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
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.
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.
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:
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..
.But "Roman" is not synonymous with "Vatican City", Or "St. Peter's Basilica".
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, 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.Vatican City and it's "boundaries" did not exist "legally" (according to Masons anyway) until 1929.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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 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 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.
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:
Here is another quote from Cardinal Billot:
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.
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 ...
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).
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.
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 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?
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
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.The month of flowers was what the prophecy said, so May.
The month of flowers was what the prophecy said, so May.
Flowers typically start blooming in Italy in late winter or early spring (March), with the peak blooming season in April and May.
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.
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.
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.
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.I don't discount it. But I am sure you agree that spiritual realities are higher than temporal ones.
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)
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.“
Yeah, so looking a bit closer - it is even worse for ol' TIA (or their translation if you prefer)...
"Rome will no longer be the center of the Religion of Jesus Christ. I will destroy and behead its priests and religious and again I will organize the enemy of Christ and His Church. The throne of the supreme pontiff will not return because it will be transferred to another place."
Their translation totally omits the word "destroy". Which definitely takes on the connotation of the DESTRUCTION of the priesthood and religious in Rome.
TIA also seems to infer in their translation that these priests and religious would go on to become the enemies of Christ's Church.
But in the translation from the book above, it just seems to follow with that the angel himself by God's permission/authority will, "organize the enemy of Christ and His Church", whatever that means...
But, it doesn't follow that the priests of Rome will be those enemies.... Unless you are trying to "sell" the idea that Holy Mother Church can become the plaything of devils and is infested with the "mouths of heretics". Then you kind of have to get rid of that whole "destroying" and "beheading" of the priests and "tone it down a bit". Then make it appear that they are just "debased" and not the devils BUT THEY (the priests) are the enemies of Christ and His Church.
At least that is how I am reading it.
Is it realistic to think that people who have been fighting the sedevacantist position for so long and considered it evil will then read this and say, "Wow, the sedevacantists were right!" ?No it is NOT reasonable (IMO).
Fr. Pacho version | TIA version |
| I Will take away the pontifical throne... | I will raze the pontifical throne.... |
| deliver Rome to the power of the devils and the revolution... | delivered to the power of the demons... |
| I will destroy and behead its priests and religious.... | It will debase its priests and religious... |
| I will organize the enemy of Christ and His Church... | It [Rome?] will once again become the enemy of Christ and His Church... |
| It will be transferred to another place... | It will be transported to another place... |
Sorry I got brain fog ::)
Now I see it at the top of pg. 1300...
So the whole portion of Fr. Pacho reads,
Angel speaking to Fr. Palau: "I am going to abandon Rome. I will take away the throne of the Pontiff and deliver Rome to the power of the devils and the revolution. Rome will no longer be the center of the Religion of Jesus Christ. I will destroy and behead its priests and religious and again I will organize the enemy of Christ and His Church. The throne of the supreme pontiff will not return because it will be transferred to another place."
* here we can see, "take away" which is the correct translation of "levantari"*
Now take a look at the TIA version
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. …
I Will take away the pontifical throne... I will raze the pontifical throne.... deliver Rome to the power of the devils and the revolution... delivered to the power of the demons... I will destroy and behead its priests and religious.... It will debase its priests and religious... I will organize the enemy of Christ and His Church... It [Rome?] will once again become the enemy of Christ and His Church... It will be transferred to another place... It will be transported to another place...
The meanings aren't really the same are they?
Similar yes, but key word changes can make a HUGE difference.
Interesting to note to that the TIA version does NOT contain a reference to "the revolution" (which I took to mean Free Masonry).
Another key difference is that the avenging angel of Rome is the one performing the acts...
VS.
TIA's version where it is Rome ITSELF that is doing the destruction.
What we can infer from this (if at all true) is that it is God's will that the Church in Rome be DESTORYED along with its priests and religious and the city and Vatican be handed over to the devils to do with as they please. He would move the throne to some "place" but does not say where...
Basically the Book of Apocalypse (which the angel in his visions keeps referring to).
You can even see the conversation above between the dragon (Satan) and some "unseen figure" where the devil says, "GIVE IT TO ME, etc." Just like in the vision of Pope Leo XIII, "I can destroy your Church..."
