Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: SkidRowCatholic on October 24, 2025, 10:20:41 AM
-
Hi all,
I have been lurking about for awhile - lots of good stuff here. I cannot find any threads on Francisco Palau the Carmelite Priest from the 1800s. TIA has a series of articles (about 3 - 4) on him and his end of times/crisis prophecies. Those start here:Judgment of the Nations (https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/g026_Judg-10.htm)
Does anyone know more about him? What do you think of his prophecies?
This one is of particular interest: Bl. Palau: The Infiltration of the Church & Coming of the Restorer (https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/g030_Judg-13.htm)
Within it states:
“I will abandon Rome. I will raze the pontifical throne and the city will be delivered to the power of demons. It will no longer be the center of the religion of Jesus Christ. It will debase its priests and religious and once again will become the enemy of Christ and His Church. The throne of the Supreme Pontiff will not return to her because it will be transported to another place. …
“Rome will be severely punished, and that day is near, a day of mourning and grief, a day of blood and fire.”
I emailed TIA some time ago about a mis-translation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWolTBwhXaw) from above: The original prophecy states "I will abandon Rome. I will RAISE (not raze) the political throne and the city will be delivered to the power of the demons." The never replied...
Anyway, I remember this came up about a stone from the Vatican being placed in the Fatima Cathedral by antipope Wojtyla, but I do not see a strong link here because he was an apostate and Fatima was all given to the heretics/apostates by then anyway.
basically, it seems Palau was told something like, "I will RAISE up and move the throne of Peter to another place."
Thoughts?
-
Thanks, these are very interesting. I don't buy that alleged Third Secret TIA put out about the transfer to Fatima, but these are fairly interesting and line up very well with others.
Not sure where these would take place ... at the end of the world, or in the time preceeding the Great Monarch and Holy Pope. Is this "Restorer" the same as the Holy Pope?
-
Is this "Restorer" the same as the Holy Pope?
He was told it would be Elias, but the way he is described is NOT as the OT Elias, but rather a seemingly Holy Pope/Pontiff, and it doesn't mention how he comes to be, but IMO canonical election by Cardinals doesn't seem to be the mechanism considering the deep rot/damage and satanic control that he prophesied would reign in Rome
-
He was told it would be Elias, but the way he is described is NOT as the OT Elias, but rather a seemingly Holy Pope/Pontiff, and it doesn't mention how he comes to be, but IMO canonical election by Cardinals doesn't seem to be the mechanism considering the deep rot/damage and satanic control that he prophesied would reign in Rome
Sounded like it was some Moses-like figure also. Then of course there's the prophecy of Anna Maria Tiagi about Sts. Peter and Paul coming to appoint the Holy Pope, so perhaps what we're talking about is some kind of divine mission, such as St. Paul or Moses had, rather than an ordinary type of leader who just emerges from the grass roots. That's the way I red Moses- type, where God appoints him directly. As for Cardinals, they're not really necessary in the ordinary flow of things either, as the remaining Church can use whatever means remains to elect a new Pope, including just acclamation (if the numbers were that small), or an Imperfect Council or whatnot.
-
As for Cardinals, they're not really necessary in the ordinary flow of things either, as the remaining Church can use whatever means remains to elect a new Pope, including just acclamation (if the numbers were that small), or an Imperfect Council or whatnot.
Right. For ourselves it is interesting to discuss if we are actually in (literally on the cusp) of that time now.
In another place in the video above at 29:00 Palau was told, "Religious Freedom is the paganism of the new Roman Caesars."
Which I took to be talking about the VII pretenders. This coincides with what the Daimond's have said about them as well. So Palau was definitely proven right about how Rome would be infested with devils who spread the doctrines of Religious Freedom that emanated from VII's official teaching. An antichristic church of Satan that dogmatizes the pagan doctrines of the "new Caesars".
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-v0l8Twdno&t=63s
A quick clip of one of the "new Caesars" of fallen Rome practicing his religious freedom religion of paganism (compliments of the Diamonds).
-
The throne of the Supreme Pontiff will not return to her because it will be transported to another place. …
Not to take anything away from good Fr Palau, but that begins to start a little Palmarian around the edges.
-
Yes, that one face Wojtyla made was borderline terrifying, and, no, it wasn't just a super-quick picture taken at the wrong moment, as the video shows it lasting for some time. Looks like a demon was in possession of him.
-
Not to take anything away from good Fr Palau, but that begins to start a little Palmarian around the edges.
Well, the Papacy had been in exile at Avignon for quite some time, and not a few prophecies refer to the Pope having to flee Rome ... and the reference you make is anachronistic and reversed, where Palmar sounded rather Palau-ian. Since prophecy comes first by definition, anyone can try to pretend they meet the conditions, from Cardinal Spellman renting a boat with sheep in it to go up and down the Tiber, to lots of people claiming to be Enoch / Elias or the Great Monarch. That doesn't meant the intial prophecy is wrong just because some nut-job later tried to conform to it.
-
Well, the Papacy had been in exile at Avignon for quite some time, and not a few prophecies refer to the Pope having to flee Rome ... and the reference you make is anachronistic and reversed, where Palmar sounded rather Palau-ian. Since prophecy comes first by definition, anyone can try to pretend they meet the conditions, from Cardinal Spellman renting a boat with sheep in it to go up and down the Tiber, to lots of people claiming to be Enoch / Elias or the Great Monarch. That doesn't meant the intial prophecy is wrong just because some nut-job later tried to conform to it.
Agreed. Clearly the Pomeranians have significantly altered the faith and are heretics/schismatics. :jester:
(seriously pray for them though)
Some theologians argue that in the event of say a nuclear blast that destroyed Rome the Pope could have his new See anywhere like London, New York, Texas, etc.
So, what is worse;
* if a nuke drops on the Vatican and destroys it?
* Rome becomes infested with devils and a new form of paganism based on religious liberty?
I say the latter. How bout you?
Not to take anything away from good Fr Palau, but that begins to start a little Palmarian around the edges.
Same question above to you SM.
-
Some theologians argue that in the event of say a nuclear blast that destroyed Rome the Pope could have his new See anywhere like London, New York, Texas, etc.
.
This question has been discussed by theologians, and the most common opinion is that it is tied to the Faith that Rome will always exist, at least in a way that it will be able to have a bishop. The reason for this is that there are dogmatic definitions that say things like, "If anyone deny that someone must be submitted to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved, let him be anathema." Or something along those lines.
The problem is that if there is no Rome, then the term "Roman Pontiff" has no meaning. Worse still, if the seat of the Church were moved from Rome to, let's say, New York, then that dogmatic definition would be null and void, because then one would have to submit to the "New York Pontiff" and not the "Roman Pontiff", and dogmatic definitions cannot ever cease to be true.
And how could the pope continue to be the Roman pontiff if the seat of the Church were moved to New York, and the pope was now the bishop of New York instead of Rome?
That's how they argue it.
-
.
This question has been discussed by theologians, and the most common opinion is that it is tied to the Faith that Rome will always exist, at least in a way that it will be able to have a bishop. The reason for this is that there are dogmatic definitions that say things like, "If anyone deny that someone must be submitted to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved, let him be anathema." Or something along those lines.
