Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: apollo on May 25, 2021, 08:05:01 AM
-
In the message of La Salette, an important line was deleted. This line was deleted:
.
"There will be two worm-ridden popes".
.
"popes" not "men who claim to be pope".
.
The video by Fr Gregory Hesse is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPNpxv0Fnv0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPNpxv0Fnv0)
.
So, The Resistance, as long as it is NOT sedevacantist, is OK.
And when the SSPX says,
.
The Resistance is "practical sedevacantism", they are WRONG.
.
-
Is this the "message of La Salette" that is on the Index of Forbidden Books? Because that long strange text that Melanie published, claiming it is the message Our Lady gave her, is on the Index. Few people seem to know this.
.
As far as I know, none of Melanie's claimed visions and messages from heaven enjoy any approval from the Church.
-
Is this the "message of La Salette" that is on the Index of Forbidden Books? Because that long strange text that Melanie published, claiming it is the message Our Lady gave her, is on the Index. Few people seem to know this.
.
As far as I know, none of Melanie's claimed visions and messages from heaven enjoy any approval from the Church.
Yeah, so I went down a La Salette rabbit hole in writing this week's blog post. I found some original sources, and I was able to provide the original French of Melanie when she mentions the worm-ridden popes comment. It was a rabbit hole that distracted me for hours. But the good thing that came out of it, I found an additional prophecy to include at the end of the article.
https://theweltgeist.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/169787594?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts%2Fpublished (https://theweltgeist.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/169787594?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts%2Fpublished)
-
As far as I know, none of Melanie's claimed visions and messages from heaven enjoy any approval from the Church.
.
I forget what I meant by this, but the apparition of Our Lady at La Salette was approved for veneration by the Church, and the message about people needing to observe the Sunday rest and stop blaspheming was approved.
Of course her text of the secret that she published was condemned, and her other apparitions that she claims to have had in her life are not approved by the Church either, as far as I am aware.
-
Yeah, so I went down a La Salette rabbit hole in writing this week's blog post. I found some original sources, and I was able to provide the original French of Melanie when she mentions the worm-ridden popes comment. It was a rabbit hole that distracted me for hours. But the good thing that came out of it, I found an additional prophecy to include at the end of the article.
https://theweltgeist.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/169787594 (https://theweltgeist.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/169787594?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts%2Fpublished)
The Substack page is set to private. Could you post it on a public page? Thanks. I personally haven't seen the "Sea of Peter will become the Antichrist" bit the last time I looked for the original La Salette text. I'm also not sure which version / text was approved of the Vatican.
That being said, the "two worm-ridden popes" can mean any pair of popes. It could mean Paul VI and JPII, JPII and Benedict, Benedict and Francis, etc. So, that wouldn't "disprove" sedevacantism per se. Also, why just two? We've had more than two bad popes by now, one worse than the other.
I am personally anti-sedevacantist, but I obviously cannot overlook the purely canonical problems, which have nothing to do with judging heresy (Viganós arguments):
- Benedict did not resign properly and after "resigning" still dressed in white, gave the apostolic blessing, etc. (obviously this was intentional from a Modernist perspective, in order to split the munus and magisterium and pave the way for a primus-inter-pares papacy)
- Leo was voted in by too many cardinals
- 1917 Canon law requiring the pope to be at least a valid priest, yet the NO bishop rites are likely invalid, which means that Francis and Leo would not have been valid priests and therefore canonically not admissable to the papacy
So even with La Salette, it doesn't resolve the above - purely canonical - doubts.
I think the smartest solution is naming the pope "sub conditione", as it's valid either way. Some Resistance priests do this.
-
The ultimate redpill is realising that sedevacantism is a grift. Do the sedevacantist clergy offer any solutions or any different services than the typical R&R clergy? Nope. But they will roll into town and siphon faithful regardless. Sounds like a cash grab to me.
-
Rather, the neoSSPX, the fake resistance and all their 62’ missal minions are the compromised status quo.
