Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: LordPhan on June 11, 2011, 07:14:32 PM
-
Ok, so I am going to admit that before I joined this forum I had never heard the words "The Great Monarch Prophecy" before. I asked an online friend about it who attends FSSP mass in Oklahoma(but used to attend SSPX mass when he lived in Houston, Texas) and he gave me a little bit of information at least enough to know that the people here were talking about a legitamate prophecy.
So I started casually mentioning this at dinner parties when one of my friends who runs the bookstore at our chapel, and has been SSPX all his life I believe, and who has a VAST library, told me he'd give me a book with information on it.
The book is called "Phophecy for Today" and appears to have an intial copyright of 1956 and an updated one in the 1980's and reprinted by TAN in the 80's.
It has more prophecies but I was intrigued by the talks here of the great monarch and thusly turned immediately to that page. I have read the whole section now.
So I thought maybe we could have a discussion on this topic.
I'll begin by putting up some of the prophecies from the book on here.
Saint Hippolytus(Died 235): "The Great French Monarch who shall subject all the east shall come around the end of the world."
Saint Cataldus of Tarentino (c. 500): "The Great Monarch will be in war till he is forty years of age; a king of the House of Lily, he will assemble great armies and expel tyrants from his empire. He will conquer England and other island empires. Greece he will invade and be made a king thereof. Clochis, Cyprus, the Turks and barbarians he will subdue and have all men to worship the Crucified One. He will at length lay down his crown in Jerusalem."
Saint Caesar of Arles (469-543): "When the entire world, and in a special manner France, and in France more particularly the provinces of the north, of the eastm and above all that of Lorraine and Champagne, shall have been a prey to the greatest miseries and trials, then the provinces shall be succored by a prince who had been exiled in his youth, and who shall recover the crown of the lilies.
"This Prince shall extend his dominion over the entire universe. At the same time there will be a Great Pope, who will be most eminent in sanctity and most perfect in every quality. This Pope shall have with him the Great Monarch, a most virtuous man who shall be a scion of the holy race of the French Kings. This Great Monarch will assist the Pope in the reformation of the whole earth. Many princes and nations that are living in error and impiety shall be converted, and an admirable peace shall reign among men during manyyears because the wrath of God shall be appeased throgh repentance, penance and good works. There will be one common law, one only faith, one baptism, one religion. All nations shall recognize the Holy See of Rome, and shall pay homage to the Pope. But after some considerable time fervor shall cool, iniquity shall abound , and moral corruption shall become worse than ever, which shall bring upon mankind the last and worst persecution of Antichrist and the end of the world."
Ok I was typing that whole thing out, I have no digital copy to copy/paste from. And I'm tired. I'll add a few more later. In the mean time does anyone else have anything on the Great Monarch? Do most trads believe in it? I personally do.
-
Here is an interesting one from my book.
Werdin d'Otrante(13th century): "The Great Monarch and the Great Pope will precede antichrist."
"The Nation will be in wars for four years and a great part of the world will be destroyed. All the sects will vanish. The Capital of the world will fall. The Pope will go over the sea carrying the sign of redemption on his forehead, and after the victory of the Pope and the Great Monarch peace will reign on earth."
"The Pope will cross the sea in a year when the Feast of Saint George(April 23rd) falls on a Good Friday, and Saint Mark's feast (April 25th) falls on Easter Sunday, etc." (See Chapter 1, "Questionable Prophecies"; the next year for such a concurrance of feasts is 2038).
"The Great Monarch will come to restore peace and the Pope will share in the victory."
-
Is this the Dupont book? It's been cited quite a few times here, and I believe is available for download on the internet.
-
Is this the Dupont book? It's been cited quite a few times here, and I believe is available for download on the internet.
How do I know if it's the Dupont book?
It is written by Edward Connor it says. Naturally the prophecies should be the same even if they are different books. Where could I find this other one on the internet?
-
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/The-Great-Catholic-Monarch
This is a thread from this forum with useful info there.