Our Lady showed us a Church, but this was a
Church of hell, and an individual who I describe as the 'holy
Father' leading a multitude that was praising the devil,
but there was a difference from a true holy Father, the gaze,
this one had the gaze of evil.
Then we saw the same Pope entering a Church,
after some moments, but there is no way to describe the
ugliness of that place, it looked like a gray cement fortress (https://i.imgur.com/eUJi2uG.png)
with broken angles and windows similar to eyes;
it had a beak in the roof of the building.
Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who
said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church.
Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority
will be removed and delivered to Fatima. The cathedra [or chair] of Rome will be
destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.
Sorry I got brain fog ::)
Now I see it at the top of pg. 1300...
So the whole portion of Fr. Pacho reads,
Angel speaking to Fr. Palau: "I am going to abandon Rome. I will take away the throne of the Pontiff and deliver Rome to the power of the devils and the revolution. Rome will no longer be the center of the Religion of Jesus Christ. I will destroy and behead its priests and religious and again I will organize the enemy of Christ and His Church. The throne of the supreme pontiff will not return because it will be transferred to another place."
* here we can see, "take away" which is the correct translation of "levantari"*
Now take a look at the TIA version
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. …
I Will take away the pontifical throne... I will raze the pontifical throne.... deliver Rome to the power of the devils and the revolution... delivered to the power of the demons... I will destroy and behead its priests and religious.... It will debase its priests and religious... I will organize the enemy of Christ and His Church... It [Rome?] will once again become the enemy of Christ and His Church... It will be transferred to another place... It will be transported to another place...
The meanings aren't really the same are they?
Similar yes, but key word changes can make a HUGE difference.
Interesting to note to that the TIA version does NOT contain a reference to "the revolution" (which I took to mean Free Masonry).
Another key difference is that the avenging angel of Rome is the one performing the acts...
VS.
TIA's version where it is Rome ITSELF that is doing the destruction.
What we can infer from this (if at all true) is that it is God's will that the Church in Rome be DESTORYED along with its priests and religious and the city and Vatican be handed over to the devils to do with as they please. He would move the throne to some "place" but does not say where...
Basically the Book of Apocalypse (which the angel in his visions keeps referring to).
You can even see the conversation above between the dragon (Satan) and some "unseen figure" where the devil says, "GIVE IT TO ME, etc." Just like in the vision of Pope Leo XIII, "I can destroy your Church..."
Well, I do dispute the authenticity of this ^ text.
Maybe it gets some things right.
But I believe it is too vague, and doesn't address how the Pope can be Pope while leading everyone to devil worship and apostasy...
Not only that but it seems to imply he is both the Pope and not the Pope at the same time (I describe as the 'holy Father' Thesis much :laugh1:)!
And if the See is in Fatima - we still see no Pope (not that he couldn't be hidden). But Fatima is TOTALLY under the control of the Novus Ordo false church anyway.
Whereas it seems, Fr. Palalu delivered his vision directly to Pope Pius IX and I think we can have good confidence his writings ARE authentic (even if he was mistaken/deceived etc.)
But either way, do you accept this as the authentic secret?
Yes, as the 7 Heads are the Popes starting with Pius XI. The "eighth who is of the seven and goes to perdition" is Bergoglio.Why wouldn't Pius the XI and the signing of the Lateran Treaty be this one?
The Letter of the Secret Chiefs (Pike to Mazzini) counts the same seven Popes. But he calls the BXVI the "Pope-Errant" (the Wandering Pope). He is called the "sixth successor of the man of pride under who the temporal power of the infamous pontificate has collapsed."
Yes, it is the true Third Secret, the handwriting has been confirmed to be Sr. Lucia's.ahhhhh. stretching it a bit mate.
The devil worship is the Novus Ordo. It is a black Mass. Always has been. But the Church did not officially abrogate the TLM until Bergoglio did in Traditiones Custodes, when he declared:
"The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite."
He is leading them in praising the devil by forcing everyone to go to the Novus Ordo.
Why wouldn't Pius the XI and the signing of the Lateran Treaty be this one?
It refers to "temporal" power.
Not sure you definition works with Ol' Benny Boy...
ahhhhh. stretching it a bit mate.