And taking a $100 million bribe in 2010, from a Dresden Marrano to rebrand your religious order… is big time grifting 😊
Demonizing you’re fellow Catholics who don’t agree with your Liturgical and Sacramental compromises to newChurch’s ecclesiastical Freemasons…
is wholesale calumny.
-
Rather, the neoSSPX, the fake resistance and all their 62’ missal minions are the compromised status quo.
And taking a $100 million bribe in 2010, from a Dresden Marrano to rebrand your religious order… is big time grifting 😊
Demonizing you’re fellow Catholics who don’t agree with your Liturgical and Sacramental compromises to newChurch’s ecclesiastical Freemasons…
is wholesale calumny.
You mean they made the deal with Benedict XVI because of the donation? I had heard about some strange inheritance that was donated to them from a (supposedly) Jєωιѕн family, but I had never made the connection. Can you expand on this? Is there more information about it?
-
We have had more than two "Worm-ridden" popes. Unless, of course, you are a partial Sede and maintain that John XXIII and Paul VI were popes and all the rest were non-popes. I have never understood why it must be an either/or scenario.
-
The Substack page is set to private. Could you post it on a public page? Thanks. I personally haven't seen the "Sea of Peter will become the Antichrist" bit the last time I looked for the original La Salette text. I'm also not sure which version / text was approved of the Vatican.
That being said, the "two worm-ridden popes" can mean any pair of popes. It could mean Paul VI and JPII, JPII and Benedict, Benedict and Francis, etc. So, that wouldn't "disprove" sedevacantism per se. Also, why just two? We've had more than two bad popes by now, one worse than the other.
I am personally anti-sedevacantist, but I obviously cannot overlook the purely canonical problems, which have nothing to do with judging heresy (Viganós arguments):
- Benedict did not resign properly and after "resigning" still dressed in white, gave the apostolic blessing, etc. (obviously this was intentional from a Modernist perspective, in order to split the munus and magisterium and pave the way for a primus-inter-pares papacy)
- Leo was voted in by too many cardinals
- 1917 Canon law requiring the pope to be at least a valid priest, yet the NO bishop rites are likely invalid, which means that Francis and Leo would not have been valid priests and therefore canonically not admissable to the papacy
So even with La Salette, it doesn't resolve the above - purely canonical - doubts.
I think the smartest solution is naming the pope "sub conditione", as it's valid either way. Some Resistance priests do this.
I apologize, Baldwin IV. Please try this link and let me know if it works:
https://theweltgeist.substack.com/p/bergoglio-and-prevost-two-worm-ridden (https://theweltgeist.substack.com/p/bergoglio-and-prevost-two-worm-ridden)
-
By about twelve years shall the millennium have passed [c. 2012 A.D.] when the resplendent mantle of legitimate power shall emerge from the shadows where it was being kept by the schism. And beyond harm from the one [the usurper antipope] who is blocking the door of salvation, for his deceitful schism shall have come to an end. And the mass of the faithful shall attach itself to the worthy Shepherd, who shall extricate each one from error and restore to the Church its beauty. He shall renew it.
- Blessed Tomasuccio de Foligno, Profezie, 14th Century
Hm, I just thought of an alternative theory: Benedict was still pope until 2018. Francis + Leo are then anti-popes, so that would mean the see is vacant since 2018. 2018 + 12 years = 2030, which lines up with the "Agenda 2030" by the UN. The "2012" theory doesn't quite line up with "the mantle of legitimate power shall emerge", as this would mean that Francis is the "mantle of legitimate power". Anyway.
-
You mean they made the deal with Benedict XVI because of the donation? I had heard about some strange inheritance that was donated to them from a (supposedly) Jєωιѕн family, but I had never made the connection. Can you expand on this? Is there more information about it?
