Author Topic: The Precursor vs The Mark  (Read 3827 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Marion

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1535
  • Reputation: +583/-886
  • Gender: Male
  • sedes ablata
Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
« Reply #90 on: December 02, 2021, 06:59:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's a basic overview of the allegorical method with references to explanations of the method by Origen and Augustine:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation_of_the_Bible

    That's the common scheme. The literal interpretation is e.g. about the King of Tyrus, what he is, what he did, and what will happen to him, around the time when the prophet is speaking. While the allegorical interpretation is about Antichrist in the distant future. You have explained how you detect "literal elements in the apocalyptic narrative", that is literal elements in the allegory, if I understood correctly, by comparing different prophets. That's what I was specifically asking about.


    The "many convert but almost all immediately fall away" is my opinion from reading private revelation about "the miracle" and Jesus's words that "few are saved." I really haven't looked for anything in Scripture that might refer to that. But I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't mentioned by one or more of the prophets in an allegorical way.

    Ah, I see.


    If you question the interpretation of the 70 weeks as 70 years for Daniel 9, note that the chapter starts with following words of Daniel:

    Ok, thanks. So you equate the 70 years of Jer 29:10, mentioned in Dan 9:2, as coincident with the 70 weeks of Dan 9:24, both concerning the last days. Both 70 years and 70 weeks appear in the same chapter of Daniel.

    As far as I read Fathers and commentators, they say the 70 years are the duration of the exile in Babylon, while the 70 weeks start thereafter, 69 weeks thereof until Christ, and the last two halfs of the week are about Christ on earth and Antichrist at the end (or similar).

    Quote
    Then starts the discussion of the 70 shavuim. [...]

    I recommend St. Jerome. He is the patron of bible study. An English translation of his comment on Daniel is available on tertullian.org. He presents several opinions on the 70 weeks of Dan 9:24.
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7817
    • Reputation: +4415/-1408
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #91 on: December 02, 2021, 07:17:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    "In THE END, my Immaculate Heart will triumph."

    Christ will defeat the antichrist and Mary's heart will reign during the era of peace.
    I see how you interpret that, but I disagree, because it conflicts with Scripture, which says that Christ defeats the antichrist.


    Our Lady came at Fatima and told us who was Her enemy - communism from Russia (i.e. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ).  This is who She will defeat, communists, not the antichrist.





    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2008
    • Reputation: +804/-97
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #92 on: December 02, 2021, 08:06:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I see how you interpret that, but I disagree, because it conflicts with Scripture, which says that Christ defeats the antichrist.


    Our Lady came at Fatima and told us who was Her enemy - communism from Russia (i.e. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ).  This is who She will defeat, communists, not the antichrist.
    Thank you for your respectful reply.

    Couldn't the antichrist be the leader of the communists?

    Who are the communists?  The same ones building the 3rd temple and ushering the moshiach.

    Offline Angelus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 248
    • Reputation: +194/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #93 on: December 02, 2021, 08:39:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ok, thanks. So you equate the 70 years of Jer 29:10, mentioned in Dan 9:2, as coincident with the 70 weeks of Dan 9:24, both concerning the last days. Both 70 years and 70 weeks appear in the same chapter of Daniel.

    Actually, the Daniel 9 reference to 70 years of Jeremias is focused on Jeremias 25:10-14, which talks about the fall of "Juda-as-vassal-state" and the destruction of Jerusalem, "the city," which are the diocesan churches and the Vatican under Counterfeit Church control. See the similarities in the description of events in verse 25:10, for example, which refers to "the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride" (compare Jer. 25; Ez. 27,28,29; Apoc. 18.).

    Jeremias 29:1-15 is a bit different. It mainly addresses and tries to comfort those exiled from that "Juda-as-vassal-state." Jeremias 29:16-19 is a short summary about the destruction of the NuChurch, discussed more fully in Chapter 25. Jeremias 29:20-32 is about the judgment on the NuChurch "false prophets," the officials of the Roman Curia running the show.

