Akita, in 1973:

«The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see Cardinals opposing Cardinals, Bishops against other Bishops. The priests who venerate Me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises, and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.»

Not a word regarding the bastard mass?  Not a word about the infamous vatican ii?

The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church: hey, didn't this happen long before 1973?  Why would Our Lady say "will infiltrate" when it was completely infiltrated?  To deceive us making us to believe the Church is not yet infiltrated?

.

Correction:

Quote from: Neil Obstat

You don't really know what Modernism is, then, because by your persistent rejection of Our Lady's warnings and the traditional interpretation of Scripture as applies to our times (which +W is very good at, usually) you exhibit Modernist tendencies yourself.

I don't reject Our Lady's warnings.  I reject what they say Our Lady said when I know She could not say so.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

But since you don't recognize that, this non-recognition blinds you to understanding Modernism itself, and how it applies to YOU and those who think like you have shown here.

This just does not deserve to be answered.

Quote from: Adolphus

And on top of that, such revelations were approved by the modernist rome…

Again, you're ignorant.

Huh?  You said that yourself.  So you're calling yourself ignorant?

Oh.  Okay.  You win.  HAHAHAHA

I already knew that and it was not necessary you [sic] to tell me so.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Modernism does not prevent the Holy See from being infallible under the proper conditions, nor does it make it unable to give proper approval to contemporary prophesy.  There is nothing new about this.  It's all over the Old Testament, for example.  It even applies to Annas and Caiphas, who were the official High Priest(s) of that time, equivalent to what the Pope(s) is (/are) in our age.

So you say.  But, in my ignorance, I know modernism is the mother of all heresies, and that a true pope cannot be modernist.

In this one sentence you reveal your utter ignorance of what Modernism is.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Is there any Scriptural basis for this 'Chastisement' and for the 'three days of darkness' that so many seem to be anticipating?

Here's a thought.  It's all a decoy, a distraction.  Trads will fail to recognise the rise of the Antichrist because they'll be saying - no, it can't be him, we haven't had the chastisement yet.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Here's a thought:  the distraction itself could be a distraction;  and THAT distraction from a distraction could be another distraction.  Do you think the devil isn't capable of such intrigue?  How shallow and superficial do you think he is?

Quote from: Adolphus

I don't think there is any Scriptural basis for such chastisement.

I see.  I knew a man who could look at the full moon and say, "Moon?  What moon?  I don't see any moon."

You can't have any conversation with such a one.

I can see the moon, but I can't find a three dark days predicted in the Bible.

I didn't say you can't see the moon.  I said you remind me of one who says he can't see the moon.  You can see the moon but you refuse to see other things.  It's the same kind of blindness, only the moon denier in a way is more honest in his dishonesty.

.

Neil Obstat,

You comments on this thread have descended into outright abuse and insult.

Usually your posts consist of little more than rambling, meaningless nonsense.

But here you have gone way beyond what would be considered acceptable in normal discourse.

I hope you are not as unpleasant in your day to day life as you have demonstrated yourself to be here.

I won't bother to quote a selection of your nasty comments here.  Anyone reading this thread will be able to see for themselves.  
 

In a talk titled "The Seven Ages of the Church," available online, Bishop Williamson explains that we are now in the sixth age, which is like a dress rehersal for the seventh age.

We are now in a time of chastisement, first spiritual and then physical, which will include another prototype of the antichrist (like Nero and Hitler were prototypes). After the desolation of the physical chastisement, we will have the era of peace promised by Our Lady at Fatima. And then will be the seventh age of the Church.

When or how Our Lady at Fatima promised an era of peace?  I have read She said "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph".  And the end should be after or at the last part of the seventh age of the Church.

Pope Francis has called for an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops that will be held from October 5-18th, 2014 at the Vatican. The synod will reflect on the theme “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of the Evangelization.”

There has been alarm in conservative and traditionalist circles about this. I have even seen an online petition to stop this synod. Yesterday, Atila Guimaraes of TIA put out a commentary on it. (Francis' guidelines for the Synod: http://traditioninaction.org/bev/171bev09_29_2014.htm). Bishop Sanborn and associates have dubbed it a "Sin-od". I'm not aware that Bp Fellay has said anything about it, but has Bp Williamson? What's going on?

Pope Francis has called for an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops that will be held from October 5-18th, 2014 at the Vatican. The synod will reflect on the theme “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of the Evangelization.”