The Rothschild-Gutmann Money Behind the SSPX Kosher Imperative
(https://archive.is/o/AzaVr/https://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-rothschild-gutmann-money-behind.html)the original site was nuked by the Jews, but the article is archived here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131020030428/https://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-rothschild-gutmann-money-behind.html
-
A beautiful save! :cowboy:
-
Well… more saves:
The File on Maximilian Krah
https://web.archive.org/web/20220527040922/http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-file-on-maximilian-krah.html
Since this blog was nuked by the Jews, each embedded link must be searched individually on https://archive.ph/ or https://archive.org/
including:
SSPX Bishop Fellay's Lawyer/Business Partner is Fundraiser for Racial Supremacist State
https://web.archive.org/web/20220516105502/https://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2010/11/bishop-fellays-lawyerbusiness-partner.html
SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay's Lawyer/Business Partner's Visit to Israeli Military Special Forces Base Docuмented
https://web.archive.org/web/20220620023154/http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/06/sspx-superior-bp-fellays-lawyerbusiness.html
Maximilian Krah's Handler, Oren Heiman Co-Chairs Zionist Organization with Former Head of Mossad, Meir Dagan
https://web.archive.org/web/20220620023205/http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/06/maximilian-krahs-handler-oren-heiman-co.html
The SSPX Money Manager and "The Power of 72"
https://web.archive.org/web/20220704053206/https://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-sspx-money-manager-and-holy-power.html
SSPX Superior Bishop Fellay's Zionist Business Partner Kicks Günter Grass' Corpse
https://web.archive.org/web/20220816072015/https://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/05/sspx-superior-bishop-fellays-zionist.html
-
Regardless of any approved or unapproved apparitions, Sedevacantism is NOT WRONG...IF AND ONLY IF one TOTALLY adheres to Catholic Dogma, particularly on the papal claims.
Sedevacantism is the best and most honest explanation when one discovers one set of popes directly contradicting other popes on issues of faith and/or morals.
Any other explanation either makes a mockery of True Catholicism or destroys it altogether.
-
I apologize, Baldwin IV. Please try this link and let me know if it works:
https://theweltgeist.substack.com/p/bergoglio-and-prevost-two-worm-ridden (https://theweltgeist.substack.com/p/bergoglio-and-prevost-two-worm-ridden)
Glad you are back. Very much enjoyed and found engaging your Forge & Anvil blog.
-
The Rothschild-Gutmann Money Behind the SSPX Kosher Imperative
(https://archive.is/o/AzaVr/https://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-rothschild-gutmann-money-behind.html)the original site was nuked by the Jews, but the article is archived here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131020030428/https://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-rothschild-gutmann-money-behind.html
Thank you!
-
You are always welcome.
-
A beautiful save! :cowboy:
Recall the highlights of this SSPX fiasco were very entertaining and revealing of Menzingen’s arrogance:
1. 2010, First news of “funny business” breaks when a trad doing an internet search on SSPX legal entities, finds multiple shell corporations being set-up in Europe.
2. EU law requires business incorporation to be publicly disclosed. On the SSPX incorporation docs,
An unknown character (Maximillian Krah) is listed as a signatory.
3. The SSPX is caught like a deer in car headlights. They can say nothing, but eventually try to act as if Krah is just a “Catholic” attorney helping their cause.
Krah’s Jєωιѕн baggage is so conspicuous that the SSPX response becomes a laughing stock.
4. Many months later, the SSPX stages a Krah interview with one of their political PR men, Mr. Siscoe.
Siscoe purports to have providentially met Krah in an elevator while attending an SSPX Angelus conference.
It was Published in the Remnant. Krah played the racial “Jєωιѕн victim” card, and inadvertently released more revealing information about his SSPX legal relationship.
5. This cover-up came to a screeching halt, when in 2011, Krah came onto Cathinfo trying to defend himself.
He revealed more information about his agency relationship with the Jaidhoff family who contributed 80million Euros to the SSPX. In the same set of posts, another CI member revealed the Jaidhoff family were historically linked to the Rothschilds.
