Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: sedevacantist on February 14, 2018, 12:53:51 PM
-
Before I begin, let me just state for the record that I am in no way an advocate of Baptism of Desire. I only mention this because it seems most people who are opposed to the Dimonds believe in this particular doctrine, and I DO NOT want to be mistaken as one of them. That being said, this is the last you will hear of that subject in this post. I also realize how lengthy this letter is, but there is a lot of information to cover, and I want to be thorough. That being said, let me begin.
The Dimonds believe they are the Two Witnesses from chapter 11 of the Apocalypse. There’s no question about it. After looking at the evidence I'll be presenting, I’m sure you’ll agree. On the same note, it is not my primary intention to prove that the Dimonds believe this – but rather to prove its absolute impossibility. This is the primary goal of this post. As such, it is mainly written for the benefit of the Dimonds’ loyal fans, who unfortunately also believe Michael and Peter are the Two Witnesses. Toward this end, I’ll be exposing many of the Brothers’ more obvious errors in interpretation of Apocalyptic prophecy. Perhaps in light of these errors, their fans will realize the sheer impossibility of the Dimonds being God’s Anointed Prophets. By way of a quick example, the Brothers believe that the “Babylon” spoken of in the Book of the Apocalypse is the city of Rome – and therefore the “Fall of Babylon” refers to the “Fall of Rome from the Catholic Faith”. This has been their position for many years, as any of their followers know. At the same time, Scripture states very clearly that the “Fall of Babylon” is an occasion for REJOICING in Heaven (Apoc. 18:20, 19:1-4). And here we see the problem. If one wants to uphold the Dimonds’ position, one has to maintain that all of Heaven rejoices at the Fall of Rome from the Catholic Faith – a position so theologically preposterous that words simply fail. Nor is this the only blunder coming from the Dimonds’ camp, but is merely the tip of the iceberg. And so, by exposing the more obvious errors in the Dimonds’ interpretations of Apocalyptic prophecy, I hope to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they cannot possibly be the two prophets of God. Nevertheless, I will bring forward plenty of evidence that they believe it’s true.
Another reason why I wanted to write this post is because I believe I have a moral obligation to do so. This obligation stems, in part, from the fact that I have inside information from a former member regarding life at the monastery. This information should prove helpful in determining whether or not Michael and Peter are the holy monks they portray themselves as (it might also be good for a few laughs). And so, I believe that this inside information, along with several key arguments which no one else seems to have brought up yet, necessitates an obligation on my part to expose them.
So again, in writing this post, I would like to correct much of the Scriptural desecration committed by Michael and Peter, as well as expose them for who they really are – just a couple of guys named Fred and Bob (respectively) with a website, a lot of money, and no one to answer to. But more on these subjects later. For now, I’d like to delve into the reasons why I maintain the Dimonds believe they are the Two Witnesses.
My suspicions were first kindled while reading a magazine publication put out by the monastery some 15 years ago. In one article, I noticed that the Brothers were not only manipulating a prophecy specific to the Witnesses, but that they were twisting it in such a way as to quietly point to themselves – that is, so the prophecy would fit THEIR OWN mission. This is when I first suspected they thought they were the Two Witnesses. If I learned anything as a psychology major in college, it was that there is ALWAYS a reason behind one's actions – always. It may be hidden deep within the subconscious mind, but there’s always a reason. In this particular case, however, the Dimonds’ actions were clearly born of conscious thought. They read the prophecy, saw that it didn’t fit their mission, and so they twisted it to make it fit. The prophecy in question involves the identity of the Two Witnesses.
Now, as everyone knows, it has been held from time immemorial that the Two Witnesses were Enoch and Elijah. For nearly 18 centuries, this was the universally accepted position of Saints and theologians alike. In fact, this opinion was so highly regarded that as late as the 17th century it was considered, by some, as borderline heresy to stray from it. Even today, it still prevails as the majority opinion among all those who consider themselves “Christians”. There are several reasons why this opinion exists. First of all, it’s believed that Enoch and Elijah have never died; and since everyone born from Adam (excepting Christ and His Mother) is under the curse of death, it’s only natural to assume Enoch and Elijah MUST die someday. Ergo, it’s maintained that they will return as the Witnesses, fulfill their mission, and then perish as everyone else. And so, the belief that they haven’t died yet is one of the reasons this position has prevailed as the majority opinion for so long.
Then there’s the statement from the Book of Ecclesiastes which says that Enoch was translated to Paradise “to await the conversion of the nations.” (Eccl. 44:16) This statement has been interpreted as referring to the time when Enoch will return as one of the Witnesses and fulfill his mission of evangelizing. The third reason these two ancient prophets are regarded as the Witnesses is based upon the prophecy of Elijah’s return prior to the coming of the Messiah. This was foretold in the Old Testament Book of Malachy, and has been common knowledge among the Jews ever since. Christ Himself even confirms this view, adding that when the prophet returns, he will “restore all things”. Even today, the Jews are so sure of Elijah’s return, that they traditionally set a place for him at their annual Passover meal. All this to say, everyone knows Elijah will come back. The prophecy is unquestionable. As to why God would refrain from mentioning him by name in the Book of the Apocalypse, who knows? I’m sure there’s a perfectly good reason for it though. Nevertheless, there’s no need to mention his name since the 3½ year drought called down upon the world by the Two Witnesses is identical to the 3½ year drought called down upon the world by Elijah. This identifying clue, along with the assurance of his return prior to the Second Coming of Christ, is how we know Elijah is one of the Witnesses.
As for Enoch, his case is not quite as solid. The reason being, St. Paul tells us in the 11th chapter of his letter to the Hebrews that Enoch is among the dead. This, however, would certainly not disqualify him from returning in a metaphorical sense. And, of course, the same holds true for Elijah. Even so, the point is NOT whether these two are the Witnesses. No. The point is that this was the universally held belief of every Catholic on earth for 18 centuries, and still survives as the majority opinion today. Therefore, even if one wants to argue in support of a metaphorical sense, there is still NO legitimate reason to stray from the majority opinion – particularly in light of the fact that “Elijah” is most certainly one of the Witnesses. Again, there is absolutely no reason to stray from the majority in this matter. That is, unless it conflicts with your agenda, as in the case of the Dimonds…
Particularly troublesome to Michael and Peter is the implication of naming Elijah as one of the Witnesses, as this would inevitably limit the Witnesses’ mission to a literal 3½ years. Needless to say, this time span is incompatible with the mission of the Dimonds, who have been preaching for some 20 years now. So what do they do? Do they humble themselves, throw in the towel, and accept the fact that they cannot possibly be the Two Witnesses? No. Instead, they decide to manipulate the prophecy instead. And they do so by adopting the position that the Witnesses are not Enoch and Elijah after all – but Sts. Peter and Paul. Now, at first glance, this alteration seems harmless enough. Strictly speaking, it’s not heretical to stray from the majority opinion in a matter of prophetic interpretation. It’s dangerously reckless in this particular case, but not heretical. Even so, the name change is not the problem. The problem was the EXPLANATION that accompanied it. That’s what caught my attention. You see, the Dimonds made sure to explain to everyone that with this change from Enoch and Elijah to Sts. Peter and Paul, we were now FREE TO ACCEPT A 30-YEAR DURATION for the Witnesses’ mission. Once again, the Scriptural 3½ year (1260 days) mission of the Witnesses was incompatible with the Dimonds’ own mission of 20 years, so they adopted the opinion that the Witnesses were Sts. Peter and Paul. This allowed them a far more comfortable timetable of 30 years. Problem solved. This was Red Flag number one.
Incidentally, the announcement of this new revelatory name change, and the explanation of its consequences, appeared in their old magazine aptly titled “A Voice in the Wilderness”. This was Red Flag number two. Frankly, it didn't take much guess work by this time. The silent implication of naming their own magazine “A Voice in the Wilderness” (a clear allusion to Elijah) is unmistakable – notwithstanding the fact that within that very magazine, they just tossed the original “Voice” out the window. And so, when considering the suspicious choice of a title for their magazine; and the fact that the Dimonds are twisting a prophecy specific to the Witnesses in order to make it fit THEIR OWN mission; and the coincidental fact that there are two of them, it is perfectly reasonable to assume they believe they’re the Two Witnesses. As the old saying goes, "This isn’t rocket science." But the evidence doesn’t end here.
The second mysterious twist performed by the Dimonds regarding the Witnesses also involved the duration of the Witnesses’ mission, albeit in a more direct way: Scripture plainly says this duration will be 1260 days. Unless I’m missing something, this is pretty clear. Then again, as with the 3½ years, if Scripture really means a literal 1260 days, then the Dimonds have a big problem. So how do they get around it? They do so by conveniently adopting the position of Modernist biblical “scholars” who tell us the 1260 days doesn’t actually mean 1260 days, but refers symbolically to “any period of persecution”. Now, take careful notice of the fact that in any other circuмstance, the Dimonds would have immediately shucked these Modernist idiots' interpretation into the garbage where it belongs. They know perfectly well that these are the same “scholars” who brush off the Creation account as only metaphorical; who reject the Flood narrative as myth; who argue that Evolution and Scripture are compatible; who say the prophecy of the “Antichrist” is to be understood only in a spiritual sense; and, of course, who dismiss a literal 1260 days as “any period of persecution”. Again, in any other circuмstance, The Dimonds wouldn’t have given these so-called scholars’ interpretation a second glance. In this case however, a literal 1260 days is irreconcilable with their own mission, so Peter Dimond happily adopts the Modernists’ interpretation that it simply refers to “any period of persecution”. And their problem is solved.
Moving on…
The third twist I noticed the Dimonds committing involved the prophecy of the location of the Witnesses’ death. Even though this alteration doesn’t concern them personally, it nevertheless seeks to validate their own personal interpretation of Apocalyptic prophecy. In other words, the Dimonds twist the prophecy of the Witnesses' death in such a way that it now coincides with their own agenda. The reason being, if understood as written, the Apocalyptic Fantasyland they’ve spent the last 20 years constructing would suddenly collapse. The prophecy in question is found in verse 8 of chapter 11:
“And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified.”
Now everyone knows where our Lord was crucified. He was crucified in Jerusalem. And anyone familiar with the writings of the Old Testament prophets knows that Jerusalem is referred to in a spiritual sense as Sodom: “Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom, give ear to the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah...” (Is. 1:10). And again, in chapter 23 of Jeremiah we read, “And I have seen the likeness of adulterers, and the way of lying in the prophets of Jerusalem: and they strengthened the hands of the wicked, that no man should return from his evil doings: they are all become unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrha." Finally, in chapter 16 of Ezechiel, we find Judah referred to as “Sodom” no less than 5 times.
Likewise, Jerusalem is referred to as "Egypt" because, as far as God is concerned, Israel never really left that godless country – at least not in a spiritual sense. Just like Lot’s wife, whose heart was so attached to the filthy town of Sodom that she couldn’t bear the thought of leaving it, Israel has forever kept the idols of Egypt in Her heart. This is made clear in a passage from chapter 23 of Ezekiel. Speaking of the end of the world, when Israel will finally be cleansed of all its Idolatry, God says “And I will put an end to thy wickedness in thee, and thy fornication brought out of the land of Egypt: neither shalt thou lift up thy eyes to them, nor remember Egypt anymore.” (Ez. 23:27) Again, Israel never really left Egypt – at least not in a spiritual sense. They’ve carried their false Egyptian gods with them since the day of their deliverance. Indeed, only months after the Exodus from Egypt, they are found worshiping a golden calf below Mount Sinai, hailing it as the “god” who saved them.
And so, Jerusalem is spiritually referred to as Sodom and Egypt. And as everyone knows, it's precisely where our Lord was crucified. Not only is this interpretation solidly based upon both Scripture and history, but it’s also nice and simple. Not for the Dimonds however. If accepted as written, this prophecy would initiate a chain reaction that would ultimately destroy their entire Apocalyptic Fantasyland from beginning to end. The reason being, the Dimonds maintain that the “Great City” (a.k.a. Babylon) is actually Rome, NOT Jerusalem. Ergo, the prophecy MUST be altered. So how do they do it? Peter Dimond performs one of his more renowned twists. Truly, it’s one for the record books. Let’s read the exact prophecy in question again:
“And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified.”
So how does Peter alter this prophecy? He does so by telling us that this verse doesn’t necessarily mean what it says. That is, it doesn't actually mean that our Lord was crucified in the “Great City”, which is called spiritually “Sodom and Egypt”. No. What it actually means, according to Peter, is that the Great City (Rome) is referred to as Sodom and Egypt FROM where our Lord was crucified. In other words, according to Peter Dimond, the verse should more correctly read: “And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, FROM Jerusalem – the place where our Lord was crucified.” You see the manipulation? Rome is referred to as Sodom and Egypt FROM Jerusalem. And Voila. Problem solved.
Though certainly not his best to date, this has to be one of Peter’s more ingenious manipulations of Holy Scripture. And he only had to add a single word: “from”. Never mind the fact that Rome has never once been referred to as either Sodom or Egypt from Jerusalem – the important thing is that their fans swallowed it. That's the important thing. And another potentially humiliating moment for the Dimonds was averted. Anyway, this was the third twist I noticed regarding the prophecies specific to the Witnesses.
Briefly, for those confused about the identity of "The Great City", I'll share something with you not too many people are aware of. Rome is assumed to be the Apocalyptic “Great City” because it's built on seven hills. And this is correct. Rome is built on seven hills. Nevertheless, there are a number of other cities that were built on seven hills. In fact, constructing cities upon seven hills was a common theme in the ancient world. In the 4th century, Constantine chose Byzantium as the new center of his empire specifically because it was built on seven hills. Ancient Babylon was also built on seven hills; as were Mecca and Moscow. The truth is, there are many cities that fall into this category. There are 3 in Africa. Asia boasts of 8. There are 19 in the United States. Europe has as many as 40. And so Rome is not the only one.
