Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: gladius_veritatis on April 19, 2010, 04:11:22 PM
-
I thought a thread dealing with 2012, however generally, might be of service.
I just came across this info -- http://www.2012unlocked.com/?hop=sands26 -- which may or may not be THE most solid, useful, etc (I just don't know yet, as I only came across it today). I have watched a few videos over the years, read a few docs, etc. Perhaps members can link in this or that, offering their thoughts as we go. IMO, it is crystal clear these times are getting notably more intense (and have been rather intense since the V2 era) with each passing month. Natural/pagan info is not, of necessity, at variance with Catholic info, if you will. Grace builds upon nature, faith is ABOVE reason. There is every reason to think the reason myriad prophecies from Catholic sources seem to dovetail to some degree with non-Catholic sources is...truth has a natural AND a super-natural level (if you will) -- and the two levels cannot contradict each other. Truth is truth, period, even is some of it is inaccessible to unaided reason (thus, our need for divine revelation).
Anyway, we are, IMO, headed into the mother of all meat grinders -- and it is for our own good and by the mercy of God. I call this time the Purification and, boy, do we need it. Godspeed :)
-
The Sun is in motion and it's not going round the Earth
http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/the_photonic_belt.htm
All should read The Day The Earth Nearly Died by Allan and Delair
-
It's No Coincidence That Every Major (And Minor) Religion...
Every Organization With Far-Reaching Roots In History...
Have Seen This Coming
Except Catholicism.
The Bible, Nostradamus and the Hopi Prophecy all predict planet-wide doom as well
Where?!
This thing is dripping with fraud. He is taking advantage of credulous people.
-
Perhaps it/he is, perhaps not.
As for Catholicism, there are myriad prophecies that are clearly about this time, Matthew. Have you ever read Yves Dupont's book on Catholic Prophecy? --- http://www.scribd.com/doc/4956324/Catholic-Prophecy
Where does the Bible predict doom? Uh, take a look in the last book. :rolleyes: The words you quoted make no claim that the Bible specifically mentions 2012.
-
FWIW, I just threw the link in with zero intention of it being any kind of focus. The focus of the thread is 2012.
-
Perhaps it/he is, perhaps not.
As for Catholicism, there are myriad prophecies that are clearly about this time, Matthew. Have you ever read Yves Dupont's book on Catholic Prophecy? --- http://www.scribd.com/doc/4956324/Catholic-Prophecy
Where does the Bible predict doom? Uh, take a look in the last book. :rolleyes: The words you quoted make no claim that the Bible specifically mentions 2012.
Eamon, the whole thing is about 2012. He throws the bible in there, on par with soothsayers and false religions, with the implication being that it too states 2012 will bring the end of days. That's false. If he wants to manipulate other sources for monetary gain, I suppose that's on him, but when he starts making claims regarding real sources of divine revelation, that's where I draw the line.
Of course the world will end sometime, but the surest way to err is to venture precise times. In a general way, the end is near. The AntiChrist probably walks the earth and has been since 1398. I don't need some irreligious idiot trying to make a buck telling me what I should or shouldn't do.
So what does Yves say about it? Does he venture precise dates?
-
The AntiChrist probably walks the earth and has been since 1398.
What happened at that time?
-
You are welcome to draw whatever lines you like. No harm in that.
Dupont simply gathers together the many prophecies about this period of turmoil (especially within the Church), making it clear that it has been foretold -- and that it shall all be resolved in a most unexpected manner, resulting in the reign of the Great Monarch and Holy Pope.
Have you ever read any of his works? He had a periodical in the 70s called World Trends. He was quite knowledgeable, pious, and his comments made a lot of sense -- still do.
FWIW, as the vast majority of the world has become indifferent/ignorant about the supernatural, it is to be expected that even the observations that are correct or merely plausible, from a natural perspective, will likely contain comments that make it clear the source is infected with the spirit of the age.
While perusal of such information might not be for everyone, there is useful info that can be found by those who want to learn more -- always keeping the eyes fixed upon the divine plan.
As for the prophecies of various Catholics, they were given for a reason -- to provide hope in these dark days.
-
Of course the world will end sometime, but the surest way to err is to venture precise times.
FWIW, 2012, etc., is not about the END of the world, IMO -- just the end of the world as we know it. Think of it as a little housecleaning that will be of the kind and degree that can only be done by the Almighty, especially at this late, corrupt hour.
