I understand the desire to be "positive" and "hopeful" about the future...
but our hope is not in this world but in the next.
The thing is, at Vatican II 99% of the cardinals and bishops, along with the pope
signed public docuмents
declaring that the Muslim god "Allah"
is the same God Catholics worship
and he will be "mankind's judge on the last day"
and that wasn't the Great Apostasy?
They threw out the First Commandment
and the need for Jesus' sacrifice and
that wasn't the Great Apostasy?
I guess I don't understand what the Great Apostasy would actually look like.
How do you envision it to actually look when it comes?
I'll start another thread because I'm confused on this topic.
I don't hold that Vatican II was the Great Apostasy. Vatican II was the seed of the Great Apostasy, but the latter is yet to come.
Did 99% of the Hierarchy not apostatize?
No. Apostasy is the complete repudiation of Christianity.
So if you were to sign public docuмents that declare Muslims worship the same god as Catholics and that the Muslim god will judge mankind on the last day
would that mean you repudiated Christianity?
Would that mean you left the Catholic Church or would you still be a member in good standing?
To be clear, here is the quote from Lumen Gentium:
The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and
together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Could you or I sign that and still be IN the Catholic Church?
Could we still hold an office IN the Catholic Church?
To deny one dogma is to reject Christ and His Church is it not??
That is not an unequivocal repudiation of Christianity.
So if you were to sign public docuмents that declare Muslims worship the same god as Catholics and that the Muslim god will judge mankind on the last day
would that mean you repudiated Christianity?
Would that mean you left the Catholic Church or would you still be a member in good standing?
To be clear, here is the quote from Lumen Gentium:
The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and
together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Could you or I sign that and still be IN the Catholic Church?
Could we still hold an office IN the Catholic Church?
To deny one dogma is to reject Christ and His Church is it not??
Hmm...okay. So help me understand, please. :)
We can sign docuмents that essentially say
"People don't need no First Commandment"
and
"People don't need no Jesus"
cuz one god is as good as another
and still remain in the Church?
To me the heretical part is the part including Muslims in the "plan of salvation." You could argue that all men are included as potential converts to Christ, but the mark here is simply "acknowledg[ing] a creator," not simply being human and capable of conversion to Christ and the Gospel. So a benign interpretation doesn't cut it for me.Except it refers to the Muslim god as the judge.... Jesus Christ is the judge...
The other saying could be read as Muslims worship a merciful, but judging, god, which they do.
To me the heretical part is the part including Muslims in the "plan of salvation." You could argue that all men are included as potential converts to Christ, but the mark here is simply "acknowledg[ing] a creator," not simply being human and capable of conversion to Christ and the Gospel. So a benign interpretation doesn't cut it for me.
The other saying could be read as Muslims worship a merciful, but judging, god, which they do.
Except it refers to the Muslim god as the judge.... Jesus Christ is the judge...
:facepalm:
Good grief. Yeah, of course, but the statement says simply they worship a God that judges.
I'm not defending the statement. I said, "it could be read . . ." They do worship a God who judges. It could be read simply that way. Again, I said "could."
You could also read what I said as, "I have a bigger problem with . . . " I was not saying the other part is fine, especially with its implications, but the other part is worse for me, much worse.
Sadly, it makes it clear they worship "together with us".
So not just "a god" but the same God as us.
Do you think they worship the same God as Catholics
and worship "together with us"?
I don't. I think that is blasphemous and a complete repudiation of the First Commandment
and a denial of Our Lord Jesus Christ
qualifying them as "antichrists"
as St John defined.
Sadly, it makes it clear they worship "together with us".
So not just "a god" but the same God as us.
Do you think they worship the same God as Catholics
and worship "together with us"?
I don't. I think that is blasphemous and a complete repudiation of the First Commandment
and a denial of Our Lord Jesus Christ
qualifying them as "antichrists"
as St John defined.
