As many of you may be aware, there is a priest in Croatia by the name of Father Zlatko Sudac. Some believe He is a very strong candidate for the Angelic Pope. I second that.

He carries the Stigmata in the form of a cross on his forehead. There is another priest who claims this (Giorgio Bongiovanni) but I'm pretty sure He is a hoax. You would agree with me if you knew about the things He preaches (i.e. Extraterrestrials and some sins being harder for God to forgive than others). Anyways, the Stigmata has never been received on the forehead like this before. Now consider the following prophecy...

"The Pope will go over the sea carrying the sign of redemption on his forehead, and after the victory of the Pope and the Great Monarch, peace will reign on earth."
(Abbot Werdin d'Ortante, 13th century)

This would be just one bit of evidence that supports the theory that the Great Monarch is alive today with Father Sudac being the one to fulfill this prophecy. There are other bits of evidence (i.e. the Pahlavi Dynasty fulfilling Daniel 11:2). Plus all of the Middle East being upset with the Western World, and how eventually they will attempt to conquer Europe in order to spread Islam.

Anyways, I want to point out that Father Sudac is Novus Ordo. How do I know this? Because of the following interview...

http://www.stjeromecroatian.org/eng/frsudac.html

This article point out that Father Sudac has been investigated and confirmed as a true Stigmatic. If the Novus Ordo was really what you all say it is, then why would someone of the Novus Ordo receive the stamp of approval from God in the form of the Stigmata?

Furthermore, this may be evidence that Vatican II was legit.

Furthermore, this may be evidence that Vatican II was legit.

Sorry, wrong answer. No amount of signs, wonders or other magical gobbledygook will make the Second Vomitous Council valid, Catholic or even remotely Christian.

Why is it, Matthew (or anyone else) that there seems to be a rash of posters these days who are all excited about mystical signs and other business? Seems like there might be some collusion happening.

Anyway, 'stigmata' are, necessarily, the marks of the Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ appearing on a person's body, either physically (usually) or in some other temporary, miraculous way.

Our Lord did not have a cross-shaped wound on His Head; what some Abbot 'prophesied' centuries ago means nothing if said proclamations are not sanctioned by Holy Church as worthy of belief. This Abbot could have been anyone.

I also notice that this exact same topic has been posted ALL OVER the 'net on various forums.

My vote is to let this fortune-telling, prot-style end-times fixation drop so we can discuss matters that actually affect how we live out the Faith here and now. THAT, friends, is how we will prepare for what is to come, not by playing armchair prophet.

There is more evidence than just that one prophecy. It is all adding up.

Nothing is adding up with Vatican II, only if you use double-thinking mathematics which however is as unreal as double-thinking Concilarism.

Vatican II is an ordinary -- how do you say in English? -- "bandit council". Räuberkonzil in my language.
And so Vatican II will be tabula rasa as soon as God grants us an orthodox Pope.

And there's serious European Catholic prophecies which don't even count Vatican II as a council, because it was none.
But even without prophecies -- and this is much more important -- God does not contradict Himself, meaning Vatican II isn't legit because it's full with errors contracting the traditional Faith.

So, trust the traditional Faith of 2000 years, and then follow your reason (i.e. will + mind).
"The will must want reality, otherwise the mind will never find the truth. Truth for us men lies in the conformity of our minds to reality."

As many of you may be aware, there is a priest in Croatia by the name of Father Zlatko Sudac. Some believe He is a very strong candidate for the Angelic Pope. I second that.

He carries the Stigmata in the form of a cross on his forehead. There is another priest who claims this (Giorgio Bongiovanni) but I'm pretty sure He is a hoax. You would agree with me if you knew about the things He preaches (i.e. Extraterrestrials and some sins being harder for God to forgive than others). Anyways, the Stigmata has never been received on the forehead like this before. Now consider the following prophecy...

"The Pope will go over the sea carrying the sign of redemption on his forehead, and after the victory of the Pope and the Great Monarch, peace will reign on earth."
(Abbot Werdin d'Ortante, 13th century)

This would be just one bit of evidence that supports the theory that the Great Monarch is alive today with Father Sudac being the one to fulfill this prophecy. There are other bits of evidence (i.e. the Pahlavi Dynasty fulfilling Daniel 11:2). Plus all of the Middle East being upset with the Western World, and how eventually they will attempt to conquer Europe in order to spread Islam.