Would it surprise you if I said Jerusalem was also built on seven hills? You can look it up for yourself. They are: Mount Scopus, Mount Olivet, the Mount of Corruption, Mount Ophel, Mount Zion (new and old), and the mountain upon which the Antonia Fortress was built. And so, Jerusalem is also built on seven hills. All this to say, if the seven-hilled theme is what convinces you that Rome MUST be the Great City, think again. The city where our Lord was crucified is Jerusalem. Let's not confuse the historical record, or the Scriptures. Nor is this the only evidence to support the position that Jerusalem is the “Great City”. In truth, there is far more evidence in support of this position than any other theorized locale – including Rome; but that's a topic for later. Right now I want to continue with the Dimonds.
Another indication they believed they were the Witnesses happened just recently. It involved their interpretation of the Fifth Vial mentioned in chapter 16 of the Apocalypse. In case you don’t already know, the Fifth Vial is one of the seven last plagues – those which contain the fullness of God’s wrath. To give you some idea of how serious these plagues will be, note that as they are unleashed upon mankind, the Temple in Heaven is engulfed in smoke – so much so that no one is able to enter until the vials are empty. If I didn't know any better, I'd say it looks as if God will not allow anyone to petition Him for mercy during this period. Who knows? At any rate, this is serious. Each plague is catastrophic in nature, and all involve the entire race of mankind. They culminate in the final great battle of Armageddon, the cataclysmic destruction of Babylon, and the end of the world as we know it.
As the First Vial is poured out, every man, woman, and child who has accepted the Mark, or worships the image of the Beast, is covered with intensely painful sores. The second plague causes all the world’s oceans to turn into the blood of a dead man; thereby causing the death of every creature living in them (image that if you can). With the third, all the rivers and springs of water throughout the world turn into blood; which, again, will cause the death of every creature living in them. The fourth vial is poured out upon the sun, and mankind is literally scorched with fire and tormented with tremendous heat – blaspheming God for their misery and pains. Then comes the Fifth Vial; the one we’re concerned with here. This vial is poured out upon the Seat of the Beast, and his entire kingdom is then immersed in a mysterious darkness. This darkness is accompanied by torments so intense that man will literally gnaw on his tongue in pain. We aren’t told exactly what those torments will be, or what causes them, but we know they will be terrible. But notice here that this is not just a simple period of darkness. No. Something else is going on. The darkness actually causes an intense pain. There’s a mystery here, just as there was during the plague of Darkness in the days of the Exodus.
Those familiar with the Old Testament remember that the “Darkness” which the Egyptians experienced was more than a simple blackout. The Book of Exodus says it could be felt. Apparently, there was a physical dimension to it. Moreover, as we read in the Book of Wisdom, it was accompanied by terrible visions, unexplained noises, and intense fear. The fear was so great, in fact, that for the entire three days of darkness, no one so much as moved from where they stood (Ex. 10:23). So then, far from a simple blackout, the three days of Egyptian Darkness amounted to a waking nightmare:
“And while they thought to lie hid in their obscure sins, they were scattered under a dark veil of forgetfulness, being horribly afraid and troubled with exceeding great astonishment. For neither did the den that held them, keep them from fear: for noises coming down troubled them, and sad visions appearing to them, affrighted them. And no power of fire could give them light, neither could the bright flames of the stars enlighten that horrible night.” (Book of Wisdom 17:3-5)
And so, when the Apocalypse speaks of intense pains brought on by this Fifth Vial of “Darkness”, we have every reason to suspect a mysterious, supernatural occurrence rather than a simple blackout. After all, these are the seven LAST plagues unleashed on the world, FULL of the wrath of Almighty God. In fact, looking at them more carefully, it would almost seem as if God were giving mankind a little foretaste of the pains, fears, and anguish of Hell itself. Think about it: Here we find the human race, languishing in an intense thirst brought on by the lack of drinkable water; enveloped in some mysterious and horribly painful supernatural Darkness; literally scorched with fire and tormented with great heat; surrounded with the putrid smell of a dead man’s blood and the nauseating stench of death from all sides. Think whatever you like. It sounds like a foretaste of Hell to me. But let’s not stray too far from the point. The Fifth Vial is our concern here – a period of darkness and torment so severe that mankind will literally gnaw on his tongue in pain. According to the Dimonds, this Apocalyptic event took place this past February (2017). And what was it? Brace yourself…
A 2½ hour electrical failure in Brussels, Belgium.
No, really. According to the Two Witnesses, Fred and Bob, the dreaded Fifth Vial containing the final, unmerciful wrath of God manifested itself as an ordinary blackout in Brussels, Belgium. It ultimately affected less than 15% of the city, lasted a whopping 2½ hours, and took place during the middle of the night when most of the city was sound asleep. I know… pretty scary. One can almost taste the horror – groping around in the dark for a flashlight, or maybe even a candle. And Heaven forbid someone stubbed their toe. Perhaps they were gnawing on their tongues because they couldn’t see the midnight snack in their mouth? I’m not kidding, folks. Peter even did a short video of this horrifying, catastrophic end-times event.
No doubt one of the first questions that comes to mind is “How”? How on earth could the Dimonds (or any sane human for that matter) imagine that this normal, everyday rinky-dink event could possibly be the dreaded Fifth Vial of God’s wrath? We’ve all experienced blackouts. We know what happens. There’s nothing fearful about them at all, and certainly no reason to panic. In fact, we’ve probably experienced enough of them that when they do occur, we instinctively know the electricity will be restored as soon as possible. And it always is. And how much less of a hassle is it when the blackout occurs in the middle of the night, as did this one in Brussels? It just means we’ll have to reset the alarm clock in a few hours. There’s no reason to even get out of bed. Just roll over and go back to sleep. Again, we’ve all been there. There’s absolutely nothing to panic about.
Sure, the media played it up as if were some Apocalyptic event, but reading the comments on twitter, it’s quite obvious no one was panicking at all. In fact, they were a bit aggravated that the media made such a big deal about it. Read some of the comments yourself. These were taken from: https://www.rt.com/news/376881-brussels-blackout-media-panic/
“Can the media abroad stop their (expletive) about panic in Brussels during power outage? There is no panic whatsoever here!!! Geesh!”
“Well I'm in Brussels, I see no total blackout, no police and sirens everywhere. Calm down...”
“The lights are most certainly on in this part of Brussels & no sirens - calm down twitter!”
“Faint rare siren can be heard, nothing out of the ordinary.”
That’s right. Nothing out of the ordinary. And certainly nothing of an Apocalyptic nature. In fact, the whole ordeal proved to be about as “Apocalyptic” as an episode of Sesame Street. So why did the Dimonds treat it as some epic event? Stranger still is the embarrassing fact that they already interpreted the Fifth Vial as an earlier event. Oops. That’s right. They must have forgotten. It happened back in 2010. Perhaps some of their longtime fans remember the occasion. In April of that year, there was a volcanic eruption in Iceland which sent plumes of ash over the entire country of Europe, darkening its skies and downing all the airline flights. Without batting an eye, the Dimonds boldly claimed this was the fulfillment of the Fifth Vial.
Though it clearly didn’t fulfill the prophecy any more than the Brussels fiasco did, who could doubt that AT LEAST the volcanic eruption was far more “Apocalyptic” in nature than some ordinary, everyday power outage? Nevertheless, for some mysterious reason, the Dimonds imagined that this little rinky-dink blackout, which barely claimed 15% of a city, was an even greater event than a volcanic eruption that darkened an entire country. Again, how is this possible?
Well, I’ll tell you how. Peter quietly admitted it in his video: The reason is because IT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED THEIR GUEST APPEARANCE on a popular radio talk show. THAT’S the reason why they deemed it significant. It followed their radio show. Had it happened at any other time, they wouldn’t have given this perfectly normal event a second thought. But you see, they believe they’re the Two Witnesses. That’s the key. That’s the secret behind their astoundingly ludicrous interpretation of this otherwise ordinary event. Michael and Peter believe they are the Two Witnesses, and this blackout occurred the day following their broadcast (God was confirming their radio testimony, you see). If you listen carefully to Peter’s voice in the video, you can detect a slight pause around the 1:20 mark. He does this for effect; in order to make sure that EVERYONE understands that the blackout occurred immediately after their show – as if, with the unveiling of this revelation, the Dimonds are quietly giving their fanclub a little wink; a little reminder, if you will, that they really ARE the Two Witnesses. Who knows? Who cares? Whatever the case, there’s no question that the ONLY reason they interpreted this minuscule event as significant – even Apocalyptic – was because it immediately followed THEIR radio appearance.
On a sidenote, Peter might try and defend his ridiculous interpretation by claiming that what really convinced him the blackout was an Apocalyptic event was the fact that numerous media outlets used the same phrase, “Plunged into Darkness” that some bibles use. So let’s nip this in the bud right now. There’s no great mystery behind the media’s widespread use of the same phrase. All the media outlets are controlled by a central body. They all read off the same script. Have a look at this short, comical video. It’s only 2 minutes long, but explains the point quite well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRVwSoFvviU
And so, the media outlets are all centrally controlled. That’s why these ones all used the same identical phrase, “Plunged into Darkness”. They operate from the same script. Again, there’s no great mystery here. In the end, aside from proving they believe they're the Witnesses, Peter’s interpretation of this prophecy of the Fifth Vial is just another lame attempt by the Dimonds to reconcile the mundane events of today with the cataclysmic events of the Apocalypse. They do it over and over and over again. You see, because they believe they’re the Two Witnesses, they think that everything happening around us right now is the fulfillment of Apocalyptic prophecy. Hence, the ludicrous interpretations. It’s not so much that they believe these events are truly “Apocalyptic”, for no one’s that stupid. It’s more the fact that they are really, really desperate to confirm their fantasy, and are therefore willing to accept just about ANYTHING that even remotely resembles one of the prophecies. That’s all that’s going on. Their ridiculous interpretation of the Fifth Vial is just one in a long line of examples.
Their interpretation of Apoc.18:2 is even worse. In fact, it’s arguably their dumbest to date. This prophecy describes what becomes of Babylon following its destruction at the end of the world:
“And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird...”
Unknown to the Dimonds, this same prophecy is repeated some 30 times throughout the writings of the ancient prophets, often in slightly more graphic detail. In fact, it’s one of the most oft-repeated prophecies in Scripture. No doubt it’s highly significant. In both the Old and New Testaments, the image of Babylon’s destruction is similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah – only worse: It is the image of a city completely incinerated by the unbridled vengeance of God; reduced to a heap of smoldering ash and abandoned to perpetual rotting and defilement; forevermore uninhabitable by man, but left to the demons, devils, satyrs, filth, and every unclean and despised beast. Below are some of the verses from the Apocalypse. Do they not provoke images of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?
"And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast...shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire." (Apoc. 17:16)
“Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire." (Apoc. 18:8 )
"...when they shall see the smoke of her burning, standing afar off for fear of her torment.” (Apoc. 18:9-10)
"...and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, and cried when they saw the smoke of her burning.” (Apoc. 18:17-18 )
"...and her smoke rose up forever and ever.” (Apoc. 19:3)
And so, this is Scripture’s image of the final state of the “Great City” of Babylon following its total destruction. And what is the image given to us by the Dimonds? Drum roll please…
An animal video on the façade of St. Peter’s Basilica.
A what? An animal video. That’s right. According to the Dimonds, a goofy 3-hour video of animals on the façade of St. Peter’s back in 2016 represented the final state of Babylon after its cataclysmic destruction. In those fateful three hours, one of Scriptures most oft-repeated prophecies was fulfilled as St. Peter’s Basilica literally became the "cage of every unclean and hateful bird". And what convinced the Dimonds that this was the fulfillment of the prophecy? Peter Dimond tells us that the word “cage” can also be interpreted as “prison”, and then points out that the basilica’s columns sort of looked like prison bars with the animals behind them. Ergo, the basilica literally became the "prison of every unclean and hateful bird". And what about the devils and unclean spirits, Peter? Never mind.
I know, I know. It’s laughable – and sadly pathetic. In their defense, I should mention that the video was accompanied by the actual sounds of the animals. Perhaps this is what catapulted it into the realm of the “Apocalyptic”. The truly sad part, though, is that the Dimonds’ fans swallowed this outrageous interpretation hook, line, and sinker – without question, without hesitation, and apparently without the slightest bit of research. In fact, as evidenced by their emails, they saw it as an astounding revelation. No. It’s simply what happens when one desperately tries to reconcile the mundane events of the present with the cataclysmic prophecies of the Apocalypse.
I should mention in passing that I did actually try and convince the Dimonds of their error regarding this prophecy. In response, Peter told me that I failed to grasp the difference between the Old Testament Babylon, and the New Testament “Babylon”. I’m assuming what he was implying was that the Old Testament prophecies regarding the destruction of Babylon were specific to the ancient city, whereas the New Testament prophecies are concerned with the spiritual “Babylon” – which, again, he maintains is Rome. So let me explain something: The ancient city of Babylon has NEVER been destroyed. Ever. It has continued on for thousands of years as it was in the days of King Nebuchadnezzar, as any Biblical historian can tell you. Granted, it’s gone through structural changes as old buildings decay and are replaced. But the city itself has never been destroyed. The point being, the Old and New Testament prophecies regarding the destruction of Babylon both concern one and the same city. There is only ONE “Babylon” in Scripture marked for destruction – and that is the Apocalyptic “Babylon”. Though in all fairness, I didn’t explain this particular historical fact to Peter. Ergo, we cannot come down too hard on him. Notwithstanding, the point remains the same: The Dimonds’ pathetic… um, I mean prophetic, interpretations are merely the outcome of a desperate attempt to reconcile the mundane events of the present with the cataclysmic prophecies of the Apocalypse. And all because they mistakenly believe they are the Two Witnesses.