Surely Paul VI was worse don't you think?
I mean he is the one who approved of the "devil worship" and commissioned it...
IF the text was authentic - surely "she" is talking about the PAUL VI HALL in describing that ugly building (though I realize that connection does not identify Paul VI as the one described in and of itself).
But I wouldn't bust your chops over it.
They are both miserable false Pope anti-Catholic spawn of hell in my book.
And, if you believe it is authentic then how do you view the Fatima Cathedral? Is that your new "Rome"?
Or,
Do you believe this new chair in Fatima is yet to be built?
I don't understand your question.I think I just read it wrong.
No, I'm not stretching it at all. The handwriting has been confirmed. But if that was the only piece of evidence pointing to the sequence of Popes, then yes it would be stretching it. But that is not the only piece of evidence. The Scriptures are full of the same evidence pointing to the same people.No, that is NOT what I meant you where grasping at.
The we have the enemies of the Church, the Freemasons, pointing to the same sequence of papal claimants.
But the Church did not officially abrogate the TLM until Bergoglio did in Traditiones Custodes, when he declared:I mean, there has been hundreds (thousands?) of indult "TLM Masses" offered since TD.
"The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite."
No, that is NOT what I meant you where grasping at.
The idea that Jorge's ONE LINE from TC is the lynch pin to your theory - that is what I meant.
I mean, there has been hundreds (thousands?) of indult "TLM Masses" offered since TD.
Frankie did not abrogate anything (he couldn't even if he wanted to. He was an impotent non-priest-non-pope).
He simply let his opinion be known. And that is how the people who think of him as Pope see it too!
I have never encountered someone claiming that TD was an official abrogation - as much as a game plan of how to herd trads to the fringes and curtail the TLM wherever possible.
When something is abrogated you know it - because they say it is with that precise language that WOULD be necessary to abrogate it.
Otherwise, you would still have hundreds/thousands of officially abrogated Masses being said which is to essentially make the abrogation meaningless...
never taken literally.So you don't believe the See would be moved?
So you don't believe the See would be moved?
I didn't mean that NOTHING should be taken literally. I meant that the whole of the prophetic narrative needs to be treated as mostly non-literal because it is a type of riddle. Prophecy always veils certain things. The sign that the veil is being used in certain phrases is the presence of outlandish descriptions, like that of the Pope praising the devil. It is not going to be exactly like that. But substantially that is what he will do. He tells people they must go to the Black Mass if they want to be Catholics in good standing. In that Black Mass, whether they know it or not, they are praising the devil.OK.
OK.
So, what about the See being moved to Fatima - what does THAT mean to you (considering you said you thought the secret was authentic)?
Clearly it has to do with the Blessed Mother and "the Reign of Mary." This will come after the Pope consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart. There will then be a short Era of Peace before the final battle with Satan (all happening within a few years). Then the Second Coming will happen. Then the General Judgement. Then the NHNE.So, you still think it is in Rome for now?
But before all of that the Warning and the Miracle will happen. Those events are coming very soon.
So, you still think it is in Rome for now?
I don't think the Pope is in Rome right now. And wherever the Pope is, there the See will be.
The Letter of the Secret Chiefs (Pike to Mazzini) counts the same seven Popes. But he calls the BXVI the "Pope-Errant" (the Wandering Pope). He is called the "sixth successor of the man of pride under who the temporal power of the infamous pontificate has collapsed."(https://i.imgur.com/HmL6QlJ.png)
The temporal power formally/legally collapsed when Pius XI signed the Lateran Treaty. The "man of pride" is just Albert Pike, the Freemason, bad-mouthing Pius XI. So, the "sixth successor" after Pius XI is:
So you believe that there is legitimate pope alive right now?
(https://i.imgur.com/HmL6QlJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/HY3e6DT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FWLDmT4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/tfAA4zV.png)
https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/oM2g7aF6G13F1SsyQsi8W
(https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/oM2g7aF6G13F1SsyQsi8W)I think the AI understands it better.
Plus, if it is prophecy - it is most certainly the prophecy of devils - which makes it tricky to deal with because they are consummate LIARS.
