 1931 Our Lord complained to Sister Lucy that it was like with the Kings of France (who were deposed 100 years to the day that the Sacred Heart of Jesus asked them to consecrate France to him).
Another interesting thing in 1929 was the Lateran Treaty. Dimond Brothers say that the 10 Kings (of Rome) mentioned in the Apocalypse are actually 10 Popes (who even if illegitimate were Kings of Rome in the sense of being rules of Vatican City under that treaty). That's definitely an interesting angle.
-
I actually think that most of the bad stuff will happen in 2029 because because Our Lady requested the consecration in 1929 and then in 1931 Our Lord complained to Sister Lucy that it was like with the Kings of France (who were deposed 100 years to the day that the Sacred Heart of Jesus asked them to consecrate France to him).
Another interesting thing in 1929 was the Lateran Treaty. Dimond Brothers say that the 10 Kings (of Rome) mentioned in the Apocalypse are actually 10 Popes (who even if illegitimate were Kings of Rome in the sense of being rules of Vatican City under that treaty). That's definitely an interesting angle.
I think the Seven Heads of the Beast represent false popes. That means we would have one or 2 more depending upon how we categorize Roncalli.
-
We could even throw in there St. Malachy's prophecy concerning the men who would be papal claimants until the Second Coming, which, may end with Francis. I personally think it's telling us Popes/papal claimants until the end of the age, since no one knows when the end will be but the Father. But, it's worth considering too.
https://youtu.be/sLaSMLSgEmQ
-
I actually think that most of the bad stuff will happen in 2029 because because Our Lady requested the consecration in 1929 and then in 1931 Our Lord complained to Sister Lucy that it was like with the Kings of France (who were deposed 100 years to the day that the Sacred Heart of Jesus asked them to consecrate France to him).
Another interesting thing in 1929 was the Lateran Treaty. Dimond Brothers say that the 10 Kings (of Rome) mentioned in the Apocalypse are actually 10 Popes (who even if illegitimate were Kings of Rome in the sense of being rules of Vatican City under that treaty). That's definitely an interesting angle.
The same timeline has been on my mind for a few years now. Either it's when the Chastisement kicks off, or, Antichrist, the true one not JPII, emerges and reigns until 2032-33, which is 2,000 years after Our Lord's death and resurrection. Aping Our Lord's 3 years of preaching in the world... It's possible that the Chastisement occurs in the next few years, followed by a peace wherein Antichrist comes preaching and reigns. But, God only knows.
-
We could even throw in there St. Malachy's prophecy concerning the men who would be papal claimants until the Second Coming, which, may end with Francis. I personally think it's telling us Popes/papal claimants until the end of the age, since no one knows when the end will be but the Father. But, it's worth considering too.
https://youtu.be/sLaSMLSgEmQ
I struggle a bit understanding what they're saying. They're claiming that Bergoglio will be the last (Anti-)Pope, and if we look at the prophecies 1,000 years from now, we'll see that he was the last (Anti-)Pope. So the papacy will be extinuished? I have a hard time believing that the papacy would end with a line of Antipopes. There's way too much Catholic prophecy which indicates Triumph and Restoration of the Church after this apostasy that has been foretold, and Our Lady stated that Her Immaculate Heart will Triumph. To make it fit, the Dimonds hold that the Fatima consecration was done by Pius XII. But what Our Lady warned of in the Third Secret is the great apostasy "from the top", and her Triumph would presumably involve the restoration of the Church. Even the book of Revelation refers to a generation of peace and the Church's glory before the emergence of Antichrist. Dimonds somehow think that removing Stalin and therefore causing fewer Catholics to be killed by the Communists represents the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary? This is the big "conversion" Our Lady promised, some nebulous reduction of the aggressiveness of the Soviets? I think that's a insult to Our Blessed Mother, and I simply do not buy the Dimond narrative.
-
It's very clear that the Third Secret was about the Apostasy in the Church that would begin "at the top" sometime around 1960, with perhaps the mention of an evil/wicked Council. There's a ton of evidence to back this up. What happened in 1960 that would make the secret clearer?
But the V2 Papal Claimants read the Third Secret, and have bee covering it up. This clearly indicates that these are not just some misguided men with "weak faith" but, rather, deliberate and malicious destroyers. JP2 lied about its contents in 2000 and Ratzinger was involved in the coverup.
-
I don't wholly buy it either, hence why I think that it may be interpreted as to the end of our time (age) rather than the end of all time.
It's even possible, based on their videos showing Bergoglio isn't even a "king of Rome", that there is a Pope yet to come that could be St. Malachy's "Peter the Roman", assuming that the papal pretenders are in fact those of his prophecy.
