I would like to hear what others think about the temptations of Christ in light of new Rome. If possible, I want to draw parallels between them. That is the theme.
La Sallette said that Rome would fall and become the seat of the anti christ. That could be an indication that Rome has succumb to the third temptation(the pope has made an act of worship of the devil - their passive evil teachings suffice).
The first temptation was for Christ to take stones and turn them into bread. Christ's response was that "man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God". Does this mean that the Novus ordo rite is invalid? Is it not our spiritual bread(the body of Christ)? Perhaps, but Christ said man doesn't live on bread "alone", meaning that perhaps the stone bread still is bread/valid. If it weren't bread, he might have said something like - "man doesn't live on stones". But, then we have the quote from luke 11:11 - "and which of you, if you ask his father bread, will he give him a stone?" This is an exact correlation the first temptation. It is fascinating. Christ seems to be saying that God does not give us a stone for bread. Still, with all of that said, I do believe that the novus ordo rite is a sacrilegious rite. Keep that in mind. As for its validity, I cannot say.
Luke 11:11 also says if you ask a fish will your father give you a serpent; or an egg a scorpion? Could these two be referring to who new Rome is trying to bring into the fold? They opened the doors to the world and are attracting homosexuals, usurers, the impious, the lustful, and the like. New Rome is not fishing for men and those who will live a new life in the spirit/Christ(a possible parallel to the "egg" - which signifies life about to be born).
Or, these food sayings could simply be referring to "accidents"(as opposed to catholic "substance") that vary from papacy to papacy. For example, Francis' black shoes aren't a deal breaker for me. Him not riding in a mercedes is not a deal breaker. Gothic vestments are not a deal breaker; and so on. They are accidents, and they could be interpreted as good(if it floats your boat).
Now, for the second temptation, what do you think it could be referring to in terms of Rome and the papacy? Could it be referring to the the exaggeration of what papal infallibility means(that is, papal impeccability). It is easy to confuse the two. And, being that St. Peter and Rome is referred to as "the rock", could that be a parallel with my thoughts on the first temptation's use of "stones". Following that train of though, could Christ's 1st temptation response about living off of every word that proceeds from the mouth of God be a reference to how Catholics relied to heavily on the infallibility of the Pope(the "stone/rock"), and not on the infallibility of the Church(what +Williamson says)? We all saw for ourselves how the lay effort sabotaged the homosexual agenda at the recent synod of the family. +Lefebvre entertained these ideas. It is believable that the holy ghost is still restraining the new Rome.
These are just some thoughts of mine. I hope you enjoy reading them. I think about this because R&R and the pope question are very important. When I fail to find a single traditional cleric in the right, it makes me think about this. It makes me think about the papacy, and schism. I have thoughts on how to properly R&R(if it is the correct response) that I have not heard discussed, but I want to discuss this first.