In order for one to accuse another who claims to be Catholic of "heresy" he needs sufficient evidence that the other pertinaciously denies or doubts a proposition that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith or asserts a proposition that is in contradiction to a teaching of the Church that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith. What you are doing is making a blanket statement for all the individuals concerned. That is wrong. You haven't proven your case for heresy, let alone apostasy for all the individuals concerned.
No, Muslims don't worship the true God and will go to hell if they don't convert.
How many times do I have to say I'm not defending the statement? I don't agree with the statement, and never said I did.
+Lefebvre signed the docuмents. Was he too an "apostate"?
I've thought about this before. All those bishops signed the docuмents right? They contain many heresies, and alot of them knew about it because they voted against them right? So when they signed did they all exit the Church? I guess the first place to start would be how did the Church deal with bishops and priests who participated in false councils in the past.
“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”St. Robert Bellarmine:
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”St. Antoninus:
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact(ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church… A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913
“The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”Pope Innocent III:
“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”Matthaeus Conte a Coronata — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950
“If indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949
“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”Edward F. Regatillo — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1956
“‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could he be its head.”
I think the question is-
Can an infallible magisterium produce a council filled with errors, ambiguities, heresies, whether by accident or on purpose? Vatican Council II teaches freedom of conscience, freedom of religion ( both in the non traditional catholic meaning), separation of church and state, collegiality and false ecuмenism. There is no way possible that the novus ordo hierarchy is a Catholic hierarchy.
Can an infallible Catholic magisterium produce a liturgy described as a banal on the spot creation by Cardinal Ratzinger, which was created by six protestant ministers and a free mason?
That doesn't sound very apostolic- one of the four marks of the church. We all know the defects inherent in the novus ordo liturgy. Can the authentic Catholic magisterium promulgate a liturgy with defects? That doesn't seem possible.
Oh, you have opened another thread, okay, coypaste from the other thread:Is it necessary for ALL nations to BE Catholic or just that the Gospel has been preached to ALL nations? Or just if there is one Catholic living in every nation?
Well, there are countries that were never Christian: Japan, China, Arabia, etc. If the Great Apostasy is global, it cannot happen yet.
I think they believe it because of this.
Vatican Council II is not done-it is happening now. The novus ordo fake church is Vatican Council II in practical application.Saint Pope Pius X is true church.
The Catholic Church personified by Saint Pius X, or the church personified by Jorge and company-past and present. Only one of them is the real Catholic Church.
Is it necessary for ALL nations to BE Catholic or just that the Gospel has been preached to ALL nations? Or just if there is one Catholic living in every nation?
Yes. Which should explain why Drolo's comments are irrelevant (I don't mean that in a mean way Drolo): the Apostasy doesn't have to wait until all countries are "Christian".
Scripture is clear: preached. Mt 24:14
While in agreement with your concerns I disagree with your conclusion. You will not have doubts about The Great Apostasy because the greater part of mankind will believe themselves to be God. This is the hallmark of Anrichrist--man in the place of God.The Antichrist will pretend to be God, yes. 2 Thessalonians 2. But. Will the mankind do it? What is the source?
Is it really possible that in this day and age there's someone that has never heard of Christianity or the Catholic Church? Surely the Gospel has been preached to, and throughout, the world.North Sentinel, but is a tiny irrelevant exception, the Gospel has been preached throughout the world.
Vatican II is definitely the public 180 turning away from what preceded it. I'd contend it was the beginning/signal that the world had entered a distinct era - the Great Apostasy - and the Fatima miracle was the announcement that it was near.
How many of them have made a public abjuration of error?
You are assuming that which you have not proven, that is, that they are all public manifest formal heretics.
Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration.
These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.
You have not proven that they have publicly defected from the Catholic Faith. This requires proof of pertinacity or the joining of a sect that is formally established and known to be non-Catholic..
I don't know. Is he exempt?
Did he make an abjuration of error?
.
If you think people in the Novus Ordo church have not defected from the Catholic Faith, then could you please explain the nature and purpose of the traditional Catholic world?