They do it again with their interpretation of the “Second Trumpet”. According to the Dimonds, this Apocalyptic event also took place back in 2010. In fact, it happened in the same month as the volcanic eruption mentioned earlier. Both interpretations are good for a few laughs, so I’ll briefly mention this one too. First, let’s read the actual prophecy:
"And the second angel sounded the trumpet: and as it were a great mountain, burning with fire, was cast into the sea, and the third part of the sea became blood: And the third part of those creatures died, which had life in the sea, and the third part of the ships was destroyed." (Apoc. 8:8-9)
No doubt this second trumpet is pretty serious. One-third of the oceans turned into blood? One-third of all sea creatures died? One-third of all sea going ships destroyed? What on earth caused it? Are you ready… The Gulf Oil Spill. That's right. The Gulf Oil Spill of 2010. Remember that one? It covered an area of about .0005% of the world’s oceans (that’s five TEN THOUSANTHS, by the way), a far cry short of the prophesied 33%. And how many ships did it destroy, Peter? Any? Again, another laughable interpretation. Even so, he tried desperately to justify it by claiming that the flaming oil rig looked sort of like a burning mountain when viewed from the shore; and the oily water looked somewhat red (like blood) from the air. And the ships, Peter? Never mind the details. His fans swallowed it. That’s the important thing. Another fantastic revelation by the Two Witnesses, Fred and Bob. No, it’s simply what happens when someone desperately tries to reconcile the mundane events of the present with the cataclysmic prophecies of the Apocalypse. But enough of this stupidity. Let’s move on.
There are numerous other reasons why I maintain the Dimonds believe they are the Two Witnesses. Unfortunately, most of these will only seem circuмstantial unless one puts in the time to seriously consider them. For this reason, I'll only mention a few of them briefly. Afterward, I'll bring forward the most damning evidence to date.
So first of all, the fact that the Dimonds HAVE NEVER PUBLICALLY DENIED being the Witnesses on their website should throw up a Red Flag. Granted, it may not sound like much; but the fact is, they KNOW their followers suspect they’re the Witnesses. How could they not? Trust me, they know. In fact, the small community that followed them when they moved the monastery from New Jersey to New York, believed they were the Witnesses. And the Dimonds actually tried (sort of) to convince them otherwise. Mind you, this was almost 20 years ago. Trust me, THEY KNOW their followers believe they’re the Two Witnesses. And even IF they weren’t absolutely sure their followers suspected such a baseless absurdity, simple humility would necessitate their saying something on the internet: “If anyone thinks my brother and I are the Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse, we’re not. We never have been, and we never will be. This is why we haven’t fulfilled a single prophecy specific to the Witnesses. Now go home.” That’s all it would take. And yet… not a word. Truly, their silence is deafening.
Secondly, one must seriously consider the danger of pride. The danger of pride is such that it can destroy a person long before he rises to any position of prominence. Even so, the danger is FAR GREATER when the individual reaches such heights – and even moreso when that position involves the instruction of Catholics. Ergo, we must assume beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Dimonds have been PRIME TARGETS of Satan ever since their mission began. This is an undeniable fact. They have been on the Devil’s hit list for some 20 years now. The ONLY question is whether or not they succuмbed to his influence. And if you don't think the devil could influence them, have a look at their teaching on the reception of the sacraments from heretics. Here we find clear proof of the Devil’s influence in the form of an astoundingly blatant contradiction – a contradiction the Dimonds have been parading on their website for some 15 years or so. What am I talking about? As any of their followers know, the Dimond brothers maintain the position that, according to Ecclesiastical Law, under NO CIRcuмSTANCES WHATSOEVER may one receive the Sacraments from the priest of a notoriously heretical sect – that is, a sect classified canonically as “Notorious in Fact”. The reason being, they maintain that although the particular sect isn't formally condemned, its public notoriety nevertheless renders it equivalent to the same. And so, according to the Dimonds, a sect that is "Notorious in Fact" is canonically equivalent to one that has been formally condemned - and is therefore absolutely off limits for the sacraments. Fair enough. So what's the problem, you ask?
The problem is that whenever asked about reception of the sacraments from priests of the Novus Ordo sect (which they repeatedly condemn as NOTORIOUSLY HERETICAL), they not only allow it, but even encourage it! This, of course, is in blatant contradiction to their own position. This is so obviously in violation of what they interpret as Ecclesiastical Law that nothing can be said in their defense. And again, they’ve been parading this blatant contradiction ON THE WORLD-WIDE WEB for well over a decade. How is this possible? It’s possible because the Dimonds are influenced by the Devil.
Delving deeper into the subject of pride, we must consider the fact that many of Peter’s so-called interpretations of Apocalyptic prophecy are absolutely unique. That is to say, they have never been posited by anyone in the entire history of Catholicism. Take, for example, his interpretation of the prophecy of the Seven Kings. This unique interpretation was accomplished by Peter alone. No one else has ever deciphered it in the way he has. Likewise, his interpretation of the “Mark of the Beast” prophecy is absolutely unique. No one else has ever come up with anything like it. His condemnation of John Paul II as the Antichrist, Ratzinger as the False Prophet, the Novus Ordo as Babylon, etc. are also unique – not in the sense that he originated them, but in the sense that he elaborates on them in far greater detail than anyone else. That is to say, he brings up points that no one else has ever thought of. And we could go on and on: The Abomination of Desolation; the Great Apostasy; the clothing of the Whore; the golden cup in her hand; the identity of the Beasts. All of these interpretations are absolutely unique to the Dimonds in their most intricate details. That is to say, even though the brothers may not have been the first to initiate such interpretations, they certainly refined them – and to a degree never before done by any other apologist. And, of course, we could add the prophecies already mentioned: the Fifth Vial, the Second Trumpet, and Apoc. 18:2.
Now, one cannot accomplish such a feat without thinking to some degree that he is special. “If I am being enlightened about Apocalyptic prophecy, and my revelations are absolutely unique, then I must be someone special.” The conclusion would be inescapable. Frankly, under the circuмstances, anyone would think the same. I would. It's perfectly normal. In fact, it would be completely unreasonable to assume otherwise. This being the case, we can safely say the Dimonds believe they are at the very least special – "enlightened" by God as to the proper interpretation of Apocalyptic prophecy. Again, such a belief would be perfectly normal.
Moreover, consider that there are TWO of them. No one is ignorant of this point. In fact, this coincidence alone is probably one of the most powerful influences on the minds of their followers – that is, in regard to the question of whether or not they are the Two Witnesses. Were there three or four brothers, no one would ever suspect any of them were the Witnesses. But since there are two of them, this automatically forces the question. But does the fact that there are two of them not likewise bear on the mind of the brothers? Of course it does. They’re not that stupid. Combine this with the fact that THEY KNOW they are teaching a remnant of Catholics via the most visited “Traditional” website on earth; during an era of spiritual insanity never before seen; and that they recently acquired an enormous financial settlement (on the feast of St. Benedict, no less). With these considerations, and many others daily on their mind, it's only natural to assume that they would imagine themselves to be the Two Witnesses. If one were to consider nothing but the seemingly fantastic insights into Apocalyptic prophecy, and the fact that there are two of them, it would be unreasonable to assume otherwise. How could anyone doubt?
Indeed. How could anyone doubt? Well, I'll tell you how: Problem number one is that ALL of their prophetic interpretations are wrong – every single one of them. I'm not talking about those specifically mentioned above. No. I'm talking about every single interpretation of Apocalyptic prophecy they've ever attempted; since the very founding of their monastery until the present day. Every single one of them is dead wrong.
As mentioned earlier, because they believe they are the Two Witnesses, they attempt to interpret ALL Apocalyptic prophecy according to the events of the present. That is, during the relative era of their mission. And this is the problem. This one single error – that they believe they are the Witnesses – lies at the heart of all their prophetic (mis)interpretations. It’s the reason they must alter all Apocalyptic prophecies, and particularly those specific to the Witnesses. Sometimes the alteration takes nothing more than the simple change of a word or two, as we've seen in the above examples; and sometimes it takes an effort of Biblical proportions, such as in the example I'm about to show you. But whatever they do to make their interpretation appear correct, you can rest assured, it is the outcome of alteration.
This next example says it all. It is not only proof of the most arrogant desecration of the Word of God, but also definitive assurance that the Dimonds believe they are the Two Witnesses. It concerns their interpretation of the prophecy of the Seven Kings from chapter 17 of the Apocalypse. Here we find an interpretation by Peter so intricate in its details it's somewhat hard to imagine that it’s complete baloney. Even so, you will see that not only is their interpretation totally fabricated, but that it ONLY works if one accepts that they are the Two Witnesses.
Now, those familiar with the Dimonds' interpretation of this prophecy might realize where I'm going with this already; but for the sake of the others, I'll elaborate a little. After all, this is an important piece of the evidence. Let's first have a quick look at their interpretation. In a nutshell, the Dimonds maintain that the Seven Kings are actually popes. The list begins with Pius XI, who was elected in 1922. John Paul II is said to be the sixth king, as well as the Antichrist himself. Benedict XVI is said to be the seventh and last king, who, according to the prophecy, is supposed to have reigned “a short time” (in reality, his reign surpassed the average – and was longer than over 150 of his predecessors). Anyway, in a nutshell, this is the Dimonds’ interpretation of the prophecy of the Seven Kings. So how do they desecrate it? In regard to the specifics, all we need to know is what the Angel said to St. John:
“And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings: Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come: and when he is come, he must remain a short time.”
Now, notice that the Angel interpreting this prophecy is speaking directly to St. John. And not only is he speaking to St. John, but he is using language that clearly indicates he is speaking from the perspective of the moment. We know this because of the tenses used by the Angel. For instance, when mentioning the kings, he says that five ARE fallen. Here he’s obviously speaking from the perspective of the moment – that is, in the present. It's as if he said "Five kings have fallen already, as of this very moment I'm speaking with you, St. John." This is absolutely crucial to realize because proper interpretation of this prophecy depends upon both the exact words of the Angel, and the scenario in general. If the tense of the words, or the scenario, is altered in any way, proper interpretation is impossible. Five kings "are fallen" as of the time of the vision. One king "is" as of the time of the vision. And one king has "not yet come" as of the time of the vision.
Notice also that in speaking of the sixth king, the Angel even stresses the word "is". He doesn't qualify it with "IS reigning", or "IS alive", or "IS about to fall". He simply says "one IS". We see here the Holy Ghost clearly focusing our attention on the perspective of the moment. So then, in order to properly interpret this prophecy, one absolutely has to rely on the details of the scene as well as the tense of the words. Again, if any of these details are altered in any way, proper interpretation of the prophecy is impossible. And yet, if the details AREN’T altered, the Dimonds’ hallowed Fantasyland would find itself in serious trouble – for they could no longer interpret the prophecy as pointing toward John Paul II, much less his compatriots. Enter the ingenious Peter Dimond…
In an astounding fit of pride and arrogance, Peter imagines HIMSELF the recipient of the Angel's interpretation. In other words, in his warped mind, he imagines that the Angel is not actually speaking to St. John, but to him personally. This maneuver accomplishes two things: First of all, it allows for the Angel’s interpretation of the Seven Kings to be fulfilled from the perspective of Peter’s time, as opposed to St. John’s time of 2000 years ago. Ergo, Peter is free to supply us with RECENT dates for the reigns of the kings – um, I mean popes. Specifically, it allows him to interpret the king who “IS” as John Paul II (who I’m assuming was reigning at the time of Peter’s amazing “insight”).
Secondly, by pulling off such a barbarous mutilation of Scripture, the Dimonds inadvertently arrogate to themselves the role of the Two Witnesses. Granted, one may argue that nowhere in this interpretation did the Dimonds actually say that they were the Witnesses. And you’re right. They never did. And they never will. Yet who can deny that, in this one momentous act of Scriptural desecration, they have not openly declared themselves to be the most special pair of individuals walking the earth today? The Angel was literally talking to THEM – the two Dimond brothers. The "Voices in the Wilderness". Imagine that.
Frankly, we don’t need to look any further than this for evidence that the Dimonds believe they are the Two Witnesses. This slick maneuver on their part says it all. Even so, we have seen them altering several other prophecies specific to the Witnesses in order to make them fit their own experience. They’ve altered the 1260-day duration of the Witnesses’ mission because it conflicted with their own. They’ve replaced Enoch and Elijah with Sts. Peter and Paul in order to reconcile the Witnesses’ mission with that of their own. They’ve seriously twisted the prophecy regarding the location of the Witnesses’ death in order to make it fit their own agenda. They believed the ordinary blackout in Brussels to be an Apocalyptic sign simply because it followed THEIR radio show. And finally, in a fit of unsurpassed arrogance, they’ve declared to the world that THEY ALONE are the recipients of the Angel’s words to St. John. Do we really need more evidence? Oh yes, and they’ve never publicly denied their followers’ suspicions…
The Dimond brothers believe they are the Two Witnesses. It's blatantly obvious. They've believed this for nearly two decades, and continue to this very day ever more convinced. Though we must admit that under the circuмstances, anyone in their shoes would believe the same – apart from the truly humble, that is. And yet, if they really ARE the Witnesses, then why the need to manipulate the above prophecies? Indeed, if they were the Two Witnesses, there would be absolutely no need to manipulate anything at all. Not a single word. As obvious as this fact is, however, I can’t help but suspect some of their fans might still have a difficult time accepting the truth. But fear not. Fortunately for us, God has given the world a number of very specific prophecies with which to identify the Witnesses – prophecies so easily understood that even a child can interpret them. The reason being, proper identification of the Two Witnesses is of paramount importance for mankind. This is why the Holy Ghost described the mission of the Witnesses in such clear detail - unlike the rest of the Apocalypse, which is veiled in mysterious language.