The problem is that if there is no Rome, then the term "Roman Pontiff" has no meaning. Worse still, if the seat of the Church were moved from Rome to, let's say, New York, then that dogmatic definition would be null and void, because then one would have to submit to the "New York Pontiff" and not the "Roman Pontiff", and dogmatic definitions cannot ever cease to be true.
And how could the pope continue to be the Roman pontiff if the seat of the Church were moved to New York, and the pope was now the bishop of New York instead of Rome?
That's how they argue it.
But "Roman" is not synonymous with "Vatican City", Or "St. Peter's Basilica".
He is the "Roman Pontiff" because he is the Bishop of Rome (the diocese).
This seems obvious to me. Because the city itself can grow and shrink, add & take away church buildings, etc.
So in theory, as long as some of the city remained habitable. it could qualify as still being a "diocese". Is that right?
Or, are you stating the majority of theologians argue that the Churches and buildings of the entity known as "Vatican City" that came about in 1929 should be equated with the whole diocese of Rome regardless of any extenuating circuмstances?
Get my drift? Thanks for the feedback.
-
Yes, the papacy resided at Avignon for years, but that is not the same thing. He remained the bishop of Rome even while residing at Avignon. The pope can live in a different part of the world from his diocese, but he can't become the bishop of another diocese.
In other words, the rulership of the Church is connected to the bishop of the see of Rome, and not any other see. The bishop of Rome is the bishop who is in charge of the Church. And that cannot be changed, even by a pope, according to theologians. This would contradict the definitions that describe submission to the Roman pontiff as being necessary for salvation. If the pope could choose to make the see of Waukegan, Illinois, the ruling see of the Church, such that it is the bishop of Waukegan who is now the head of the Church, then the definitions would have to be changed.
It really has nothing to do with where the pope happens to reside. It has to do with which diocese he is the bishop of.
-
But Roman is not synonymous with "Vatican City", Or "St. Peter's Basilica.
He is the "Roman Pontiff" because he is the Bishop of Rome (the diocese).
This seems obvious to me. Because the city itself can grow and shrink, and and take away church buildings, etc.
So in theory, as long as some of the city remained habitable it could qualify as still being a "diocese". Is that right? Or, are you stating the theologians argue that the Churches and buildings of the entity known as "Vatican City" that came about in 1929 should be equated with the whole diocese of Rome regardless of any extenuating circuмstances?
Get my drift? Thanks for the feedback.
.
Yes, I agree with what you are saying. I don't think I really understand your distinction between Rome and the Vatican City, though. The Vatican City is in Rome, and the diocese of Rome surely includes the city as well as the Vatican City, and probably a lot of the area around Rome as well.
But the pope is the bishop of the diocese of Rome, not the bishop of the diocese of Sydney, for example.
-
Yes, I agree with what you are saying. I don't think I really understand your distinction between Rome and the Vatican City, though.
Vatican City and it's "boundaries" did not exist "legally" (according to Masons anyway) until 1929.
Unless I am mistaken, before the "treaty" was signed, the entire city was considered "Vatican City" for all intents and purposes - if you get my meaning.
The point is, there seems to be no specific square inch of the diocese of Rome that is tied to the Roman Pontificate in its essence, "Hey this is the holy spot that God said he would never destroy, etc.", "The literal Chair of Peter will never be destroyed" (you know the one they just dusted off and Bobbyboy prayed with the Orothos at back on the feast of St. Peter), etc.
Plus, some few theologians did disagree, do you happen to know what was the level of the opinion? this would be a good indicator of if Palau was deceived or not (if he disregarded/contradicted the certain opinion of the theologians).
What did the theologians teach back then in the 1870s right around the time of Vatican I? I am assuming it was that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome by Divine Mandate (versus ecclesiastical) was the common opinion BUT not the certain one.
I am not aware of his writings being censored by the Holy Office, but am looking for more info if anyone knows more.
-
I dug through some notes from a time recently when I discussed this with someone else, and here is a quote from Cardinal Billot:
Let us suppose that the primacy was transferred from the See of Rome and is now joined to another: Naples, Paris, or Cologne. Then for this imaginary future time it will not be true any longer what was defined, and what had to be held until that time by everyone by the Catholic Faith: "The Roman Pontiff himself is the successor (not only was once the successor) of Blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and the head of the whole Church." And as a result it will no longer be an anathema that "he who says the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in the primacy." Nor must anyone say anymore, "The Roman Church, by the decision of Our Lord, holds ordinary power over all others (not only used to have that power)." And this is none other than the power of the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, by which both shepherds and faithful both individually and collectively are bound. We'd also have to change what had been proposed for belief until that time, in the profession of Lyon and Trent: "The holy Roman Church holds the highest and fullest primacy over the entire Catholic Church. I acknowledge the Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all churches, and I promise obedience to the Roman Pontiff the successor of Blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the vicar of Our Lord." In sum, the true Church of Jesus Christ would not be any longer the Roman Catholic Church, but rather the Neapolitan Church, or the Parisian Church. The very absurdity of these consequences, which are intolerable to the ears of Catholics, but which are necessarily contained in the idea of moving the see, demonstrate the unchangeableness of the object that is proposed for belief in the definitions and professions of faith.
I hope this explains the problem?
-
Here is another quote from Cardinal Billot:
This conclusion is contained in tradition, and is not directly defined by the Church, but it can be, and is so closely connected with other defined dogmas that it hardly differs from them. The council of Florence defined: We define that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter. The Vatican council defined: "If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in the primacy, let him be anathema." But if it were possible that somehow the pope could be transferred from the Roman bishop and city to another bishop and city, then these definitions, in order to be true, must be understood as follows: "We define that the Roman Pontiff is the success of Blessed Peter, only as long as the type of succession which has been used up until now continues, or until another rule of succession of Peter comes into effect, or until the present situation and conditions are changed." But this kind of limitation, apart from the fact that it is made up without basis, appears necessary to reject completely. First of all, because it would have to be said explicitly and strongly that canons of the faith in their obvious and natural meaning can turn out sometimes to be false.
-
Read this excerpt below from the Pike letter to Mazzini in 1871 for more clues as to how the Roman Pontiff is "transported" elsewhere. Of course, this is the view from the perspective of the Freemasons. But it seems to align with other prophecies.
“It is also said that the Pope of superstition, sitting in Rome at the time of the fragmentation, will refuse to acquiesce in the new situation of his Church, and that he will hurl his thunderbolts, henceforth powerless, against the governments participating in this great work of social salvation. Then, he will be abandoned by a multitude of his priests in the various countries, since many will have been won over to us in advance; Italy will expel him, and the accursed Papacy will be wandering and obliged to return for a time into darkness [or obscurity]; for the governments will bring severe penalties against those who would maintain their adherence to it and who would thus conspire with it.