Nonetheless, from above you can see the AI thinks the "man of sin" is NOT Pius XI but Pius IX so the 6th successor of the "man of sin" after the temporal loss of power would be...
Tada! = JOHN XXIII
Or, what is more likely true, is this 6th successor was Cardinal Siri.
But because the election went their way and Siri most likely "folded" for whatever reason here we are...
If you read Fr. Palau's letter's to Pope Pius IX you can see that he was a PIVOTAL figure - the clock really did start ticking down somehow with him and the definition of papal infallibility.
Our enemies have used that holy dogma against us to brainwash and whip people into a mindless false obedience and false acknowledgement of false authority - it NEVER should have come to this - but for the pride and cowardice of men - and God has allowed it to happen, pouring out His blazing wrath with the most horrific spiritual punishments the world has seen since before the Coming of Christ (read Fr. Palau on spiritual vs. temporal punishments).
(https://i.imgur.com/HmL6QlJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/HY3e6DT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FWLDmT4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/tfAA4zV.png)
https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/oM2g7aF6G13F1SsyQsi8W
(https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/oM2g7aF6G13F1SsyQsi8W)I think the AI understands it better.
Plus, if it is prophecy - it is most certainly the prophecy of devils - which makes it tricky to deal with because they are consummate LIARS.
Nonetheless, from above you can see the AI thinks the "man of sin" is NOT Pius XI but Pius IX so the 6th successor of the "man of sin" after the temporal loss of power would be...
Tada! = JOHN XXIII
Or, what is more likely true, is this 6th successor was Cardinal Siri.
But because the election went their way and Siri most likely "folded" for whatever reason here we are...
If you read Fr. Palau's letter's to Pope Pius IX you can see that he was a PIVOTAL figure - the clock really did start ticking down somehow with him and the definition of papal infallibility.
Our enemies have used that holy dogma against us to brainwash and whip people into a mindless false obedience and false acknowledgement of false authority - it NEVER should have come to this - but for the pride and cowardice of men - and God has allowed it to happen, pouring out His blazing wrath with the most horrific spiritual punishments the world has seen since before the Coming of Christ (read Fr. Palau on spiritual vs. temporal punishments).
Read the description in Pike's letter of the Pope-Errant. It is not describing John XXIII:Well, I think that is just the point the AI was making.
"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."
The "man of sin" is not mentioned.Here I just misspoke.
Also, your interpretation does not harmonize with the Apocalypse, which is talking about......something that the Church has not as yet explicitly defined, but we are free to speculate on?
Also, your interpretation does not harmonize with the Apocalypse, which is talking about the same 7 last legitimate heads (Pope-Kings) after 1929. The eighth, an illegitimate antipope, refers to Bergoglio. The people ruling the Church after Bergoglio are referred to as the 10 Horns (the Cardinals and Bishops who take over the Church) in Apoc. 17:What do you think of your above interpretation compared to what Fr. Palau saw?
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire. 17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.
The Fourth Beast of Daniel 7 is this same group of Cardinals (Bergoglio included). And that Fourth Beast is described in even more detail in 4 Esdras Chapters 11-12 (https://www.pseudepigrapha.com/apocrypha_ot/2esdr.htm) as the Eagle with Twelve Wings:
[7] And I said, "O sovereign Lord, if I have found favor in thy sight, and if I have been accounted righteous before thee beyond many others, and if my prayer has indeed come up before thy face,
[8] strengthen me and show me, thy servant, the interpretation and meaning of this terrifying vision, that thou mayest fully comfort my soul.
[9] For thou hast judged me worthy to be shown the end of the times and the last events of the times."
[10] He said to me, "This is the interpretation of this vision which you have seen:
[11] The eagle which you saw coming up from the sea is the fourth kingdom which appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel.
[12] But it was not explained to him as I now explain or have explained it to you.
It says, "princes of darkness"
In those 7 papal regimes, Fr. Palau says, are "fortified by princes of darkness which are subordinated to the Dragon." The "Princes" are the princes of the Church, the Cardinals, who are actually agents of Satan manipulating the Curial machine to move things along as Satan prefers.
It says, "princes of darkness"
Where in Scripture is that equated with humans?
What does Scripture say about what are the "princes of darkness"?