Let’s not forget, the world is coming to an end. Countless numbers of people are going to die within a very short amount of time; and many of God’s beloved Israelites will be among them. The message of the Witnesses is mankind’s last chance. It is God's final call to repentance. Ergo, its importance cannot be overstated. And not only is the Witnesses’ message a final call to repentance, but these two individuals will be responsible for identifying the most dangerous man to ever walk this earth; and the greatest deceiver the world has ever known – a man who will destroy so many souls that if God did not stop him, no one would be left alive. Needless to say, this man MUST be exposed. The Witnesses are also destined to announce the coming of the Messiah, as if that were a small matter. All this to say, their message is of the most vital importance for mankind. For this reason, God has given us VERY SPECIFIC PROPHECIES with which to identify them. This is why Chapter 11 of the Apocalypse, which describes the Witness' mission, is written so plainly, as opposed to the rest of the Apocalypse, which is cloaked in mysterious language. Again, God wants everyone to be able to identify the Witnesses.
Ergo, we have to ask the inevitable question: Do the Dimonds fulfill any of these prophecies? And if so, which ones? We’ve already covered the prophecy of the duration of the Witnesses’ mission, which the Dimonds clearly failed to fulfill. But in addition to this, have they stopped a single drop of rain from falling? Have they turned a single drop of water into blood? Have they called down a single solitary plague upon anyone? At any time? Anywhere on earth? Are they wearing sackcloth? Do “all those who dwell on the earth” hate the Dimonds? Do they even know who these two clowns are? Remember now, the brothers claim that we are at the END of the Tribulation period. The Era of the Apocalypse and the “Great Apostasy” is nearly over. They said it themselves. And yet, they still haven't fulfilled one single prophecy specific to the Witnesses? Not one? And not only have they NOT fulfilled any of the prophecies, but they have been acting gravely contrary to the way true Catholics should act – openly and publicly defying what they, themselves, claim is Ecclesiastical Law. Even worse, although they’ve been told of this particular error (by me personally), they still continue in arrogant defiance to this very day. This could hardly be the attitude of God’s Anointed Prophets.
And this blatantly defiant attitude is merely the tip of the iceberg. As I write this, the Dimonds KNOWINGLY maintain a doctrine that is not only condemned under threat of anathema by the Council of Trent, but contradicted by Pius XI in THE VERY QUOTE the Dimonds use to “prove” their own position. That’s right. For well over a decade, God’s Anointed Prophets have been accidentally parading a quote on their website that FLATLY CONTRADICTS THEIR OWN POSITION – in an effort to “prove” that they’re right! You can’t make this stuff up.
[colo
-
I'm replying without quoting to save repeating all the above, but it is a serious matter. The Dimonds are good for one thing: exposing bod. Everything else out of them is hogwash, most especially IMHO, sedevacantism. Beyond that, I imagine they believe they are the two witnesses because they know that they are virtually the only ones that know bod is a scam. Or they think its because they "know" there hasn't been a Pope for years. This is the fatal error many fall into because of pride. God gives a gift, and the receiver refuses to be humble about it. You've done a really good job describing the problem, showing that the Dimonds believe they are the two witnesses and showing why they cannot possibly be. Because people tend to side with persons and not the facts, this is going to further divide. Hopefully, most escape the Dimonds. The two trains (who are not the two witnesses) have gone off the rails and are headed for a wreck.
-
I'll try to read this again later, but I am not following why you think they believe they're The Two Witnesses.
-
I don't give a rat's asterisk about the Diamond Bros or what they think, but I appreciate your scriptural quotes/commentary.
-
[...]
All of that content, and you neglect to post a citation or any admission by the Dimonds proving they believe themselves to be the Two Witnesses.
Fail.
-
sedevacantist - how about you tell us what you "don't believe" about baptism. You have already said you do not believe in baptism of desire(or the three baptisms I am reasonably assuming), and that you do not believe in feeneyism/"ancient belief". And, please, no israeli psycho babble.
sedevacantist quote from a couple of weeks ago :
"As for your accusing me of "Feeneyism", this is not true at all. Fr. Feeney believed in "Baptism of Desire" - only he believed in the ancient version, as opposed to the modern one. I have never once believed in either. But that's another subject for another thread."
-
If you don't care about the Dimonds, why are you quasi-praising his defamation of their character.
I don't support his defamation, i'll make that clear. I don't support his scriptural commentary concerning them, I just found some of the factual-based commentary interesting (the historical aspects, like Jerusalem having 7 hills).
On a somewhat related note, the Diamond Bros have put out MANY erroenous and stupid videos (they said JPII was the anti-christ for heaven's sake!). To date, they have never retracted their errors, admitted any mistakes, or allowed that they are wrong, even partially. They have no integrity in my eyes.
-
They SELL/SOLD videos claiming JPII is the anti-christ. Once one SELLS an idea, it's no longer defamation to call it erroneous, it's just a criticizing of a product.
-
Right??
And this too...
Sounds to me like this fella tried to debate the Dimonds and got crushed...now he's all butt hurt and trying to replace the Dimonds opinions with his own.
Actually, I challenged them to a debate several times regarding the Apocalyptic issues, and they refused each time. The "Two Witnesses" argument wasn't even going to be brought up - just the prophecies. Still, they refused.
Nor are my positions "opinions". They are interpretations based upon actual Scriptural evidence. Ergo, my positions conform to Scripture. The Dimonds, on the other hand, conform Scripture to their positions - as I proved. By way of example, their conception of the Great Apostasy is based upon nothing but their own personal belief. It has absolutely no basis in either Scripture, or reality. Although they correctly make reference to the Arian Heresy of the 4th century as the prototype of the Great Apostasy, the mistaken belief that they are the Two Witnesses forms the basis for their entire misinterpretation of this end-times phenomenon. As I explained in my thread on this very subject, the essence of the Arian Heresy was NOT a state of widespread heresy. The essence of Arianism was the denial of the Divinity of Christ. This is what it was all about. And this is the prototype given to us by God. Ergo, the true Great Apostasy will be characterized by a world-wide denial of the Divinity of Christ. This position is based upon Scripture, history, and a little common sense, as I explained in my thread. The Dimonds' position, on the contrary, is based solely upon the belief that they are the Two Witnesses - and therefore, according to them, we MUST be living in the Apocalyptic Era.
This one belief - that they are the Two Witnesses - is the FOUNDATION of ALL their prophetic (mis)interpretations. It is the only "proof" they rely on for their interpretations. This is proven by the fact that if the Scriptures don't conform to their position, they alter the Scriptures.
-
"Sedevacantist" you cited the magazine "A Voice Crying In The Wilderness", can you tell me the issue number and the page number that supports what you are saying? If you are going to present what appears to be a forensic presentation against Brother Michael and Brother Peter, it is only fair to be able to provide the facts and the evidence, so that others can independently verify what your poorly present.
And just as another reader commented, its not about the prophecies, its about the Catholic Faith itself, for which they defend vigorously! I intend to carefully read this thread because the bias stinks to high heaven.
And by the way, the Brothers would never back down from a debate, you are a liar, in that regard.
Regarding the Antichrist, Pax Vobis, can you tell me the definition of Antichrist and who it will be? You seem to know?
-
Haha. I have no idea who the anti christ is, and I never claimed to, but I can say with 100% certainty that he wasn't JPII.
The Diamond Bros support and defend a lot of Truth. I've known a few people who started their conversions because of them. But they also cause some unnecessary divisions in Trad-land and they also make many PREPOSTEROUS prophecies, JPII being one of them.
If they would just tone it down a bit in relation to fellow Catholics (i.e. Stop yelling 'heretic' at everyone) and if they would stop using prophecies to get attention and web hits, I would respect them more. As I said above, if they would just stick to teaching the Faith, they would be an excellent help to the Church.
-
Haha. I have no idea who the anti christ is, and I never claimed to, but I can say with 100% certainty that he wasn't JPII.
The Diamond Bros support and defend a lot of Truth. I've known a few people who started their conversions because of them. But they also cause some unnecessary divisions in Trad-land and they also make many PREPOSTEROUS prophecies, JPII being one of them.
If they would just tone it down a bit in relation to fellow Catholics (i.e. Stop yelling 'heretic' at everyone) and if they would stop using prophecies to get attention and web hits, I would respect them more. As I said above, if they would just stick to teaching the Faith, they would be an excellent help to the Church.
Ok, conversely, how do you know that john paul II is not the Antichrist? I ask you this question because it would only make sense to know the definition of Antichrist, and apply that definition to john paul II and determine, that he is not the Antichrist. But you said that you don't know the definition of Antichrist. That is a conundrum.
Please understand, I am not picking a fight but only trying to bring out what people think that they know, when they speak. And in doing so, sometimes it could be a surprising teaching moment, for many?
-
sedevacantist - how about you tell us what you "don't believe" about baptism. You have already said you do not believe in baptism of desire(or the three baptisms I am reasonably assuming), and that you do not believe in feeneyism/"ancient belief". And, please, no israeli psycho babble.
sedevacantist quote from a couple of weeks ago :
"As for your accusing me of "Feeneyism", this is not true at all. Fr. Feeney believed in "Baptism of Desire" - only he believed in the ancient version, as opposed to the modern one. I have never once believed in either. But that's another subject for another thread."
I would also like "Sedevacantist" to cite the ancient version of baptism of desire that Fr. Feeney believed. Can he quote Fr. Feeney?
-
Ok, conversely, how do you know that john paul II is not the Antichrist?
He's not the anti christ because he's dead, and has been for more than a decade.
I never said I didn't know about the anti-christ...If you are seriously saying we need to still study whether or not JPII was the actual anti-christ, then you have a serious lack of knowledge of this topic. This is crazy talk.
-
Because this thread is so long, I am going to pick this apart piece by piece. This guy bears false witness. He says the Brothers believe that they are the Two Witnesses and says there is no question about it [its undisputed fact]. Where are the cited facts?
"The Dimonds believe they are the Two Witnesses from chapter 11 of the Apocalypse. There’s no question about it. After looking at the evidence I'll be presenting, I’m sure you’ll agree. On the same note, it is not my primary intention to prove that the Dimonds believe this – but rather to prove its absolute impossibility. This is the primary goal of this post."
Truthfully, I can say, because I spoke to Brother Michael on the phone some years ago and he clearly stated to me that they DO NOT think that they are the two witnesses.
Second, this guy attempts to smear the Brothers by twisting scripture and omitting the previous and subsequent verses of chapter 18 of the Apocalypse, that would destroy his lies, for which he is nothing more than a typical protestant. Here is his quote.
"By way of a quick example, the Brothers believe that the “Babylon” spoken of in the Book of the Apocalypse is the city of Rome – and therefore the “Fall of Babylon” refers to the “Fall of Rome from the Catholic Faith”. This has been their position for many years, as any of their followers know. At the same time, Scripture states very clearly that the “Fall of Babylon” is an occasion for REJOICING in Heaven (Apoc. 18:20, 19:1-4). And here we see the problem. If one wants to uphold the Dimonds’ position, one has to maintain that all of Heaven rejoices at the Fall of Rome from the Catholic Faith – a position so theologically preposterous that words simply fail."
This guy also, attacks Mary, the mother of God and the Catholic church. Our Lady of La Salette is an approved apparition for which Our Lady did say that "Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist, the church would be in eclipse."
Let me provide the relevant verses of Apocalypse chapters 18-19. In these two chapters, St. John describes the bishops in purple and Cardinals in red and how in one hour St. Peter's Basilica [the building] in Rome has come to nought because of "Paul VI's" false altar that is brought over and against the true altar of God. Also, Paul VI's new Missal. And also the changing of the words of the wine portion of the Holy Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass.
Please notice that verse 23 clearly states the Tabernacle Lamp will not shine any more in thee. Which means that Jesus is not there, its desolate, its a counterfeit catholic church, clothed in purple and scarlet!
Apocalypse 18:16-21 [16] And saying: Alas! alas! that great city, which was clothed with fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and was gilt with gold, and precious stones, and pearls. [17] For in one hour are so great riches come to nought; and every shipmaster, and all that sail into the lake, and mariners, and as many as work in the sea, stood afar off. [18] And cried, seeing the place of her burning, saying: What city is like to this great city? [19] And they cast dust upon their heads, and cried, weeping and mourning, saying: Alas! alas! that great city, wherein all were made rich, that had ships at sea, by reason of her prices: for in one hour she is made desolate. [20] Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath judged your judgment on her.[21] And a mighty angel took up a stone, as it were a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying: With such violence as this shall Babylon, that great city, be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. [22] And the voice of harpers, and of musicians, and of them that play on the pipe, and on the trumpet, shall no more be heard at all in thee; and no craftsman of any art whatsoever shall be found any more at all in thee; and the sound of the mill shall be heard no more at all in thee; [23] And the light of the lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth, for all nations have been deceived by thy enchantments. [24] And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Apocalypse 19:1-4 [1] After these things I heard as it were the voice of much people in heaven, saying: Alleluia. Salvation, and glory, and power is to our God. [2] For true and just are his judgments, who hath judged the great harlot which corrupted the earth with her fornication, and hath revenged the blood of his servants, at her hands. [3] And again they said: Alleluia. And her smoke ascendeth for ever and ever. [4] And the four and twenty ancients, and the four living creatures fell down and adored God that sitteth upon the throne, saying: Amen; Alleluia.
It is so obviously clear that the rejoicing is, God destroying this harlot, the counterfeit catholic church, clothed in purple and scarlet, in Rome! It will be an asteroid thrown into the Mediterranean Sea near Rome, completely destroying the city.
Prophecy of Jeremias 51:42 The sea is come up over Babylon: she is covered with the multitude of the waves thereof.
-
He's not the anti christ because he's dead, and has been for more than a decade.
I never said I didn't know about the anti-christ...If you are seriously saying we need to still study whether or not JPII was the actual anti-christ, then you have a serious lack of knowledge of this topic. This is crazy talk.
Could you please tell me about the Antichrist, then? Do you know if he will be a political figure or religious figure? Is it possible that the Antichrist has come and gone and what remains in place, is the destructive political/religious system, the eight beast? I am not being random, there is a reason why I ask. I'm trying to get you to lay your cards on the table because you sound so sure of yourself. If so, please share your understanding with me?
By the way, the Catholic church's teaching on the Antichrist is this:
Definition of Antichrist:
1. Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi Apostolatus, Oct. 4, 1903: “While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God.”
2. 1 John 2:22 – “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.”