    In the Jeremias narrative, Juda/Jerusalem is ruled over by mostly corrupt kings, who are the vassals of the emperors of Babylon. Nabuchodonosor is the last emperor during the 70 year period. The main vassal kings in the narrative are Josias, Joakim, Sedecias.

    Here's my provisional reading of some of the allegorical characters in Jeremias:

    Jerusalem = the Vatican under Counterfeit Church control
    Juda-
    as-vassal-state = NuChurch that begins w/ John XXIII's "aggiornamento" (1959-2028)
    Amon = JPI
    Josias = JPII
    Joakim = Ratzinger/Benedict XVI
    Sedecias = Bergoglio
    Exiles/Captives = the Faithful remnant (first exile starts July 1988, w/ SSPX excommunications)
    Willing Inhabitants of Jerusalem-as-vassal-state = NuChurch/Novus Ordo Catholics

    Thanks for the Jerome Commentary reference. I'll take a look at that.

    Offline Angelus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 248
    • Reputation: +194/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #94 on: December 02, 2021, 08:45:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you for your respectful reply.

    Couldn't the antichrist be the leader of the communists?

    Who are the communists?  The same ones building the 3rd temple and ushering the moshiach.

    Yes, Miser, "the antichrist" is a "communist." His name is (probably) Bergoglio. His new "temple" is (probably) the Abrahamic Family House concept which merges NuChurch/тαℓмυdism/Mohammedism under the banner of communistic human Fraternity.


    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2008
    • Reputation: +804/-97
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #95 on: December 03, 2021, 10:45:38 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, Miser, "the antichrist" is a "communist." His name is (probably) Bergoglio. His new "temple" is (probably) the Abrahamic Family House concept which merges NuChurch/тαℓмυdism/Mohammedism under the banner of communistic human Fraternity.

    Very well could be.  He did say, "I'm the devil," after all.

    Giving the shot to homeless in the abominable Paul VI hall in front of the abominable "antichrist rising" statue in a building shaped like a snake biting the wall of the Vatican---well that sounds like a snakebite baptism or rite of initiation into the nwo church to me.

    The confirmation "sacrament" will come later.  Perhaps when people get their bodies hooked up to the internet of things beast system and proudly display their "mark" when shopping.   

    Still, I wonder if Bergoglio isn't hated by too many people.  He could be the prophet with someone fresh arriving to save the day that all the various religions can accept and love.

    We also have the Noahide laws in the US, and now the Vatican promoting the Mishnah stamp, both which call for our beheading and FEMA docs show the prep work for the guillotines.

    "And I saw seats; and they sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not adored the beast nor his image, nor received his character on their foreheads, or in their hands;"  Rev 20:4

    We've got this huge shapeshifting giant statue coming to a city near you as well so that could get interesting:


    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1535
    • Reputation: +583/-886
    • Gender: Male
    • sedes ablata
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #96 on: December 03, 2021, 12:20:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 2028

    Preachers are forbidden to preach any date, but it's not forbidden to think about and discuss things.

    Your 2028 might work as follows, from Dan 12.:

    Quote from: Dan 12:11-12
    And from the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh unto a thousand three hundred thirty-five days.

    The 1290 days denote the period from A.D. 70 until A.D. 1962.
    The 1335 days denote the period from A.D. 70 until A.D. 2028.

    A.D. [ 70 + (1962 - 70) * 1335 / 1290 ] = A.D. 2028

    A.D.   70 is the taking away of the continual sacrifice
    A.D. 1962 is the taking away of the mass
    A.D. 2028 is the return of Our Lord

    Please note:
     - The result is exactly 2028 (decimal places vanishing)
     - The 70 years of Babylon are shortened/abbreviated to exactly 66 years


    P.S.: Using A.D. 1970 in place of A.D. 1962 yields 66.28 years and A.D. 2036.28
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Offline Angelus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 248
    • Reputation: +194/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #97 on: December 03, 2021, 01:10:40 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Preachers are forbidden to preach any date, but it's not forbidden to think about and discuss things.

