Three or four posts on a message board do not an obsession make.
Depends on what is expected by the phrase - agree to disagree.
I'll gladly plead guilty to having a little mission on the subject: to pop Great Monarch and Pope of the Future balloons wherever I can.
And so then you have not - agreed to disagree, but have agreed only to disagree, and as often as you can.
The Conciliar Church is worse than heretical and apostate.
You can't get worse than heretical and apostate. I have NO problem calling it the anti-Church, or supporting church of the anti-Christ. And while so many Saints and visionaries in the past spoke of a man, a specific man, who perhaps lived to 55 1/2 (666 months), a Jєωιѕн man, a man possessed and also possessing great knowledge and even some supernatural power, assisted in all by the media, by stage magic, by demonic suggestion to those who follow him and promote him, and so on, the idea that an abomination of desolation sits in the Temple could easily apply to what we see in the new Temple. That new Temple is The Church. What we see is abomination. And if 666 is the number of man, and also of a man, than more generically this 'goddess within' nonsense of pagan side of Roman Protestantism IS man having entered the Temple as a substitute for the adoration of God. And we know that Revolution has also been destroying the planet for centuries. Only recently, with modernism, did it damage the Church, too, which stood against the ways of the world. Now Catholics are disorganized, a remnant, and don't always trust each other. Back at the cliffs, in the catacombs and private homes. But there still remains, The Church, Militant, broken, not defeated. Essentially, just homeless, and leaderless. And we want back what belongs to Catholics. And that means the Vatican.
I see nothing in so-called Catholic prophesy that takes that into account.
The fallen away, apostate church is spoken of in the Apocalypse of St. John. That's why I say that all these others do not contradict Scriptures. The visionaries provide some details, even if in metaphor or symbolism as just in canonical Scriptures. Unlike the Word of God, such visions do not have to be believed. But they don't contradict Scriptures.
to think that there could ever be a Great Monarch or a Great Pope of the Future is already nutty in itself.
Again, and though you constantly repeat yourself, I won't repeat myself. But you can go back and read the example from a Mel Gibson film that I used. And I think that does accurately reflect the stereotype the world has of the military capability of France in the 21st century. So, it does seem nutty. But I also mentioned, stranger things have happened. When is the last time that you saw God in the Flesh preaching on a hillside? When was the last time you saw a man raised from the dead, named Lazarus? And so on. And there are many miracles attributed to the Saints, as well. We also read in The Acts.
And his checks never bounced, in which he could be a lesson to a few other Remnants I know
You mean the magazine, The Remnant? That's a problem you have with them, then. To expand that to a type is where stereotyping can go wrong.
I have never thought about the French being cowards or inept at warfare. I don't think that it's true.
It's a stereotype many share. They seem to have difficulty, at any rate.
I don't want a pope.
There must be a temporal head of The Church. God first said to St. Peter, you are the rock, and upon you will I build. The next actual Pope will be a successor of St. Peter, faithful as St. Peter, and head of them all as St. Peter. He would be elected by those bishops lawfully ordained, and faithful, Catholic bishops and not Roman Protestant. It might even be other than ironic if you count up the number of bishops at the next council. How many were there for the first, at Jerusalem?
writings I have the right to speak the truth on the matter in my own way, even though some may take offense.
That's fine, at least with me. But don't say you agree to disagree. You simply will try to make you point that prophecy is not to be considered by Catholics, at all, ever, that it perhaps is a sort of sin as you see it - never mind that all these visionaries were canonized Saints or faithful religious or lay Catholics, themselves.
Maybe for that reason, people might take offense to you dismissing all of them with the wave of your hand? See below.
I like those writings because they are so hilarious.
And you laugh at them, too.
Catholic Prophesy is good for pious recreation, maybe, but we should be resolved to be basically serious about all this
Because, of course - they were not. Emmerich was frivilous perhaps? I'm asking here. Pius IX? He had nothing better to do? Pope St. Pius X? Louis de Montfort? I could go on.
Important to them - important to Catholics.
at least some people from ruining the Christmas of others, especially their kids, by giving them Benedict XVI's bad book about Jesus.
At least he's open about it, and put it in print. I thought maybe I'd catch some further insight to this guy by getting his Stations of the Cross book. But that was pretty much Catholic. Apparently, though, he performed one VERY different, in person. Clever of him. Leave no written evidence.
As for the New Pentecost as a punishment on the lowly for making the poor, poor mighty on their thrones so bad, I cite against all cold comforters the entire Book of Job and the way in which the Master set the judgmental disciples straight when they asked who had sinned, the man born blind or his parents, that he should be born blind. Just put "born to see the Vatican II church" instead of "born blind" and the a new relevance of that Gospel is clearly revealed.
If that's your way of suggesting that the 'spirit of Vatican II' was partly a punishment on The Church for its laxity and the desire of so many to 'be as God', I would agree.
Even Traditionalists who are not sedevacantists have spoken of Rome as being run by antichrists.
And they 'resist to the face', the Pope that is; a Pope who is wrong about Catholic teaching, much of the time. Shouldn't that suggest something to them?
As for even coming close to linking up the Apocalypse to any other prophecies, that Divine Book contains dire warnings about adding to or subtracting from its own message.
They don't add. They speak of the same thing. And so they don't contradict. They speak of the same thing. The further details need not be believed. One need not believe in Fatima or Lourdes. But Catholics do.
Topic: Sedevacantists get a REAL bad name here... (Read 5164 times)