There is much discussion among us about the Church crisis, and we have not the same ideas at all on this matter. Some quote Mgr. Lefebvre, some quote Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers or Bishop Sanborn, some quote Abbot Cekada or several other persons,etc. But all those men are not God; thus, isn't the true question: what God has to tell us?

The Apocalypse of St. John describes the whole history of the Church, and it comes from God. Therefore, there is no way to find a better answer than to read this divine book.

Sister Lucy said that the Third Secret of Fatima was already in the Apocalypse, especially in chapter 17, which describes the "Great Harlot" (the false Church). She also said one more important thing: when she revealed the prophecy "In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved", she declared that this prediction unveiled the Third Secret in some way. Well, Sister Lucy meant that this Secret predicted the exile of a Pope, following the apostasy of Rome; and thus the dogma of the faith was to be preserved in Portugal, because the true Pope would escape to this country. However, I am not supporting the Siri thesis, and you will see why... In your Anglo-american countries, when a traditional Catholic mentions the Pope in exile, everybody thinks about Cardinal Siri. Such is not the case in Europe, and especially in France and Switzerland.
 
In the Apocalypse, there is an enigma pertaining to the periods stated from chapter 12 and in the following chapters: 1260 days, 42 months, and "times, a time and half a time". Have you ever wondered why it is stated in three different ways? My brother, after he had received a private revelation on this issue, managed to solve the enigma (you will see how)...

In chapter 12, we can read about the fallen angels and the "woman" (the Virgin Mary). But that's only an accomodated sense: the primary meaning is eschatological. The most ancient Fathers taught that the woman represented the Church, and not the Virgin Mary in a primary sense. In the same way, the fallen angels allude to an apostasy of the clergy, since the angels are often bishops in the Apocalypse, for instance in the "seven messages to the seven Churches": the angel of each Church is a bishop. Chapter 9 annouces the end times and describes the fall of Luther and the heresies of Protestantism, which are to last "five months", which means "five centuries" (since modernism is only a resurrection of Protestantism): when it comes to the Bible prophecies, it is sometimes necessary to convert the dates in order to unveil the predictions (for instance in the case of Daniel's prophecies). Chapter 12 depicts our time. It mentions two battles: the first inside "heaven", which means "inside the Church", since heaven in the Apocalypse is often the Church; and the second on earth, when the dragon is cast out upon earth: it is the battle ouside the Church. The first battle refers to the reign of the Great Harlot (the false Church); the second to the reign of Antichrist.

The language of the Apocalypse is symbolic but rather precise, I demonstrate it in my book. Here, my purpose is not to give you a detailed demonstration about the meaning of this language, for you can read my book. In chapter 12, the "wilderness" symbolizes apostasy, as we can see in the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, the Church was to go into exile after the apostasy caused by the dragon (in that sense, the indication is chronological). It is a spiritual exile (like that of the Hebrew), but it is also a material one, that of the true Pope. This Pope is the son of the woman: he is to rule with an iron rod because he is to come back and to judge the Great Harlot, namely the false Church. The son alludes to Our Lord only in an accommodated sense, as was explained by Father Kramer in his book in detail. The iron rod symbolizes the separation of the good with the wicked, when the Holy Father will excommunicate the members of the counterfeit Church (after his return).

The mention of the "son of man" in chapter XIV does not primarily allude to Our Lord and the Last Judgment, for the Last Judgment is depicted only from chapter XIX. It refers to the Pope who is to judge the Great Harlot, the false Church.

Now, let's talk about the year 1972. Why have I said that this date of the Third Secret is mentioned in the Apocalypse?

My brother has explained, in a book he has translated into English, the interpretation of the "three periods": 1260 days, 42 months, and "times, a time, and half a time"...
Of course, one of the most obvious sense is that the reign of Antichrist will last 3 years and a half. But the fact that the periods are stated in three different ways means that there are two other meanings.
Let's remember that the "woman" of chapter 12 has found a refuge in the wilderness for 1260 days. What does it mean? It means that the Church has found a refuge in the Eternal City (Rome), and thus in a former pagan country, or in an area surrounded of pagans. But why "for 1260 days"? It means that the Church has found a refuge for 1260 years, from the Donation of Pepin and the creation of the Papal States, until 2014, when the false prophet Karol Wojtyla was falsly and invalidly canonized: from this date, the Vatican belongs to Antichrist. That's a symbolic date, and I explain it more precisely in my book.
When my brother received a revelation which told him that the Vatican was about to be occupied by Antichrist in 2014, he did not understand this prediction; but after the invalid and sacrilegious canonization of Karol Wojtyla, he understood that the meaning of this prophecy was symbolical. Since the sad event of 2014, the Vatican is consecrated to Antichrist.  

Finally, what means 42 months? It means that the exile of the woman is to last 42 years, approximately and symbolically (just like the exile of the Hebrew in the desert under Moses). 2014 - 42 = 1972 which is the date mentioned in the prophecy of Jacinta.
 
