I provided the evidence in Apocalypse 14:6-11. What is described there is a "warning" from Heaven.

In fact, there are three separate "warnings."

1. "Fear the Lord, and give him honor, because the hour of his judgment is come; and adore ye him, that made heaven and earth, the sea, and the fountains of waters." This part is about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where we show God proper adoration.

2. "That great Babylon is fallen, is fallen; which made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." This part is about the counterfeit Church [Babylon=Rome].

3. "If any man shall adore the beast and his image, and receive his character in his forehead, or in his hand; He also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mingled with pure wine in the cup of his wrath, and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the sight of the holy angels, and in the sight of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast, and his image, and whoever receiveth the character of his name."  This part is about the false Pope being adored and leading Catholics into the abyss of his false Synodal teachings.

So far, the references you have posted don't say anything about a false pope being adored and leading Catholics into the abyss with false synodal teachings. Nor do your references say anything specific about the Mass, or a counterfeit church. Not that these things aren't a possibility, but there's no direct reference for such, nor does it imply that that is what is happening now. These are your interpretations, which you are entitled to, but opinions are just opinions. 

Jesus speaks about this problem in Matthew 13:


10 And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables? 11 Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. 12 For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. 13 Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. 15 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. 17 For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them.

What is it that you intend to say, by posting the above quote from Sacred Scripture?

Are you saying that you have a far better and more profound idea of what is going on with the Crisis in the Church, and the rest of us haven't got a clue?

You probably meant something completely different, but surely "indult-ish" is not the correct term here.

An indult is permission to be an exception to the rule.  By accepting an indult, you recognize the rule. 

Right, not a perfect term.  What I meant was, before +ABL cut off ties with new-rome in 1988, he was thinking/pondering "making a deal".  He would've effectively become the indult (even though the indult didn't exist until after +ABL cut off ties).  Had he made a deal, +ABL would've gotten the "personal prelature" type deal that the new-sspx is trying to get now - independence from new-rome (in the short term), but acceptance (to some degree) of the new mass/V2.

The indulterers who celebrate the Mass of all time officially agree with the modernists that the Novus Ordo is the ordinary rite of the Church, and content themselves with an imagined special permission to use an older rite that they simply have a personal preference for.

Yes.  This is the path +ABL was on, before 1988.

The Archbishop rightly called the indulterers traitors because they had officially accepted the Novus Ordo.  The Mass of all time is the only rite of the Roman Catholic Church, not something to be used by indult.

Yes.  And +ABL avoided this compromise, thankfully.

Had he made a deal, +ABL would've gotten the "personal prelature" type deal that the new-sspx is trying to get now - independence from new-rome (in the short term), but acceptance (to some degree) of the new mass/V2.

Specifically, the "acceptance to some degree" of the Novus Ordo to which +Lefebvre was ready to sign was only as to the validity of the form.  He was never willing to agree to its legitimacy.  That is radically different from the indulterers.

Similarly, he was ready to accept Vatican II 'as a whole', including the famous Explanatory Note which suicidally allows one to reject the council.  This also is different from the indulterers who will accept individual docuмents like Dignitatis Humanae at face value.

It's quite simple. I disagree that what you originally wrote is a teaching of the Church. You have not shown that they are teachings. Evidently, not agreeing with you is tantamount to being hard of heart, angry, and offended. On a forum such as this, we debate subjects, which often causes differences of opinion. It's a common thing to do here. Perhaps you haven't noticed that.

Oh Meg. Did you forget about this post of mine? The Catechism of the Catholic Church was promulgated by a Pope that you recognize as a valid Pope, right? Does this JPII Catechism not contain "the teaching of the Church" on the interpretation of end time prophecy?

Yes, Meg. The Catholic Church has interpreted the Apocalypse and the related Biblical prophecies to be talking about the "apostasy from the truth," which it calls the "Church's ultimate trial."

Below is a quote from the JPII Catechism. Make sure you read all of docuмents and verses referred to in the footnotes. Otherwise, you may not be able to put all of the pieces together. Keep in mind that everything referenced occurs within the context of the Church. It is not "the World's ultimate trial." It is "the Church's ultimate trial."