You have not proven that they have publicly defected from the Catholic Faith. This requires proof of pertinacity or the joining of a sect that is formally established and known to be non-Catholic.
They signed docuмents which are a public defection of the Catholic Faith and they didn't make a public abjuration of error.
They did not necessarily knowingly, consciously, and willingly sign docuмents that were a public defection of the Catholic Faith. Once again, you are making a blanket statement.
They didn't know?
Each and every individual did not necessarily......
These quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre show that the council docuмents were purposely misleading and were signed by many in good faith and good will. This ambiguity and intentionally misleading wording of the council docuмents is proof that these docuмents are not from the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church. In the biography by Bishop T. De Mallerais, on page 382 we read that in February, 1966, the Archbishop was planning to publish a bulletin with analysis in favor of "A sound interpretation of the Council".It seems that many who signed, intended to sign with the traditional meaning and context as their reason and not with heretical intentions.
- “…it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy, despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.” (from I Accuse the Council)
- “Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. It is not just words, it is not just words in the air that I say to you. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy. One cannot have confidence any more in this world. He [the pope] has left the Church; they have left the Church; they are leaving the Church; It is sure, sure, sure! I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that you cannot say that the pope is not the pope”. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987)
It seems that many who signed, intended to sign with the traditional meaning and context as their reason and not with heretical intentions.
To give the benefit of doubt. Can it be said that the council docuмents were similar to terms and conditions that no one ever reads?
I agree that there is a lot of ambiguous language involved with the VII docuмents.
However this part seems pretty straight forward:
LG: The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and
together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.
I don't see how that can be taken in a "traditional sense". :confused:
Is that found anywhere in Catholic Tradition?
Whether the statement comes from an infallible or non-infallible source
it's not something a Catholic can sign without consequences.
The consequence is public apostasy from the Faith.
Lefebvre was clearly against the council so did he at some point he make a public abjuration of his error?
To give the benefit of doubt. Can it be said that the council docuмents were similar to terms and conditions that no one ever reads?
I.e that the heretic statements were hidden/glossed over?
I kind of feel a little responsible for this thread since I'm the one that brought up the minority opinion in another thread.
I've read a lot of material on this, sorry I won't have many sources, I'm terrible at that, I read so many things and never archive or remember where I got them or read them to reference later, that being said, if you don't want to buy what I'm selling then I understand, I will try to find some of the sources where I got all this.
Firstly, I'm a strong believer in the Catholic Restoration that will take place and the 6th Age of The Church, Reign of Mary and the resurgence of The Catholic Monarchy, the Greatest Ecuмenical Council and Holy Popes, etc. I know there's links to a lot of this right here on Cathinfo so I won't source those but there's topics on it. There's a lot of prophecy about this. I'm aware they're not infallible, but there is a lot of supporting evidence for this as well besides this. Miser I've seen your sources trying to refute this but I disagree with them.
Secondly, The Great Apostasy makes more sense in a context if basically the entire world, after converting to the True Faith, then go apostate. Would it not be a much greater apostasy if 95% of the world is Catholic and then 90% apostasize and side with Antichrist? In this time and past history, at the height of the Middle Ages/Christendom maybe only 30% of the world was actually Catholic and even though The Faith spread, it probably never was higher than this number, and that number is quite generous considering Protestant Revolt, spread of Islam, Paganism, Atheism, Modernism, etc.
By the time of Antichrist there will be 2 religions. The True Catholic one and Luciferianism/Satanism, this is one of the reasons why there will be no excuse for those who take The Mark. There will be no more Moslems, Protestants, etc. Basically the entire world is going to convert to The True Faith before THE Antichrist comes out into the world view. Why the big change is not the scope of this post and can be speculated.
Thirdly, the Book of Apocalypse references monarchs quite often, this only makes sense (technically speaking) if there was a resurgence of a world monarchal structure. I understand Sacred Scripture is not always super technical and is sometimes figurative.