-
Recall the highlights of this SSPX fiasco were very entertaining and revealing of Menzingen’s arrogance:
1. 2010, First news of “funny business” breaks when a trad doing an internet search on SSPX legal entities, finds multiple shell corporations being set-up in Europe.
2. EU law requires business incorporation to be publicly disclosed. On the SSPX incorporation docs,
An unknown character (Maximillian Krah) is listed as a signatory.
3. The SSPX is caught like a deer in car headlights. They can say nothing, but eventually try to act as if Krah is just a “Catholic” attorney helping their cause.
Krah’s Jєωιѕн baggage is so conspicuous that the SSPX response becomes a laughing stock.
4. Many months later, the SSPX stages a Krah interview with one of their political PR men, Mr. Siscoe.
Siscoe purports to have providentially met Krah in an elevator while attending an SSPX Angelus conference.
It was Published in the Remnant. Krah played the racial “Jєωιѕн victim” card, and inadvertently released more revealing information about his SSPX legal relationship.
5. This cover-up came to a screeching halt, when in 2011, Krah came onto Cathinfo trying to defend himself.
He revealed more information about his agency relationship with the Jaidhoff family who contributed 80million Euros to the SSPX. In the same set of posts, another CI member revealed the Jaidhoff family were historically linked to the Rothschilds.
This is before my time. I did not know this. I knew about Krah, but not about what had happened before he became news.
So, basically, the SSPX was bought by the Jews, and Krah was the broker. I bet he was rewarded with a nice commission. They love the dollars and euros $$$.
-
This is before my time. I did not know this. I knew about Krah, but not about what had happened before he became news.
So, basically, the SSPX was bought by the Jews, and Krah was the broker. I bet he was rewarded with a nice commission. They love the dollars and euros $$$.
If you study Krah’s Wiki bio, his political activities make him come off looking like a Mossad operative.
Krah Wiki bio (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Krah)
-
If you study Krah’s Wiki bio, his political activities make him come off looking like a Mossad operative.
Krah Wiki bio (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Krah)
Very strange "carreer".
Plus, "He is a practising Catholic, is widowed and has eight children by three women."
Really? So he at 48-years-old has already buried three wives?
There is not a single line on that profile that makes this man look like a regular Traditionalist.
-
Recall the highlights of this SSPX fiasco were very entertaining and revealing of Menzingen’s arrogance:
1. 2010, First news of “funny business” breaks when a trad doing an internet search on SSPX legal entities, finds multiple shell corporations being set-up in Europe.
2. EU law requires business incorporation to be publicly disclosed. On the SSPX incorporation docs,
An unknown character (Maximillian Krah) is listed as a signatory.
3. The SSPX is caught like a deer in car headlights. They can say nothing, but eventually try to act as if Krah is just a “Catholic” attorney helping their cause.
Krah’s Jєωιѕн baggage is so conspicuous that the SSPX response becomes a laughing stock.
4. Many months later, the SSPX stages a Krah interview with one of their political PR men, Mr. Siscoe.
Siscoe purports to have providentially met Krah in an elevator while attending an SSPX Angelus conference.
It was Published in the Remnant. Krah played the racial “Jєωιѕн victim” card, and inadvertently released more revealing information about his SSPX legal relationship.
5. This cover-up came to a screeching halt, when in 2011, Krah came onto Cathinfo trying to defend himself.
He revealed more information about his agency relationship with the Jaidhoff family who contributed 80million Euros to the SSPX. In the same set of posts, another CI member revealed the Jaidhoff family were historically linked to the Rothschilds.
What would Krah's profile be called? Or the name of the thread if you can remember?
-
In the message of La Salette, an important line was deleted. This line was deleted:
.
"There will be two worm-ridden popes".
.
"popes" not "men who claim to be pope".
.
The video by Fr Gregory Hesse is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPNpxv0Fnv0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPNpxv0Fnv0)
.
So, The Resistance, as long as it is NOT sedevacantist, is OK.