3. 1 John 4:2-3 – “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh...”
Have you ever heard of Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople 428 AD?
-
Luke3, you need to read some of the Church Fathers. There are a number of short pamphlets out there that give the 'nuts and bolts' of what the Church teaches on the subject...and JPII didn't come close to fulfilling any of it.
Where was the mark of the beast during JPII's reign? Where were the 2 witnesses? When did JPII try to ascend to heaven, and imitate Christ? When did JPII work signs and wonders? When did JPII setup his throne in Jerusalem? When did he renew the sacrifice of the Jews? When did he conquer armies and become ruler of the world? When did he order the martyrdom of christians? When did he outlaw the "true sacrifice" of the mass? This is just a small list of things that will happen under the anti-christ, according to the Church and the Apocalypse.
Anyone who argued in the past that JPII was the anti-christ is uneducated. Anyone who still argues it, since he's dead, is borderline insane.
-
Luke3, you need to read some of the Church Fathers. There are a number of short pamphlets out there that give the 'nuts and bolts' of what the Church teaches on the subject...and JPII didn't come close to fulfilling any of it.
Where was the mark of the beast during JPII's reign? Where were the 2 witnesses? When did JPII try to ascend to heaven, and imitate Christ? When did JPII work signs and wonders? When did JPII setup his throne in Jerusalem? When did he renew the sacrifice of the Jews? When did he conquer armies and become ruler of the world? When did he order the martyrdom of christians? When did he outlaw the "true sacrifice" of the mass? This is just a small list of things that will happen under the anti-christ, according to the Church and the Apocalypse.
Anyone who argued in the past that JPII was the anti-christ is uneducated. Anyone who still argues it, since he's dead, is borderline insane.
By your own admission, you hold the position of the protestants. For instance, you mentioned that the antichrist will setup his throne in Jerusalem. This is very wrong, its not even close. You are referring to this verse.
2 Thessalonians 2:4 … so that he sitteth in the temple of God, …
If the antichrist set up his own throne, it would not be God's throne, it would be the antichrist' throne. No, the temple of God is St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. You demonstrate that you don't know anything about scripture. Church history clearly says that the antichrist will be a false bishop. Bishop Arius, Nestorius, all the way to Judas Iscariot. Judas betrayed and killed Jesus, the bridegroom. In the end times Jesus will allow his bride to undergo persecution from a false bishop.
In fact, St. Francis of Assisi prophesied that a man will be uncanonically elected to the Pontificate.
The Prophecy of St. Francis About a Future Pope
1. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.
2. The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death.
3. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.
4. There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.
5. Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.
6. Those who preserve in their fervor and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. but the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head, [Christ] these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.
7. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days JESUS CHRIST WILL SEND THEM NOT A TRUE PASTOR, BUT A DESTROYER." [TAKEN FROM Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250]
John Paul II said every man is god. John Paul II said Christmas is the feast of man.
The Antichrist Has Come And Gone! (http://thydailybreadforum.proboards.com/thread/7637/antichrist-come)
-
The Anti-christ has come and gone.
You are absolutely crazy. I can't believe I'm having this conversation with a 'catholic'. You have no idea what you're talking about.
-
By your own admission, you hold the position of the protestants. For instance, you mentioned that the antichrist will setup his throne in Jerusalem. This is very wrong, its not even close. You are referring to this verse.
2 Thessalonians 2:4 … so that he sitteth in the temple of God, …
No I'm not referring to that verse. And no, it's not a protestant position to hold that the anti-christ may setup his kingdom in Jerusalem. See below quote from St Augustine. It is possible that Jerusalem will be his kingdom center.
Augustine of Hippo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo) (354 – 430) wrote "it is uncertain in what temple [the Antichrist] shall sit, whether in that ruin of the temple which was built by Solomon, or in the Church."[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist#cite_note-30)
I do admit that it's not a CERTAINTY that Jerusalem will be his temple, but that's besides the point. My point is, that the Church Fathers wrote VOLUMES about the anti-christ and JPII fulfills NONE of what the Church teaches about the subject. You picked 1 question out of 10 that I may be wrong about. So what? What about the other 9 questions that JPII does not fulfill?
-
You are absolutely crazy. I can't believe I'm having this conversation with a 'catholic'. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I think you are dealing with a recently banned individual... possibly Freedom?
-
No I'm not referring to that verse. And no, it's not a protestant position to hold that the anti-christ may setup his kingdom in Jerusalem. See below quote from St Augustine. It is possible that Jerusalem will be his kingdom center.
Augustine of Hippo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo) (354 – 430) wrote "it is uncertain in what temple [the Antichrist] shall sit, whether in that ruin of the temple which was built by Solomon, or in the Church."[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist#cite_note-30)
I do admit that it's not a CERTAINTY that Jerusalem will be his temple, but that's besides the point. My point is, that the Church Fathers wrote VOLUMES about the anti-christ and JPII fulfills NONE of what the Church teaches about the subject. You picked 1 question out of 10 that I may be wrong about. So what? What about the other 9 questions that JPII does not fulfill?
"When did he outlaw the "true sacrifice" of the mass?"
The Catholic Mass ceased when the false altar, the new Missal, and the changing of the words of consecration of the wine portion of the Holy Sacrifice was brought in by "Paul VI". Its all there in the Book of Daniel and supported by the Book of the Machabees and many other places.
Daniel 9:26-27 … And a people with their leader that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation. [27] And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fall: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.
Daniel 11:31-32 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation. [32] And such as deal wickedly against the covenant shall deceitfully dissemble: *but the people that know their God shall prevail and succeed.*
1 Machabees 1:57, 62 On the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year, king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God, and they built altars throughout all the cities of Juda round about: … And on the five and twentieth day of the month they sacrificed upon the altar of the idol that was over against the altar of God.
The abomination of desolation is a false altar brought over and against the true altar of God.
Josue 22:19, 29 … only depart not from the Lord, and from our society, by building an altar beside the altar of the Lord our God. … God keep us from any such wickedness that we should revolt from the Lord, and leave off following his steps, by building an altar to offer h0Ɩ0cαųsts, and sacrifices, and victims, beside the altar of the Lord our God, which is erected before his tabernacle.
Marie Julie Jahenny, who was a Third Order Franciscan, prophesied that there would be a cessation of the Catholic Mass. Pope Leo XIII also alluded to the same thing in a vision that he had.
Marie Julie Jahenny, the famous Briton stigmatist, heard Satan say to Christ, “For a time I will be Master of all things, everything will be under my control, even your temple and all your people.” A few further excerpts from Marie, “and will continue implacably to obtain the cessation of Holy Mass…” On March 29, 1879: “the abandoned Church will be without its Supreme Head who governs and directs it.”
On May 10, 1904, Marie Julie Jahenny was told: “I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the Faith of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in the second period. The first period is the one of my priesthood, existing since me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of the holy religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of my holy priests will refuse this book [Missal], sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it.” On the say day she was told: “the dispersion of the pastors…who will be replaced by others, formed by hell, initiated in all vices, all iniquities, perfidious,….new preachers of new sacraments, new temples….”
I'm not trying to hurt you but only help, I don't know why you would deny these truths. Unfortunately, you are relying on fallible saints and theologians concerning the antichrist. You seem obstinate in your own ideas. So I won't continue with you, regarding this matter. I hope that you change?
But there is something that I wanted to say to you because you mentioned that you can't believe that you are talking to a catholic like me. You seem to imply that Catholics don't go to hell. Actually most Catholics do go to hell. This is supported all over the bible. For instance with Moses. Out of all the Judeans of the first generation, who came out of Egypt, only two men made it into the Promised Land. It was Josue and Caleb. The rest, God killed off, in the desert for their sins and obduracy.
Numbers 14:29-30 In the wilderness shall your carcasses lie. All you that were numbered from twenty years old and upward, and have murmured against me, [30] Shall not enter into the land, over which I lifted up my hand to make you dwell therein, except Caleb the son of Jephone, and Josue the son of Nun.
Saint Leonard of Port Maurice [A.D. 1676-1751], on the fewness of the saved: “After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he [Suarez] wrote, ‘The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians [Catholics], there are more damned souls than predestined souls.’ Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone. Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, “Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom.” Saint Anselm declares, “There are few who are saved.” Saint Augustine states even more clearly, “Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned.” The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: “Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence.”
I wanted to point out what St. Francis of Assisi prophesied concerning the end times and the false bishop usurping the chair of St. Peter and those who hold to the truth. They will be accused as being rebels and schismatics.
The Prophecy of St. Francis About a Future Pope
6. Those who preserve in their fervor and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. but the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head, [Christ] these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy. [TAKEN FROM Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250]
You should start saying the rosary everyday, in a selfless and devoted way.
Recitation Of The Rosary Is Necessary For Salvation (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/recitation-of-the-rosary-is-necessary-for-salvation/)
I am not your enemy but a friend. If there is something that you specifically think what I provided is wrong, please specifically point it out? Thank you.
-
Sedevacantist quote.
"First of all, it’s believed that Enoch and Elijah have never died; and since everyone born from Adam (excepting Christ and His Mother) is under the curse of death, it’s only natural to assume Enoch and Elijah MUST die someday. Ergo, it’s maintained that they will return as the Witnesses, fulfill their mission, and then perish as everyone else. And so, the belief that they haven’t died yet is one of the reasons this position has prevailed as the majority opinion for so long.
Then there’s the statement from the Book of Ecclesiastes which says that Enoch was translated to Paradise “to await the conversion of the nations.” (Eccl. 44:16) This statement has been interpreted as referring to the time when Enoch will return as one of the Witnesses and fulfill his mission of evangelizing. The third reason these two ancient prophets are regarded as the Witnesses is based upon the prophecy of Elijah’s return prior to the coming of the Messiah. This was foretold in the Old Testament Book of Malachy, and has been common knowledge among the Jews ever since. Christ Himself even confirms this view, adding that when the prophet returns, he will “restore all things”. Even today, the Jews are so sure of Elijah’s return, that they traditionally set a place for him at their annual Passover meal. All this to say, everyone knows Elijah will come back. The prophecy is unquestionable. As to why God would refrain from mentioning him by name in the Book of the Apocalypse, who knows?"
More lies and distortions. With the sin of Adam, the gates of heaven were closed until after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Your reference to paradise, does not mean that Enoch went to heaven. In fact, on Good Friday, Jesus told the good thief that he will be with HIM in paradise.
Luke 23:41-43 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
Jesus descended into hell to preach the gospel to those that were in Abraham's Bosom, on Good Friday.
Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell.
1 Peter 3:18-19 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:
It is an infallible fact, that Jesus ascended into heaven on the third day, Sunday [Easter] the first day of the week. Jesus ascended early Sunday and then visited the Apostles, late that same day!
John 20:1,16-20 And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre; and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulcher. … Jesus saith to her: Mary. She turning, saith to him: Rabboni (which is to say, Master). Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God. Mary Magdalen cometh, and telleth the disciples: I have seen the Lord, and these things he said to me. Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.
Athanasian Creed.
… Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, …
Your reference to Elihah's return prior to the coming of Jesus is again distorted and erroneous. You mentioned Malachias. Elijah was a man but there are also types of Elijah, just like there are many types of Mary, the mother of God, in the old testament.
Malachias 3:1-4 Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face. And presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the testament, whom you desire, shall come to his temple. Behold he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts. And who shall be able to think of the day of his coming? and who shall stand to see him? for he is like a refining fire, and like the fuller's herb: And he shall sit refining and cleansing the silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold, and as silver, and they shall offer sacrifices to the Lord in justice. And the sacrifice of Juda and of Jerusalem shall please the Lord, as in the days of old, and in the ancient years.
Malachias 4:5-6 Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers: lest I come, and strike the earth with anathema.
St. John the Baptist, was a type of Elijah.
Matthew 11:13-15 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John: And if you will receive it, he is Elias that is to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
But concerning the angel of the testament [angel of the Apocalypse] that Jesus will send for the conversion of the Judeans, it was St. Vincent Ferrer, as a type of Elias. Many people think that the Apocalypse will happen at once, at the very end. Yes, some things will be like that but many things of the Apocalypse will and have happened over time and many people have not recognized it. Concerning the Apocalypse, St. Vincent Ferrer and the Judeans:
Apocalypse 7:1-4 After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree. And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the sign of the living God; and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying: Hurt not the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, till we sign the servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the number of them that were signed, an hundred forty-four thousand were signed, of every tribe of the children of Israel.
ST. VINCENT FERRER The Angel of the Judgment by Fr. Andrew Pradel, O.P. Published by R. Washborne, London in 1875; Ch. 8, Pages. 80-81
St. Vincent's mission was no less fruitful among the Jew's than among the heretics. He converted incalculable number of them. God seemed to have accorded a special grace for the conversion of the people who are proverbially hostile to the christian name. There was at that period a population of Jews both numerous and powerful in Spain. The process of his canonization shows that in the space of thirteen months he converted twenty thousand in Castile alone; that in the year 1415, within six months, more than fifteen thousand were led to embrace the true faith in Aragon and Catalonia, and that on another occasion in the same country over thirty thousand were baptized at the close of his preaching.
The historians of the sect [jews] do not hesitate to confirm these facts by their own testimony. In the work entitled "Juehasin", it is related that in the year 1412, a Friar named Brother Vincent, having preached to the Jews, the latter renounced their law to a number of more than two hundred thousand.
The Saint had an ardent zeal and tender love for these unhappy wanderers. In the cities where he found them, he took care that a place should always be reserved for them, and after his exhortations he treated them with much consideration. These acts full of sweetness gained their hearts The learning of the great preacher completed their conviction, and they presented themselves in a body to receive Holy Baptism. Thus, at Perpignan seventy families embraced the Christian Faith. In other places whole ѕуηαgσgυєs abjured their errors. Their places of meeting was changed into a church. In Castile, they were so unanimously converted that none remained, and the Bishop of Palencia saw himself deprived of a large revenue, produced by a special impost on them. Among the Jews whom St. Vincent brought to the Divine Messias, many of them in their turn became apostles of their co-religionist. Thus, one of them, who was afterward raised to the Episcopate, had the satisfaction of making forty thousand proselytes among his fellow countrymen.