"But it is also written that the Wandering/Straying/Erring Pope [Pape-errant], shepherd of a scattered flock, pilot of the helpless boat of Cephas, and sixth successor of the man of pride under whom the temporal power of the infamous pontificate has collapsed, will be collected, after expulsions upon expulsions, by the Slavic autocrat, who will affect to render him great honors. Adonaism will then attempt to reconstitute itself as before the expulsion from Rome; the Wandering Pope [Pape-errant] being near death in Russia, the imperial autocrat will prostrate himself at his feet, and the nations practicing until then Orthodoxy, that is to say the schismatic religion of the Orient, will rally fairly quickly to the old Roman Catholicism, vomited from Italy. The Wandering Pope [Pape-errant], on his deathbed, will be joyful to see these new followers replace the Westerners recently separated from his Church, and, within the nations which will have carried out the fragmentation of Adonaïsm, he will still have the faithful, these hiding to indulge in the practices of the reprobate superstition; before expiring, he will have maintained the episcopate to the bishops of the Orient schism, and he will have instituted, among them, Greek and Russian cardinals. His successor will be a Slav; the seat of the Adonaïe Papacy will be established in the northern city of Peter, with the reservation of reconquering Rome. But it will be in vain that the imperial autocrat, in the hope of extending his domination, will make himself the crusader of Adonaïsm; his efforts will not succeed, and the Church, once Roman, will remain fragmented in the nations of Western Europe. Thus, Russia will be the last refuge and the last bulwark of Adonaism claiming to be Catholic.
...
"Therefore, when the autocratic empire of Russia has become the citadel of papist Adonaism, we will unleash the nihilist and atheistic revolutionaries, and we will provoke a formidable social cataclysm, which will clearly show to the nations, and in all its horror, the effect of absolute unbelief, the mother of savagery and the bloodiest disorder. Then, everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the mad minority of the rebels, will exterminate these destroyers of civilization; and the countless disillusioned of Adonaism, whose deistic souls will have remained until this moment without a compass, thirsting for an ideal, but not knowing to which god to award their homage, will receive the True Light, by the universal manifestation of the pure Luciferian doctrine, finally made public, a manifestation which will arise from the general movement of reaction, following the crushing of atheism and Adonaism, both at the same time defeated and exterminated.
"The birth of the religion of Lucifer the Good God, establishing itself forever without a rival on the terrestrial globe, could not be an instantaneous operation, nor of a year, nor of five years [lustre], nor of a century. The lasting work is that which is created by slow progression. The 19th century saw the conception of true and good catholicism; the 20th century will be the century of gestation, to surely bring the birth to its term fixed in the book of heaven (September 29, 1996 of the Christian era then ended).
“Written and given in Solemn Vault, and signed, at the feet of the Sacred Palladium, by the Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and by the ten Elders composing the Most Serene Grand College of Emeritus Masons, in the Supreme Orient of Charleston, in the beloved Valley of the Divine Master, on the 29th and last day of the Moon Ab of the year U00871 of the True Light (August 15, 1871, vulgar era). »
This is the secret plan, which formulates and summarizes the tactics and hopes of the sect.
-
I dug through some notes from a time recently when I discussed this with someone else, and here is a quote from Cardinal Billot:
I hope this explains the problem?
Thanks! I would imagine we could find many more who would say the same, but it does not seem to be "certain" but rather the "more common opinion".
The AI spit this out:
In Catholic theology, the idea that the binding of the papacy to the diocese of Rome is a divine, immutable mandate is commonly held, but not a formally defined dogma. The office of the papacy itself is of divine institution, but the association with Rome is a matter of providential history and sacred tradition.
Here is a breakdown of the theological notes and how they apply to the various aspects of the papacy:
Theological Note (Level of Certainty)
Explanation
The Petrine office itself
De Fide Divina et Catholica (Divinely and Catholicly revealed).
The dogma that Christ established the office of the papacy, giving St. Peter and his successors supreme authority, was formally defined at the First Vatican Council. This is a matter of divine faith, and its denial is heresy.
The Pope's universal jurisdiction
Sententia certa (Certain proposition).
That the Pope has supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power is a doctrine taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. While not defined with the same solemnity as the Petrine office itself, it is a certain truth of the faith.
The Pope's tie to the See of Rome
Communis (Commonly held).
The belief that the successor of Peter is always the Bishop of Rome is a consensus position among theologians. This is based on the historical fact that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and died there, and the succession has continued in that see ever since. It is a firm truth based on sacred tradition and historical providence, but theologians generally do not classify it as being directly established by divine law.
The possibility of separation
Sententia communior (More common opinion)
This classification relates to the logical possibility of the papacy becoming unbound from the See of Rome. Because the binding is considered a matter of tradition and ecclesiastical law (not an immutable divine decree), theologians consider it theoretically possible, though highly unlikely and providential, that the two could be separated. For instance, during the Avignon Papacy, the Pope remained the bishop of Rome despite not residing there.
Summary of theological notes
- Divine Revelation (De Fide Divina et Catholica): The office of the papacy itself, as founded by Christ.
- Certain Proposition (Sententia certa): The Pope's universal jurisdiction as part of the Church's ordinary teaching.
- Commonly Held (Communis): The permanent union of the papal office with the See of Rome is the common and most probable opinion among theologians, founded in sacred tradition.
"Possible but highly unlikely" :laugh1: What would they say now I wonder...
Some say Cardinal Billot was an amazing theologian, I am not too familiar with him. But I would imagine that he would be asking similar questions if he was in our place now, especially because it is not a "certain" opinion. He is arguing that the definitions as "how-named" doesn't add up. But, there is no specific Divine promise that Rome as a city (or any part thereof shall stand to the very end of the world).
But aside from the above theological points, it seems Palau was told the "angel of Rome" would move the Holy See - so therefore God would move it (it is His Church after all). But from what I can tell, he did not say to where, or that anyone would even know, just that he would do it, most likely to be restored when the "Great Restorer" was sent.
Not to be coy, but if the diocese itself is just a physical space and not relative to the amount of people. Maybe the Pontiff could just carry around a jar of earth from Rome in his pocket! What does it really mean to be "Bishop of Rome". Is he Bishop of the dirt? Or is he Bishop of its people? If the latter is true, and the more probable opinion of the theologians in this matter is correct and Rome must in some fashion always exist so these physical names designating the location of the papacy must remain to the end of the world, then maybe we should all pack up and move to Rome because our chances of survival would then increase infallibly!
Fascinating...
-
Read this excerpt below from the Pike letter to Mazzini in 1871 for more clues as to how the Roman Pontiff is "transported" elsewhere. Of course, this is the view from the perspective of the Freemasons. But it seems to align with other prophecies.
“It is also said that the Pope of superstition, sitting in Rome at the time of the fragmentation, will refuse to acquiesce in the new situation of his Church, and that he will hurl his thunderbolts, henceforth powerless, against the governments participating in this great work of social salvation. Then, he will be abandoned by a multitude of his priests in the various countries, since many will have been won over to us in advance; Italy will expel him, and the accursed Papacy will be wandering and obliged to return for a time into darkness [or obscurity]; for the governments will bring severe penalties against those who would maintain their adherence to it and who would thus conspire with it.
"But it is also written that the Wandering/Straying/Erring Pope [Pape-errant], shepherd of a scattered flock, pilot of the helpless boat of Cephas, and sixth successor of the man of pride under whom the temporal power of the infamous pontificate has collapsed, will be collected, after expulsions upon expulsions, by the Slavic autocrat, who will affect to render him great honors. Adonaism will then attempt to reconstitute itself as before the expulsion from Rome; the Wandering Pope [Pape-errant] being near death in Russia, the imperial autocrat will prostrate himself at his feet, and the nations practicing until then Orthodoxy, that is to say the schismatic religion of the Orient, will rally fairly quickly to the old Roman Catholicism, vomited from Italy. The Wandering Pope [Pape-errant], on his deathbed, will be joyful to see these new followers replace the Westerners recently separated from his Church, and, within the nations which will have carried out the fragmentation of Adonaïsm, he will still have the faithful, these hiding to indulge in the practices of the reprobate superstition; before expiring, he will have maintained the episcopate to the bishops of the Orient schism, and he will have instituted, among them, Greek and Russian cardinals. His successor will be a Slav; the seat of the Adonaïe Papacy will be established in the northern city of Peter, with the reservation of reconquering Rome. But it will be in vain that the imperial autocrat, in the hope of extending his domination, will make himself the crusader of Adonaïsm; his efforts will not succeed, and the Church, once Roman, will remain fragmented in the nations of Western Europe. Thus, Russia will be the last refuge and the last bulwark of Adonaism claiming to be Catholic.