You are welcome to disagree.I do disagree.
It says, "princes of darkness"
Where in Scripture is that equated with humans?
What does Scripture say about what are the "princes of darkness"?
Now, could many-to-most of the Cardinals have actually become possessed or were already under the influence of the demons - yes.
But again you are stretching here and trying to weave;
1) A Masonic prophecy.
2) A dubious 3rd Secret of Fatima from a untrustworthy source.
3) Fr. Palau's visions that he handed to Pope Pius IX.
Which, of all three it is only number 3 that really merits any trust...
So trying to weave them together is just to tie yourself in knots I think.
If you actually start to delve into that 2000 page beast of Fr. Palau's work you will see that so much of his fight was centered on fighting the actual demonic through exorcisms of actual demons, and he explains that why his visions will come to pass is because all the devils have been slowly loosed from hell and returned after they were cast out by Christ, the Apostles, the Fathers, etc. They started to return because the few that were left were allowed to remain due to the negligence of the office of exorcist, they caused ever increasing damage and aided other demons in getting released from the pit as a punishment for sins and negligence. Palau was censured by his own bishop (who seemed to have been diabolically influenced) from performing exorcisms. He was trying to warn Pius IX about what needed to be done. Fr. Palau was exiled by the Masons (who he openly opposed) to an island of the coast of Spain/Portugal. From there he would often life in solitude in a cave on the mountain and that is were he heard this voice speaking to him for 20 years. He seems to have been gifted with seeing angelic and demonic spirits at many and various times. He was also highly sensitive to the spiritual and could sense the presence of evil. He actually does seem like another very holy priest like Padre Pio. The fake Church considers him a Blessed (though that means little to me).
A vision of the Apocalypse (pg. 943 #12)
(https://i.imgur.com/N2u1v04.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/sm5Hb3c.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LCZOD09.png)
(FIRST BEAST) "The beast is all the kings and powers of the earth seduced by the demons, which have shaken off the yoke of the Church and separated her, and joined to the shaken demons they form one body and unite in war against against the Church and her pontificate." Because they form one body with the dragon, if this falls, that beast must also fall."
"The dragon and the beast will fall on the same day; keep fighting."
(SECOND BEAST) That second beast is all the kings who say they are Catholics but are not, and united with one body with the people they govern they speak like the demons against Christ and his Church, and form a league with all the others I in the war against God. To these powers, represented in their horns are united all those Christians who are such only in appearance, but who in reality have neither faith nor true charity; and these are the ones who mixed with the just, stir up cινιℓ ωαr, which is all the more cruel, because disguised like the lamb they enter the sanctuary of God, and fill it with abominations, and this is the body of this beast which fights from within the first attacks from without.
"The dragon and these two beasts are but one thing in the spirit of evil. Here you have the power of evil. A power which is outside the temple, and a power within the very sanctuary, united under one banner against God and His Church. The battle is against those three powers. So, these three beasts cannot resist so much, because the three will fall into the abyss on the same day and at the same hour."
The Apocalypse is not about secular governments creating famines and wars and forcing innocent people to take "a mark." It is about a hostile, deceptive takeover by the Church by Satan with uses deception to cause weak Catholics to voluntarily receive false sacraments and consent to evil.He was told it was 3:
He was told it was 3:
1) The secular governments.
2) The false church - "because disguised like the lamb they enter the sanctuary of God, and fill it with abominations, and this is the body of this beast which fights from within the first attacks from without."
3) The dragon himself (Antichrist)
"The dragon and the two beasts are but one thing in the spirit of evil."
"They will all fall the same day and at the same hour."
Let's read more closely what you quoted about the First Beast above:No, Fr. Palua is being shown and the angel is EXPLAINING the meaning clearly (You really should just read the whole text/pages I posted).
"The beast is all the kings and powers of the earth seduced by the demons, which have shaken off the yoke of the Church and separated her, and joined to the shaken demons they form one body and unite in war against the Church and her pontificate."
Understand that apocalyptic language is intentionally obscure (the prophetic veil is being used). So you must read between the lines.
No, Fr. Palua is being shown and the angel is EXPLAINING the meaning clearly (You really should just read the whole text/pages I posted).