    Your 2028 might work as follows, from Dan 12.:

    The 1290 days denote the period from A.D. 70 until A.D. 1962.
    The 1335 days denote the period from A.D. 70 until A.D. 2028.

    A.D. [ 70 + (1962 - 70) * 1335 / 1290 ] = A.D. 2028

    A.D.  70 is the taking away of the continual sacrifice
    A.D. 1962 is the taking away of the mass
    A.D. 2028 is the return of Our Lord

    Please note:
     - The result is exactly 2028 (decimal places vanishing)
     - The 70 years of Babylon are shortened/abbreviated to exactly 66 years


    P.S.: Using A.D. 1970 in place of A.D. 1962 yields 66.28 years and A.D. 2036.28

    Why did you make the following assumptions?

    The 1290 days denote the period from A.D. 70 until A.D. 1962.
    The 1335 days denote the period from A.D. 70 until A.D. 2028.
    A.D. [ x + (y - x) * 1335 / 1290 ] = z





    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1535
    • Reputation: +583/-886
    • Gender: Male
    • sedes ablata
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #98 on: December 03, 2021, 02:17:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Why did you make the following assumptions?

    The 1290 days denote the period from A.D. 70 until A.D. 1962.
    The 1335 days denote the period from A.D. 70 until A.D. 2028.
    A.D. [ x + (y - x) * 1335 / 1290 ] = z

    None of the Fathers and commentators I could find e.g. in the Patrologia Latina knows why there are the additional 45 days. St. Jerome suspects an additional time of patience. They all assume that the 1290 days start when the mass is taken away. Since there seems to be no hint at all in the text itself, or elsewhere in Scripture, as to what additional event might be indicated by the two numbers, I came up with the idea that all hints are present in Dan 12, seeing that the "continual sacrifice" is taken away twice. In A.D. 70, and by Antichrist. Then we have three dates: A.D. 70 (t1), Antichrist (t2), Second Coming (t3).

    Furthermore I assume a proportionality:

    Code: [Select]
    1335   t3 - t1
    ---- = -------
    1290   t2 - t1

                   1335
    t1 + (t2 - t1) ---- = t3
                   1290


    t1 = A.D. 70 is given by history
    t3 = A.D. 2028 was proposed by you
    t2 = A.D. 1962 is the result of calculation

    Then, I was astonished, about that:

    Quote
     - The result is exactly 2028 (decimal places vanishing)
     - The 70 years of Babylon are shortened/abbreviated to exactly 66 years


    So far, when doing such calculations, I always assumed t2=1969 or 1970 (Novus Ordo Missae).
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Offline Freddy Jooger

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 127
    • Reputation: +79/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #99 on: December 03, 2021, 04:00:55 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • A.D. 1962 is the taking away of the mass
    Nonsense. The Mass wasn't taken away in 1962. The mess of Paul VI didn't get instituted until 1969 or 1970.

    Quote
    A.D.  70 is the taking away of the continual sacrifice
    More nonsense. The continual sacrifice is the Mass.

    Offline Angelus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 248
    • Reputation: +194/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #100 on: December 03, 2021, 05:06:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • None of the Fathers and commentators I could find e.g. in the Patrologia Latina knows why there are the additional 45 days. St. Jerome suspects an additional time of patience. They all assume that the 1290 days start when the mass is taken away. Since there seems to be no hint at all in the text itself, or elsewhere in Scripture, as to what additional event might be indicated by the two numbers, I came up with the idea that all hints are present in Dan 12, seeing that the "continual sacrifice" is taken away twice. In A.D. 70, and by Antichrist. Then we have three dates: A.D. 70 (t1), Antichrist (t2), Second Coming (t3).

    Furthermore I assume a proportionality:

    Code: [Select]
    1335   t3 - t1
    ---- = -------
    1290   t2 - t1

                   1335
    t1 + (t2 - t1) ---- = t3
                   1290


    t1 = A.D. 70 is given by history
    t3 = A.D. 2028 was proposed by you
    t2 = A.D. 1962 is the result of calculation

    Then, I was astonished, about that:


    So far, when doing such calculations, I always assumed t2=1969 or 1970 (Novus Ordo Missae).