There has been alarm in conservative and traditionalist circles about this. I have even seen an online petition to stop this synod. Yesterday, Atila Guimaraes of TIA put out a commentary on it. (Francis' guidelines for the Synod: http://traditioninaction.org/bev/171bev09_29_2014.htm). Bishop Sanborn and associates have dubbed it a "Sin-od". I'm not aware that Bp Fellay has said anything about it, but has Bp Williamson? What's going on?

Link didn't work.

Adolphus said,

Certainly almost every traditionalist believes in the messages given at Fatima.  Certainly they are not dogmatic and we should always keep in mind that the Church's approval of the messages does not mean we have to believe in them.  Church's approval mean there is nothing against the faith and that the apparitions seem to be supernatural.  Nothing else.

Something else about the Fatima messages is niggling me.  The second part of the Secret attributes these words to Our Lady:

"If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church."

Given that Fatima occurred in 1917, the year of the Bolshevik revolution, the assumption is that the errors referred to are the errors of Communism.  

But Communism was imposed on Russia.  It didn't originate in Russia, but came from the West.  Karl Marx, after fleeing Germany to escape prosecution for his revolutionary activities, took refuge in London.  Once there, and living in Soho, he produced his most influential works in the reading room of the British Museum.  He is actually buried in Highgate Cemetery.

What's more, there are numerous accounts which verify that both Lenin and Trotsky were funded by Western banks.  Trotsky is said to have recruited a number of his followers from the Lower East Side of Manhattan before travelling to Russia via Canada.  There are accounts of Lenin travelling to St Petersburg via Germany with a train load of gold.

It can be readily argued that Communism was not an error of Russia, but that it was forced upon the Russian people, leading to the destruction of the Romanov dynasty, the confiscation of vast amounts of wealth by the Bolsheviks - most of which ended up in Swiss bank accounts - a massive persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the murder of tens of millions of people.

In what possible sense can Communism be described as an error of Russia?

This is yet another case of sedevacantists agreeing with the liberals that the Church is not bound by Our Lady's words. Our Lady clearly said the conversion of Russia cannot come unless the Holy Father, with the Bishops, consecrates Russia to Her. Of course sedevacantists cannot fit this into their lens, so they do not believe it, but it is the mortal sin of the hierarchy that they refuse to obey. When our Savior solemnly assured the king of France what would undoubtedly happen to his country if he failled, in unconditional surrender and public obedience, to consecrate his country and rule to the Sacred Heart, was the Lord just making a suggestion, or was the king free to disobey? Impossible, St. Thomas says private revelations take place not indeed to teach new articles of Faith but rather to direct the actions of men. So they are vain who, after arriving at a considered judgment of its authenticity under the guidance of the Church, still refuse to obey such directions.

Despite an attempt to cast doubt on the sacred words of the Queen of Prophets - repeated not merely in Fatima, but in countless apparitions before and since, as already docuмented here - the truth is not even the most educated men in Europe could have told the three children of Fatima the great and disastrous revolution that was being prepared in Russia and in time would overwhelm all the world, exactly as Our Lady said it would.

Of course everyone should know, as the Jєωs boast in the Protocols of Zion, that the Bolshevik Revolution was conceived by world Jєωry and imposed on poor Russia from without, to lead to the dissolution of Christendom. They say there openly that the Russian aristocracy was the one and only serious foe, apart from the Papacy, that they had in the world, and the truth - which certainly the children did not and could not know otherwise - is that the noble princes and people of Russia, although not yet Catholic, had vehemently resisted what the bankers wanted to do for a long time, to establish a central bank from which they could continue to impose the tyrannical and usurious yoke they had so much succeeded in establishing over the peoples of Europe. The Russian aristocracy had so courageously and so repeatedly resisted this measure before finally Russia succuмbed to this disastrous revolution. But all this takes not one iota from the truth of Our Lady's words, and rather splendidly confirms it, Our Lady said and St. Lucia repeated often that we must obtain beforehand the conversion of Russia or else Russia will be used as an instrument of the divine vengeance to punish the apostasy of the West.

Despite her centuries-long unhappy schism from the Holy Roman Church, Russia has been and remains most dear to the Immaculate Heart, and once she returns to the Catholic Church, will be among the most glorious of all nations in the coming Age of Mary.