...
"Therefore, when the autocratic empire of Russia has become the citadel of papist Adonaism, we will unleash the nihilist and atheistic revolutionaries, and we will provoke a formidable social cataclysm, which will clearly show to the nations, and in all its horror, the effect of absolute unbelief, the mother of savagery and the bloodiest disorder. Then, everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the mad minority of the rebels, will exterminate these destroyers of civilization; and the countless disillusioned of Adonaism, whose deistic souls will have remained until this moment without a compass, thirsting for an ideal, but not knowing to which god to award their homage, will receive the True Light, by the universal manifestation of the pure Luciferian doctrine, finally made public, a manifestation which will arise from the general movement of reaction, following the crushing of atheism and Adonaism, both at the same time defeated and exterminated.
"The birth of the religion of Lucifer the Good God, establishing itself forever without a rival on the terrestrial globe, could not be an instantaneous operation, nor of a year, nor of five years [lustre], nor of a century. The lasting work is that which is created by slow progression. The 19th century saw the conception of true and good catholicism; the 20th century will be the century of gestation, to surely bring the birth to its term fixed in the book of heaven (September 29, 1996 of the Christian era then ended).
“Written and given in Solemn Vault, and signed, at the feet of the Sacred Palladium, by the Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and by the ten Elders composing the Most Serene Grand College of Emeritus Masons, in the Supreme Orient of Charleston, in the beloved Valley of the Divine Master, on the 29th and last day of the Moon Ab of the year U00871 of the True Light (August 15, 1871, vulgar era). »
This is the secret plan, which formulates and summarizes the tactics and hopes of the sect.
It seems the only way they could have known this was through the medium of devils. This evil prophecy fits somewhat with what Palau was shown about God granting them this "victory". God allows it ultimately for His greater glory.
-
It seems the only way they could have known this was through the medium of devils. This evil prophecy fits somewhat with what Palau was shown about God granting them this "victory". God allows it ultimately for His greater glory.
Don Bosco. Same basic theme:
FIRST PROPHECY (English SDB official translation)
This was communicated on February 12, 1870 to the Holy Father.
God alone is almighty, all-knowing, all-seeing. God has neither past nor future; everything is present to Him, everything at a single point of time. Nothing eludes God. No person, no place is distant from Him. In His infinite mercy and for His glory He alone can unveil the future to man.
On the vigil of the Epiphany of this year, 1870, all material things in my room disappeared, and I found myself contemplating supernatural matters. It was only a matter of an instant, but I saw a great deal. Although what I witnessed was sensibly present, I find it extremely difficult to communicate it to others intelligibly, as one may realize by what follows. This is the Word of God in human parlance:
"War will come from the south, peace from the north.
"The laws of France no longer recognize the Creator. The Creator will reveal Himself by visiting her three times with the scourge of His wrath. The first time He will destroy her pride by defeat, pillage, and destruction of crops, cattle, and men. On His second visit, the great whore of Babylon [False Rome], which the faithful grievingly call Europe's brothel, shall lose her leader and fall prey to chaos.
"Paris! Paris! Instead of fortifying yourself with the Lord's name, you surround yourself with houses of ill repute. You yourself shall destroy them; your idol, the Pantheon, will be razed to the ground, so that it may truthfully be said that 'iniquity has lied to itself.' Your enemies will plunge you into anguish, famine, terror, and the contempt of nations. But woe unto you if you do not recognize the hand which smites you! I want to punish your immorality, your desertion, your contempt for My law, says the Lord.
"On My third visit, you shall fall under the foreign yoke. From afar your enemies will see your palaces in flames, your home in ruins, soaked in the blood of your heroes who are no more.
"But behold, a great warrior from the north appears, a banner in his right hand, his arm bearing this inscription: 'Irresistible is the hand of the Lord.' At that moment the Venerable Old Man of Rome went forward to meet him, wielding a flaming torch. The banner then grew larger and its blackness became white as snow; in its center stood out the name of the Almighty in golden letters.
"The warrior and his followers bowed profoundly to the Venerable Old Man and joined hands with him.
"Now the voice of Heaven is addressed to the Shepherd of Shepherds. You are in solemn conference with your co-workers, but the enemy of good never stands idle. He cunningly plots and sets all his wiles against you. He will sow discord among your helpers and will rear enemies among My sons. The powers of the world shall vomit fire. They would love to smother My words in the throats of the guardians of My law, but they shall not succeed. They shall do much harm, but only to themselves. Hurry! If knots cannot be untied, sever them. Do not halt in the face of difficulties, but go forth until the hydra of error has been beheaded. At this blow earth and hell shall tremble, but the world will be saved and the faithful shall exult. Gather around you only two co-workers, yet wherever you go, carry on the task entrusted to you and bring it to completion. Days go by swiftly and your years are reaching their appointed number, but the great Queen shall always assist you, and, as in the past, She shall always be magnum et singulare in Ecclesia praesidium.
"But you, O Italy, land of blessings, who has plunged you into desolation? Not your enemies, but your own friends. Do you not hear your children begging for the bread of faith, unable to find one to break it for them? What shall I do? I shall strike the shepherds and scatter the sheep so that those who sit upon the chair of Moses may seek better pastures and their flock may gently listen and be fed.
"But My hand shall be heavy upon both flock and shepherds. Famine, plague, and war shall cause mothers to mourn the blood of their sons and husbands shed on foreign soil.
"What shall befall you, ungrateful, effeminate, proud Rome? You have reached a point when you seek and admire nought in your sovereign but luxury, forgetting that both your glory and his lies on Golgotha. Now he is old, frail, defenseless, and dispossessed. Nevertheless, though captive, his words cause the whole world to tremble.
"O Rome! Four times shall I come to you! The first time I shall smite your regions and its people. The second time I shall bring slaughter and destruction to your very gates. Should not that make you open your eyes? A third time shall I come, and I will demolish your defenses and defenders. At My Father's command, terror, dismay, and desolation will reign.
"My wise followers flee, but My law is still trod underfoot. Therefore, I shall come a fourth time. Woe to you if My law again shall go unheeded. There shall be defections among both learned and ignorant. Your blood and that of your children shall wipe out your transgressions.
"War, plague, and famine are the scourges to smite human pride and malice. Where are your magnificent villas and palaces, you people of wealth? They have become the litter of squares and streets!
"And you priests, why are you not prostrate between the vestibule and the altar, weeping and praying that the scourge may cease. Why do you not take up the shield of faith and preach My Word from the rooftops, in the houses, streets, and squares, and even in inaccessible places? Do you not know that this is the terrible two-edged sword which smites My enemies and placates the wrath of God and man?
"These things shall inexorably come to pass, all in succession.