I think a discussion on it is a good idea. I am interested if there is anything happening now that makes the appearance of the Monarch seem imminent.
also here:
http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/great-catholic-monarch.htm
-
No...I don't beleive in any monarch BS...the solution to monarchy has often been rule 303.
-
No...I don't beleive in any monarch BS...the solution to monarchy has often been rule 303.
Well you are entitled to you're opinion on this matter, but consider this; monarchy whether it be in it's absolute or constitutional forms is the form of government which is most natural for mankind. The reason for this is that it most closely mimics the natural order of the family (a nation being a large family), with either a mother (queen) or a father (king) and always children (the people). In a monarchy all the acts of government have restraint and (very) rarely flow into excess. Let's face it if the Kaiser was on the throne would there have been a WWII? If the Tsar was alive do you think Stalin could have acted as he did? Who was responsible for the Rwandan Genocide, Queen Elizabeth II? Don't think I'm suggesting that all republics commit crimes of that magnitude, but when a government has no constitutional restraint and is acting "in the name of the people" the results can be quite disastrous.
Aside from all of these secular arguments, the most important thing is that one day we will all live in a Kingdom... that of Heaven! One day we will be reigned over with Christ as our King and Mary as our Queen!
-
A Catholic doesn't have the right to say that monarchy was "solved" by "rule 303" (regicide). What an absolutely loathesome thing to say.
-
Let's face it if the Kaiser was on the throne would there have been a WWII? If the Tsar was alive do you think Stalin could have acted as he did? Who was responsible for the Rwandan Genocide, Queen Elizabeth II?
To be honest, I don´t think that would have made such a big difference.
Then, was it the Commonwealth of England that put that nation into schism and heresy? Who gave Luther the support in Germany? Didn´t the Holy Roman Emperor dissolve numerous monasteries and passed schismatic laws in the course of Josephinism? Didn´t Louis XVI. take an oath on the French constitution, already condemned by the Pope? Was it the President or King of Sardinia-Piedmont who stole the Patrimony of St. Peter? Did the Weimar Republic or the German Empire fight Catholicism in the Kulturkampf? And Napoleon, the First and the Third, was a Monarch, too! Juan Carlos, the Most Catholic King of Spain according to title, pressed Liberalism into the till then pretty sheltered Spanish society.
I could go one forever with this. Still, I favor a monarchical form of state, for the reason you mentioned above and which can be found in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.
But much more important is that the nation, may it be republican or monarchical, follows the right principles of governing, being obedient in all matters to the Catholic faith. Everything else is pretty much a matter of taste.
The President of the United States for example is much more a Monarch than Elizebath II. Truly, the term constitutional monarchy does not really apply to most of the so called monarchies we know, they are merely representative monarchies.
-
A Catholic doesn't have the right to say that monarchy was "solved" by "rule 303" (regicide). What an absolutely loathesome thing to say.
Not really...
-
No...I don't beleive in any monarch BS...the solution to monarchy has often been rule 303.
Well you are entitled to you're opinion on this matter, but consider this; monarchy whether it be in it's absolute or constitutional forms is the form of government which is most natural for mankind. The reason for this is that it most closely mimics the natural order of the family (a nation being a large family), with either a mother (queen) or a father (king) and always children (the people). In a monarchy all the acts of government have restraint and (very) rarely flow into excess. Let's face it if the Kaiser was on the throne would there have been a WWII? If the Tsar was alive do you think Stalin could have acted as he did? Who was responsible for the Rwandan Genocide, Queen Elizabeth II? Don't think I'm suggesting that all republics commit crimes of that magnitude, but when a government has no constitutional restraint and is acting "in the name of the people" the results can be quite disastrous.
Aside from all of these secular arguments, the most important thing is that one day we will all live in a Kingdom... that of Heaven! One day we will be reigned over with Christ as our King and Mary as our Queen!
Actually you are wrong....monarchy is not the most natural form of gov't for people. Even God preferred we not use that form...it was weakness and self abortion which caused the Hebrews to ask for a king in place of their better form...a request He at first declined....knowing better what was good for us....but we insisted and he gave so we could see our mistake up close and personal...