    Sounds reasonable that one could posit that Daniel was referring to the Jєωιѕн Temple ritual as the "continual sacrifice," because it was, after all, a prefigurement of the real one. I think many Church Fathers assumed that Daniel was talking about that. I think they were wrong. I think the continual sacrifice in Daniel refers to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    And I disagree that the Mass was "taken away" in 1962. In fact, prior to Bergoglio forbidding public Mass during Covid (an unprecedented event), I don't think it happened. Jury is still out in my mind as to whether that was it or not.

    I take the "days" of Daniel as actual 24-hour days. The only people I have seen that take "days" for "years" are Protestants (mostly Seventh Day Adventists). The "forty-two months" and 1260 days of the Apocalypse are similar to the Daniel time frames: all around 3.5 years. I attribute the differences in length of time of those days to the context of the starting and ending events.


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1101
    • Reputation: +309/-84
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #101 on: December 03, 2021, 05:51:11 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sounds reasonable that one could posit that Daniel was referring to the Jєωιѕн Temple ritual as the "continual sacrifice," because it was, after all, a prefigurement of the real one. I think many Church Fathers assumed that Daniel was talking about that. I think they were wrong. I think the continual sacrifice in Daniel refers to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    And I disagree that the Mass was "taken away" in 1962. In fact, prior to Bergoglio forbidding public Mass during Covid (an unprecedented event), I don't think it happened. Jury is still out in my mind as to whether that was it or not.

    I take the "days" of Daniel as actual 24-hour days. The only people I have seen that take "days" for "years" are Protestants (mostly Seventh Day Adventists). The "forty-two months" and 1260 days of the Apocalypse are similar to the Daniel time frames: all around 3.5 years. I attribute the differences in length of time of those days to the context of the starting and ending events.

    The "continual sacrifice" is likely both, the Temple sacrifice under the Old Covenant, and the Mass under the New. What happened to Israel of the Old is an example to the New Israel of the New, so that we may look and be instructed.

    Could there be a valid sacrifice where the High Priest is a heretic and the institution he heads is apostate and corrupted? I think the end of the continual sacrifice may refer to its loss in the institutional Church, in Rome and the dioceses of the Conciliar Church in union with the apostate regime. The sacrifice could still continue with valid priests in "catacombs" but it would be said to have ceased in the the headquarters of the corporate entity, the Temple of Israel. I think Marion would disagree with me on that point, and I'm not certain about it of course, but it's a thought.


    So Paul VI (1962) could work.

    I am reluctant to see the "days" and "years" as literal here, since the language is figurative, and I think we are meant to understand the broad strokes - a Great Apostasy, an abomination in the temple, flee Jerusalem, fill your lamps with oil like the wise virgins for the coming of Our Lord in judgment, etc. I think the pattern in the prophets is clear; the detail is beyond our ken I think. Anyway, I think the "days" and "years" are broad divisions, breakdowns/divisions of time, an outline as to what is going on in different time periods - an index to the sweep and movement of Providence, not an exact temporal period.
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1535
    • Reputation: +583/-886
    • Gender: Male
    • sedes ablata
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #102 on: December 03, 2021, 07:48:33 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sounds reasonable that one could posit that Daniel was referring to the Jєωιѕн Temple ritual as the "continual sacrifice," because it was, after all, a prefigurement of the real one. I think many Church Fathers assumed that Daniel was talking about that. I think they were wrong. I think the continual sacrifice in Daniel refers to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    No reason to think they're wrong. As I said, most Fathers and commentators read Dan 12 fully about Antichrist only, and e.g. Douay-Rheims has a chapter title "... things relating to Antichrist, and the end of the world." They read the 1290/1335 days as starting from the point when under Antichrist the mass goes and the abomination comes.