Lets, for a moment, go back to chapter three in Malachias. It states that the sons of Levi will be purified and they will start to sacrifice according to the new testament covenant, the Catholic Mass, just as in the days of old.
Malachias 3:3-4 … and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold, and as silver, and they shall offer sacrifices to the Lord in justice. And the sacrifice of Juda and of Jerusalem shall please the Lord, as in the days of old, and in the ancient years.
The animal sacrifice of the old testament, was a foreshadow of the true lamb, Jesus Christ, being sacrificed in the perfected new testament.
Hebrews 8:6-9 [6] But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises. [7] For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second. [8] For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Juda, a new testament: [9] Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt:
Apocalypse 3:12 He that shall overcome, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; and he shall go out no more; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and my new name.
Again, let me extract from the book of St. Vincent's work among the jews and how they became priests and bishops.
"Among the Jews whom St. Vincent brought to the Divine Messias, many of them in their turn became apostles of their co-religionist. Thus, one of them, who was afterward raised to the Episcopate, had the satisfaction of making forty thousand proselytes among his fellow countrymen."
Concerning numbers and windows of time, many times, they are not exact but just a number given in the bible. This is where people get into trouble, concerning the bible.
More to come, regarding Sedevancantist's thread.
-
An Even Seven,
I never said that Enoch ascended to Heaven. The Book of Ecclesiasticus refers to Eden as "Paradise". I've said this before in my response to the thread on Eden ("The Garden of Eden", by MyrnaM). The thread is found on page 2 of the General Discussions.
Eden is also where Elijah was taken after his disappearance.
-
Luke,
Moreover, had you read my thread on the Dimonds more carefully, you would have seen where I said that Elijah may be taken in a metaphorical sense, just as "Enoch". You could save yourself a lot of useless writing by actually reading what I've written:
"This, however, would certainly not disqualify him from returning in a metaphorical sense. And, of course, the same holds true for Elijah."
-
You must mean Luke.
my apologies
-
FYI, Jesus did not ascend into heaven on the Third Day, Easter. Jesus resurrected from the dead on Easter. Not sure ascended would be the right word to describe his resurrecting from the dead either in your second sentence.
Probably just a simple mistake. Just a little more proofreading perhaps. Let me know if I'm wrong and/or missed something.
Yes, in charity, you did miss something. Please read carefully the verses below. Jesus, early in the morning, still dark, tells Mary Magdalen, go and tell my brethren that I ascend to my father. Jesus also tells Mary Magdalen, in the other three gospels, tell the disciples to go to Galilee, where Jesus will meet them and this is late in the day, Sunday, the same day.
John 20:1,16-20 And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre; and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulcher. … Jesus saith to her: Mary. She turning, saith to him: Rabboni (which is to say, Master). Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God. Mary Magdalen cometh, and telleth the disciples: I have seen the Lord, and these things he said to me. Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.
Let me isolate the verses:
John 20:1 And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, …
John 20:19 Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week …
-
Regarding the Dimonds’ claim that John Paul II is the Antichrist: Is there any merit to it, or is it just another one of their attempts to reconcile present events with those of the Apocalypse? Let’s see.
The first and most obvious question is this: Did John Paul II fulfill the Scriptural prophecies regarding the Antichrist? If so, which ones? As far as I can tell, the Dimonds’ claim is based primarily upon the supposed fulfillment of two prophecies: They claim that John Paul II declared himself to be God; and that he incurred a “deadly wound” and survived.
According to the Dimonds, these two events perfectly coincide with prophecies specific to the Antichrist. But do they? Did John Paul II ever declare HIMSELF God? Granted, he said numerous times in rather vague and ambiguous ways that EVERYONE is Christ – in fact, he said this to the crowd in the inaugural homily following his election. Even so, this is not what Scripture says. Scripture clearly says that he will publicly declare HIMSELF God. It states that the Antichrist will exalt himself above every “god”, and above all that is worshiped; that he will stand in the Temple of God and declare himself to be God; that ALL of the inhabitants of the world who are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life WILL WORSHIP HIM AS GOD – and that they will do so under pain of death. That’s what Scripture says. And again, it’s very clear about this.
As is painfully obvious, John Paul II never once declared himself to be God in the manner indicated by the clear testimony of Scripture. Nor has a single solitary human being on the face of this earth ever worshiped him as a "god". Not one. Nor has any so-called “False Prophet” ever required a single person to worship John Paul II as a "god" under pain of death, as Scripture clearly says he will do.
And what about the Antichrist's “deadly wound” that caused the entire world to admire him? Did John Paul II really fulfill this prophecy? Was his wound really deadly? Which one? The finger? The shoulder? The gut? Far from deadly, the gut wound was taken care of with no problems at all. The doctor even said JPII’s blood pressure was slightly higher than normal when he arrived at the hospital – hardly evidence of a dangerous amount of blood loss. In fact, the lack of blood loss (not even a drop on his vestments in the original photos), along with numerous other inconsistencies, has caused many to question whether the man was even shot at all. Some say it was just a staged event, designed to make him look like “Mary's Pope”. Of course, the photos of him doling out Masonic handshakes to those involved (including the “assassin”) doesn’t help his case either. But even if he was actually shot, his gut wound could hardly have been considered “deadly”.
Nor was his recovery worthy of any special admiration – certainly nothing that would cause astonishment, or the entire world to wonder at him, as Scripture says. Doctors have performed far more astounding surgical procedures than this. In fact, sewing up a tiny gut wound is a relatively simple procedure for today's doctors. In contrast, Scripture says the ENTIRE WORLD will be in great admiration of the Antichrist’s recovery. And so once again, the Dimonds have nothing whatsoever to support their position – neither in Scripture, nor in reality. It’s just another desperate attempt to reconcile their false position with the Scriptures. That’s all.
They err on this point because (aside from their foundation being built upon a lie) they have no conception of the meaning of the deadly wound/healing scenario. The Antichrist’s “Deadly Wound” and amazing recovery (read “resurrection”) are a necessary ploy of the Devil meant to bolster the Antichrist’s claims of Divinity. That’s what the deadly wound and astonishing recovery are all about. This is what the Dimonds fail to understand. All they see is a wound and a healing. That’s it. No. The Devil NEEDS the world to believe the Antichrist is God. The best way to prove this is the death and “miraculous” resurrection of the Antichrist.
Lucifer is merely copying what he witnessed the Son of God do 2000 years ago. The reason being, he KNOWS the convincing power of a resurrection event. The miracle of Christ’s Resurrection was the single greatest proof of His Divinity. If you recall, the Old Testament prophets performed many of the same miracles which Christ performed, though far less in number. They multiplied food. They healed the sick and the lepers. They gave sight to the blind. Elijah even raised the dead to life. Eliseus raised two people to life – one of them by a simple contact with the prophet’s bones. Yes, the prophets of old performed the same types of miracles which Christ performed – that is, with the exception of the Resurrection. This was something they could not do. No one but Almighty God can raise HIMSELF from the dead. Ergo, this was the single greatest proof of Christ’s Divinity. This is why, if you remember, when the scribes and Pharisees asked Him for a sign, He replied that no “sign” would be given them but that of the Resurrection (Matt. 16:4). The miracles of Christ were not infallible proof of his Divinity. But the Resurrection was. This was THE SIGN He would give the world as proof of His Divinity.
And so, knowing the convincing force of such an act, Lucifer will attempt the same (with God’s permission, of course). Granted, the Antichrist cannot possibly raise himself from the dead. Nevertheless, God will allow the world to be deceived into believing he has. And this is how the Devil will fool the world into believing the Antichrist is God. This, then, is the reasoning behind the death and “resurrection” scenario of the Antichrist – as the Dimonds massacre another prophecy.
And what can be said of the numerous other Scriptural prophecies regarding the Antichrist which the Dimonds completely ignore? How about those we glean from the prophecies of Daniel… Did John Paul II emerge from a confederation of 10 kings, supplanting three of them on his rise to the top? Was he denied the honor of the kingdom, only to win it through flattery and deception? Was his predecessor known as a "raiser of taxes"? Did John Paul II have anything whatsoever to do with a 7-year covenant with Israel? Or put an end to the continual sacrifice? Or set up the Abomination of Desolation? Or worship the “God of Forces” with gold and silver and jewels? Did he establish his palace between the seas on the Glorious Holy Mountain (which is Jerusalem, by the way)?
And what about some of those prophecies from the New Testament? Was his reign after the working of Satan with all power and lying signs and wonders? Did he reign supreme for 42 months? Did he ever send out an evil miracle-working frog-like spirit to gather the kings of the earth together for the final battle of Armageddon? And what about his death? Was he destroyed with the brightness of Christ's coming, as St. Paul says? Or cast alive into a lake of fire along with the False Prophet, as Scripture clearly says will happen? And what of the other two-dozen or so prophecies the Dimonds ignore? Which ones did John Paul II actually fulfill? Any of them? Even one?
Honestly, how anyone could be suckered into believing the brothers' claim here is beyond me. Thank you, Pax Vobis, for displaying some sanity here. God gave us very specific prophecies with which to identify the Antichrist – lots of them. John Paul II can barely be said to fulfill one or two of the 40 or more given to us; and even these two apparent interpretations are borderline worthless. Once again, in their futile attempt to legitimize their agenda, Fred and Bob have created an Apocalyptic Fantasy Land with absolutely no basis in Scripture or reality.
No less absurd is their allegation that Joseph Ratzinger is the False Prophet. Here we have a claim that is so baseless and void of proof that the Dimonds don't even attempt to justify it. They just state their case and run, hoping no one will look any closer. So, let's have a closer look. Did Ratzinger deceive the entire world by performing great lying signs and wonders, as Scripture plainly says the False Prophet will do? Did he ever make fire come down from Heaven in the sight of men? Did he ever “force all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and bondmen, to have a Mark in their right hand or in their forehead – that no man might buy or sell without it?” Did he set up an image of John Paul II, making it come alive and speak? Did he order the world to worship it under punishment of death? Did he, along with John Paul II, have anything to do with the gathering of the kings of the earth together for the final Battle of Armageddon? And did he descend alive into the lake of fire along with John Paul II? No he didn't. He didn't fulfill any of these. Not one. Not a single word. This is why the Dimonds are ominously silent about him. He never once fulfilled a single prophecy regarding the False Prophet. He didn’t even come close. In fact, the Dimonds were so desperate to find something prophetic in his actions that they attributed the bonfire image of John Paul II to Ratzinger - remember that one? The Dimonds claimed Ratzinger was responsible for it, and that this was how he fulfilled the "calling down fire from Heaven in the sight of men" (Apoc. 13:13). Now that's a stretch.
The ONLY reason the Dimonds continue to maintain such a baseless absurdity regarding Ratzinger is because he was John Paul II’s right hand man. That's it. That's the basis of their entire claim. If John Paul II was the Antichrist, then Ratzinger MUST have been the False Prophet. Who else could it have been?
In the end, their claim regarding Ratzinger has absolutely no foundation at all. Zero. It’s just another worthless, desperate attempt to justify an unjustifiable fantasy. I'll say it again: The Dimonds' entire edifice is built upon a lie. Ergo, everything that emanates from that foundation is necessarily false – as anyone can see.
Scripture, on the other hand, leads to the conclusion that the Antichrist will be a Jew. This is what the early Church Fathers: St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus of Rome, St. Ambrose, and Lactantius taught; as well as later writers such as St. John Damascene. Moreover, he will claim to be the Messiah; and the Jews WILL ACCEPT HIM AS THEIR MESSIAH, as Christ Himself teaches (John 5:43). In full agreement with this, St. Ambrose said the Antichrist would even use Scripture to prove he’s the Messiah. Moreover, the renowned Didache (also known as the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”) says the Antichrist will claim to be the Son of God. Mind you, this was written by FIRST CENTURY Jєωιѕн CONVERTS who learned firsthand from the Apostles and their immediate successors.
The prophet Daniel tells us the Antichrist will establish his palace on Mount Zion (Dan. 11:45). Wonder of wonders. Of course he will – he’s a Jew. St. Paul says he will sit in the very Temple of God and actually declare himself to be God. Behold the “Abomination of Desolation” spoken of by Daniel – foreshadowed in the actions of the Greek Emperor Antiochus IV who placed a statue of the “god” Jupiter in the Temple in Jerusalem in 167 B.C. Following on the path of this most heinous blasphemy, though to a greater extent, the Antichrist will place HIMSELF in the Temple and declare himself “God”.
Again, it all revolves around Israel. Yes, the Antichrist – the future leader of the world – will be a Jew. Nor should this be any cause for surprise. Anyone privy to what’s going on behind the world scene (that is, anyone who knows who the Puppetmasters are) should have absolutely no trouble with this position. The future ruler of the world will be a Jew.
On a sidenote, against those such as the Dimonds who claim the “Temple” spoken of in the Book of the Apocalypse couldn't possibly be the coming 3rd Temple in Jerusalem, consider well that anything properly consecrated to God belongs to Him. It makes absolutely no difference who builds the Temple, nor what goes on inside (read Ez. 8 ). If the coming third Temple is properly consecrated to God, then it is God’s Temple. It’s that simple. The same principle is true of the bread and wine consecrated by a heretical priest during Mass. The consecration is perfectly valid despite the heretical state of the priest, since the power to consecrate is intrinsic to the priesthood itself.
In the same way, the Temple in Jerusalem belongs to God if it’s properly consecrated to Him by a true priest of Israel. And it will be. Ergo, you can rest assured that the coming third Temple in Jerusalem is PRECISELY the temple spoken of in these prophecies. This is where the Antichrist will put an end to the daily sacrifices. This is also where he will stand and proclaim himself to be Almighty God. This is precisely why Christ tells the Jews that when they see the Abomination of Desolation, they must flee Judea.