"Things follow too slowly upon each other, but the great Queen of Heaven is at hand; the Lord's power is Hers. Like mist, She shall scatter Her enemies. She shall vest the Venerable Old Man with all his former garments.
"There shall yet come a violent hurricane. Iniquity is at an end, sin shall cease, and before two full moons shall have shone in the month of flowers, the rainbow of peace shall appear on the earth.
"The great Minister shall see the Bride of his King clothed in glory.
"Throughout the world a sun so bright shall shine as was never seen since the flames of the Cenacle until today, nor shall it be seen again until the end of time."
-
Here is another quote from Cardinal Billot:
So maybe this is a bad example and the AI is only as good as its handlers (including so called "Catholic AI"), so if you want to challenge/check it I am open to being corrected in my understanding on it, but lets look at the difference between "certain", and "common opinion" with an example:
Theologically Certain Example:
QUESTION: Is a Catholic allowed to doubt the canonization of saints?
ANSWER: "While there is debate among theologians, the mainstream Catholic position is that a Catholic is not permitted to doubt the canonization of a saint. The formal decree of canonization is widely considered an infallible and irrevocable act by the pope, meaning the Church guarantees that the person is in heaven.
The theological position on doubting canonization
- A guarantee of eternal salvation. The Church does not "make" someone a saint. Instead, canonization is an official declaration that a person is certainly in heaven and enjoys the beatific vision. To deny this would imply that the Church can lead the faithful into error, which contradicts the doctrine of papal infallibility when defining matters of faith and morals for the universal Church.
- Theological certainty, not dogma. The infallibility of canonization is considered a matter of theological certainty, not a divinely revealed dogma of faith. This distinction means that while denying it is a grave error and contrary to the universal consensus of theologians, it is not formally heretical.
- Respectful discussion is permitted. While a Catholic is not free to deny the sanctity or heavenly status of a canonized saint, it is permissible to respectfully discuss concerns about the canonization process itself, such as its speed or thoroughness. This is not the same as denying the infallibility of the final judgment"
So it is an objective mortal sin against the faith to denying the certain opinion of the theologians regarding canonizations.
VS.
Common Opinion of the Theologians Example:
QUESTION: Is a Catholic allowed to believe that some day the Papacy may not be in Rome but be moved?
ANSWER: "For a Catholic, the papacy is not geographically bound to the city of Rome, and it is permissible to believe that it could be moved in the future. The Pope's power and authority are tied to his role as the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Saint Peter, not to the physical structures of Vatican City.
The historical precedence and theological reasoning that support this view include:
- The Avignon Papacy: The most direct historical example is the Avignon Papacy from 1309 to 1377, when seven popes resided in Avignon, France. Although controversial, these were considered valid popes, demonstrating that the Pope does not need to live in Rome to exercise his ministry.
- Apostolic Succession: The authority of the papacy is derived from the Bishop of Rome's role as the successor to Saint Peter. While Peter died and was buried in Rome, his successor's ability to lead the Church is not dependent on being physically present in the city.
- Emergency relocation: Popes have made contingency plans for relocating the papacy in dire circuмstances, such as during wartime. This demonstrates the Church's understanding that the institution can physically move if necessary."
So, at least according to AI (for what it is worth) there is no sin in believing it could happen that the papacy could be moved.
My simple point, there is a huge leap from "common opinion" to "certain". Denying theologically certain opinions involves temerity (mortal sin), while questioning the other (more common) is permissible but should not be done rashly and for no good reason. You will surely find many more theologians that agree with Billot, but that still doesn't make it "certain" like canonizations are.
-
the great whore of Babylon [False Rome], which the faithful grievingly call Europe's brothel, shall lose her leader and fall prey to chaos.
That about sums it up! So many pieces but they all point to the same fate of Rome, hopefully more will come to see.
Sanctus Ioannes Bosco - Ora pro nobis!
-
Well, the Papacy had been in exile at Avignon for quite some time, and not a few prophecies refer to the Pope having to flee Rome ...
I concede, you do make a good point here, the Palau prophecies could be seen as more resembling the Avignon captivity, or more resembling Palmar de Troya.
-
It really has nothing to do with where the pope happens to reside. It has to do with which diocese he is the bishop of.
While a bishop is really supposed to live in, and have his cathedra in, the city of whose see he is the bishop, it is not absolutely essential to the office. Many bishops are titular bishops of defunct sees, but I know of no cases where they actually live in the city where that see was located (and some of those cities no doubt have ceased to exist).
Likening existing sees to titular sees might be comparing apples to oranges (or possibly Granny Smith to Golden Delicious), but I suppose the point here is whether the order of bishop is intrinsically tied to being Bishop of Someplace, whether that "someplace" actually exists or not. Case in point, do the SSPX bishops have titular sees?
-
I just find Palau to be another credible individual, and if there's some mistake, could be a translation error, some interpolation into his text -- or he could himself have been mistaken, where perhaps he saw a fleeing of Rome by the Pope as some quasi-permanent thing. There are many prophecies that speak of it.
If found the narrative in the video annoying and hard to follow, as there was a second voice often talking over the main one. Are their English translations of the texts he narrated, since they really are fascinating, where he basically confirms that the Conciliar Church is the Whore of Babylon from Revelation, making some interesting correlations between the temporal power (Kings / Heads of the Beat) and the cooperating Whore of Babylon, how basially the Kings went down first to serve Satan, and then infiltrated the Church to gain the cooperation of the Whore (pretending to the the Church).
-
Skid Row, I think you are trying to change the question here. You initially asked, "Can a pope move the see of the papacy to a different location from Rome?" I answered with Cardinal Billot's quotes about this question, and that he said there are dogmatic definitions that require us to accept, with the unchangeable assent of Faith, that submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. The Roman Pontiff should be distinguished from the New York Pontiff or the Walla Walla Pontiff or the Pontiff of anywhere else in the world. The Roman Pontiff is the pontiff of Rome, not any other diocese.
Now you seem to be asking what the theological level of certitude for that is, without having addressed any of Cardinal Billot's arguments, or addressed why it would be possible to reject the Council of Lyons or the Council of Florence.
I also tried to explain that the pope living somewhere outside his see of Rome, especially due to some serious persecution or disaster, is different from a pope saying he is moving the head see of the Church from Rome to some other diocese. The former is not only possible, but has indeed happened. It is the latter case that we are discussing here, which has never happened, which would contradict defined dogma, and which Cardinal Billot teaches cannot happen.
-
Now you seem to be asking what the theological level of certitude for that is, without having addressed any of Cardinal Billot's arguments, or addressed why it would be possible to reject the Council of Lyons or the Council of Florence.
I got you.
That is just my instinct. I believe that all the true theologians - in the proper sense, i.e., fully Catholic, doctorates from still Catholic universities, titles conferred, etc. do not exist at this time. So I will first look to the level of an opinion and THEN study more the depth of each of the different opinions that are permissible (if my questions requires it). I am perfectly content with not being able to answer how something seems to contradict the common opinion and being unable to give answer to objections raised. But I am instinctively against discussing theological opinions that are certain as if they were even open to discussion.
So, I have no answer for Cdl. Billot nor those who in the majority hold his opinion. I think his objections are reasonable, and I am not his equal so my attempt to answer him would be sloppy at best and disrespectful at worst.