Fourthly, what a lot of Church Fathers explain about the end times and Apocalypse is not going on
at this time. The two events/periods (Great Apostasy and Apocalypse) coincide in Sacred Scripture, we don't have all of that tied together yet. Kind of a side point, but according to them, the world will end very shortly after death of Antichrist (within days I believe is what is most said), I think both of these points are unanimous although I'm not 100% certain on that point, which if this is the case, refutes any supposed Antichrists in these or recent times as a lot of other things need to happen before that (Enoch, Elias, the Trumpets, Antichrist making people take The Mark, etc.)
I know some of the books I read were Reign of Antichrist by Rev. Culleton, Antichrist by Dupont, Book of Destiny, The Book of Apocalypse, and reading various Church Fathers on the topic and many other things. Sorry for my terrible sourcing.
Personally I think the enemies of God are trying to institute all of this now (Full on Beast System, etc.) to get ready for Antichrist but I think the 3 Days of Darkness will wipe out most of the enemies before they fully implement their system to where a resurgence of The True Faith can flourish like never before.
St. John Eudes states in his book “The Life and the Kingdom of Jesus Christ In Christian Souls”: pray especially for those who will have to suffer the persecution of the Antichrist at the end of the world for it will be the most cruel and horrible persecutions.
BUT THEN in another book called “The Admirable Heart of Mary” he goes on to explain that with the defeat of the Antichrist shall come the most glorious Triumphant period of the Church!
It goes as follows:
All the holy Fathers (16) agree that after the death of antichrist
the whole world will be converted,
and although some of them assert that the world will last but a few days after his death, while others say a few months, some authorities insist that it will continue to exist many years after. St. Catherine of Siena, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Francis of Paula and a number of other saints have predicted this ultimate universal conversion. (16) .
Dionysius the Carthusian in cap. 3, Epist. 1 adTher.; Cornelius a Lapide in cap. 2, Epist. ad Rom. vers. 15. The Admirable Heart of Mary pg 319
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ
and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute.
First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that
Rome shall apostatize from the Faith drive away the Vicar of Christ
and return to its ancient paganism. (MP: which has happened)
…Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth.
Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”- Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)
2Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition
99% of the hierarchy revolted against the First Commandment and the Sacrifice of Jesus at VII creating a false religion in opposition to the Catholic Faith.
They denied the Father and the Son and became antichrists.
Since then fake popes, JPII, Benedict and Jorge have been publicly
worshipping pagan idols.
I thought this verse referred to the damned. I am also concerned with the requirements for being damned.
Apoc 14:11
And the smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast, and his image, and whoever receiveth the character of his name.
I thought this verse referred to the damned. I am also concerned with the requirements for being damned.
Is 'and' here mean and or or? I.e if one adores the beast is he damned? Or must he also adore his image and receive the mark/number/name? (What ever that means)
I kind of feel a little responsible for this thread since I'm the one that brought up the minority opinion in another thread.
I've read a lot of material on this, sorry I won't have many sources, I'm terrible at that, I read so many things and never archive or remember where I got them or read them to reference later, that being said, if you don't want to buy what I'm selling then I understand, I will try to find some of the sources where I got all this.
Firstly, I'm a strong believer in the Catholic Restoration that will take place and the 6th Age of The Church, Reign of Mary and the resurgence of The Catholic Monarchy, the Greatest Ecuмenical Council and Holy Popes, etc. I know there's links to a lot of this right here on Cathinfo so I won't source those but there's topics on it. There's a lot of prophecy about this. I'm aware they're not infallible, but there is a lot of supporting evidence for this as well besides this. Miser I've seen your sources trying to refute this but I disagree with them.