Finally, as mentioned in another thread, the Antichrist's sidekick (the False Prophet) will be hailed by the Jews as Elijah. To confirm the deception, Satan will give him power to perform all kinds of deceptive lying signs and wonders. He will even give him the power to call down fire from heaven, just as the real Elijah did in the Old Testament (2[4] Kings 1:10).
In the end, the advent of the false Messiah and the false Elijah, with the accompanying lying signs and wonders, is nothing but Satan's last ditch effort to thwart the return of God's beloved Israel. The Apocalypse is all about the return of Israel. Until you comprehend this fact, you will be just as lost as the Dimonds.
-
"Sedevacantist" you cited the magazine "A Voice Crying In The Wilderness", can you tell me the issue number and the page number that supports what you are saying? If you are going to present what appears to be a forensic presentation against Brother Michael and Brother Peter, it is only fair to be able to provide the facts and the evidence, so that others can independently verify what your poorly present.
And just as another reader commented, its not about the prophecies, its about the Catholic Faith itself, for which they defend vigorously! I intend to carefully read this thread because the bias stinks to high heaven.
And by the way, the Brothers would never back down from a debate, you are a liar, in that regard.
Regarding the Antichrist, Pax Vobis, can you tell me the definition of Antichrist and who it will be? You seem to know?
They only put out two issues, from what I remember. They could tell you which one it was. I kept my copies around for several years, but couldn't tell you where they are today. I've moved many times since then. Like I said, ask them. They could tell you.
Yes, the bias stinks. I'll give you that. This is why I started another thread to apologize.
And yes, doctrines are vitally important. And I do agree with them on doctrinal matters, with the exception of the Birth Control issue, which they are clearly in heresy about. However, I cannot agree with your (implied) position that prophetic interpretation of the Apocalypse is unimportant. God certainly doesn't think so. Anyone who takes away ANYTHING of the words of the Apocalypse is under threat of eternal damnation. This is no small matter. And might I remind you, you are supporting the very same corruption of Scripture as the Dimonds are putting out there.
And regarding the debate issue, the Dimonds most certainly DID refuse to debate me. Sorry. However, I never said they "backed down", only that they refused. To say they "backed down" implies they cowered. In truth, I don't know why they refused.
-
Dude, in charity, Our Lord did not ascend into heaven the third day after Good Friday. Our Lord resurrected from the dead on this day. It was not until the fortieth day after Easter that He ascended into Heaven.
You said "it is an infallible fact, that Jesus ascended into heaven on the third day". It NOT an infallible fact that Jesus ascended into heaven on the Third Day. When refuting someone please pay attention to the actual words you are using.
"When refuting someone please pay attention to the actual words you are using"
Yes, truthfully, I am paying attention to the words that I am using, the bible is infallible.
The Council of Trent Pope Paul III, Session IV, Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546: … the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.
And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.
Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
Why can't you see what is being said in John's Gospel? Jesus ascended to the Father and then, after, late in the day, Jesus met the disciples at Galilee and spent forty days with them. Why is that hard to understand? You seem mad and frustrated. Tell me what I am not seeing in John's Gospel? But look at the words being said though.
-
They only put out two issues, from what I remember. They could tell you which one it was. I kept my copies around for several years, but couldn't tell you where they are today. I've moved many times since then. Like I said, ask them. They could tell you.
Yes, the bias stinks. I'll give you that. This is why I started another thread to apologize.
And yes, doctrines are vitally important. And I do agree with them on doctrinal matters, with the exception of the Birth Control issue, which they are clearly in heresy about. However, I cannot agree with your (implied) position that prophetic interpretation of the Apocalypse is unimportant. God certainly doesn't think so. Anyone who takes away ANYTHING of the words of the Apocalypse is under threat of eternal damnation. This is no small matter. And might I remind you, you are supporting the very same corruption of Scripture as the Dimonds are putting out there.
And regarding the debate issue, the Dimonds most certainly DID refuse to debate me. Sorry. However, I never said they "backed down", only that they refused. To say they "backed down" implies they cowered. In truth, I don't know why they refused.
I am aware of the two issues of the magazine. Why would I ask them, you are the one that was outrageous in your unsupported attacks. You should provide the evidence to support your claims! No they are not in heresy concerning NFP. And as you say [implied], I do not nor have I said that the Apocalypse is unimportant. Regarding interpretation of the Apocalypse as opposed to the dogmatic Catholic Faith, that is the distinction that I made. You are very convoluted when you articulate.
"Anyone who takes away ANYTHING of the words of the Apocalypse is under threat of eternal damnation. This is no small matter. And might I remind you, you are supporting the very same corruption of Scripture as the Dimonds are putting out there."
And what corruption of scripture is that?
"And regarding the debate issue, the Dimonds most certainly DID refuse to debate me. Sorry. However, I never said they "backed down", only that they refused. To say they "backed down" implies they cowered. In truth, I don't know why they refused."
You have shown yourself to be very rash and unstable. No credibility.
-
Haha. Ok, JPII was the anti-christ and he died over 10 yrs ago. The Apocalypse is the last book of the bible. ...where do we go from here?
-
Haha. Ok, JPII was the anti-christ and he died over 10 yrs ago. The Apocalypse is the last book of the bible. ...where do we go from here?
2 Corinthians 4:3 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=54&ch=4&l=3#x)
-
Luke,
Moreover, had you read my thread on the Dimonds more carefully, you would have seen where I said that Elijah may be taken in a metaphorical sense, just as "Enoch". You could save yourself a lot of useless writing by actually reading what I've written:
"This, however, would certainly not disqualify him from returning in a metaphorical sense. And, of course, the same holds true for Elijah."
What you wrote was garbage, you even said so yourself, you apologized for it. Lies and distortions. My response to you, was backed up with scripture all the way and spot on, concerning Elias and the jews!
-
What you wrote was garbage, you even said so yourself, you apologized for it. Lies and distortions. My response to you, was backed up with scripture all the way and spot on, concerning Elias and the jews!
I never said that what I wrote were lies. I merely apologized for the personal attacks.
-
I am aware of the two issues of the magazine. Why would I ask them, you are the one that was outrageous in your unsupported attacks. You should provide the evidence to support your claims! No they are not in heresy concerning NFP. And as you say [implied], I do not nor have I said that the Apocalypse is unimportant. Regarding interpretation of the Apocalypse as opposed to the dogmatic Catholic Faith, that is the distinction that I made. You are very convoluted when you articulate.
"Anyone who takes away ANYTHING of the words of the Apocalypse is under threat of eternal damnation. This is no small matter. And might I remind you, you are supporting the very same corruption of Scripture as the Dimonds are putting out there."
And what corruption of scripture is that?
"And regarding the debate issue, the Dimonds most certainly DID refuse to debate me. Sorry. However, I never said they "backed down", only that they refused. To say they "backed down" implies they cowered. In truth, I don't know why they refused."
You have shown yourself to be very rash and unstable. No credibility.
I was very clear in my condemnation of NFP, as I wrote in the OP. Read it again. Apparently, you're not actually reading it - you're just skimming through it, seeing things that aren't there, putting words in my mouth, and misinterpreting everything else.
What corruption of Scripture? Are you kidding me? In order to posit that JPII was the Antichrist, you have to literally ignore more than 40 prophecies - and butcher the TWO that you do believe in.
Rash and unstable? Where?
-
I never said that what I wrote were lies. I merely apologized for the personal attacks.
Wow, talk about double speak.
-
I was very clear in my condemnation of NFP, as I wrote in the OP. Read it again. Apparently, you're not actually reading it - you're just skimming through it, seeing things that aren't there, putting words in my mouth, and misinterpreting everything else.
What corruption of Scripture? Are you kidding me? In order to posit that JPII was the Antichrist, you have to literally ignore more than 40 prophecies - and butcher the TWO that you do believe in.
Rash and unstable? Where?
Sedevacantist quote from reply #35 "And yes, doctrines are vitally important. And I do agree with them [the Brothers] on doctrinal matters, with the exception of the Birth Control issue, which they are clearly in heresy about."
You condemn NFP [?], and at the same time, you say the Brothers are in heresy concerning NFP? Explain this one!?
-
Wow, talk about double speak.
Read the apology
-
Sedevacantist quote from reply #35 "And yes, doctrines are vitally important. And I do agree with them [the Brothers] on doctrinal matters, with the exception of the Birth Control issue, which they are clearly in heresy about."
You condemn NFP [?], and at the same time, you say the Brothers are in heresy concerning NFP? Explain this one!?
Did you actually read the OP? It's hard for me to believe it. You're mutilating everything I said. This is ridiculous.
I never once condemned the Dimonds for rejecting NFP. I totally agree with them on this issue.
The "Rhythm Method" is not NFP. This method, known as "Continence" during the reign of Pius XI was approved by the Catholic Church, as he clearly stated:
Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 53), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE (WHICH CHRISTIAN LAW PERMITS WHEN BOTH PARTIES CONSENT) but by frustrating the marriage act.”
This is what the Dimonds reject - "Continence".
Their position, that ALL forms of birth control are forbidden, was condemned under anathema as early as the Council of Trent:
Council of Trent, Session 24, Dogmatic Canon VIII:"If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema."
-
Did you actually read the OP? It's hard for me to believe it. You're mutilating everything I said. This is ridiculous.
I never once condemned the Dimonds for rejecting NFP. I totally agree with them on this issue.
The "Rhythm Method" is not NFP. This method, known as "Continence" during the reign of Pius XI was approved by the Catholic Church, as he clearly stated:
Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 53), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE (WHICH CHRISTIAN LAW PERMITS WHEN BOTH PARTIES CONSENT) but by frustrating the marriage act.”
This is what the Dimonds reject - "Continence".
Their position, that ALL forms of birth control are forbidden, was condemned under anathema as early as the Council of Trent:
Council of Trent, Session 24, Dogmatic Canon VIII:"If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema."
All forms of birth control are forbidden. The Rhythm method is birth control. NFP is birth control.
Sedevacantist, the only one twisting and mutilating is you! You twist what Pope Pius XI said regarding VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE. He is talking about a couple who agrees to get married but they want and agree to remain virgins, hence virtuous continence. Just like Mary and Joseph.
Its interesting that you only provided #53 to support you insidious claim. Read #17 which precedes #53 and read #54 and #59 which follows #53, which points to what Pope Pius is really saying.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
Tobias 6:22 … thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children.
The primary and the secondary end, are one and the same. When a couple comes together for the purpose and love of children, ipso facto, the secondary end is satisfied. Its a by-product!
Next, you have completely twisted what the Council of Trent was saying. Let me ask you a question. Have you ever heard of Husband and Wife, separating [not cohabiting] for many reasons [causes] or living separately within the same household because of financial reasons, they cannot afford separate dwellings? Being at odds, with one another. That is what Pope Pius IV is talking about!
DOCTRINE ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
DOCTRINE & CANONS
Being the eighth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the eleventh day of November, 1563.
ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.
-
Let everyone decide for themselves, regarding the videos, that the Brothers put out concerning the Apocalypse. Anyone of good will, will be able to see the truth in the videos.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3561DAA7AAB9259A
This also is their youtube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/mhfm1/featured?disable_polymer=1
-
Their position, that ALL forms of birth control are forbidden, ...
All forms of birth control ARE forbidden. Now, continence may be practiced for other just reasons ... but not specifically for birth control.
-
I am not mad or angry at all. I am a bit confused. I don't know if we are arguing about the same thing here.
1) Why did you post that long passage from the Council of Trent? Did you think that I was questioning the canon of Scripture? I surely wasn't and don't know what gave you that idea. Very confusing.
2) Are you claiming the Ascension happened the same day as the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead? You seem to imply this because of your previous citing of John 20:17. Our Lord first says that He has not ascended to his Father yet and then tells Mary Magdalene of His intent to do so. When Our Lord says "I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.(John 20:17)", the language clearly indicates a future event, not necessarily a very near future event.
3) This is absolutely proven by Acts 1:3. There is 40 days between His Resurrection from the dead and His Ascension. That is infallible.
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God.(Acts1:3).
Then a little later in Acts "And when he had said these things, while they looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him out of their sight.(Acts1:9)
"I am not mad or angry at all. I am a bit confused. I don't know if we are arguing about the same thing here."
1) "Why did you post that long passage from the Council of Trent? Did you think that I was questioning the canon of Scripture? I surely wasn't and don't know what gave you that idea. Very confusing."
The only reason why I posted Trent was because you made reference to me using words and tying it to infallibility. I was referencing the bible the whole time, its infallible.
2) "Are you claiming the Ascension happened the same day as the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead? You seem to imply this because of your previous citing of John 20:17. Our Lord first says that He has not ascended to his Father yet and then tells Mary Magdalene of His intent to do so. When Our Lord says "I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.(John 20:17)", the language clearly indicates a future event, not necessarily a very near future event."
Yes I do believe that. You contend that "I ascend" is a future event. It is not, "I ascend" is a present participle in simple present verb tense. There is no present participle simple future tense i.e. I will ascend or future progressive tense i.e. I will be ascending, which would indicate a future event. The verses that you provided [Acts ch. 1], I don't reject any of it. I know that Jesus stayed with the Apostles and disciples for forty days, I stated it. It all comes down to timing, that all. I am not trying to cause a scandal but I am only looking at the text.
I do find it interesting that in the gospel of John the word "ascend" is used but in Acts, the words "raised up" and "taken up" is used.
I ask you to consider these historical facts. Jesus died on Good Friday, and He descends into hell to preach the Good News, where every old testament saint is waiting to be delivered by Jesus i.e. Adam, Noe, Moses, Abraham, Isaias, Jeremias etc. And no one can go to heaven until Jesus enters first. Jesus is dealing with the men of the old and men of the new, at this juncture. Why would Jesus make the men of the old, wait another forty days, while Jesus deals with the men of the new testament. It would make sense, that Jesus would ascend after the preaching, and resurrection, so the old testament saints could be delivered into heaven after Jesus ascends, to meet them. And after that, late on the same day, He meets the Apostles in Galilee and stays with them 40 days, and thereafter is taken up again.