Now, what means the year 1972? That's the date of Paul VI's replacement with a double.

At this point of the discussion, most people reject my messages and mock me, or even insult me (which is almost the same), but I never mind, FOR I KNOW A PRIEST WHO HAS SEEN POPE PAUL VI ALIVE IN 2007, AT FATIMA, WHEN HE WAS NOT EVEN IN THE TRUE CHURCH AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT THE CRISIS: he was a Novus Ordo priest at that time!

Sadly, you English guys know "the double matter" only through Veronica Lueken, whose messages became false in 1978. But what you don't know is that the Swiss exorcisms, in the "Warnings from beyond to the contemporary Church", kept taking place after 1978, and did not only mention the replacement of Paul VI with a double; they mentioned his survival. It was stated in the book "The Church in danger", of Bonaventur Meyer. In the 1960s and 70s, most of the messages that defended the Tradition and Mgr Lefebvre said that Paul VI had been betrayed (and already John XXIII), that nearly all his docuмents and speeches were modified (even some docuмents of the council), and that he would be replaced with an antipope.

Sedevacantism is absolutely impossible for reasons pertaining to the Apostolic succession, I have demonstrated it extensively in a book on dogmatic theology.

There is not a single private revelation telling us that Cardinal Siri has went into exile and is still alive. On the contrary, there are several revelations predicting the exile of Paul VI and the coming of an antipope; and the Swiss exorcisms even said that he escaped from the Vatican on July 12th, 1981.
 
I know in advance that you will tell me: "he would be 117 years old, he has destroyed the Church",etc. But firstly there are several people who have died older (even recent cases), and secondly many accounts and docuмents are distorted when it comes to the papacy of John XXIII and that of Paul VI...

However, it is not my purpose to be aggressive with anybody: I don't force anybody to believe in Paul VI's survival. But you should remember one thing: it is not me who has invented the prophecy of Jacinta and the year 1972. Moreover, Paul VI is the last Pope who has been accepted by the whole Church (none of his successors have been, because of the schism of the new mass), and no other election has occured since: which is a dogmatic proof that he is alive.

My book also explains the true meaning of the prophecy of St. Malachy, in its last mottoes. This prophecy is authentic, as was demonstrated by Abbot Maître in his book "La prophétie des papes attribuée à Saint Malachie", and that's the most important private prophecy in the Church.

Download my book.

I suppose he could have found the masonic fountain of youth

How many Catholics will be pleased to hear that Pope Paul VI is still alive at 117 years old?  Can we have a show of hands?

And this coming from someone who doesn't know what a dogma is.

MMagdala, I will answer you by private message when I have time.

In chapter 12, we can read about the fallen angels and the "woman" (the Virgin Mary). But that's only an accomodated sense: the primary meaning is eschatological. The most ancient Fathers taught that the woman represented the Church, and not the Virgin Mary in a primary sense.

I respectfully disagree with this assessment.  It is incorrect to conclude that because the Church Fathers spoke only of the spiritual sense of this passage that it is therefore its "primary sense."

The "primary sense" is always the literal sense unless it is clearly impossible.  The literal "Woman" is the Blessed Virgin Mary.  The vision of St. John begins by seeing the type of the Blessed Virgin Mary that is, the Ark of the Covenant, and then immediately sees the anti-type, the Blessed Virgin Mary herself, who herself is also a type of the Church.  The Fathers are referring to what the type refers but the type herself is a literal image seen of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  The Church in her liturgy specifically applies this text literally to the Blessed Virgin.  On the feast of the Miraculous Medal the epistle is taken from this text.  Besides the Miraculous Medal, God to insure that there is no mistaking the matter has decreed the image of our Lady of Guadalupe and the miracle of the sun at Fatima to confirm this correct understanding.  So just as Adam is a type of Christ but still a literal person, the Woman of the Apocalypse is a type of the Church but still a literal woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

St. Thomas speaks about the literal and spiritual sense of scriptural understanding.  The literal sense is how the words refer to things; how the word is a sign of a specific reality.  The spiritual sense is how things refer to other things.  The spiritual sense includes the typological, moral and anagogical (eschatological)  senses. St. Thomas says that the literal sense must be "primary" and further says that any truth that is taught metaphorically in scripture is taught literally elsewhere.  When Church Fathers refer to the "Woman" as a type of the Church, they are ignoring what is already obvious to everyone and requires no further comment, that is, the literal sense, and discuss what may not be obvious to everyone, that is, the spiritual sense, that the "Woman" is a type of the Church.  The "Woman" is just as literal a person as her Son who will "rule all nations with a rod of iron," is a literal Son, Jesus Christ, and she is the mother, literally, of "the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."  The literal meaning is so obvious that it has only required an age as stupid as our own to have to point it out.  The Church Fathers took it for granted. To take the literal meaning of scripture and refer to it as an "accommodated sense" is to turn scripture on its head.

There is no reason to be agressive and to mock me, Neil Obstat. Our religion is not about mockery and derision...

