Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Amakusa on November 25, 2015, 07:48:16 AM
-
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. (http://stephanus-media.gloria.tv/07/mediafile-UMBwcf3a3no-1.pdf?upstream=bonifacius-media.gloria.tv%2fe&sum=7aFUdGCNqK-xYO52PeAHsw&due=1448539200&download=The-Survival-of-Paul-VI-Predicted-by-St.-John-the-Apostle-UMBwcf3a3no.pdf)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Amakusa,
I'm aware of this sequence of possibilities, which either you or someone like you mentioned on another forum. It's all possible, although to some it may be unlikely. However, you named this thread, "The Apocalypse Unveiled." Do you have more to tell us about the next phase of the current Church (or "Church")?
-
MMagdala, I will answer you by private message when I have time.
-
Thank you. :-)
-
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.
-
I find it amusing that Marie Auxiliadora has to explain this to Amakusa. You did a good job of it, Marie! Nice.
We shouldn't overlook that this Amakusa claims to be the author of a book on dogmatic theology (even though he doesn't know what a dogma is). :facepalm:
.
-
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.
-
reverse* the order
-
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.
-
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.
The purpose of my criticism was twofold: firstly, to remind that the literal meaning of the text is both primary and necessary to any understanding Scripture. It is therefore wrong to call the literal meaning of a scriptural text an "accommodated sense." The second purpose is that the specific text in question is never given the literal sense by Protestants which has to be directly and forcefully opposed by Catholics.
In A Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture by Dom Bernard Orchard, Rev. Edmund Sutcliffe, Rev. Reginald Fuller, Dom, Ralph Russell, et al. published under the direction of Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Bernard Giffin, it says, after citing St. Thomas on the "Senses of Scripture," that, "There is no sure road to the elucidation of the spiritual sense of Scripture save through the literal sense..... 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."
In addition to the previously mentioned three types of spiritual senses of Scripture, there is also a "Plenary Sense (Sensus Plenior)" which is a mix of the literal and spiritual sense. It is a literal sense in that the word refers to a specific thing for its meaning unlike the spiritual sense, where a thing refers to another thing for its meaning, but, it is like the spiritual sense in that the meaning is not initially evident because, "God may imply more in the words of Scripture than the human author is conscious of - a hidden meaning in fact which is revealed only later."
Furthermore the Commentary continues: "Every part of Scripture has a literal sense ....[and] there is no reason to except any part of the text from the law that every passage has its own literal sense. In the early ages of Christianity some writers of the school of Alexandria, endeavouring to draw the fullest spiritual doctrine from the Old Testament tended to do this in independence of the literal sense of the text and appeared at times even to deny the existence of the latter altogether. In modern times there has been a similar tendency. Such views have never been in accord with the tradition of the Church."
The authors then proceed to fault by name, H. de Lubac, for this error of exegesis. It is in fact a common method by all Modernists.
This commentary says regarding Apocalypse XII: "Who is this Woman? Clearly, the Mother of the Messias, but also of a vast posterity which endures to the end of time. She is, then, as symbolic as the Dragon, and indeed John says so, and is comparable with the 'Jerusalem on high, the Mother of us all' (Gal. 4:26): Jerusalem, whether terrestrial or ideal, especially as representing the whole people of God, the Bride of God, was certainly figured as a woman, mother of the Holy People from whom, the Old Testament times, the Messias was to come. The mass of tradition sees in the Woman both the ѕуηαgσgυє and the Church: there is no break, in God's eyes, between them..... This does not exclude John's having seen our Lady in this Woman- how could he not? Having spent so long in her company, he could not have written of the Mother of the Messias without being conscious of her, any more than he could have written about 'eating the flesh and drinking the blood' of Christ without thinking of the Eucharist. And the moment he thinks of the 'primeval serpent' he must have remembered Eve; so the Woman becomes the Second Eve, and we have the series - the 'Mother of the Messias': the Universal Eve: Jerusalem and the People: the Church and Mary. The immediate appearance of Mary as the Second Eve in patristic literature must surely be due in part to this passage."