-
-
Caminus, that is the most compelling an interesting thing I have ever read from you. VERY interesting.
-
The date of this letter was 1407, subtract 9 and we arrive at 1398 as the birth year of the AntiChrist. Then it dawned on me that 666 may not merely be a symbolic number, but actually his age upon manifesting himself. This public manifestation of the AntiChrist at 666 years of age would be 2064.
If this is so, if I am still alive, I should be 73 by that time. I dont know if I'd prefer to be martyred in battle or captivity, or survive and see the wonders of Elias and watch St.Michael crush the anti-christ?
-
I remember that St.Don Bosco said that 2013 would be the year of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, but Dec.21, 2012 is pretty close to that. If the 3 Days of Darkness did happen on that day would end on Christmas. Our Lord says in the book of Matthew pray that your flight may not take place in winter and Our Lady said the same thing, but I forgot where.
-
Caminus,
Your conjecture also fits the timeline of the great monarch and Holy pope prophesies that he would rule for about 40 years in the age of Mary and then would come the time of the antichrist.
-
Caminus,
That is a fascinating theory and it makes much sense.
Andy
-
It's intriguing, but only a conjecture obviously. I wasn't prepared to simply write off St. Vincent as being in error which led me to the notion. You can pretty much see the calamities taking shape shortly there after and observe a general decline, with moments of victory and restoration, but overall, it's as if the slow degradation of society and now the Church was set in motion around then. The Popes unanimously denounced the progressive decay and the increased affliction of the Church down through the centuries since then as well. Then we see around the same time, the overthrow of the old order which is Christendom (something these neo-protestant or pagan observers who denounce a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr just don't grasp and thus are in bed with the enemy).
The most devastating thing that came of Vatican II was not doctrinal, rather it was this strange rapproachment with the modern world, thus inviting the work of the AntiChrist into the very bosom of the Church, not only synthesizing, but intensifying and magnifying every conceivable error that's been known to the Church all throughout history.
-
What Caminus says actually does fit the Great Monarch timeline. The golden age of the Catholic rebirth is said to be very short. I can see why too -- the genie is out of the bottle, and he's not going back in.
But you don't have to defend St. Vincent, Caminus. He says clearly this is only his opinion. This part is really, really creepy --
"At the end of Vespers, two little novices, according to their custom, singing the 'Benedicamus Domino,' were visibly rapt in ecstasy for a considerable period of time. At length they cried out together: "Today, at this hour, Antichrist, the destroyer of the world is born."
Why would this make them "rapt in ecstasy"? I don't know, but something about what St. Vincent says does ring true. It sounds like the world went kind of mad in his time and that something was happening under the surface that was very bad, and that has parallels to the end.
-
The confusion from earlier in this thread must be because Eamon did not say specifically that "2012" and the Minor Chastisement are essentially the same thing. But the Minor Chastisement, as far as I know, has no solid proof from Scripture. You may be able to read it in there but I wouldn't say it's a sure thing.
We're mostly dealing with unofficial prophecy here. However, I don't see how various events from the Apocalypse can play out without the Minor Chastisement happening first. Certainly it would shock me if the world ended now, before the spectacularly ugly, Atlantis-like fall of America that I am almost
positive is coming. And we still have Enoch and Elias yet to come.
-
P.S. Yeah, I know that St. Vincent lived during the Western schism, but that is not the "something bad" I'm referring to. I'm talking about a kind of chaos that seized people. The Schism seems to have been merely part of this -- I don't know if it resulted from some kind of religious disorder that already existed, or was the operative cause of it, but it feels to me like people were getting tired of religion, as they often do, and were getting nutty. When you read about St. Catherine of Siena she is always rebuking everyone for essentially being out of control.
-
Interesting point on St. Vincent Ferrer Caminus, however, Raoul is correct that during the Western Schism both sides claimed visions and miracles in order to try and show that their side had the true Pope.