    But nobody is able to explain why the additional 45 days, and why those enduring them are called blessed (Dan 12:12). Has Christ already returned when the 45 days begin, and killed Antichrist "with the spirit of his mouth" and destroyed him "with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thess 2:8)?

    Given, that at the end a "time shall come such as never was from the time that nations began even until that time" (Dan 12:1), "great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be" (Mt 24:21), the 45 days may well refer to exactly that time. Blessed those, who are not devoured by Antichrist, and make these 45 days.

    And this works, if we add to the obvious two events: "taking away of the mass" and "second coming of Christ" a third event "taking away of the jooish continual sacrifice". And there is anothor supporting fact: In the last week of the 70 weeks of Dan 9, "he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail" (Dan 9:27). The covenant obviously is the New Covenant, and what fails, is the sacrifice of the Old Covenant.


    And I disagree that the Mass was "taken away" in 1962. In fact, prior to Bergoglio forbidding public Mass during Covid (an unprecedented event), I don't think it happened. Jury is still out in my mind as to whether that was it or not.

    I'm not sure about that either. The Canon of the mass was changed though (and therefore stopped to be a canon. Can't change the unchangeable). There are some pros:

    1.) 66 years time of Antichrist (Dan 3:1: statue sixty cubits high, and six broad)
    2.) exactly 66 years, no fractional part
    3.) a reasonable third event needed to somehow understand the 1290/1335 of Dan 12:11-12

    On the other hand, if you choose A.D. 1969 or A.D. 1970 for the taking away of the mass 3.) is given anyway.


    In my mind, the Great Grandmaster of taking away the mass, and setting up an abomination instead, is clearly Montini, the one wearing the Ephod. But maybe it was Roncalli on December 8, 1962, during the first session of the Council, destroying the Canon. Bergoglio is just the 6th modernist = heretical antipope. He's the last one on this list of Babylonian emperors:

    1) Nebuchadnezzar (Nabuchodonosor),
    2) Evilmerodach (Jer 52:31, 2 Sam 25:27)
    3) Neriglissar (son of Evilmerodach)
    4) Labosordach (son of Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk)
    5) Nabonidus
    6) Belshazzar (son of Nabonidus, Balthasar)

    1) Roncalli
    2) Montini
    3) Luciani
    4) Wojtyla
    5) Ratzinger
    6) Bergoglio

    Talk about the 70 years after party, and the "writing on the wall" (Dan 5).

    ;) These lists are not meant very serious. But since you are trying to make the kings of Jerusalem match our contemporary shepherds wolves, I felt urged to mention, that to me they appear more like those Babylonians. The kings in Jerusalem might better match the heads of the indult crowd.


    I take the "days" of Daniel as actual 24-hour days. The only people I have seen that take "days" for "years" are Protestants (mostly Seventh Day Adventists). The "forty-two months" and 1260 days of the Apocalypse are similar to the Daniel time frames: all around 3.5 years. I attribute the differences in length of time of those days to the context of the starting and ending events.

    It is true that one rarely finds a Catholic commentator, not taking the 1260 days and 42 months literally, and the 3 1/2 times correspondingly as 3 1/2 years.

    But what you have is: some interpret the two witnesses (Rev 11) as the time of preaching of the Church, the two witnesses symbolizing OT and NT. (While others refer this to Elias and Enoch, or Elias and Moses, or Elias and ..., in the time of Antichrist.) In the first case you have 1260 days (Rev 11:3) meaning ~2000 years.

    Or the woman in the wilderness in Rev 12:6 and again in Rev 12:14. The first time 1260 days, the second time 42 months. Some don't read this a recapitulation of one and the same event, but rather as 1260 days Church (~2000 years) followed by 42 months remnant in the desert.

    And another reason to not take the 1260 days (42 months, ... ) literally: In the Apocalypse you have always 1260 days, and never 1290 or 1335. But there has to be a correspondence.