You are to INTERNALIZE Christ as your King so that you make right choices....this will make any form of .gov work...but it will be best suited and more probable in a freer society such as our republic.
God does not want slaves he wants us to choose rightly of our own free will.
-
A Catholic doesn't have the right to say that monarchy was "solved" by "rule 303" (regicide). What an absolutely loathesome thing to say.
Not really...
Rule 303 means regicide??? That's absolutely disgusting, please tell me what you think gives you the right to take the life of your monarch (or anybody)? You are aware that the calls for regicide (and revolutions) were born from Enlightenment thinking... in other words most anti Catholic thought. :argue:
-
No...I don't beleive in any monarch BS...the solution to monarchy has often been rule 303.
Well you are entitled to you're opinion on this matter, but consider this; monarchy whether it be in it's absolute or constitutional forms is the form of government which is most natural for mankind. The reason for this is that it most closely mimics the natural order of the family (a nation being a large family), with either a mother (queen) or a father (king) and always children (the people). In a monarchy all the acts of government have restraint and (very) rarely flow into excess. Let's face it if the Kaiser was on the throne would there have been a WWII? If the Tsar was alive do you think Stalin could have acted as he did? Who was responsible for the Rwandan Genocide, Queen Elizabeth II? Don't think I'm suggesting that all republics commit crimes of that magnitude, but when a government has no constitutional restraint and is acting "in the name of the people" the results can be quite disastrous.
Aside from all of these secular arguments, the most important thing is that one day we will all live in a Kingdom... that of Heaven! One day we will be reigned over with Christ as our King and Mary as our Queen!
Actually you are wrong....monarchy is not the most natural form of gov't for people. Even God preferred we not use that form...it was weakness and self abortion which caused the Hebrews to ask for a king in place of their better form...a request He at first declined....knowing better what was good for us....but we insisted and he gave so we could see our mistake up close and personal...
You are to INTERNALIZE Christ as your King so that you make right choices....this will make any form of .gov work...but it will be best suited and more probable in a freer society such as our republic.
God does not want slaves he wants us to choose rightly of our own free will.
Ok I'm "wrong", please tell me the most natural form of government for mankind. One in which we are not "slaves", instead one where we have liberties as in your republic. When you say that we are slaves in a monarchy, you clearly misunderstand it's nature.
A monarchy is a form of government where the head of state is a monarch, that is all it constitutes. It does not mean tyranny or some form of dictatorship, and yes the government can even include aspects of democracy. Seriously some of the most oppressive regimes in history were republics, nαzι Germany, Soviet Russia, Commie China (and the list goes on). In a monarchy the power of a government is limited by a monarch who has very real reasons for wanting to be just; wither it be egotistical or wanting to keep his people happy.
True liberty wears a crown my friend! :king:
-
scipio.
St. Thomas clearly favors monarchy as the best form of government ... for men. Sure, other forms are/can be acceptable, too, but it would seem to be a notable stretch to act as if the Angelic Doctor did not understand human nature, government, etc.
FWIW, any body, however large or small, must have ONE head. Even republics incorporate this undeniable principle.
-
FWIW, any body, however large or small, must have ONE head. Even republics incorporate this undeniable principle.
That is why dictatorships would also fall under St. Thomas qualification.
If think in general the notion of a monarchy is not understood (as slightly referred to in my first post here). It has nothing to do with some kind of romantic concept from the 19th century or fancy cloths and crown.
-
A Catholic doesn't have the right to say that monarchy was "solved" by "rule 303" (regicide). What an absolutely loathesome thing to say.
Not really...
I have several rules of my own: 556, 308, 350, 375, ect, take your pick. If we ever do get our longed for monarch, these rules can reach out and touch someone if there ever be a need to defend him.
-
ect,
Story time.
When I was little my parents bought me some toy from Toys "R" Us, on the back was labeling and whatnot, and there was the abbreviation ect. It has always thrown me off when I'm trying to abbreviate et cetera.