The Great Schism of 1378-1414, dividing Christendom into the followers of a pope based in Avignon and one based in Rome, stirred up enormous expectations of the imminence of Antichrist's reign and huge numbers of apocalyptic visions and prophecies. To many, the division of Christendom itself was a preamble to the appearance of Antichrist, the discessio, or falling away, of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that was to precede the coming of the "son of perdition." (The twelfth-century glossa ordinaria, the standard commentary on the Bible, explained the discessio as the destruction of the Roman Empire or a schism in the church.) Others had visions--often explicitly partisan ones--that confirmed this interpretation of the schism. A Gascon woman named Marie Robine, for example, became convinced that the Avignon Pope Clement VII had been the intercessor responsible for her miraculous healing in 1387 and had a series of visions upholding the legitimacy of the Avignon popes (who eventually granted her an annual "salary" of 60 florins). The famous preacher Vincent Ferrer in 1398 had a vision of the imminence of the Last Judgment (he foresaw no earthly millennium) and began a twenty-year preaching tour to announce the coming of the End. He also wrote a letter to the Avignon pope Benedict XIII in which he adduced several other visions by people known to Vincent announcing that Antichrist had already been born some nine years previously. A number of theologians, worried about the profusion of often partisan prophecies, sought to identify and crack down on pseudo-prophets.
"Apocalyptic Calculators of the Later Middle Ages" by Laura Smoller, p.4
The French Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly, who opposed many of the predictions during the schism, came up with a date for the release of the anti-Christ that I and many of us here should find interesting:
As the Schism stretched on and degenerated, after the 1409 Council of Pisa produced yet a third line of popes, d'Ailly became increasingly dissatisfied with the apocalyptic interpretation of the Schism, reasoning that labeling the other side the forces of Antichrist was doing little to help heal the division. In 1414, on the eve of the Council of Constance that would heal the Schism, inspired by a reading of Roger Bacon, d'Ailly turned to astrology to help him counter the claims of those who argued that the reign of Antichrist was imminent or even present. The culmination of his work was a treatise On the Concordance of Astrology and History, in which d'Ailly predicted that Antichrist would arrive in the year 1789, a prediction that occurred within a discussion of the Great Schism, its possible apocalyptic significance, and d'Ailly's hopes for the upcoming Council of Constance. D'Ailly based his prediction upon several astrological phenomena. First, he relied upon the significance of certain periodic conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter. According to d'Ailly, just such a conjunction was to occur around the year 1692. Second, d'Ailly noted that the planet Saturn would complete a 300-year cycle of ten revolutions in the year 1789. As with Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions, Saturn's completion of ten circuits of the zodiac was supposed to portend great changes in mores, religions, and dynasties.
-
We're mostly dealing with unofficial prophecy here.
The sheer volume of which is such that it could be argued that, while it is not contrary to faith, it is irrational to ignore it.
-
Thanks for this Caminus, nevertheless, as Saint Vicen Ferrer (the Angel of the Apocalipse as he called himself and proved by rising again a death person) he was not sure of that, and I may well not agree with this... regarding the end of times proposition it may well be said it was a conditional prophesy, not fulfilled because people make penance and the crisis was resolved. Just an opinion.
From all that has been said above, I hold the opinion, which I think to be well founded, though not sufficiently proven for me to preach it, that nine years have already elapsed since the birth of Antichrist. But this I do preach with certitude and security, the Lord confirming my word by many signs, that in an exceedingly short time will come the reign of Antichrist and the end of the world.
The date of this letter was 1407, subtract 9 and we arrive at 1398 as the birth year of the AntiChrist. Then it dawned on me that 666 may not merely be a symbolic number, but actually his age upon manifesting himself. This public manifestation of the AntiChrist at 666 years of age would be 2064.
One of the reasons I don´t think this is true is the age of the Antichrist, I´m not sure the devil has the power to preserve from death somebody. God may, and so we have Enoch and Elias, but he may do that bacause it´s a miracle, something the devil can´t do.
St. Pius X held there was good reason to believed that the AntiChrist walked the earth in his own day as well.
I was aware of this and in fact St. Pius X said something like that in His first encyclical, but, if this is the docuмent you are refering, here the Pope said that society was ready to accept the Antichrist, saying that the only thing he needed was to born. But I don´t think he said he was already alive, could you give us the text, please?
I´m not saying all this because I wish to contradict or because I don´t like reading prophesies and commentaries on the Apocalipse, quite the opposite! I firmly believe along with Pius XII that there are many signs Our Lord´s camming is not far and that the world has to prepare for it!
Valete!