Secondly, The Great Apostasy makes more sense in a context if basically the entire world, after converting to the True Faith, then go apostate. Would it not be a much greater apostasy if 95% of the world is Catholic and then 90% apostasize and side with Antichrist? In this time and past history, at the height of the Middle Ages/Christendom maybe only 30% of the world was actually Catholic and even though The Faith spread, it probably never was higher than this number, and that number is quite generous considering Protestant Revolt, spread of Islam, Paganism, Atheism, Modernism, etc.
By the time of Antichrist there will be 2 religions. The True Catholic one and Luciferianism/Satanism, this is one of the reasons why there will be no excuse for those who take The Mark. There will be no more Moslems, Protestants, etc. Basically the entire world is going to convert to The True Faith before THE Antichrist comes out into the world view. Why the big change is not the scope of this post and can be speculated.
Thirdly, the Book of Apocalypse references monarchs quite often, this only makes sense (technically speaking) if there was a resurgence of a world monarchal structure. I understand Sacred Scripture is not always super technical and is sometimes figurative.
Fourthly, what a lot of Church Fathers explain about the end times and Apocalypse is not going on
at this time. The two events/periods (Great Apostasy and Apocalypse) coincide in Sacred Scripture, we don't have all of that tied together yet. Kind of a side point, but according to them, the world will end very shortly after death of Antichrist (within days I believe is what is most said), I think both of these points are unanimous although I'm not 100% certain on that point, which if this is the case, refutes any supposed Antichrists in these or recent times as a lot of other things need to happen before that (Enoch, Elias, the Trumpets, Antichrist making people take The Mark, etc.)
I know some of the books I read were Reign of Antichrist by Rev. Culleton, Antichrist by Dupont, Book of Destiny, The Book of Apocalypse, and reading various Church Fathers on the topic and many other things. Sorry for my terrible sourcing.
Personally I think the enemies of God are trying to institute all of this now (Full on Beast System, etc.) to get ready for Antichrist but I think the 3 Days of Darkness will wipe out most of the enemies before they fully implement their system to where a resurgence of The True Faith can flourish like never before.
When, I ask, was the Church of God ever in a weaker condition, in a feebler state in the eyes of men, and in this natural order, than it is now? And from whence, I ask, is deliverance to come? Is there on earth any power to intervene? Is there any king, prince, or potentate, that has the power to interpose either his will or his sword for the protection of the Church? Not one; and it is foretold it should be so. Neither need we desire it, for the will of God seems to be otherwise. But there is One Power which will destroy all antagonists; there is One Person who will break down and smite small as the dust of the summer threshing-floor all the enemies of the Church, for it is He who will consume His enemies “with the Spirit of His mouth,” and destroy them “with the brightness of His coming.” It seems as if the Son of God were jealous lest anyone should vindicate His authority. He has claimed the battle to Himself; He has taken up the gage which has been cast down against Him; and prophecy is plain and explicit that the last overthrow of evil will be His; that it will be wrought by no man, but by the Son of God; that all the nations of the world may know that He, and He alone, is King, and that He, and He alone, is God.
Manning, Archbishop Henry. The Present Crisis of the Holy See . Desert Will Flower iPress. Kindle Edition.
And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,
They did not necessarily knowingly, consciously, and willingly sign docuмents that were a public defection of the Catholic Faith. Once again, you are making a blanket statement.
The Antichrist will pretend to be God, yes. 2 Thessalonians 2. But. Will the mankind do it? What is the source?People will believe that God dwells inside of them therefore they have no need for external religion. The new age movement already teaches this. My mother died believing this yet she called herself a Christian.
Many bishops signed VII docuмents because they didn't read them. Just like we accept the terms of use of a software without reading them.
That is not an excuse, however.
From what I can understand from researching the definition of Apostasy
ALL those guys who signed the docuмents
left the Catholic Church.
They denied the First Commandment and they denied Christ.
So if that wasn't the Great Apostasy what do you imagine the Great Apostasy would look like?
That's not how it works. It's not that simple.Why do The Triumph of the Inmaculate Heart must be before the Great Apostasy?