The "travail" and "pain" to be delivered are attributes of the Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She is the "Mother of Sorrows" and appeared weeping to the children of La Salette because, as in giving birth to the "Man of Sorrows," the birth of the children of God is of the same kind of "travail" and "pain" differing only in degree. This is an example of the Plenary Sense because, pain being a subjective experience, can have more than one direct meaning. The pain the Blessed Virgin suffered at Calvary in becoming our Mother is purely spiritual pain but very real nonetheless. She is regarded as the Queen of Martyrs for this very reason.
A Catholic must always keep one foot grounded in the literal sense of Scripture when and before considering any spiritual sense.
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.
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."
Any profitable "discussions on the substance" must respect the primacy of the literal sense.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
This is the message I get when I tried to download the Book:
403 Forbidden
nginx/1.7.12
-
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.
The most ancien Fathers did not teach that the woman was "the Mother of God". The primary sense is the Church herself, and the 12 stars are the twelve apostles. Moreover, even if the primary sense were the Mother of God, it does not change anything, since there is a strong parallel between the attempt on Jesus' life and the attempt on the Martyr-Pope's life. I have explained it, but you don't answer. THus, you are seeking debate for debate, the pleasure of contradicting me, but not the truth. I don't know if you are a woman, but if such is the case, you should know that women have a kind of disability in theology, a lack of discernment, as a chastisement for the sin of Eve. Since you like to speak about the Church magisterium, then you should take account of this fact. Cookery is the matter of women, not theology and intellectual debates...
RomanCatholic1953, I don't understand why. Does anyone else meet this same problem?
-
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.
You keep saying this: "...since the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the Church."
Where do you get that, by the way?
.
-
I get that from the last pope accepted by the whole Church, who will one day be ranked among the apostles in Heaven.
-
Can you pronounce his name or do you prefer to play your silly games?
-
Now you're pushing him Neil. lol
-
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/docuмents/hf_p-vi_exh_19670513_signum-magnum.html
-
I can't too quickly accuse you of inconsistency since you're so wildly enthusiastic toward the abominable Vatican II and its principal advocate in history.
Certainly then you wouldn't logically be averse to quoting his infamous successor, since he used the term with much greater frequency.
Or, are you rather selective in your adherence to figures readily associated with bizarre innovations?
-
I don't support Vatican II. I have already explained the attitude of Paul VI regarding Vatican II.
Here is the prophecy which condemns all your false positions pertaining to the Church crisis:
The Prophecy of the Popes
The Prophecy of the Popes was published by Arnold Wion in 1595, in his Lignum Vitae. The docuмent is a list of Latin phrases or “mottos”, describing all popes of the Church history from Celestine II to the last pope to come, Petrus Romanus. Arnold Wion attributed this prophecy to St. Malachy. Father Ménestrier and several other writers attempted to refute this claim, arguing that the text was published only in 1595, in other words several centuries after the days of St. Malachy and that of the first popes mentioned in the list. But it would not be the first time that a literary work is recovered and published after a so long period of “inexistence”: for instance, the first known mention of the Codex Vaticanus is from the 15th century, whereas this old manuscipt of the Bible dates back to the 4th century! In 1901, Abbot Maître published a book where he well answered such kind of arguments. In the same way, it is utterly false to claim that the Latin phrases prior to 1595 are clearer and more relevant that the later mottos.
Before I read the book of Abbot Maître, La prophétie des papes attribuée à St. Malachy, I did not believe in this prophecy, I saw it as fanciful and I thought that it was not authentic. But Abbot Maître, who was a doctor of theology and philosophy, wrote a very good analysis which strongly supports the authenticity of this docuмent. However, the problem we are currently facing is that the Catholics do not understand the true meaning of the last mottos of this prophecy. Since the phrases predict both the situation of all popes (or antipopes) and that of the Church, the primary reason why the Catholics do not understand the last mottos is that the great majority of them do not understand the Church crisis.