Cristian
-
On the Concordance of Astrology and History, in which d'Ailly predicted that Antichrist would arrive in the year 1789, a prediction that occurred within a discussion of the Great Schism, its possible apocalyptic significance, and d'Ailly's hopes for the upcoming Council of Constance. D'Ailly based his prediction upon several astrological phenomena. First, he relied upon the significance of certain periodic conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter. According to d'Ailly, just such a conjunction was to occur around the year 1692. Second, d'Ailly noted that the planet Saturn would complete a 300-year cycle of ten revolutions in the year 1789. As with Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions, Saturn's completion of ten circuits of the zodiac was supposed to portend great changes in mores, religions, and dynasties.
This is facinating!, how could he get that date! I´m not saying the antichrist was born at that time, but to point out the year 1789 is not so simple! :cheers:
-
Interesting thread. What does the Church say about consulting the planets, etc though?
-
Luke 21:25, "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, by reason of the confusion of the roaring of the sea and of the waves..."
Although there is clearly the possibility of misuse/abuse, there is also a right/acceptable use. Otherwise, telling us there will be signs, for example, and doing so in such wise that seems to recommend that we pay attention to them, makes no sense.
-
Why would this make them "rapt in ecstasy"?
Mike, this is a term used to describe the state of one who is receiving a supernatural revelation from one of the denizens of heaven. It is the state of suspension of the bodily senses while the soul receives spiritual knowledge.
It doesn't mean hopping along whilst singing a happy tune.
Caminus, the the anti-Catholic Second Vatican Council certainly did send an increase of doctrinal devastation to those in the world who would be Catholic.
-
Interesting thread. What does the Church say about consulting the planets, etc though?
We don't "WORSHIP" them or "INVOKE" them. But if God says "Signs in the sun and in the moon and in the stars" and we see weird stuff happening up there, then perhaps we can put two and two together, looking up at the stars without falling into idolatry.
Which is what I believe Gladius was getting at.
-
I believe reference to the moon, stars, etc. are allegorical.
-
Thanks for this Caminus, nevertheless, as Saint Vicen Ferrer (the Angel of the Apocalipse as he called himself and proved by rising again a death person) he was not sure of that, and I may well not agree with this... regarding the end of times proposition it may well be said it was a conditional prophesy, not fulfilled because people make penance and the crisis was resolved. Just an opinion.
That's exactly right, which makes precise predictions about these events a ripe source for error.
One of the reasons I don´t think this is true is the age of the Antichrist, I´m not sure the devil has the power to preserve from death somebody. God may, and so we have Enoch and Elias, but he may do that bacause it´s a miracle, something the devil can´t do.
It wouldn't be a strict miracle since it is within the power of nature considered in itself. You'd be surprised at what the Devil can do. But again, I just offered this idea for the sake of conversation.
I was aware of this and in fact St. Pius X said something like that in His first encyclical, but, if this is the docuмent you are refering, here the Pope said that society was ready to accept the Antichrist, saying that the only thing he needed was to born. But I don´t think he said he was already alive, could you give us the text, please?
"When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the "Son of Perdition" of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3)." Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi
-
The 14th cent also saw the black death in Europe. It would be a fitting century for antichrist to be born. The world has slowly fallen from the faith since that time until today when it has been nearly destroyed.
-
I suspect he resides in Ethiopia where the supposed ark of the Covenant is kept. There's no ark there, but rather it seems to be the residence of the most evil of men to ever have lived, prophesied about in holy Scripture.
It is no coincidence that Somalia which boarders Ethiopia has one of the worst war zones on the planet right now.
-
It wouldn't be a strict miracle since it is within the power of nature considered in itself. You'd be surprised at what the Devil can do. But again, I just offered this idea for the sake of conversation.
[/b]
Which is (this conversation) very interesting indeed! :cheers:
"When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the "Son of Perdition" of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3)." Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi
Thanks for the quote, nevertheless, yet again, just a posibiliy...
-
Interesting point on St. Vincent Ferrer Caminus, however, Raoul is correct that during the Western Schism both sides claimed visions and miracles in order to try and show that their side had the true Pope.