How fitting it would be for the last Pope to be Peter II
-
I don't wholly buy it either, hence why I think that it may be interpreted as to the end of our time (age) rather than the end of all time.
It's even possible, based on their videos showing Bergoglio isn't even a "king of Rome", that there is a Pope yet to come that could be St. Malachy's "Peter the Roman", assuming that the papal pretenders are in fact those of his prophecy.
It's interesting that the pre-publication (in the 1500s) list includes some Antipopes, but I don't see any Antiipopes in the list after the publication. Some people interpret there to be a gap between the Glory of the Olive and Peter the Roman. Who really knows?
But we do know there has been a great apostasy foretold toward the end just before Antichrist, a prediction which goes back to the early Church Fathers. I believe that all of that was foretold to give the remnant faithful consolation during those times, lest their faith be shaken. Had this not been foretold, a lot more people might have lost faith in the Church.
-
Another interesting thing in 1929 was the Lateran Treaty. Dimond Brothers say that the 10 Kings (of Rome) mentioned in the Apocalypse are actually 10 Popes (who even if illegitimate were Kings of Rome in the sense of being rules of Vatican City under that treaty). That's definitely an interesting angle.
So they are saying there will be 10 popes from the time of 1929 and then…what happens?
-
Also, for the St Malachy pope list, my theory is this (from some website I read years ago):
St Malachys list lines up with the “7 ages of the Church” prophecies by Ven Holzhauser. The 5th age speaks of church heresies, schisms, persecutions, trials, etc. St Malachys list was found in the 1500s…arguably when the 5th age started (with Martin Luther in 1517).
The last pope of the 5th age (Benedict/Francis) both fall under “glory of the olives” (ie glory of the Jews, is one interpretation). The next pope *might* be a good one, the pope who will fulfill the consecration, who will try to restore orthodoxy, the start of the 6th age of peace (but it will be a rocky, turbulent start…kind of like any sinner who repents…the hard work starts AFTER you turn back to God. Your life doesn’t immediately turn around).
Point is, that’s why St Malachys list ends, because it’s only for the 5th age. Then he mentions the very, very, final pope, Peter, who will rule at the end of the world, the 7th age, after the period of peace.
Just my 2 cents.
-
So they are saying there will be 10 popes from the time of 1929 and then…what happens?
I don't recall what the Dimonds say, but maybe the end of the world? I can see the 10 kings thing, but I think this would be the prelude to Antichrist.
-
Also, for the St Malachy pope list, my theory is this (from some website I read years ago):
St Malachys list lines up with the “7 ages of the Church” prophecies by Ven Holzhauser. The 5th age speaks of church heresies, schisms, persecutions, trials, etc. St Malachys list was found in the 1500s…arguably when the 5th age started (with Martin Luther in 1517).
The last pope of the 5th age (Benedict/Francis) both fall under “glory of the olives” (ie glory of the Jєωs, is one interpretation). The next pope *might* be a good one, the pope who will fulfill the consecration, who will try to restore orthodoxy, the start of the 6th age of peace (but it will be a rocky, turbulent start…kind of like any sinner who repents…the hard work starts AFTER you turn back to God. Your life doesn’t immediately turn around).
Point is, that’s why St Malachys list ends, because it’s only for the 5th age. Then he mentions the very, very, final pope, Peter, who will rule at the end of the world, the 7th age, after the period of peace.
Just my 2 cents.
So this also jives with my two more popes theory.
-
Dimonds hold that Bergoglio is "Peter the Roman" ... so for them the papacy has ended and the line will end with an Antipope. I've always seen Peter the Roman as being the good pope. Perhaps Bergoglio simply doesn't make his list. There are just so many prophecies of a Great Moncarch and a Holy Pope after the apostasy and the chastisement. Perhaps this Holy Pope will be young and will make it to the time of Antichrist ... at which point he'll be slain by Antichrist just before Our Lord's second coming.
-
But it would appear that Bergoglio's consecration was an epic fail.
I wonder what all those people who claimed this satisfied Our Lady's conditions think. Will they second-guess themselves on it or just somehow claim that, oh, well, there was no promise of an immediate response. If the Russia-Ukraine war ends 15 years from now, they'll credit Bergoglio's consecration.
-
I don't recall what the Dimonds say, but maybe the end of the world? I can see the 10 kings thing, but I think this would be the prelude to Antichrist.
Twhat doesn't make sense about their theory, is that the 7/10 kings contradicts their claims of JPII being the Antichrist.