The motto of Pope Paul VI is Flos Florum, because he is the “Flower of Flowers”, the Pope of popes (namely the best pope in history). He is none other than the Martyr-Pope of the end times. The authenticity of the prophecy of St. Malachy was confirmed by the Swiss exorcisms, and the demons were compelled by heaven to mention “the half moon”, which is the next motto after that of Paul VI. They explained that John Paul I and John Paul II were two half moons, because they had double-barrelled names. There is not a single pope or antipope in the whole history of the Church who chose a double-barrelled name, because they would have had the feeling that they were “half popes.” In 1999, Éric Faure explained in “Le Pape Martyr de la fin des temps” that Jason and Menelas, who usurped the high priesthood in the Old Covenant, bore Greek names in order to please their invaders, which contradicted the tradition of the Jews, since no high priest had ever chosen a foreign name. The current crisis of the Church is very similar to the maccabean crisis in many regards, but I have not the time to translate the work of Éric Faure. The Schism House has recently published some articles in which they try to make a parallel between the maccabean crisis and our current situation, but their comparison is not fully relevant, since they ignore the fact that there was a true pontiff in exile (Onias III) at the time of the maccabean crisis, whereas they claim that there is no pope in the present crisis!
During the Swiss exorcisms, the demons were compelled by heaven to declare that Wojtyla, “just like Luciani, received his light from the other pope [the true one], Paul VI, who is still living.” What is the meaning of such words? Abbot Maître, in his book, explained that the moon represented antipopes in the prophecy of St. Malachy: this is the case of Benedict XIII (1329-1423), whose motto is “Cosmedine moon” (he was the Cardinal-deacon of St. Mary in Cosmedin); but this is also the case of the antipope Felix V, who is described by the motto of Nicholas V (“the small moon”), because he put an end to his schism and submitted to Pope Nicholas. On the contary, the sun symbolizes the true Pope, whose light comes from Jesus Christ. In chapter XII of the Apocalypse, the woman is “clothed with the sun”, and has “the moon beneath her feet”. Antipopes do not emit their own light: their light is mere appearance, and they steal the true light ot the legitimate popes. For this reason, they are like the moon, which light comes from the sun. More interestingly, one should know that Wojtyla was created a Cardinal by Pope Paul VI in 19671, and Luciani in 1973. At the latter date, Paul VI was still not definitely replaced with a double: the definitive substitution occurred only in 1975. From 1972 to 1975, most of the time it was the true Pope who appeared in public, not the double; but in the course of 1975, the situation was reversed. Therefore, Luciani and Wojtyla were both created Cardinals by the true Pope. On the contrary, Raztinger was created a Cardinal by the double on June 27th 1977, and Bergoglio by Wojtyla (antipope John Paul II) on February 21st 2001: it means that they are not even valid Cardinals. That's one more reason why Luciani and Wojtyla share the “half moon” motto, whereas Ratzinger and Bergoglio share the next motto.
Moreover, Luciani and Wojtyla were elected while Pope Paul VI was still residing in the Vatican, as a prisoner, before he escaped from the Vatican on July 12th 1981. The “eclipse of the sun”, which is the next motto after them, had still not occurred: the Holy Father was to go into exile three years after their elections. But the prophecy is even more precise! There are two “half moons” in one single motto, two antipopes, because the exile of Pope Paul VI was to occur during the pontificate of Karol Wojtyla: one half moon plus one half moon makes a full moon, the moon of the next motto, which eclipses the sun! Then, why do Ratzinger and Bergoglio share the same motto, “the eclipse of the sun”? Because they were elected while the Holy Father was already in exile, and it is under their reign that he will reappear. But there is even one more reason, which proves that the prophecy of St. Malachy is truly and indisputably divine: the motto does not only describe the situation of Paul VI regarding the antipopes, it describes the situation of Bergoglio regarding Raztinger. On September 25th 2005, the French news “France 2” revealed that Bergoglio had got one third of the votes during the conclave of April, which prevented the election of Ratzinger at the beginning; but Bergoglio had then failed to be elected. This information came from a Cardinal who had broken the secret of the conclave. Thus, we can see that Bergoglio was eclipsed by Ratzinger during the conclave of 2005 (and the sun is in his coat of arms!), and he reappeared in 2013 just like the sun which reappears after its eclipse by the moon. In the same way, Pope Paul VI, who was eclipsed in 1981 (when he fled into exile) is to reappear in the coming years. Therefore, the motto describes both the situation of Ratzinger and Bergoglio, and that of the Church, whose chief is Pope Paul VI.