The Great Schism of 1378-1414, dividing Christendom into the followers of a pope based in Avignon and one based in Rome, stirred up enormous expectations of the imminence of Antichrist's reign and huge numbers of apocalyptic visions and prophecies. To many, the division of Christendom itself was a preamble to the appearance of Antichrist, the discessio, or falling away, of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that was to precede the coming of the "son of perdition." (The twelfth-century glossa ordinaria, the standard commentary on the Bible, explained the discessio as the destruction of the Roman Empire or a schism in the church.) Others had visions--often explicitly partisan ones--that confirmed this interpretation of the schism. A Gascon woman named Marie Robine, for example, became convinced that the Avignon Pope Clement VII had been the intercessor responsible for her miraculous healing in 1387 and had a series of visions upholding the legitimacy of the Avignon popes (who eventually granted her an annual "salary" of 60 florins). The famous preacher Vincent Ferrer in 1398 had a vision of the imminence of the Last Judgment (he foresaw no earthly millennium) and began a twenty-year preaching tour to announce the coming of the End. He also wrote a letter to the Avignon pope Benedict XIII in which he adduced several other visions by people known to Vincent announcing that Antichrist had already been born some nine years previously. A number of theologians, worried about the profusion of often partisan prophecies, sought to identify and crack down on pseudo-prophets.
"Apocalyptic Calculators of the Later Middle Ages" by Laura Smoller, p.4
The French Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly, who opposed many of the predictions during the schism, came up with a date for the release of the anti-Christ that I and many of us here should find interesting:
As the Schism stretched on and degenerated, after the 1409 Council of Pisa produced yet a third line of popes, d'Ailly became increasingly dissatisfied with the apocalyptic interpretation of the Schism, reasoning that labeling the other side the forces of Antichrist was doing little to help heal the division. In 1414, on the eve of the Council of Constance that would heal the Schism, inspired by a reading of Roger Bacon, d'Ailly turned to astrology to help him counter the claims of those who argued that the reign of Antichrist was imminent or even present. The culmination of his work was a treatise On the Concordance of Astrology and History, in which d'Ailly predicted that Antichrist would arrive in the year 1789, a prediction that occurred within a discussion of the Great Schism, its possible apocalyptic significance, and d'Ailly's hopes for the upcoming Council of Constance. D'Ailly based his prediction upon several astrological phenomena. First, he relied upon the significance of certain periodic conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter. According to d'Ailly, just such a conjunction was to occur around the year 1692. Second, d'Ailly noted that the planet Saturn would complete a 300-year cycle of ten revolutions in the year 1789. As with Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions, Saturn's completion of ten circuits of the zodiac was supposed to portend great changes in mores, religions, and dynasties.
Im sure that there were plenty of quack seers in those days, but you cant put St.Vincent Ferrer on the same level with them simply because he was associated with the anti-pope. He renounced allegiance to Avignon and is now a canonized saint given the title "The Angel of Judgement". St.Vincent after all made plenty of prophecies, most of which have come true, such as the conversion of Granada, the violation of De Luna's grave, etc.
St.Vincent is a proven Catholic prophet who would never have taken part in a deception in order to attempt to prove Avignon's legitimacy. He had his faults, but perjury was most definitely not one of them.
-
One of the reasons I don´t think this is true is the age of the Antichrist, I´m not sure the devil has the power to preserve from death somebody. God may, and so we have Enoch and Elias, but he may do that bacause it´s a miracle, something the devil can´t do.
A couple years ago, there was a Buddhist youth in Nepal who was in a state of meditation, without nourishment or sleep, for 6 months and the towns people have hailed him as the reincarnation of buddha. I dont know whatever came of him or if he ever came out of that state.
Also in Nepal, there is a tradition in a certain village that two farmers passing through the mountains found a man (who appeared to be a guru of some sort) frozen in a cave. So they took him out of the cave to bring his body back to their village as a spectacle and carried him down from that latitude. The temperature rose and the ice began to melt. The frozen guru then broke out of the ice encasing him and walked away after thanking them for removing him from the cave.
*Just in case yall are wondering, I read that in a book on Hindu witchcraft concerning life preservation, which I wasnt able to finish reading. *
Rasputin, as we well know, was poisoned with enough cyanide to kill a dozen men, shot numerous times, and then bound and dropped into a frozen lake where it stayed for at least a day... after which they found his hands unbound.
So I think it is absolutely possible for the devil to preserve the life of his servants, at the expense of their soul of course.