One may hold other opinions that are permitted if the opinion is at the level of "more common" because it implies that others that are less common have and can be discussed respectfully without attacking or defending against the objections raised by either. That is for the actual theologians to hash out if/when the papacy gets restored and if the pope should so desire. Think of the various theological opinions on grace had between the Molinists/Thomists, etc. and how that just stalled and the pope told them to just tolerate each other without losing it and he defined nothing either way.
That is my reasoning anyway.
-
I also tried to explain that the pope living somewhere outside his see of Rome, especially due to some serious persecution or disaster, is different from a pope saying he is moving the head see of the Church from Rome to some other diocese. The former is not only possible, but has indeed happened. It is the latter case that we are discussing here, which has never happened, which would contradict defined dogma, and which Cardinal Billot teaches cannot happen.
I agree. They are totally different. This isn't meant to be some "theologically tight" expose of the questions, just general fishing. The "thrust" of my inquiry revolves around the latter (the See being moved). I started this thread, partly for that reason, because of the THAT part of the prophecy, I appreciate the Convo/info as it is good to work through it with others who actually seem to care.
I will offer this though; Are we not all (are at least claim to be) ROMAN Catholics? Do not all Roman Catholics know what is meant when we hear "Roman Pontiff" in the dogmatic definitions? SM mentioned above that many titular sees based around cities now may not longer exist (for ex: I am thinking of the See of Utrecht). So, The Roman Pontiff will always be the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, not because it is Roman, but because Peter chose to make it his last and therefore permanent See. To me this seems easy to understand. It is the faith of Peter who ruled and died in Rome and submission to his legitimate successors that makes all those in communion with them - Roman Catholics -regardless of if the See was moved by God or not. And that is the key distinction here, in Palua's visions it is God's messenger (the Angel of Rome) that moves the See. So, if true, not much anyone can do about that right? I look at what happened at Vatican II (the actual docuмents) as the clear sign that God left those men because they had first abandoned Him. This "fits" with what Palua said about how "Religious freedom is the paganism of the new Caesars."
Then it is another matter altogether to claim that Rome as a city can never be destroyed because the phrase "Roman Pontiff" appears many times in dogmatic definitions. That of course was never the intention of the definitions (to say "Rome shall never be destroyed") but rather it's meaning is clear, "Peter and his lawful successors". Just my 2 cents.
So, say if the Palau's vision about the See being moved is true and either it already has happened or is yet to be, it seems to be out of the hands of any of us and that includes Cdl. Billot and all those who held his opinion (and still do). Where, when, and how this would happen are questions that I do not think Fr. Palau was told, but he was told it would be in the near future and he died in the 1870s I believe. We know God can delay and even avert/abandon His plans (so to speak) due to the free will actions of humanity (Nineveh). But we also know that this just as often does not happen do to the intransigence of man.
I am proceeding by generally testing the veracity of Palau against the doctrines/opinions of the theologians to see if some of his more "problematic" statements hold up to scrutiny and you have definitely aided me in this, so thank you for the interaction and quotes.
Pax
-
A collection of his writings: https://archive.org/details/writings0000pala/page/352/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/writings0000pala/page/352/mode/2up)
A sample:
(https://i.imgur.com/krq7uCG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FzcOsjS.png)
-
Just going to throw this out there, it seems to me that the Pope is primarily the successor of St Peter, which the Bishop of Rome is by definition, but how exactly are they one and the same thing? Stay with me here.
When Our Lord gave Peter the keys, and said "upon this rock", Peter was not yet in Rome. Neither was he in Rome at Pentecost. Rome is where he ended up, and where tradition holds that he died. Peter has to have a successor, so Linus becomes that successor, ergo Bishop of Rome, ergo Pope. What other way would there be to choose a successor to St Peter, than to have him be Bishop of Rome?
I suppose the question is, whenever a Pope is chosen, is he first and foremost chosen to be successor of St Peter, and being so chosen, becomes Bishop of Rome and thus Pope, kind of ex officio, if you will? Or is he elected Bishop of Rome by proxies for the Roman clergy, viz. the College of Cardinals, and having been thus elected, is Pope ex officio, and being Bishop of Rome/Pope, is regarded as the successor of St Peter?
Or are all three things "one big ball of wax" happening simultaneously?
-
So, there's certainly a bit of a duality there with the Pope, between his title as Bishop of Rome, and then as his direct authority over the entire Church. Vatican I in particular emphasized the plenary authority of the Pope over all Catholics, and not as just somehow passing through bishops, etc. Then, in modern times, the world has gotten so much "smaller" than it used to be where, via the electronic media, he might as well be next door or in the church down the street. Yet the Bishop of Rome aspect has also remained strong, and it's why all Cardinals receive titular churches in Rome, to make them at least honorary "clergy of Rome", who traditionally always elected the Pope.
I liken it to those royal titles where the Duke of this and Duke of that, just also then happens to be the King. So the one elected Bishop of Rome is also at the same time Pope of the Universal Church and Vicar of Christ. Obviously the Pope can't actually manage both sets of duties, as either one would be a full-time job, so in a way HIS being bishop of Rome has largel evolved into being simply titular as well (as he delegates most of that to his Vicar General and some auxliary bishops).
-
I dug through some notes from a time recently when I discussed this with someone else, and here is a quote from Cardinal Billot:
I hope this explains the problem?
Not really. We all know that the Papacy is essentially Roman. Yet, even though for 70 years Popes remained in Avignon, they were still the legitimate Popes. So there's a distinction between the Pope somehow attempting to trasfer the See, per se, vs. where he just happens to be living, per accidens, such as when he's at Castel Gandolfo for the Summer, or no matter where he's at if he's travelling around the world, for example -- a distinction between the place a pope happens to be (accidentally) and the location of the See he's in charge of. Not a few Popes have been exiled, and even died in exile, and many prophecies speak of Popes feeling Rome due to some kind of disaster or invasion or whatnot.
-
With regard to possibly "UNBINDING" the Papacy from the See of Rome, when the Barbarians were about to take over Rome, that question was on the minds of Catholics, or what would happen if the entire area of the Diocese of Rome got wiped out, either naturally or by modern weapons, where it became unhabitable over time. I do think that even if the Pope had to move physical location, he would continue to at least hold the title of Bishop of Rome, not unlike how Cardinals today have titular churches, etc. One thing of interest is that St. Peter did also found the See of Antioch ... but the key is to whom did he hand that "baton" or authority, where, as he departed from authority, another took his place, and that would be his successor at the time and place where he died.
So we're really quibbling about technicalities here. There's no error in referring to a Pope being transferred out of Rome ... due to war or other serious reason, is we're speaking about a simple relocation, per accidens. Let's not conflate the prophecies of Palau with that very strange "Third Secret" put out by TIA which does in fact clealy indicate a more essential relocation of the See of Christ's Vicar.
-
If you look at the the time when the popes were in Avignon, there were multiple saints that were doing their best, by Divine inspiration, to get the popes to come back to Rome. I think that for most of history, that's what God wanted. For the Church to be stable and for the papacy to be associated with Rome (and, by extension) to be associated with the Holy Roman Empire, which is keenly associated with the idea of a Christian rule of Europe. The devil would like nothing better than to always destroy Catholic traditions, and thus, he always used his minions to get the pope to leave Rome. Most of the time this was not successful, but there were many other times (apart from Avignon) that the popes were very tempted to leave Rome.