Yes, the current Crisis in the Church is certainly *A* great apostasy. But it's not *THE* great apostasy because we're not in the right time period.
The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart hasn't happened yet.
Look at history and form a big picture in your mind. See how God works. I'll give you a hint: he does lots of foreshadowing and dress-rehearsals. And there are TONS of recapitulations, remixes, and rhyming. History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. And certain themes play themselves out over, and over, and over again throughout the ages.
It's like a great piece of Classical music. Yes, many parts sound alike, but they are in different parts of the song for different technical reasons.
And there's only one "end of the song". No matter how often that general theme (which sounded almost identical to the end of the song) occurred in many ways throughout the song as well...
If you want to become well-informed about the End of the World and the Last Days, I suggest you read some good pre-Vatican II Catholic prophecies on the matter. Read "Catholic Prophecy", "Reign of Antichrist" and other books TAN used to put out. There might be others.
But that's because this notion that pretty much anyone can be saved had already deeply penetrated the minds of even the conservatives. We have statements of Archbishop Lefebvre that non-Catholics can be saved BY the Church (even if not IN the Church). That's identical to Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" thesis.I agree. I don't know if you've read this:
Why do The Triumph of the Inmaculate Heart must be before the Great Apostasy?
I will read those books. Maybe it's explained.
They did not necessarily knowingly, consciously, and willingly sign docuмents that were a public defection of the Catholic Faith. Once again, you are making a blanket statement.
Because nothing can come after it. It's literally the End of the World. Great Apostasy -> Antichrist appears -> 3 1/3 years pass -> Elias and Henoch appear and preach against AC -> these 2 are put to death by AC -> the AC is struck down by God while trying to ascend into heaven -> God wraps it all up, we all hear the Last Trump, etc. End of time, New Jerusalem, a New Heaven/New Earth, etc. Basically the last chapters of the book of the Apocalypse (a.k.a. "Revelations")
Quote
St. John Eudes states in his book “The Life and the Kingdom of Jesus Christ In Christian Souls”: pray especially for those who will have to suffer the persecution of the Antichrist at the end of the world for it will be the most cruel and horrible persecutions.
BUT THEN in another book called “The Admirable Heart of Mary” he goes on to explain that with the defeat of the Antichrist shall come the most glorious Triumphant period of the Church!
It goes as follows:
All the holy Fathers (16) agree that after the death of antichrist
the whole world will be converted,
and although some of them assert that the world will last but a few days after his death, while others say a few months, some authorities insist that it will continue to exist many years after. St. Catherine of Siena, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Francis of Paula and a number of other saints have predicted this ultimate universal conversion. (16) .
Dionysius the Carthusian in cap. 3, Epist. 1 adTher.; Cornelius a Lapide in cap. 2, Epist. ad Rom. vers. 15. The Admirable Heart of Mary pg 319
He [i.e., St. Augustine} then expounds what may be understood by the binding and chaining of the devil for a thousand years; (Cap. vii. & viii, p. 581) that the thousand years, meaning a long time, may signify all the time from Christ's first coming[4] to his second at the end of the world, and to the last short persecution under antichrist.
Original Rheims annotation - 2. Bound him. ] Christ by his Passion hath abridged the power of the Devil for a thousand years, that is, the whole time of the new Testament, until Antichrist's time, when he shall be loosed again, that is, be permitted to deceive the world, but for a short time only, to wit, three years and a half.
After the defeat of Antichrist the Gentile nations will return to the Church and the Jєωs will enter her fold. Then shall be fulfilled the words of Christ: ''There shall be one fold and one shepherd.'"
Verse four [of Rev. 20:4] is impossible of logical interpretation for those who place the thousand years chronologically ahead of the reign of Antichrist, because its contents are a positive contradiction of that theory.
So if a Bishop voted against a docuмent because they felt it contained error, and then signed it anyway, that's not knowingly? That's to say nothing that the role of the bishop is to teach the faith and govern the faithful.Error does not equal heresy.
Error does not equal heresy.