FIRST BEAST = Is the secular/temporal/material arm of the dragon in the world - all the kings and powers that refuse to follow Christ's Church and have "separated" Her in the sense that by their refusal they have cut asunder the bond of unity that should exist if they rightly submitted to Christ's rule. They attack the Church FROM WITHOUT. This beast has always hounded the Church.
"Shaken off" does NOT mean they were all at one point Catholic, to refuse something is to shake it off, i.e., "shake off the dust of thy sandals".
SECOND BEAST = Clearly here I agree with what you were saying above (but you are wrongly attributing to the first beast) that this is speaking of a false hierarchy. This beast has always hounded the Church as well, i.e, through false "Catholic kings" (false bishops, antipopes, false priests) who spread their abominations "within the sanctuary" attacking the Church from WITHIN.
Now,
THIRD BEAST = THE ACTUAL FALSE CHURCH of VATICAN II.
See what it says,
"I looked towards the earth and I saw another beast. This third beast looked like a lamb; it had the fleece and the horns of a lamb, And the inhabitants of the earth believed it was Christ the Lamb of God, and I, at first sight, thought the same; but looking carefully, I saw that it had claws like a lion, and teeth like a wolf, and it blasphemed like the dragon. It received power like the beast with the seven heads, and with great marvelous signs made all the inhabitants of the earth adore the first beast.
(https://i.imgur.com/lCL8pnu.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Yq7PuQf.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Kw8tv4B.png)
Paul VI was the manifest head of this 3rd beast (false church). He proved this in a multiplicity of ways, but none so starkly as praising the U.N. as the "last great hope of humanity" and "stripping" the mock papacy of both its temporal and spiritual power by divesting himself of those symbols publicly. This of course, was a truly meaningless show/display in the sense that he was not a true Pope, but a meaningful sign in the sense that he manifested the third beast and caused others to "adore the first beast", thus leading astray., "all the inhabitants of the world."
The beasts are allegorical:
1st beast = ALL the secuar powers/governments of the world who have rejected Christ and His Church.
2nd beast = ALL heretics and schismatics who profane holy things and lead others out of the Church.
3rd beast = the false church of Vatican II that points everyone to worship the secular world powers i.e., religious freedom, ecuмenism, masonic anthropocentrism, etc.
You said, "No, Fr. Palua is being shown [a vision] and the angel is EXPLAINING the meaning clearly...", implying that I said something different.Yes, we are in 100% agreement here - sorry if I made it seem otherwise.
But in my previous post I said the exact same thing, but added that Fr. Palau's description is simply a retelling the Apocalypse 12-13. I said, "Yes, the vision is using the symbols in John's Apocalypse. What is explained to Fr. Palau is an interpretation, from an angel, of the meaning of John's Apocalypse."
The exact VISION/EXPLANATION thing is how the Apocalypse is narrated. Fr. Palau is having the Apocalypse of John explained to him by an angel. It is not some totally new, totally unique vision. It has some elements that clarify things not detailed in the Apocalypse, but it is describing the same basic vision. So, if you want to understand the vision better, look at both what Fr. Palau says and what St. John says in the Apocalypse.
Now, to the substance of the vision. Of course there are 3 "beasts," that are the focus of the Apocalypse: the dragon, the Beast and the False Prophet [See Apoc. 16:13]. In the order described in the Apocalypse and in Fr. Palau's writings they are as follows:Yes we agree here.
1. The Dragon who is identified with Satan [Apocalypse 12:9]. That is not the Antichrist himself. The dragon is the devil coming down and possessing the men (through his demons) that we call antichrists and false prophets
2. The Beast from the Sea [Apocalypse 13:1-8]. Most commentators refer to this person as THE Antichrist. Also, referred to simply as "the Beast" in other places.This interpretation is NOT what was explained to Fr. Palau. He even references Apocalypse 13: 1-10 after the description - please read:This beast represents the power structure in the Church of Rome, the Heads (Popes) and Horns (Cardinals).
This interpretation is NOT what was explained to Fr. Palau. He even references Apocalypse 13: 1-10 after the description - please read:
(https://i.imgur.com/828Up07.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/k7AJzup.png)
1) first beast = demonic world powers, i.e., all the Masonic world governments and those given to false gods - they attack the Church from without.