There are multiple prophecies that the pope will flee rome and die in exile. But then his successor will be elected right away. I assume that peace is restored at some point that a return to rome happens, but that is never mentioned.
There are a few prophecies (but not many) which talk of rome being invaded and destroyed and the papacy moving to a new place. If that does happen, and as I believe we are living in the end times, I could see that not being as problematic now, since most of history has been written and the purpose of rome/stability has run its course and fulfilled its end. If the papacy moves cities in the end times, with the rise of antichrist on the horizon, "stability" is the last thing that this period of history is about. Plus, the Church will have to go underground anyways, to avoid persecutions.
-
and before two full moons shall have shone in the month of flowers, the rainbow of peace shall appear on the earth.
That's in 2026
https://www.fullmoon.info/en/fullmoon-calendar/2026.html
-
That's in 2026
https://www.fullmoon.info/en/fullmoon-calendar/2026.html
That would seem like a very short amount of time for a lot to happen. Alas, next one isn't until March 2037. Interestingly, in 2037 there will be a blue moon in January and then another one in March, and no full moon at all in February.
-
That would seem like a very short amount of time for a lot to happen. Alas, next one isn't until March 2037. Interestingly, in 2037 there will be a blue moon in January and then another one in March, and no full moon at all in February.
The month of flowers was what the prophecy said, so May.
-
The month of flowers was what the prophecy said, so May.
Identifying May as the month of flowers has been debated, since there had also been an April Blue Moon in 1999, and a lot of commentators indicate that in the more temperate climate in Italy, flowers start coming out in March. There was a lot of interest in the April 1999 one since there's some other dream from St. John Boco that gave a year 19-- for something significant.
Of course, a dream could also ... just be a dream, even for a Saint. AND there could be something symbolic involved as well, such as, for instance, whether the "Venerable Old Man" is an actual person or a symbol for the Papacy.
Here's just Google's AI about the question:
Flowers typically start blooming in Italy in late winter or early spring (March), with the peak blooming season in April and May.
Of course, "flower" could be symbolic for something also, since I think there's a St. Malachi prophecy about a pope referred to as a "Flower of Flowers". Or possbily a reference to the Great Monarch? So ... in the end, God only knows.
-
With regard to possibly "UNBINDING" the Papacy from the See of Rome, when the Barbarians were about to take over Rome, that question was on the minds of Catholics, or what would happen if the entire area of the Diocese of Rome got wiped out, either naturally or by modern weapons, where it became unhabitable over time. I do think that even if the Pope had to move physical location, he would continue to at least hold the title of Bishop of Rome, not unlike how Cardinals today have titular churches, etc. One thing of interest is that St. Peter did also found the See of Antioch ... but the key is to whom did he hand that "baton" or authority, where, as he departed from authority, another took his place, and that would be his successor at the time and place where he died.
So we're really quibbling about technicalities here. There's no error in referring to a Pope being transferred out of Rome ... due to war or other serious reason, is we're speaking about a simple relocation, per accidens. Let's not conflate the prophecies of Palau with that very strange "Third Secret" put out by TIA which does in fact clealy indicate a more essential relocation of the See of Christ's Vicar.
Good commentaries. I think it's safe to say, that if the Pope either did not actually live in Rome for an extended time, or if Rome were obliterated from the face of the earth, the Pope and his successors would remain "Bishops of Rome", even if only in a titular sense. That does no violence to the concept of the "Roman Pontiff", yet allows for the theoretical possibility that he would reside somewhere other than Rome, either temporarily or permanently.
The Orthodox like to point out that Peter was also the bishop of Antioch, which is good as far as it goes, but again, the tradition of the Church has been that the "baton", as you well put it, is passed on through being Bishop of Rome, which is the see Peter held when he died.
-
Good commentaries. I think it's safe to say, that if the Pope either did not actually live in Rome for an extended time, or if Rome were obliterated from the face of the earth, the Pope and his successors would remain "Bishops of Rome", even if only in a titular sense. That does no violence to the concept of the "Roman Pontiff", yet allows for the theoretical possibility that he would reside somewhere other than Rome, either temporarily or permanently.
The Orthodox like to point out that Peter was also the bishop of Antioch, which is good as far as it goes, but again, the tradition of the Church has been that the "baton", as you well put it, is passed on through being Bishop of Rome, which is the see Peter held when he died.
Right, the bishop who took over in Antioch was not his "Successor", i.e. the one who took over his position when he was gone. Such things happen even in modern times where a many might be appointed the bishop of, say, Cleveland, but then transferred (and promoted) to become the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago. Whoever took over after his death/resignation in Chicago would be his successor, not the individual who took over after he left Cleveland.
-
The month of flowers was what the prophecy said, so May.
It could also be December 2028. And I think that is more likely.
Why is December the month of flowers, you might ask?
Remember the story of Juan Diego and the miracle of the Roses in December. And Our Lady of Guadalupe is the manifestation of Our Lady in Apocalypse 12.
-
It could also be December 2028. And I think that is more likely.
Why is December the month of flowers, you might ask?
Remember the story of Juan Diego and the miracle of the Roses in December. And Our Lady of Guadalupe is the manifestation of Our Lady in Apocalypse 12.
Hmmm. Interesting. Just seems to me that May 2026 would be an extremely short amount of time ...
unless Irlmaier's stuff about WW3 starting in the Fall (after the Budapest assassination), and then lasting 3 (something?) either weeks or months.
I keep thinking June 2029 (100th annviersary of the request to consecrate Russia) ... but that doesn't appear to line up with any Blue Moons.
Here's a list of upcoming Blue Moons before about 2050 ...
(https://i.ibb.co/b5rKP96q/Blue-Moons.jpg)
-
Could there also be some punctuation issues ...
... before two full moons have shown, in the month of flowers
vs.
the full moons showing, both within the month of flowers
Our Lord made some prophecies about when the moon would not give its light. So could there be some situation where for a few months the moon would be darkened so that the full moon in May (?) would only have been the second one of the years, so, perhaps, January would be the first full moon, then February - March - April, for three months, the moon would have gone dark, and then in May you'd get the rainbow of peace and the second full moon (having now returned to normal).
-
Our Lord made some prophecies about when the moon would not give its light.
I took that to mean that the light of faith would not be reflected (or at least greatly diminished) in the visible living hierarchy.
The Woman in the desert with moon under her feet is a figure of the Church.
St. Hildegard saw the Church beaten and bloodied and giving birth to a hideous monster as if She had been violated and forcibly impregnated.
Which ties latter with Our Lady's words that "The Church will be eclipsed." and "Rome will lose the faith."
And what many Saints and mystics of the 1700s - through early 1900s said about a - false church, ape church, masonic church, tolerantarian church of indifferentism, etc.
Which has all ready happened after the emergence of the infant church of antichrist - Vatican II and the paganism of the new Cesar's of religious liberty that Fr. Palua was shown.
So I wouldn't be surprised either if something phenomenal happens eventually in regards to the physical moon as well, final sign of the impending chastisement and the literal fulfillment in every sense of the words of Christ.
So, yeah we all just waiting on the Lord.
-
I took that to mean that the light of faith would not be reflected (or at least greatly diminished) in the visible living hierarchy.
The Woman in the desert with moon under her feet is a figure of the Church.
St. Hildegard saw the Church beaten and bloodied and giving birth to a hideous monster as if She had been violated and forcibly impregnated.
