Number CCCXXXVI (336)                                                       21 December 201
BILLOT I
For years I have been giving a conference on the Seven Ages of the Church, based on the Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser’s Commentary on the book of the Apocalypse. Holzhauser, a German priest of the first half of the 1600’s, said that he wrote it under inspiration. The conference has been popular, especially because it fits the craziness of our age into a harmonious pattern of the history of the Church. What I had not realized, however, is that Holzhauser’s vision is shared by a famous classical theologian, making it more difficult to dismiss Holzhauser as a mere visionary or “apparitionist”.

It is in an Epilogue to the first volume of his classic Treatise on the Church of Christ that Cardinal Louis Billot (1846-1931) lays out in some detail the correspondence affirmed by Holzhauser between seven main periods of Church history and the seven Letters to the seven churches of Asia that make up Chapters II and III of the book of the Apocalypse. Billot’s Epilogue never mentions Holzhauser, but it is difficult to imagine that there is no connection. However, Billot takes care to start out the correspondence not from any vision or inspiration, but from the Greek names of the seven churches. The suitability of these names to the Church’s evolving history is either a remarkable coincidence, or more likely a trace of Providence at work – God, the Master of History !

Thus Billot says that Ephesus (Apoc. II, 1-7) signifies in Greek a “starting out”, obviously suitable to the Apostolic Age (33-70 AD) with which the Church began. Smyrna (Apoc.II, 8-11) names the second church and means “myrrh”, corresponding to the passion and sufferings of the Church’s Second Age (70-313 AD), that of the Martyrs. Pergamus (Apoc. II, 12-17) was a city famous for literature, so that “pergamum” came to mean material on which to write, corresponding to the cluster of great Church writers belonging to the Church’s Third Age, that of the Doctors (313-800). Thyatira names the next church (Apoc. II, 18-29), and means “splendour of triumph”, corresponding to the 1,000-year triumph of the Catholic Church, reaching from Charlemagne (742-814) to the French Revolution (1789).

These thousand years might also be reckoned from around the conversion of Clovis (496) to the outbreak of Protestantism (1517). But whether one marks the decline of Christendom from the Reformation or the Revolution, in any case Sardis, naming the fifth church (Apoc. III, 1-6), was the city of Croesus, a fabulously rich man, evoking an abundance of money, material prosperity and spiritual decadence, such as characterize modern times. Indeed the warnings to the church of Sardis correspond perfectly to our own age today, as we shall see with Billot in further “Comments”.

We move clearly into the future with the sixth church, that of Philadelphia (Apoc.III, 7-13), meaning “love” (Phil-) of “brotherhood” (- adelphia). Cardinal Billot has this name correspond to a last great triumph of the Church, marked notably by the conversion of the Jєωs as prophesied by St Paul (Rom.XI, 12), and by their reconciliation with the Gentiles, brothers at last in Christ (Eph.II, 14-16).

But the church of Philadelphia is warned that tribulation is coming (Apoc.III, 10), which corresponds to the seventh and last Age of the Church, that of Laodicea (Apoc. III, 14-22), named from judgment (dike) of the peoples (laon). It will be the Age of the last and most terrible trial of the Church, the persecution of the Antichrist, followed by the General Judgment of all souls that will ever have lived, and so of all peoples.

Kyrie eleison.

Quote from: JuanDiego

Number CCCXXXVI (336)                                                       21 December 201
BILLOT I
For years I have been giving a conference on the Seven Ages of the Church, based on the Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser’s Commentary on the book of the Apocalypse.

Very interesting. From my experience years ago, this was usually Mgr Williamson's talk during which he would predict his eventual departure from the FSSPX after John Paul II died or was driven from office. It was also during this talk that Mgr would predict an invalid pope or state of sedevacante after John Paul II left.

And now we have an apostate bishop of Rome (I couldn't even say papal claimant as he does not claim to be) who does not believe in a Catholic God, and Mons. Williamson is not with the Society. I guess you are saying he was right on the money then.

Mr Vere, you are a fabulous tap dancer!

I've remained consistently Ecclesia Dei for 20 years now.

Then you certainly have noticed the next generation of E.D. faithful dwindling to near non-existence. (E.g., children and young adults)
How do you explain this vis-a-vis the "fruits of Summorum Pontificam"

So basically you accept a heretical council and attend a Mass sometimes prayed in Latin. Ok. Thanks.

Of course I accept the Second Vatican Council as a legitimate council. As did Mgr Lefebvre at the time whose signature has since been discovered on the docuмent on religious liberty, despite what the FSSPX claimed for years.

I am also in agreement with Dom Basile of Le Barroux that this text is reconcilable with Tradition.

That being said, if I believed that Vatican II was heretical council, I would immediately embrace sedeprivationism. For me this position makes more sense in light of a heretical council than either FSSPX or Resistance versions of R&R.

[image]http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/SSPX8_files/image001.gif[/image]

The ArchBp's signature was on Dignitatis Humanae? So? the poor man wasn't perfect? Who is? Like many holy people who tend to give people the benefit of the doubt...they expect others to love God and have a Sensus Catholicus as they have..apparently that's too much to ask in this era; the "winter" of Vatican II.. :furtive:

Quote from: Charlotte NC Bill

The ArchBp's signature was on Dignitatis Humanae? So? the poor man wasn't perfect? Who is? Like many holy people who tend to give people the benefit of the doubt...they expect others to love God and have a Sensus Catholicus as they have..apparently that's too much to ask in this era; the "winter" of Vatican II.. :furtive:

I think, within the context of this discussion, that Mgr Lefebvre's signature on Dignitatis Humanae shows that the Archbishop was not beholden to one position on every issue after the Second Vatican Council. Rather, his position evolved over time, in response to the crisis in the Church, and sometimes he contradicted his earlier self.

As far as his claim never to have signed Dignitatis Humanae, despite his signature having later been revealed on the docuмent, I think it was an honest mistake on Mgr's part.

Are you celebrating Hannukah this year Pete? Maybe you can help Francis and the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "priests" light their mennorahs.

Centroamerica:

Are you celebrating Hannukah this year Pete? Maybe you can help Francis and the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "priests" light their mennorahs.

Why, of course.  Pete is united in full communion with Rome.  He is obligated to support the pope, at least in spirit, in every thing that this "genuine modernist" does and says.  Right, Pete?  After all, Pete, you and the rest of the Eccesia dei bunch have consciously and deliberately taken that path.  Let it be for you more than mere words.
One of the FSSP priest stationed here in Post Falls has told me several times over that he would never say the New Mass, nor would any of his confreres. It is an abomination, and he would rather die than celebrate it.  But, wait a minute, he and his fellow priests have signed on fully with the New Order, have they not?  He at least ought to be compelled to recognize, if not celebrate occasionally, the New Mass, since under the New Order, it is the "Ordinary' form, after all, and ought to take precedence over the 'Extraordinary' form.  I mean, it's one thing for an FSSP priest to avoid the New Mass whenever possible, it is certainly another for him to abominate it.
I'm not sure, Pete, what ED community you attend.  But if it is an FSSP chapel, would you please make certain that your priest informs the ex-sspxers in attendance that all of the confessions they made while member of sspx, and all of the marriages performed in an sspx chapel, have no validity.  In other words, these folks are probablyy still in their sins.  And if they were married in an sspx chapel and have done most of their confessions there, then, Oh my! They are really in trouble, don't you think?