2) second beast = evil prelates, and priests given to heresy/schism i.e., Arius, Nestorius, Luther, etc. - they attack the Church from within.
3) third beast (looks like the Lamb but isn't) = antichurch/antichrist - (here is where I think we need to concentrate - #14 above)
Again, the first beast is the Dragon. That is Satan himself (and his demons). And his demonic influence is both OUTSIDE and INSIDE the Church. But this influence has always been outside the Church. In the end times, the difference is that the demonic influence is INSIDE the hierarchy the Vatican.
Lets take it one at a time.
This is NOT what the text says though.
It says the dragon is, "All the power of the demons joined in one body in the war against the Church."
Then it goes on to describe the "dragon"
Followed then by the first beast rising from the sea (Apoc. 13)
They are not one and the same - strictly speaking - according to this text here that we are evaluating.
"I saw another very fierce beast rise, it had seven heads like the dragon."
Do you agree that this text here is marking a difference between the "dragon" and the "first beast"?
I know what YOU think the first beast is - we will get to that next - but first do you agree the "dragon" and the "first beast" are different (not the same thing)?
Yes, I am saying that the "dragon" is the first beast described by Fr. Palau. Look at Fr. Palau section 12, "and I saw another very fierce beast rise..." He uses the word "another," meaning he just described the first one, the Dragon.OK. Thank you that makes sense I agree, with the above.
The second beast Fr. Palau describes is the beast from the Sea.
OK. Thank you that makes sense I agree, with the above.
So it all checks out with the Apocalypse, now we have to look closer at what the explanation is for this beast...
Thank you.
Yes, and the basis for that explanation is found in Fr. Palau's book, but also and primarily in Daniel, the Apocalypse and 4 Esdras. All of these works are talking about the same entities and the same events. So we must tease out the essential core of events and put together the unique puzzle pieces that each description provides. Then the picture will come into better focus.
I am happy to go through it with you and tell you what I have found.
(https://i.imgur.com/aYXyWyk.png)
Do you think the following part of Fr. Palau's vision (below) fits the above description:
4. I looked towards the earth and I saw another beast. And this third one was like a lamb; it had the fleece and horns of a lamb, and the inhabitants of the earth believed that it was Christ, the Lamb of God; and I, at first sight, thought the same, but looking carefully, I saw that it had claws like a lion, and teeth like a wolf, and it blasphemed like the dragon, It received power like the beast with the seven heads and with great, marvellous signs made all the inhabitants of the earth adore the first beast.
-Do you understand the mystery of the second beast the angel asked me.
-No.
-That second beast is all the kings who say they are Catholics but are not, and united with one body with the people they govern, they speak like demons against Christ and his Church, and form a league with all the others in the war against God. To these powers, represented in their horns, are united all those Christians who are such only in appearance, but who in reality have neither faith nor true charity; and these are the ones who mixed with the just, stir up cινιℓ ωαr, which is all the more cruel, because disguised like the lamb they enter the sanctuary of God, and fill it with abominations; and this is the body of this beast which fights from within the first attacks from without. This beast is the one which makes use of all the arts of magic, associated like the first with the dragon, and produces marvellous cures in the human body; it is the one who hides for the time being in magnetism and spiritualism [Dn. 9 -27, Rv 17, 4: 21-27; Mt 7,15], and the one who when discovered will imitate the mission of the Prophet Elijah and Eunuch with apparent miracles. And with these signs all the peoples of the earth will fall at the feet of the first beast, and no one will escape corruption.
https://www.magisterium.com/search/f1856f72-0f17-4585-ad08-150c4bfe60f8 (https://www.magisterium.com/search/f1856f72-0f17-4585-ad08-150c4bfe60f8)
(https://i.imgur.com/mJfIuHt.png)
Notice the last point it makes HERE ^.
This is one reason Fr. Palau's writings matter. Like you said, "another piece of the puzzle."
The first AI quote is close. The Second AI quote is garbage.Yes. I was only throwing it up so you could see WHY it was so trashy (it was from Magisterium AI - which is biased). As soon as it detects what it perceives as the magisterium coming under attack it freezes and just keeps saying, "no", "no", "no"... :laugh1:
The main thing is that the Beasts are INSIDE "the Church," it is describing the hierarchy of the Counterfeit Church. The Harlot is the laity of the Counterfeit Church who follow ("ride") the Beast.