It is hard for me to explain it in English, since it is not my native language, but the truth of a statement depends on its angle. When I say that the Virgin Mary in chapter 12 is an accomodated sense, I mean that the Apocalypse is primarily an eschatological writing. But if you have another point of view, you will inverse the order. For this reason, this discussion is not interesting at all... Fr. Bernard Kramer, who was a very learned man and knew several languages, said rightly that the Virgin Mary is not the primary meaning. Therefore, I am not an idiot...

Neil Obstat, the sedevacantist guys who post on this forum do not even know the difference between a legal act of the Magisterium and its content itself, therefore you are not the one to mock me about dogmatic theology. You guys have endless debates because you do not even understand this distinction. You believe that the whole text of a council is infallible, which is not the case at all: only the part pertaining to the definition is infallible. But we will not have this debate here.

Thank you Marie, but it would be better if we had some more interesting discussions, on the substance.

If the woman of chapter XII were primarily the Blessed Virgin, then you would have a hard time explaining me how she suffers "the tortures of labour"!

Read James J. L. Ratton on this issue.

Sound exegesis will on the one hand take full account of the spiritual teaching of the Bible and yet at the same time require a solid foundation on the literal sense of Scripture for any spiritual meaning brought out.

-> Well such is the case here, since Wojtyla has tried to murder Pope Paul VI, just like Herod has tried to murder the son of the Virgin Mary. The pope is the son of the Church and the Virgin Mary is the Mother of the Church. Therefore, your point is not interesting at all. Debate for debate is not what matters; seeking the truth is the only thing which matters.

Most Lefebvrists and sedevacantists know nothing about mystical theology, and they lose their time in pharisaic debates. My interpretation of the Apocalypse is based on the symbolic language of this prophetic Book, described by the best commentators; and Fr. Kramer surely is definitely one of the best commentators of modern times, since he read the best books on the Apocalypse, in several languages.

The true intelligence is synthetic, not analytical. Modern intelligence is nothing but illness.

I do not understand this criticism.  In discussions with those who deny dogma as dogma, it is common to see them appeal to the non-infallible textual commentaries from a council to justify a non-literal interpretation of dogma.  Neil Obstat does not do this which is always refreshing to see.  But as you say, "we will not have this debate here."

It seems that you have not understood what I have said. In any text of the magisterium pertaining to doctrine, only the definition is infallible, not the whole text. For instance the arguments of the pope in favor of the Immaculate Conception are not infallible, only the definition of the Immaculate Conception is infallible. Now, there is no definition properly speaking in Vatican II.

Quote

Sound exegesis will on the one hand take full account of the spiritual teaching of the Bible and yet at the same time require a solid foundation on the literal sense of Scripture for any spiritual meaning brought out.

-> Well such is the case here, since Wojtyla has tried to murder Pope Paul VI, just like Herod has tried to murder the son of the Virgin Mary. The pope is the son of the Church and the Virgin Mary is the Mother of the Church. Therefore, your point is not interesting at all. Debate for debate is not what matters; seeking the truth is the only thing which matters.

Most Lefebvrists and sedevacantists know nothing about mystical theology, and they lose their time in pharisaic debates. My interpretation of the Apocalypse is based on the symbolic language of this prophetic Book, described by the best commentators; and Fr. Kramer surely is definitely one of the best commentators of modern times, since he read the best books on the Apocalypse, in several languages.

The true intelligence is synthetic, not analytical. Modern intelligence is nothing but illness.

Quote

I do not understand this criticism.  In discussions with those who deny dogma as dogma, it is common to see them appeal to the non-infallible textual commentaries from a council to justify a non-literal interpretation of dogma.  Neil Obstat does not do this which is always refreshing to see.  But as you say, "we will not have this debate here."

It seems that you have not understood what I have said. In any text of the magisterium pertaining to doctrine, only the definition is infallible, not the whole text. For instance the arguments of the pope in favor of the Immaculate Conception are not infallible, only the definition of the Immaculate Conception is infallible. Now, there is no definition properly speaking in Vatican II.

True intelligence is directed toward truth as an end and necessarily must be grounded in the real.  "Synthetic intelligence" that produces fantasy is worthless.  

I understand fully what you have said regarding the distinction between dogma and textual commentary from councilar docuмents.  What I do not understand is your accusation that Neil Obstat does not understand this distinction.  That accusation is false.  

The most ancient interpreters taught that the woman of chapter XII was the Church, not the Holy Mother of God. But it is essentially the same thing, since the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the Church. Thus, this debate is pointless, analytical.

Here you are simply repeating the same error that prompted my comments.  That is your problem.  I will repeat again for others, the woman in the Apocalypse is literally the Mother of God and every spiritual sense that is not grounded in this fact will be erroneous.  Protestants who deny this literal sense of this scriptural text draw a false understanding of the spiritual sense regarding the nature of the Church.

If you do not or will not understand the primacy of the literal sense you should avoid any comments on sacred Scripture.