Which ties latter with Our Lady's words that "The Church will be eclipsed." and "Rome will lose the faith."
And what many Saints and mystics of the 1700s - through early 1900s said about a - false church, ape church, masonic church, tolerantarian church of indifferentism, etc.
Which has all ready happened after the emergence of the infant church of antichrist - Vatican II and the paganism of the new Cesar's of religious liberty that Fr. Palua was shown.
So I wouldn't be surprised either if something phenomenal happens eventually in regards to the physical moon as well, final sign of the impending chastisement and the literal fulfillment in every sense of the words of Christ.
So, yeah we all just waiting on the Lord.
But many sources also speak about a Three Days of darkness, and other signs in the sky. In the context of Our Lord's prophecies, to me it's clear that he isn't just speaking metaphorically, as He refers to various celestian events that would cause great fear.
-
But many sources also speak about a Three Days of darkness, and other signs in the sky. In the context of Our Lord's prophecies, to me it's clear that he isn't just speaking metaphorically, as He refers to various celestian events that would cause great fear.
I don't discount it. But I am sure you agree that spiritual realities are higher than temporal ones.
So the worse thing that could happen has already happened in the spiritual sense. Loss of faith, confusion, and error spreading, in-fighting among Catholics at all levels, and doctrinal and moral aberrations and poison flowing like spoiled milk and rotten honey from Rome (can honey go rotten?)
It is like how the Fathers say that it is a greater act of power for God to bring a sinner back to spiritual life than to raise a dead man.
OT it was reversed where the temporal figure alluded to the spiritual reality. After Christ, the law of grace elevates the natural and the figure gives way to the spiritual reality (though still veiled from human eyes) where the temporal manifestations really only serve to confirm the spiritual truth through miraculous manifestations of God's power to confirm the faith. think of the Miracle of the Sun.
Obviously these physical events can also serve to warn and punish as well.
So again, I definitely see times/celestial events as important, but IMO, the spiritual realities would need to come first and then these are confirmed by the physical signs.
Christ is the Sun of Justice and the moon (Church) receives Her light (doctrine) from Him, so spiritually we see the "eclipse" in the doctrines of the Second Vatican Council. A great and hideous beast emerging from the desecrated womb of the Church. Wear the Woman in the desert is the Heavenly Church that brought forth the infant Church under the Apostles that the dragon tried to devour. Now he has infiltrated into her inmost sanctuary (Palalu) and impregnated/desecrated Her (Hildegard) with this antichristic church that comes forth from her physical body, but not by her choice but as the result of Her rape by the devil. This or course, God has allowed partly not only as punishment for sin, but as the final fulfillment of the "mystery of inquiry" that Paul warned the Thessalonians about, which would only come to be once the "restrainer" had been removed, which many believe is the papacy. And temporally this is confirmed with our own eyes, as we have witnessed the innumerable public manifest acts of apostasy, heresy, and schism of epic proportions never before seen in the history of the Church and this coming from the alleged "Popes" after Vatican II no less - a great loss of "light". A truly spiritually terrifying event as if the moon itself had stopped giving off its light. Just think of all the chaos that would cause in the physical realm and this perfectly correlates to what has spiritually happened since Vatican II.
I think if we can pinpoint the spiritual reality of what has happened with the "eyes of faith" that this is much more important than trying to ascertain the correlating physical celestial movements, as those would only serve as temporally confirming signs of the greater spiritual realities that preceded these heavenly events in this particular case.
Thoughts?
-
Hmmm. Interesting. Just seems to me that May 2026 would be an extremely short amount of time ...
unless Irlmaier's stuff about WW3 starting in the Fall (after the Budapest assassination), and then lasting 3 (something?) either weeks or months.
I keep thinking June 2029 (100th annviersary of the request to consecrate Russia) ... but that doesn't appear to line up with any Blue Moons.
Here's a list of upcoming Blue Moons before about 2050 ...
(https://i.ibb.co/b5rKP96q/Blue-Moons.jpg)
Yes, but December 2028 is very close to your 2029 date. December 2028 is a little over 99.5 years from the Tuy Apparition. The connection to Our Lady of Guadalupe and the flowers miracle make it the strongest contender, I think.
Regarding the Irlmaier stuff, I think that might refer to the upcoming Nicaea meeting in Turkey.
Fake Pope Leo will visit the muslim "Blue Mosque" (formerly the Hagia Sofia Basilica) on Saturday, November 29. This mosque is actually geographically in the Balkans because it is not the European (western) side of the Bosphorus strait in Istanbul.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-10/schedule-for-pope-leo-s-first-international-journey.html
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2025/05/21/ecuмenical-patriarch-and-the-pope-meet-in-rome-plan-nicaea-meeting-in-november/
Irlmaier says:
Everyone calls peace, shalom! That’s when it happens. – A new Middle East war suddenly flares up, large fleet units face each other in the Mediterranean – the situation is tense. But the actual igniting spark is thrown into the powder keg in the Balkans: I see a great man fall; a bloody dagger lies next to him. Then everything is happening fast. Massed units of troops march into Belgrade from the east and advance towards Italy.“
The Nicaea meeting (and the rest of the trip) is billed as a trip to promote dialogue and peace. If an assassination (or three) takes place, it will be a cause for war. Leo is called "a pilgrim of peace" in the diocesan rag below.
https://www.detroitcatholic.com/news/lebanon-eagerly-awaits-pope-leos-visit-as-pilgrim-of-peace-catholic-clergy-say
If an assassination happens and it involves Fake Leo, it will be a fake assassination, so watch for the fake miraculous resurrection that comes after it.
St. Hildegard on the Antichrist’s pretended death
From Scivias:
But I [the Antichrist] will die for you and to your glory, and rise again from death; and so I will deliver my people from Hell, that you may live gloriously with me in my kingdom, as that deceiver [Jesus] pretended He had done before." And he will tell his beloved ones to run him through with a sword and wrap him in a clean shroud, until the day of his resurrection. And he will delude them into thinking they are killing him, and so they will fulfill his commands. Then he will pretend to rise again, and bring out a writing as if for the salvation of souls, which is really a dire curse. And he will give this to people for a sign and command them to adore him. And if any person of faith refuses for love of My name, he will kill that person in great suffering and torture. And thus all who see and hear this will be struck with great wonder and doubtful amazement, as My beloved John shows... (Scivias, Book III, Vision 11, 31).
From Book of Divine Works:
For so too will he [the Antichrist] pretend to die, as if to redeem his people by his death, and to raise himself up again to return to life. He will also have an inscription written upon the foreheads of his followers, through which to introduce into them every evil, as too the ancient serpent, after deceiving humankind, kept them captive by stoking them with lust. Through that scripture he will inspire them by magical craft to oppose baptism and the Christian name, so that they will not desire to leave him, and all will style themselves after him, just as Christians are named after Christ. (The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 18. St. Hildegard Von Bingen, The Book of Divine Works. Pages 469, Part III, Vision 5, Chapter 31).
-
Fr. Palau on spiritual vs. temporal punishments:
(https://i.imgur.com/0kHLAs5.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/YyNc6co.png)
-
Here he talks about the Church:
(https://i.imgur.com/6LdIh2h.png)
pg 66
(https://i.imgur.com/YQ8TkV3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/61IMQgp.png)
Pg 922-23