-
Fr. Albert, O.P., of the Fatima Center (https://fatima.org/media/ask-father-albert/) opined in his March 25, 2022, letter (https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/T.O.P./Fr.%20Albert/from%20Fr.%20Albert,%20O.P./TOP%20n.30%20BER%20Annunciation.epub):
On this feast of the Annunciation of Our Lady Pope Francis, in union with the bishops all over the world, consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It is true that this act of consecration was somewhat obscured by extraneous additions and a style that is redolent more of the world than the Catholic faith, but it seems, at least, that the essential words in the act responded to what Our Lady asked for at Fatima. For on June 13, 1929 she said to Sister Lucy :The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops of the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.
Time will tell in what measure this consecration fulfilled Our Lady’s request, but we can certainly hope for many blessings as a result of it, for even if it did not comply perfectly with what Our Lady asked, it certainly went farther than the consecrations made by previous popes. Even those consecrations were followed by great blessings : the end of the Second World War and the fall of Communism (at least to some degree...) : so we can rightly hope that this one will bring down on the world many graces too and perhaps even the conversion of Russia which Our Lady promised.
On March 23, 2022, Fr. Albert addressed "How Our Lady's Consecration Challenges the Eastern Orthodox (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khf_hRJYAo8)":
- The schismatic Orthodox have valid episcopal Orders.
- They deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as defined by Bl. Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52893/1787) (1854).
- Their participation in a consecration to the Immaculate Heart challenges them to accept Pius IX's dogmatic definition of her Immaculate Conception, that she never contracted any sin.
-
Bergolio’s family is from Italy. He is sitting on the chair of St. Peter.
-
I honestly wish that Bergoglio had made the consecration exactly as requested:
1) consecrate just Russia
2) to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
3) in reparation for the blasphemies committed against her
4) ordering ALL the bishops of the world to make the consecration (under pain of deposition)
THEN if nothing had happened, since for each of the above, we could have said "check, check, check, check", that would leave only one missing ingredient ... the pope. That would demonstrate very clearly that he's no pope.
-
ordering ALL the bishops of the world to make the consecration (under pain of deposition)
This would demonstrate he's a tyrant.
-
This would demonstrate he's a tyrant.
Pope is the monarch of the Catholic Church, and he'd simply be following orders from Our Lady. That's what a Pope would have to do to ensure that Our Lady's request is met. 99% of them would comply ... rather than lose their cushy offices. All but 5-6 of the Latin Rite NO bishops need to be deposed and sent packing to monasteries anyway.
-
I honestly wish that Bergoglio had made the consecration exactly as requested:
1) consecrate just Russia
2) to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
3) in reparation for the blasphemies committed against her
4) ordering ALL the bishops of the world to make the consecration (under pain of deposition)
THEN if nothing had happened, since for each of the above, we could have said "check, check, check, check", that would leave only one missing ingredient ... the pope. That would demonstrate very clearly that he's no pope.
And this...
https://youtu.be/UMl39_sGFC4 (https://youtu.be/UMl39_sGFC4)
-
I honestly wish that Bergoglio had made the consecration exactly as requested:
1) consecrate just Russia
2) to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
3) in reparation for the blasphemies committed against her
4) ordering ALL the bishops of the world to make the consecration (under pain of deposition)
THEN if nothing had happened, since for each of the above, we could have said "check, check, check, check", that would leave only one missing ingredient ... the pope. That would demonstrate very clearly that he's no pope.
Or, alternatively, that Fatima was a false apparition
Or, that the Catholic faith is a sham
I don't see that being the only outcome.
-
I can't imagine that the extras added to the Consecration, specifically to the glory of Mary (to include humanity, etc.) was a bad thing. Mary did not dictate the text of the Consecration. Nor did She specifically request nothing else be added. It was an unusually holy moment that spanned the entire world. Maybe Francis is having a St. Peter conversion? Or he is just an egomaniac that hopes to recover some of his reputation? Ok, wishful thinking. The only other thing I can figure is that God loves to confound everyone, even the most faithful Catholics. I know it isn't the popular position here, but I'm excited and hopeful and even if we undergo a chastisement for previous and current evils, (destruction of the economy so we can be humbled?) perhaps we get a lesser punishment than we expect.
-
Fr. Couture, SSPX, makes a good point that the consecration of a nation is "a practical rejection of the doctrine of religious liberty" (30:52):
https://youtu.be/jwZUXolGcrQ
-
I hold the same interpretation as Pax on the St. Malachy prophesy.
I also have a hypothesis about what happens after.
In the Apocolypse, ch14, vs 6, Three angels make various declarations. The last angel warns against taking the mark of the beast.