Writing this out will help me remember for next time. :dancing:
-
Actually you are wrong....monarchy is not the most natural form of gov't for people. Even God preferred we not use that form...it was weakness and self abortion which caused the Hebrews to ask for a king in place of their better form...a request He at first declined....knowing better what was good for us....but we insisted and he gave so we could see our mistake up close and personal...
You are to INTERNALIZE Christ as your King so that you make right choices....this will make any form of .gov work...but it will be best suited and more probable in a freer society such as our republic.
God does not want slaves he wants us to choose rightly of our own free will.
Do you believe this regarding the Papacy as well?
You say God did not prefer the Monarchist system, yet He ordained and blessed it on every occasion through the priests and prophets, and even went so far as to rule through that system by being born into it (regardless of His simplicity). Whenever there was a change in government in the OT, there was no establishment of a republic, just a change in monarch.
-
Scipio might have a touch of Autism or downs syndrome. She needs to be prayed for.
-
A Catholic doesn't have the right to say that monarchy was "solved" by "rule 303" (regicide). What an absolutely loathesome thing to say.
Not really...
Rule 303 means regicide??? That's absolutely disgusting, please tell me what you think gives you the right to take the life of your monarch (or anybody)? You are aware that the calls for regicide (and revolutions) were born from Enlightenment thinking... in other words most anti Catholic thought. :argue:
My monarch?
I don't have a massa wif a whip.....that's what gives the right of free men to eliminate a usurper...which is what any monarch would be.....a usurper.
-
scipio.
St. Thomas clearly favors monarchy as the best form of government ... for men. Sure, other forms are/can be acceptable, too, but it would seem to be a notable stretch to act as if the Angelic Doctor did not understand human nature, government, etc.
FWIW, any body, however large or small, must have ONE head. Even republics incorporate this undeniable principle.
I will address this at length in another thread as time permits...it'll be fun....almost as fun as madesty.
-
Actually you are wrong....monarchy is not the most natural form of gov't for people. Even God preferred we not use that form...it was weakness and self abortion which caused the Hebrews to ask for a king in place of their better form...a request He at first declined....knowing better what was good for us....but we insisted and he gave so we could see our mistake up close and personal...
You are to INTERNALIZE Christ as your King so that you make right choices....this will make any form of .gov work...but it will be best suited and more probable in a freer society such as our republic.
God does not want slaves he wants us to choose rightly of our own free will.
Do you believe this regarding the Papacy as well?
You say God did not prefer the Monarchist system, yet He ordained and blessed it on every occasion through the priests and prophets, and even went so far as to rule through that system by being born into it (regardless of His simplicity). Whenever there was a change in government in the OT, there was no establishment of a republic, just a change in monarch.
Via scripture it is clear He did not. And just because the Church found a way to bless and attempt to give graces to tyrants...well you know...the Church hands out baptism too....graces folks...Priests will bless your house and your car and even bless your friends....that is a paltry defense of monarchy as a form of .gov
Once a slave...it's hard to break free...hence the miracle that is the US - sins of the fathers held us back that long....gives you pause...
-
Actually you are wrong....monarchy is not the most natural form of gov't for people. Even God preferred we not use that form...it was weakness and self abortion which caused the Hebrews to ask for a king in place of their better form...a request He at first declined....knowing better what was good for us....but we insisted and he gave so we could see our mistake up close and personal...
You are to INTERNALIZE Christ as your King so that you make right choices....this will make any form of .gov work...but it will be best suited and more probable in a freer society such as our republic.
God does not want slaves he wants us to choose rightly of our own free will.
Do you believe this regarding the Papacy as well?
You say God did not prefer the Monarchist system, yet He ordained and blessed it on every occasion through the priests and prophets, and even went so far as to rule through that system by being born into it (regardless of His simplicity). Whenever there was a change in government in the OT, there was no establishment of a republic, just a change in monarch.