Anyways, I want to point out that Father Sudac is Novus Ordo. How do I know this? Because of the following interview...

http://www.stjeromecroatian.org/eng/frsudac.html

This article point out that Father Sudac has been investigated and confirmed as a true Stigmatic. If the Novus Ordo was really what you all say it is, then why would someone of the Novus Ordo receive the stamp of approval from God in the form of the Stigmata?

Furthermore, this may be evidence that Vatican II was legit.

This, as the title of this thread says, is preventing you from considering traditionalism? Seriously?

We know V2's fruits were rotten and these rotten fruits continue to stink today and will continue to fester in their rot until the NO finally decomposes into the sewer from whence it came.

For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.

Because this person bears a sign of a stigmata, but does not bear the sign of the one true Church and faith, beware, Behold I have told it to you, beforehand - Our Lord warned us that things like this were coming - do not be fooled.

 

If the Novus Ordo was really what you all say it is, then why would someone of the Novus Ordo receive the stamp of approval from God in the form of the Stigmata?

Furthermore, this may be evidence that Vatican II was legit.

1) I remember seeing a docuмentary of non-Catholics that have the stigmata.

2) A Novus Ordo bishop can convert and become the most ardent proponent of tradition. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, that ended up as one of the great saints.


Your evidence and conclusions remind me of the joke of the scientist that trained frogs to jump on command. In his experimentation using the trained frogs, he concluded that the hearing system of frogs in in their legs, because when he removed their legs, the frogs would not jump on command.

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

If the Novus Ordo was really what you all say it is, then why would someone of the Novus Ordo receive the stamp of approval from God in the form of the Stigmata?

Furthermore, this may be evidence that Vatican II was legit.

1) I remember seeing a docuмentary of non-Catholics that have the stigmata.

2) A Novus Ordo bishop can convert and become the most ardent proponent of tradition. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, that ended up as one of the great saints.


Your evidence and conclusions remind me of the joke of the scientist that trained frogs to jump on command. In his experimentation using the trained frogs, he concluded that the hearing system of frogs in in their legs, because when he removed their legs, the frogs would not jump on command.

If your using those premises to try to debunk my logic then you are just as guilty of seeking to support your belief system as what you are accusing me of.

1) You are totally basing your first premise off of the assumption that the Novus Ordo is completely wrong, and your belief system is the correct belief system. You are not at all considering that possibility that your belief system is wrong.

2) I'm not sure what your point is regarding all of this in your second statement.

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

There is more evidence than just that one prophecy. It is all adding up.

Nothing is adding up with Vatican II, only if you use double-thinking mathematics which however is as unreal as double-thinking Concilarism.

Vatican II is an ordinary -- how do you say in English? -- "bandit council". Räuberkonzil in my language.
And so Vatican II will be tabula rasa as soon as God grants us an orthodox Pope.

And there's serious European Catholic prophecies which don't even count Vatican II as a council, because it was none.
But even without prophecies -- and this is much more important -- God does not contradict Himself, meaning Vatican II isn't legit because it's full with errors contracting the traditional Faith.

So, trust the traditional Faith of 2000 years, and then follow your reason (i.e. will + mind).
"The will must want reality, otherwise the mind will never find the truth. Truth for us men lies in the conformity of our minds to reality."

Which prophecies?

Quote

What is preventing me from considering Traditionalism..

So, what exactly are you? From the thread on EENS you sounded like a person who first has a personal opinion, then looks for evidence to support it, rather than a person seeking truth.

You didn't know the difference between a dogmatic decree and a fallible teachings by Vatican II popes. You said that non-Catholics (Protestants,Jєωs, Mohamedans, Buddhists, Hindus etc) can be saved if they are ardently worshipping their "god". You said they go to Purgatory, but are not guaranteed Heaven, they can still go to hell from purgatory. These foundational errors tells me that you have not had ears to hear.

I'm sorry to say it, but from this new stigmata thread, I am just further convinced that you sound like the people described in scripture as:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

I'm not ruling out that the SSPX could possibly be correct. I'm observing the things you are talking about and considering it. I'm also pointing out evidence that suggests otherwise.