In the first few chapters of Revelation, the bishops of the seven churches are referred to as angels. I think the third angel is Peter the Roman condemning the mark in the last days of his papacy. Since all three declarations are like ultimatums, they are all probably in the decline of the period of peace.
We also have the prophecy of Don Bosco about two popes who rally the Church to a decisive victory at the end of the world, and the prophecies that reference the angelic pastor who will work with the great monarch. There is probably some overlap amongst the various sources, but there should be at least three after the 5th age.
-
Fr. Couture, SSPX, makes a good point that the consecration of a nation is "a practical rejection of the doctrine of religious liberty" (30:52):
Of course it is. That's not some kind of revelation. Consequently, since Bergoglio's intention was to solicit the exact opposite, freedom and peace for the practice of all religions and a syncretistic harmony among all mankind, the SSPX was behooven and obliged to call this thing out for what it was instead of playing along and misleading the faithful that this was in keeping with Our Blessed Mother's request. Maybe Father Couture has a response to that?
-
I can't imagine that the extras added to the Consecration, specifically to the glory of Mary (to include humanity, etc.) was a bad thing. Mary did not dictate the text of the Consecration. Nor did She specifically request nothing else be added. It was an unusually holy moment that spanned the entire world. Maybe Francis is having a St. Peter conversion? Or he is just an egomaniac that hopes to recover some of his reputation? Ok, wishful thinking. The only other thing I can figure is that God loves to confound everyone, even the most faithful Catholics. I know it isn't the popular position here, but I'm excited and hopeful and even if we undergo a chastisement for previous and current evils, (destruction of the economy so we can be humbled?) perhaps we get a lesser punishment than we expect.
Please tell me you're kidding. Bergoglio expressed in his formula the exact opposite of what Our Lady requested. Please read Father Girouard's analysis. There wasn't a single mention of reparation for the sins and blasphemies of mankind against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
-
Of course it is. That's not some kind of revelation. Consequently, since Bergoglio's intention was to solicit the exact opposite, freedom and peace for the practice of all religions and a syncretistic harmony among all mankind, the SSPX was behooven and obliged to call this thing out for what it was instead of playing along and misleading the faithful that this was in keeping with Our Blessed Mother's request. Maybe Father Couture has a response to that?
Interestingly enough, Louie V points out that the SSPX's alternative consecration prayer shows their hand a bit :laugh1::
https://akacatholic.com/does-the-sspx-really-believe-that-bergoglio-is-pope/ (https://akacatholic.com/does-the-sspx-really-believe-that-bergoglio-is-pope/)
-
Please tell me you're kidding. Bergoglio expressed in his formula the exact opposite of what Our Lady requested. Please read Father Girouard's analysis. There wasn't a single mention of reparation for the sins and blasphemies of mankind against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
No, I'm not kidding. If Bergoglio is somehow the legit pope (and we are all aware he is a modernist par excellence, utterly inept to lead the Catholic Church, a promoter of idolatry and heresy and everything else that we're all too painfully aware) the Consecration is valid. While he embellished where he did, and eliminated what he did, he actually included the bare bones requests of Our Lady in the Consecration. Matthew 18:18 comes to mind. "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." Of course, what was accomplished on the 25th of March was entirely God's doing and had little to do with Francis except he somehow managed to rally bishops of the world, something no other pope even attempted, spoke the specifics previous pope omitted, and did it in what appeared to be a reverent way. I honestly didn't think Francis could escape the temptation to overtly add verses to his idols. But he did. I didn't think the words "consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart" would ever come out of his mouth. But they did. The only thing that could keep this from being effective is if Francis is not the pope.
-
If Bergoglio is somehow the legit pope […] the Consecration is valid.
Even if he were merely a secular leader, would his consecration ipso facto have no good fruits?
Cannot kings themselves consecrate their nations?
For example, from The Story of Our Lady of Good Success and Novena (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=5948):President Garcia Moreno solemnly consecrated Ecuador to the Sacred Heart of Jesus on March 25, 1874, the feast of the Annunciation and of the Incarnation of the Word. It was the first country in the world to do this. A year afterwards, on August 6, 1875, Garcia Moreno was brutally αssαssιnαtҽd by Masonry in the Plaza of Quito, which is at the foot of the presidential palace and diagonally across from the convent of the Immaculate Conception.
-
Interestingly enough, Louie V points out that the SSPX's alternative consecration prayer shows their hand a bit :laugh1::
https://akacatholic.com/does-the-sspx-really-believe-that-bergoglio-is-pope/ (https://akacatholic.com/does-the-sspx-really-believe-that-bergoglio-is-pope/)
Louie has been spot on as of late.