When Mary Magdalen, prostrated and touched Jesus' feet, He said to her, do not touch me for I have not ascended to my Father yet. But later that same day and for forty days, everyone was touching Jesus. There would seem to be a contradiction there, if Jesus did not ascend to Heaven. But I think that He did ascend, which would remove the 'seeming' touching contradiction.
As I said, its just a timing issue. Based on the text of John, "Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father" … it indicates that He is going to ascend presently and then go to Galilee and stay with the Apostle 40 days and then be taken up to heaven again. If the ascension was much later, then why would Mary Magdalen have to tell the Apostles about Him ascending, Jesus could have told the Apostles Himself, later that day.
-
Luke3, how long have you been catholic?
-
I don't know what to say. You are positing that Jesus had two ascensions. Do you have anything to back up your claim, besides your own reading of Holy Scriptures? I would be anxious to see it.
Also, in order for "I ascend" to be present tense, Our Lord would have had to have been in the process of ascending. You are claiming that Our Lord was ascending at that very moment when He told Mary "I ascend".
No, I never said that Jesus had two ascensions. Based on the text of John, Jesus ascended early that day and thereafter, late in the same day, appeared and disappeared, to the Apostles, forty days.
Mark 16:14 At length he appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again.
Luke 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight.
Jesus appeared to Sister Lucia regarding the consecration of Russia, which had massive implications upon the whole world itself. In Acts, Jesus was taken up in a cloud. With the apparitions of Mary, quite often, she is seen coming and or going away in a cloud.
Our Lord to Sister Lucy, Summer, 1931: “Like the King of France they will repent and do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors throughout the world provoking wars and persecutions against the Church: the Holy Father will have much to suffer.” (quoted in The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 2, pp. 543-544)
"Also, in order for "I ascend" to be present tense, Our Lord would have had to have been in the process of ascending. You are claiming that Our Lord was ascending at that very moment when He told Mary "I ascend"."
AES, if I asked you to do me a favor and get a message to someone for me, while concurrently I disclose to you that upon you leaving to get the message to someone, immediately, I was going to another place, to do my thing. Which means in the present, you and I are going to do our separate things. Is it necessary for you to see what i do? Just look at the plain text of John. But anyway, I don't want to make this into an entire thread.
-
Just look at the plain text of John.
The Church says Christ ascended 40 days after Easter. Your "plain text" reading has no value.
-
So when did Jesus open heaven? Was it the day of His Resurrection or at His Ascension forty days later?
BTW, this thread is already over so we might as well discuss this. The OP was garbage and the guy who wrote it knows that. He apologized and it's over. He admitted that it was all personal for him and he offered no evidence that proved the Brothers believe they are the two witnesses. What's ironic is that he even admitted this in the same OP.
So let's continue with this. I can see your point about the "I ascend" part. I just want to make sure your not coloring outside the lines, so to speak. Is this something that you have come up with.?Is there anyone else at all that has ever written about this? If there is, please let me know. I am not in the business of buying into every theory that's put forth, especially one that I've seen no evidence of, at all, in the Fathers, Councils, Papal writings etc.. The Church teaches one Ascension and even though you say that you're not positing two Ascensions, it strongly seems that way.
"So when did Jesus open heaven? Was it the day of His Resurrection or at His Ascension forty days later?"
Hi AES,
When Jesus ascended, the gates of heaven were opened, its logical and reasonable but on Easter morning. Please be patient with this post.
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.
Only based upon John's text, do I believe that Jesus ascended early Easter morning and because the Council of Trent, infallibly said the Douay-Rheims bible is infallible, did I say that it is an infallible fact that Jesus ascended Easter morning. I believe heaven was opened Easter morning. Please let me be clear, I am not trying to change anyones mind regarding this topic. And without a doubt, I am not saying there were two Ascensions, because there was only one Ascension, it is all about when did it happen.
As an aside, for a very very long time history has always believed that Jesus was crucified through the palms of His hands but in fact, He was crucified through His wrists, causing His thumbs to fold in because of the median nerve being transected. It was just a historical misunderstanding.
I cannot stress enough, I base it upon the text only, that it clearly seems, that's when it happened. I am not saying its right simply because I say so! I am not trying to scandalize anyone, stay calm. Please look at John chapter 16, its Jesus' last discourse to His disciples.
***John 16:16 A little while, and now you shall not see me; and again a little while, and you shall see me: because I go to the Father.
Jesus says to His disciples, you shall see me in Galilee because I go to the Father. It indicates that Jesus ascended early Easter morning, Sunday and later that day the disciples saw Jesus in Galilee. If Jesus did not ascend then the disciples would not have seen Him. It seems to support John 20:17.
"BTW, this thread is already over so we might as well discuss this. The OP was garbage and the guy who wrote it knows that. He apologized and it's over. He admitted that it was all personal for him and he offered no evidence that proved the Brothers believe they are the two witnesses. What's ironic is that he even admitted this in the same OP."
That person is an extremely bad willed person!
"So let's continue with this. I can see your point about the "I ascend" part. I just want to make sure your not coloring outside the lines, so to speak. Is this something that you have come up with.?Is there anyone else at all that has ever written about this? If there is, please let me know. I am not in the business of buying into every theory that's put forth, especially one that I've seen no evidence of, at all, in the Fathers, Councils, Papal writings etc.. The Church teaches one Ascension and even though you say that you're not positing two Ascensions, it strongly seems that way."
AES, I don't want you to, nor should you buy into anything that is unsupported. But just because it has not been written about, does that mean it is not possible. I will say though I am not aware of any infallible papal docuмent that states that Jesus ascended after 40 days. Concerning the writings of saints, they are not infallible statements.
One more time, I am not saying that there was two Ascensions! It is a timing issue only.
-
There are different possible meanings of the term ASCEND as well.
-
1. You may be right that there are no Infallible statements by the Popes, but it is pretty explicit in Scripture:
ACTS 1:[3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God...[9] And when he had said these things, while they looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Also, I would like to add that the "40 days" is probably one of those things that would be considered infallible due to the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers. I may be wrong about that but regardless, it seems that Scripture is very explicit.
2. At least we cleared that up. You are just saying that you believe that the Ascension happened the same day as the Resurrection.
The problem is that I think this may be explicitly contrary to Scripture (Acts 1). If you don't think so, explain how it's not. I'll keep an open mind in this regard for the time being.
Necessarily, I am not asking you to consider anything but only what I see here below, if you have an interest. Anything new that 'seems' to go against tradition and scripture can and usually is scandalous to many people, me included. But careful thought and contemplation helps.
Matthew 28:10 Then Jesus said to them: Fear not. Go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, there they shall see me.
John 16:16 A little while, and now you shall not see me; and again a little while, and you shall see me: because I go to the Father.
John 20:17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father ...
Scripture cannot contradict itself. The scripture that you provided to me, I don't deny [I don't deny any scripture] but Jesus appearing and disappearing for forty days to succor the disciples and establish the new testament Catholic church, does not necessarily indicate that was the time of the Ascension.
-
Our Lord's Ascension after 40 days is taught dogmatically and infallibly by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. So clear is this that no Pope has ever felt the need to define it specifically.
-
Our Lord's Ascension after 40 days is taught dogmatically and infallibly by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. So clear is this that no Pope has ever felt the need to define it specifically.
Can you cite it? I would be interested to see. But then again, scripture is infallible.
-
Hi AES,
I trust you integrity but I like to see and verify for myself also, can you give me the pages from Denzinger?
-
Hi AES,
I trust you integrity but I like to see and verify for myself also, can you give me the pages from Denzinger?
Never mind I found it.
-
All forms of birth control ARE forbidden. Now, continence may be practiced for other just reasons ... but not specifically for birth control.
Wrong.
Pius XI is clearly referring to Continence as a means of regulating birth. That's precisely why he mentions this in the very sentence in which he is referring to methods of regulating offspring. As he say, anything that deliberately frustrates the marriage act (such as condoms) is forbidden - but virtuous continence, as a method of regulating offspring, is allowed. Again, the whole point of his statement is to draw the line between what is permitted in the regulation of offspring, and what is forbidden.
-
Wrong.
Pius XI is clearly referring to Continence as a means of regulating birth. That's precisely why he mentions this in the very sentence in which he is referring to methods of regulating offspring. As he say, anything that deliberately frustrates the marriage act (such as condoms) is forbidden - but virtuous continence, as a method of regulating offspring, is allowed. Again, the whole point of his statement is to draw the line between what is permitted in the regulation of offspring, and what is forbidden.
Abstinence of course regulates offspring by definition as it prevents conception entirely. That does not mean he was endorsing sɛҳuąƖ intercourse without the goal of procreation, as that would violate natural law.
-
Abstinence of course regulates offspring by definition as it prevents conception entirely. That does not mean he was endorsing sɛҳuąƖ intercourse without the goal of procreation, as that would violate natural law.
True
-
I would also like "Sedevacantist" to cite the ancient version of baptism of desire that Fr. Feeney believed. Can he quote Fr. Feeney?
I'll have to do a separate thread on this subject
-
I'll have to do a separate thread on this subject
Actually, it would be too much of a stretch to insist upon.
What Fr. Feeney believed was that the desire for Baptism could put someone in the state of "Justification" - which, according to the Church, is equivalent to the state of sanctifying grace. Apparently, Fr. Feeney was unaware of the intimate connection between the two, which is why he stated that one could be "justified" without having received "sanctifying grace".
Had he been aware of the connection, then I could rightly say that he believed in Baptism of Desire - but the fact is, I can't say for sure that he was aware of it. In fact, I'm more inclined to doubt it. And so, it would be dishonest to pin BOD on him.
-
So, it seems that we have we already had the Second Coming.
Luke, are you a recently converted sola-scriptura-protestant?
-
Wrong.
Pius XI is clearly referring to Continence as a means of regulating birth. That's precisely why he mentions this in the very sentence in which he is referring to methods of regulating offspring. As he say, anything that deliberately frustrates the marriage act (such as condoms) is forbidden - but virtuous continence, as a method of regulating offspring, is allowed. Again, the whole point of his statement is to draw the line between what is permitted in the regulation of offspring, and what is forbidden.
Keep trying to justify your own conscience with false arguments.
You continue to ignore the notion of VIRTUOUS continence. And you ignore the passages in Casti Conubii that condemn the subordination of ends.
-
The issue is not to enjoy the act of marriage while intentionally avoiding conception. The method of doing this is irrelevant. The sin is in the will, not in the pill.
If one is abstaining, one is not enjoying the act.
Also, a couple may NOT decide on the number of children before marriage vows as that decision will invalidate their marriage, even if they say, "We will practice virtuous continence after X amount of children." The size of the family must be left up to God at the time of the vow. Most priests do NOT know this. I was not told it during my marriage counseling (over 30 years ago) and no priest I know knows of this. I found it in an old marriage tribunal book. There have been many legitimate annulments granted by past popes on this issue. If, after the vow, there is a problem with the woman's health, or for the case of eugenics or other issues, the couple finds it necessary to NOT have another child, then Castii Conubi allows them to then consider abstinence as a means of avoiding pregnancy. But, it NEVER mentions any sort of indulging in the act while avoiding pregnancy.
The same is for a woman or man who is known to be infertile. If this knowledge is acquired before the marriage vow, then the marriage is invalid. If, after the vows, the couple finds out that one or the other is infertile, this does not invalidate the marriage.
-
This thread turned from Witnesses to birth control.
1. The Dimonds do not claim to be infallible (that I know of). All of their prophecy stuff could be wrong and they could still be right on BOD, Outside the Church, NFP and Sede-vacantism. I have not read any credible refutation on their positions on these issues of faith. In fact, they don't have opinions on these issues, they just quote cannon law, the popes and the saints. They are spot-on and any refutation always ends up being lame and rather easy to poke (massive) holes in.
2. And, what if the Dimonds really ARE the Witnesses? Or, what if they actually do say they are (which I have yet to see in any of this supposed "expose"). How does that invalidate all of the dogma and doctrine they have unearthed for the rest of us? This entire point is irrelevant to the questions of faith which are the most urgent in our day. I am not going to save or lose my immortal soul on the question as to whether the Dimonds are the Witnesses. But, I WILL save or lose my soul on the question of possessing the true faith. So for that, THANK YOU DIMOND BROTHERS! If it weren't for them, my whole family would still be "home alone."
3. It appears to me that people don't LIKE the Dimonds personally, not that the Dimonds are preaching error in the matters of faith or morals. If they are preaching error, I sure can't find any (and no one else I have read can either).
-
The same is for a woman or man who is known to be infertile. If this knowledge is acquired before the marriage vow, then the marriage is invalid. If, after the vows, the couple finds out that one or the other is infertile, this does not invalidate the marriage.
I don't know where you got the above, but it's wrong. The infertile elderly can validly marry.
-
And, what if the Dimonds really ARE the Witnesses?
They are not the witnesses for 2 important reasons.
1. They claimed that JPII was the anti-christ which means that they should've been killed and resurrected during his papacy. That obviously didn't happen.
2. Most of the Church Fathers say that the witnesses are Enoch and Elijah.
-
They are not the witnesses for 2 important reasons.
1. They claimed that JPII was the anti-christ which means that they should've been killed and resurrected during his papacy. That obviously didn't happen.
2. Most of the Church Fathers say that the witnesses are Enoch and Elijah.
Yeah I really don't understand how they still to this day say JPII was the anti-Christ even though he's dead and gone. Doesn't the anti-Christ have to be alive for the Second Coming?
-
Yeah I really don't understand how they still to this day say JPII was the anti-Christ even though he's dead and gone. Doesn't the anti-Christ have to be alive for the Second Coming?
The anti-Christ is also to be killed by the breathe of Our Lords mouth, and slowly dying of Parkinson’s sounds like it might be a smidge less dramatic and explosive as the former mentioned event ... explain that, Dimonds.