Via scripture it is clear He did not. And just because the Church found a way to bless and attempt to give graces to tyrants...well you know...the Church hands out baptism too....graces folks...Priests will bless your house and your car and even bless your friends....that is a paltry defense of monarchy as a form of .gov
Once a slave...it's hard to break free...hence the miracle that is the US - sins of the fathers held us back that long....gives you pause...
Show me one president (besides Gabriel Garcia Moreno) who's term received the blessing of the Church.
And cut the crap about slavery. You don't shit about what slavery is, Taxpayer.
-
Show me one president (besides Gabriel Garcia Moreno) who's term received the blessing of the Church.
Hm...Fr. Josef Tiso, Charles de Gaulle, Ngo Dinh Diem, Ante Pavelić, Miklós Horthy, Maréchal Pétain, Konrad Adenauer, Napoleon Bonaparte, Francisco Franco, António de Oliveira Salazar...and just whosoever was in power.
-
I will address this at length in another thread as time permits...it'll be fun....almost as fun as madesty.
Whatever floats your boat :)
-
Hm...Fr. Josef Tiso
Tiso's government received the blessing of the Church?
Miklós Horthy
Wasn't Horthy the regent of a monarchy?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Can you tell us of the relationship between Bonaparte and the Church?
I noticed Engelbert Dolfuss' name was absent. Was his government not blessed?
-
Hey scipio, do you have purple hair? Because you sure seem to be obsessed with using profile images with purple hair. And you seem like the kind of person that would. Seriously, your profile image is immature. No surprise coming from FishEaters though...
-
SpiritusSanctus said:
Seriously, your profile image is immature.
It's worse than immature. It's from an obscene movie called Kick-Ass that I posted about a year ago or so. The movie is most "famous" for its character of Hit Girl, a female child assassin. Wildly creative, isn't it? It is Hit Girl in his avatar. I should also mention the character of Hit Girl uses salty language, including the word "c--t."
Keep in mind that a real child played this role, it isn't an animation. Therefore a real child was degraded in front of the entire world in the making of this trashy film. But I suppose it would make you a crocodile-tear-weeping pseudo-trad to be against such fun-loving wholesome material, right?
I would like to put up a picture of the Jєωιѕн screenwriter who wrote Kick-Ass, a woman named Jane Goldman, who has dyed flaming red hair, giant breasts, and likes to pose sitting on thrones embellished with skulls, but I can't find one that is appropriate for this website.
-
Tiso's government received the blessing of the Church?
There must have been, since Fr. Tiso could not become the head of a state without special permission, especially as he continued to function as priest. The Hlinka-movement was very clericalist since its beginnings.
After the war Fr. Tiso fled to a German monastery, from which he was dragged out by American GI´s, given then to the Communists who subsequently murdered him.
Wasn't Horthy the regent of a monarchy?
De jure, but de facto Hungary was a republic. No chance that H.I.H. Otto von Habsburg could have returned.
Can you tell us of the relationship between Bonaparte and the Church?
He was supposed to be crowned by the Pope, that is quite something - I would even go as far as to say that at this day the revolution was crowned by the Church.
Of course also the Concordat of 1801 and the recognition of the (then former) Constitutional Clergy, causing the schism of the Petite Église, which saw the martyrdom of the orthodox clergy and faithful betrayed by the Roman Pontiff himself.
I noticed Engelbert Dolfuss' name was absent. Was his government not blessed?
You are completely right! The list I gave is of course very much incomplete.
I did not want to give the impression that the Church only "blessed" fascist or strongly authoritarian structures. While a formal "blessing" was probably absent for many democratic republics, the Church certainly worked together closely with them.
And in the past there are also all the old Merchant Republics of Italy, for sure they are all blessed, too. There are actually even special rubrics for how a President of a nation is to be treated during Mass - not just for monarchs. But like I mentioned before, being a monarch has nothing to do with blue blood and golden regalia. Dictatorships, Presidential republics etc. are not opposed to St. Thomas idea of a monarchy at all.
-
Interesting Raoul. Thanks. No surprise that's what scipio chose for an avatar.