Most of the time, the mottos of the prophecy describe either the situation of the pope or antipope who is concerned, or the situation of the Church (and sometimes both). Thus, my analysis is in accordance with the common interpretation. The fact that four antipopes are grouped in two mottos is not a problem, for two reasons: firstly it is justified by the unprecedented situation we are facing, secondly the prophecy of St. Malachy has sometimes been hard to interpret, notably during the Great Eastern Schism (the true popes were not mentioned first!). In the prophecy, the antipopes are not described in the same way as the true popes: for instance, it seems that there is never a name of saint in the antipopes' mottos (otherwise, it would be desecrated in some way). But it is also interesting to note that during the Great Eastern Schism, the mottos of the antipopes only describe their situation as Cardinals, in order to show that they are not legitimate popes: Benedict XIII was Cardinal Deacon of St. Mary in Cosmedin (“The moon of Cosmedin”), Clement VII was Cardinal Priest of the Holy Apostles in Rome (“From the apostolic cross”); Alexander V was Archbishop of Milan (a “papabile” title), whose arms were a sun with wavy rays (“Whip of the sun”); and John XIII was Cardinal Deacon of St. Eustace of Rome, and came from Naples, which has the emblem of the siren (St. Eustace is often depicted with a stag): his motto is “Stag of the siren”. Therefore, my interpretation of the “half moon” motto is in accordance with the interpretation of the ancient mottos: the half moon symbolizes the situation of Cardinals Luciani and Wojtyla, who received their light from Pope Paul VI since they were named by him.
-
The demons also have told Fr. Gabriel Amorth in Rome that John Paul II is a powerful intercessor against them and that they flee from him.
REALLY? It's come to this? Abandoning theology for sensationalism?
-
I am speaking about an EXPIATORY POSSESSION, and about an exorcism performed by traditionalist priests, which is not the same thing as the so-called exorcisms of Fr. Amorth, who is a modernist. Fr. Waltz, who was the exorcist of the SSPX in France, also heard the demons declare that Paul VI was still alive.
You don't know the distinction between a common possession and an expiatory possession, such as that of Anneliese Michel.
Moreover, the prophecy of St. Malachy speaks for itself. All the attemps to interpret it are ridiculous; only my own solution is logical and relevant. It is the same for the chapters 12 to 18 of the Apocalypse.
-
I don't support Vatican II. I have already explained the attitude of Paul VI regarding Vatican II.
You don't support Vat.II, eh?
Pope Paul VI slammed down the hammer on anyone who posed the slightest resistance to the innovations of the REVOLUTION that was Vat.II. Maybe you're not old enough to know better, but then you ought to learn from those who were there, like I was.
This is what happened: He enforced it with every ounce of power he could muster. And you, the fan club groupie of Paul VI say you don't support Vat.II? What a joke. You're just loony, sonny.
.
-
http://www.lasurviedupapepaulvi.com/2013/12/pr%C3%A9sentation-du-blog-accueil.html
https://paulvisurvivalsecretfatima.wordpress.com/
-
Amakusa, you are simply nuts.
Off your rocker.
You should be locked up for your own protection.