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1V.HTM#-UO

-----------------------

The Church's ultimate trial

675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.⁵⁷³ The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth⁵⁷⁴ will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.⁵⁷⁵

676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,⁵⁷⁶ especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.⁵⁷⁷

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.⁵⁷⁸ The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.⁵⁷⁹ God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.⁵⁸⁰

573 Cf. Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12.
574 Cf. Lk 21:12; Jn 15:19-20.
575 Cf. 2 Th 2:4-12; I Th 5:2-3; 2 Jn 7; I Jn 2:1 8, 22.
576 Cf. DS 3839.
577 Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, condemning the "false mysticism" of this "counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly"; cf. GS 20-21.
578 Cf. Rev 19:1-9.
579 Cf Rev 13:8; 20:7-10; 21:2-4.
580 Cf. Rev 20:12 2 Pt 3:12-13.

-----------------------

The deception occurs within the Church. The deceived are warned just before the "final unleashing of evil.

Specifically, the "acceptance to some degree" of the Novus Ordo to which +Lefebvre was ready to sign was only as to the validity of the form.  He was never willing to agree to its legitimacy.  That is radically different from the indulterers.

Similarly, he was ready to accept Vatican II 'as a whole', including the famous Explanatory Note which suicidally allows one to reject the council.  This also is different from the indulterers who will accept individual docuмents like Dignitatis Humanae at face value.

If I wrote a book on why Catholicism is false and put a sticky note on it saying everything in the book should be interpreted in accord with the truth, would you accept the book as true?

Because that's exactly what that explanatory note nonsense means.

Nothing done after the fact can change what the Council meant.
If you accept the Council you've accepted the Council, whether or not you're pretending it means something different because you have some head-canon sticky note which you like but reject 60 years of encyclicals and other explanations of V2.

Classic picking and choosing, which happens to be the root meaning of heresy from the greek.

The latest "Eucharistic Miracle." We must follow "the science."


https://aleteia.org/2023/08/15/bishop-recognizes-eucharistic-miracle-in-honduran-chapel/

"Bishop Walter Guillen Soto announced the results of the study and acknowledged that the results were humanly inexplicable. He said:

I think that this extraordinary, visible, tangible, perceptible, verifiable sign of this manifestation of the blood of the Lord in an obscure community in the midst of the most extreme rurality of our agricultural environment says a lot at this time.

He stressed that it was unique that Jesus showed this miracle not to a clergyman or religious, but to a layman. He called it a “miracle of synodality.”

“It’s the time of the laity,” the bishop said. “It is the faith of the laity that has kept alive the vitality of the Church in these corners of the world. For me and for the clergy of the diocese it has been a call to conversion to recognize the call of God in the voice of the laity."

Intervention of the Holy Ghost in response to what? Himself? You forgot the part where the Holy Ghost is the author of the Council.

So, after the promulgation of the Council and before the addition of the note we had the Church teaching unacceptable heresies but afterwards it's all good?

Insane.

And this is all on your false premise that the note means you can throw out anything you want. IT DOESN'T!!! IT IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN THAT EVEYTHING INSIDE CAN BE RECONCILED WITH TRADITION USING MODERNIST MENTAL GYMNASTICS/EVOLUTION OF DOGMA.
The note is there to keep the gullible traditionalist tied to the Vatican II sect, its fake pope, fake doctrine and its fake sacraments.

In an Ecuмenical Council, the Holy Ghost is the Author of the infallible pronouncements therein.  Vatican II does not contain a single infallible pronouncement.  In fact, both conciliar popes explicitly stated, 'We will not define anything in this council'.  Consequently, I cannot even see how Vatican II could possibly be a Council (capital 'C').

Paul VI inserted the Note into the official council text during the sessions.  It is officially part of the text, not just a sticky note stuck on afterwards.

Read the relevant passage again, "...the sacred [sic] council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding".  As there is no such instance in the entire collection of docuмents, this passage means in plain English, "Throw out whatever you choose in these docuмents".

Interpreting that line in the way you did in the capitalized section of your post ironically involves Olympic-level mental gymnastics to say the least.