Yes. I was only throwing it up so you could see WHY it was so trashy (it was from Magisterium AI - which is biased). As soon as it detects what it perceives as the magisterium coming under attack it freezes and just keeps saying, "no", "no", "no"... :laugh1:
Now look at this:
I am going to abandon Rome. I will take away the throne of the pontiff and deliver the city to the power of the devils and the revolution. Rome will no longer be the centre of the religion of Jesus. I will destroy and behead its priests and religious and again I will organize the enemy of Christ and his Church. The throne of the supreme pontiff will not return because it will be transferred to another place.”
4. I could hardly believe what I was seeing the angel added: “Rome will be punished severely and the day is at hand, the day of weeping, mourning and grieving of blood and of fire and so that you will see how just is the heavenly vengeance, come, climb up to the peak of this mountain and from here you will see the abominations introduced in the holy place predicted by Prophet Daniel.”
Full of consternation, fear and terror, my hair bristled, my flesh horrified, I climbed up to the peak of the mountain: “Look carefully and watch what is there in the sanctuary, scrutinize it, do not speak and keep the secret; the mystery of iniquity is already consummated, I am going to punish the culprit and the blood of the just will appease the wrath of God.”
5. I was praying earnestly for the Church and the voice answered: “The prayers and supplications for the holy Church are heard and accepted by God. Do not pray for Rome because the decree of God is irrevocable, the punishment of the culprit and the patience of the martyrs will bring back to the holy Church her liberty, her glory and her splendor
(https://i.imgur.com/gRLQee4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MGyHTSY.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rQ3ZEDC.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/TskdZmk.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PAAvrE3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/VroKvZT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/OctNR7l.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/KIBkrst.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/UgkNtvO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/makAIGc.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/3OlSew4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/kgknDpJ.png)
“because disguised like the lamb they enter the sanctuary of God, and fill it with abominations;”
“Look carefully and watch what is there in the sanctuary, scrutinize it, do not speak and keep the secret; the mystery of iniquity is already consummated, I am going to punish the culprit and the blood of the just will appease the wrath of God.”
“Here you have the power of evil; a power which is outside the temple, and a power within the very sanctuary, united under one banner against God and his Church;”
“from here you will see the abominations introduced in the holy place predicted by Prophet Daniel.”
I'm not aware of any Catholic commentary on the Apocalypse that says all of these figures and events refer exclusively to the state of the church.By "Catholic commentary" you mean with imprimatur?
By "Catholic commentary" you mean with imprimatur?
I also, agree that one cannot take what I currently consider a maximum reductionist view and pin in "exclusively" on a false church.
That is what Angelus and I are working through.
(https://i.imgur.com/cuskJYZ.png)
The global political power is the Holy See's activities carried out mainly by the Vatican Secretariat of State. The counterfeit religious system the one we already know about.
Unfortunately, the Catholic commentators did not want to see what was hidden in the words of the Apocalypse. They did not want to believe that the Antichrist was to be the false head of the Antichurch, the Counterfeit Catholic Church.
Read the Apocalypse, the symbols and imagery are religious and Catholic. In Apocalypse 13, the Beast is described with these words:
6 And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation.
Who are these people referred to as every tribe, and people and tongue and nation? It is the Catholic Church, as you can see in Apocalypse 5:
8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints: 9 And they sung a new canticle, saying: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. 10 And hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests, and we shall reign on the earth.
Therefore, the Beast (aka the Antichrist) is an Antipope of the Counterfeit Catholic Church.
See how Barry's Commentary can be understood and think of how the false church turns people to free-masons without them realizing it:
(https://i.imgur.com/6KjEO8n.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XNzWwVt.png)
What is the "mark" then?
(https://i.imgur.com/148NbWt.png)
Yes. it works with Barry's Commentary.
(https://i.imgur.com/oxddsd0.png)
^ 100% what we see at Rome.
(https://i.imgur.com/V5NijKs.png)
^ False Holy Orders.
(https://i.imgur.com/tN4VH9s.png)