I kind of feel a little responsible for this thread since I'm the one that brought up the minority opinion in another thread.
I've read a lot of material on this, sorry I won't have many sources, I'm terrible at that, I read so many things and never archive or remember where I got them or read them to reference later, that being said, if you don't want to buy what I'm selling then I understand, I will try to find some of the sources where I got all this.
Firstly, I'm a strong believer in the Catholic Restoration that will take place and the 6th Age of The Church, Reign of Mary and the resurgence of The Catholic Monarchy, the Greatest Ecuмenical Council and Holy Popes, etc. I know there's links to a lot of this right here on Cathinfo so I won't source those but there's topics on it. There's a lot of prophecy about this. I'm aware they're not infallible, but there is a lot of supporting evidence for this as well besides this. Miser I've seen your sources trying to refute this but I disagree with them.
Secondly, The Great Apostasy makes more sense in a context if basically the entire world, after converting to the True Faith, then go apostate. Would it not be a much greater apostasy if 95% of the world is Catholic and then 90% apostasize and side with Antichrist? In this time and past history, at the height of the Middle Ages/Christendom maybe only 30% of the world was actually Catholic and even though The Faith spread, it probably never was higher than this number, and that number is quite generous considering Protestant Revolt, spread of Islam, Paganism, Atheism, Modernism, etc.
By the time of Antichrist there will be 2 religions. The True Catholic one and Luciferianism/Satanism, this is one of the reasons why there will be no excuse for those who take The Mark. There will be no more Moslems, Protestants, etc. Basically the entire world is going to convert to The True Faith before THE Antichrist comes out into the world view. Why the big change is not the scope of this post and can be speculated.
Thirdly, the Book of Apocalypse references monarchs quite often, this only makes sense (technically speaking) if there was a resurgence of a world monarchal structure. I understand Sacred Scripture is not always super technical and is sometimes figurative.
Fourthly, what a lot of Church Fathers explain about the end times and Apocalypse is not going on
at this time. The two events/periods (Great Apostasy and Apocalypse) coincide in Sacred Scripture, we don't have all of that tied together yet. Kind of a side point, but according to them, the world will end very shortly after death of Antichrist (within days I believe is what is most said), I think both of these points are unanimous although I'm not 100% certain on that point, which if this is the case, refutes any supposed Antichrists in these or recent times as a lot of other things need to happen before that (Enoch, Elias, the Trumpets, Antichrist making people take The Mark, etc.)
I know some of the books I read were Reign of Antichrist by Rev. Culleton, Antichrist by Dupont, Book of Destiny, The Book of Apocalypse, and reading various Church Fathers on the topic and many other things. Sorry for my terrible sourcing.
Personally I think the enemies of God are trying to institute all of this now (Full on Beast System, etc.) to get ready for Antichrist but I think the 3 Days of Darkness will wipe out most of the enemies before they fully implement their system to where a resurgence of The True Faith can flourish like never before.
Miser Peccator- I agree with you. Except, for those who signed without exact knowledge of what was in the docuмents, for whatever reason, will be held accountable by God according to their level of negligence regarding this. Since we don't know that level of negligence in this regard, only God does know this, we have to discern those signers of Vatican Council II who continued teaching this lie from those signers who didn't teach this before or after signing the docuмents.How many people use the "I didn't know what I was getting into" excuse to annul their marriages?
Therefore, it can be hard to say precisely who apostatized from the faith and who signed something they should not have signed and would not have signed.
Objectively speaking, the statement about the muslims appears to be apostasy. The other consideration regarding the statement about muslims is that some of the signers were thinking they were acknowledging a truth about the muslim fake religion-the truth about that fake religion claiming to worship one God- and that is all the signers meant to do by signing.
I'm not defending the signing of the docuмents or trying to make excuses to explain away an entire hierarchy apostatizing, I'm just thinking of what variables their are to in this situation to discern who's who.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=72337.msg908280#msg908280)