Totally agree.  I have no agenda, I just follow the truth.  The Saints were just as curious about these topics as we are, and they have been praying/prophecizing about these events since right after Christ ascended to heaven.  Remember when the Apostles even asked Christ about the 2nd coming?  He hadn't even left yet!  So you read what the saints said, add to it Our Lady's messages, add Scripture, and you get a clear, consistent timeline.  It is what it is.  Believe it or not.

This discussion started off interesting and is now into Trad Catholic sola scriptura territory. I'm out.

 If you want to dismiss it because you "don't have to" believe it, fine.  Then again, no one has to believe in Fatima either, or Lourdes, or the devotion to the Sacred Heart either.

Are there saints and early Church Fathers who disagree with Fatima, Lourdes or the Sacred Heart?

Not true at all.  The magisterium has taught that when the Church Fathers are unanimous, then their teachings are part of Tradition, which is just as infallible as Scripture, or dogma.  The Church has 3 modes of infallibility - 1) when She authoritatively teaches Scripture.  2) when She authoritatively teaches dogma.  3) when She authoritatively teaches that x, y, or z is part of Tradition.  The agreement of the Church Fathers = infallible Tradition.


(It took me time to find the thread), but here are the various things which we MUST believe about the end times:


Without a doubt, the events which the Church Fathers are unanimous about (and which are also Scriptural) which MUST happen before the time of the anti-christ are:
1.  The whole world will be catholic (generally speaking, not every person).  i.e. The Middle Ages-style catholic society will be global.
2.  The gospel will be preached to all nations (ties into #1).
3.  The great "falling away"...which can't happen until the whole world is catholic.
4.  The world is divided into 10 kingdoms, which the anti-christ (as a person) eventually conquers.
.
There are other, minor events which will probably happen, that most Church Fathers agree on, i.e. Return of the Roman Empire.  But this sorta ties into #4 above, because you can't have kingdoms without kings, which presupposes that the Roman Empire returns in some degree.



Regarding the antichrist himself, there are other details:

At the back of Fr. Denis Fahey's "The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation," he included an index regarding the coming of the antichrist, which is divided into the following sections:

A. Things that are certain
B. Things that are probable
C. Things that are undecided
D. Things that have not a solid foundation

This list of categories is taken from Fr. Lemann's "L'Antechrist" (p. 20)

A. Things concerning the antichrist that are certain:

-Antichrist will be a trial for the good, and a chastisement for the impious
-Antichrist will be a man, a human person
-Antichrist will not be Satan in human form
-Antichrist will have great powers of seduction, from his natural qualities
-The beginnings of his career will be lowly and obscure
-Antichrist will increase in power and make conquests
-The rule of antichrist will be worldwide
-Antichrist will wage terrible war against God and His Church
-Antichrist will claim to be God, and demand exclusive adoration
-Antichrist will attempt to prove his divinity via prodigies
-The persecution of the antichrist will be temporary and he will be destroyed


B. Things that are probable:

-The Jєωs will proclaim the antichrist Messiah, and will help to set up his kingdom
-The persecution of antichrist will last three years and a half

Council of Trent (Denzinger 786)

786 Furthermore, in order to curb impudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law . . .

https://sensusfidelium.us/the-sources-of-catholic-dogma-the-denzinger/council-of-trent-1545-1563-the-sacred-books-and-the-traditions-of-the-apostles-are-accepted/

That's the voice of the Magisterium, which hopefully we all submit to.

Now, who is it that interprets what is the unanimous consent of the Fathers, particularly of those that "were never intended to be brought to light"? If the Magisterium hasn't said on this or that, "to this consents the Fathers" or some such, how on earth are we to know what things that were "never intended to be brought to light" are the unanimous consent of the Fathers?

The principle is true, but we need to Church to apply it.

You give a good example: those things you cite in blue, where do they come from? Where's your citation of authority, for example, as to the 4 things "without a doubt"?

And what's your authority for the things "certain," Father Fahey? He's not the Magisterium. In fact, he's stated some real whoppers regarding the parameters of saving faith regarding, for example, the Jєωs.

You're reaching, Pax. I have no problem with you expressing your view and thinking it the right one. But don't tell me these things are settled on your authority, or anyone else's beneath the Magisterium.

You give a good example: those things you cite in blue, where do they come from? Where's your citation of authority, for example, as to the 4 things "without a doubt"?

So if it's not in a council, then it's not part of the magisterium?    Wow.