    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Offline Angelus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 248
    • Reputation: +194/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #103 on: December 03, 2021, 08:44:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • But nobody is able to explain why the additional 45 days, and why those enduring them are called blessed (Dan 12:12). Has Christ already returned when the 45 days begin, and killed Antichrist "with the spirit of his mouth" and destroyed him "with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thess 2:8)?


    And another reason to not take the 1260 days (42 months, ... ) literally: In the Apocalypse you have always 1260 days, and never 1290 or 1335. But there has to be a correspondence.

    There is an explanation of the extra 45 days in Maria Valtorta's Notebooks. I know most on CI will reject that because her published book (The Poem) was put on Holy Office list back in the 50s. Regardless, Bishop Williamson recommends her and I do too. Anyway, here's what she wrote on January 23, 1944 as coming from Jesus himself (Jesus is speaking according to Maria):

    Quote
    The last three years and six months will be more awful than what mankind ever experienced.
    ...

    The time will come when, crushed to an extent never reached before, the Church is no longer free to celebrate the perpetual Sacrifice, and the abomination of desolation shall be lifted up on the Holy Place, and on the holy places, just as the prophets have said and as I have repeated, I who make no mistakes.

    Daniel says: 'There shall be 1290 days" (of this oppression). And 'Blessed is he that waits, and comes unto 1335 days.'

    This means that during the three years and six months coming before the end, a short time will be laid aside in the end for the faithful to gather and listen to the last Words, resounding in their spirits, as an invitation to Heaven, while Michael with his angels crushes Satan and his demons. "Blessed is he that waits, and comes unto 1335 days" means: "Blessed is he that shall persevere unto the end because he shall be saved."


    As an aside, note that in the above quote from Jesus, he says the end time "will be more awful than what mankind ever experienced." What are the examples he gives for this awfulness?

    1. The Church is no longer free to celebrate the perpetual Sacrifice
    2. The abomination of desolation shall be lifted up on the Holy Place

    More awful than...ever. How many people, even traditional Catholics, are concerned about those two things. Most are worried about their jobs and storing food and ammunition and having things to barter. Jesus is talking about the inability to celebrate the Mass. And as bad as it gets, the Holy Place, will be open for business so that the bad guys can lift up the AoD.

    I say all of this to emphasize that what many of us think is coming in the end time period of the antichrist is not likely to happen the way we imagine. It will be spiritually awful for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Go to Mass as much as you can before you do not have access to it anymore. Fill up your lamps so your light will not go out.

    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1535
    • Reputation: +583/-886
    • Gender: Male
    • sedes ablata
    Re: The Precursor vs The Mark
    « Reply #104 on: December 03, 2021, 09:24:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote from: Maria Valtorta: Notebooks
    Daniel says: 'There shall be 1290 days" (of this oppression). And 'Blessed is he that waits, and comes unto 1335 days.'

    This means that during the three years and six months coming before the end, a short time will be laid aside in the end for the faithful to gather and listen to the last Words, resounding in their spirits, as an invitation to Heaven, while Michael with his angels crushes Satan and his demons. "Blessed is he that waits, and comes unto 1335 days" means: "Blessed is he that shall persevere unto the end because he shall be saved."

    To compare, St. Jerome:

    Quote from: St. Jerome: In Danielem
    Verse 12. "Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh unto a thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." He means that he is blessed who waits for forty-five days beyond the predetermined number, for it is within that period that our Lord and Savior is to come in His glory. But the reason for the forty-five days of inaction after the slaying of the Antichrist is a matter which rests in the knowledge of God; unless, of course, we say that the rule of the saints is delayed in order that their patience may be tested.


    To me, it seems neither satisfying to say that it can't be understood ("rests in the knowledge of God"), nor to give any more or less fancy reason, based on nothing but the author's imagination. My take is:

    1.) The Lord had a reason to mention two numbers and not one number only.
    2.) That reason can be found in the same chapter, in the same book, or elsewhere in Scripture or Tradition. Valtorta and St. Jerome both seem to offer their next best thought in face of ignorance. (Though Jerome concedes ignorance, while Valtorta doesn't.)
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)