And when the SSPX says,
.
The Resistance is "practical sedevacantism", they are WRONG.
.
The pope could apply to a true pope locked in a dungeon while the puppet reigns.
The pope could apply to a true pope who ceased being a true pope through heresy.
Anyone who says there is a true pope reigning freely who universally accepts Vatican II doesn't understand the divinity of the Church.
-
The pope could apply to a true pope locked in a dungeon while the puppet reigns.
The pope could apply to a true pope who ceased being a true pope through heresy.
Anyone who says there is a true pope reigning freely who universally accepts Vatican II doesn't understand the divinity of the Church.
Affirm or deny:
Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation.
-
The Substack page is set to private. Could you post it on a public page? Thanks. I personally haven't seen the "Sea of Peter will become the Antichrist" bit the last time I looked for the original La Salette text. I'm also not sure which version / text was approved of the Vatican.
That being said, the "two worm-ridden popes" can mean any pair of popes. It could mean Paul VI and JPII, JPII and Benedict, Benedict and Francis, etc. So, that wouldn't "disprove" sedevacantism per se. Also, why just two? We've had more than two bad popes by now, one worse than the other.
I am personally anti-sedevacantist, but I obviously cannot overlook the purely canonical problems, which have nothing to do with judging heresy (Viganós arguments):
- Benedict did not resign properly and after "resigning" still dressed in white, gave the apostolic blessing, etc. (obviously this was intentional from a Modernist perspective, in order to split the munus and magisterium and pave the way for a primus-inter-pares papacy)
- Leo was voted in by too many cardinals
- 1917 Canon law requiring the pope to be at least a valid priest, yet the NO bishop rites are likely invalid, which means that Francis and Leo would not have been valid priests and therefore canonically not admissable to the papacy
So even with La Salette, it doesn't resolve the above - purely canonical - doubts.
I think the smartest solution is naming the pope "sub conditione", as it's valid either way. Some Resistance priests do this.
Yes, Our Lady had her head on her hands because of the Seat becoming that of the anti-Christs.
I think the long version of Pope Leo XIII's "St. Michael's Prayer" specifically state the "false throne" imposed upon Rome.
Who was the last Pope mentioned by name in an approved Marian apparition?
I believe it was Pope Pius XI. He appears to have been murdered by lethal injection.
-
Argument is stupid, since we have no idea who these men would be, nor any definition of what "worm-ridden" means ... literal? metaphorical? heresy? moral depravity?
Could be that the two worm-ridden "popes" if indeed the word pope is to be taken as meaning "legitimate popes" vs. "putative popes" (recall the joke by +Lefebvre where he said that he does not say that the pope is not the pope nor that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope) ... but even if Our Lady had used the term in the strict sense of a legitimate (vs. putative) pope, perhaps it's a reference to, oh, Pius XI and Pius XII ... who led up to Vatican II. We simply don't know.
And the idioctic Bennyvacantist position are pretending that Bergoglio and Prevost are the two worm-ridden ones ... as if there was nothing wrong with Montini and Wojtyla, even though those two were in fact horrific. So Our Lady's message means that Montini and Wojtyla were just fine compared to Bergs and Prevost, just like the Bennyvacantists? Ridiculous.
And, the term worm-ridden might also mean something other than a metaphor for heresy. I mean ... Montini was widely reputated to have been a practicing sodomite, so maybe she literally refers to parasites.
-
Affirm or deny:
Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation.
St. Francis de Sales (Doctor of the Church) said that Honorius was "perhaps" a heretic. But he continued to say that when a pope is explicitly a heretic he automatically ceases to be pope.
-
St. Francis de Sales (Doctor of the Church) said that Honorius was "perhaps" a heretic. But he continued to say that when a pope is explicitly a heretic he automatically ceases to be pope.
The Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized Pope Honorius as a heretic.
-
The Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized Pope Honorius as a heretic.
As I mentioned, St. Francis de Sales wrote that Honorius was not an explicit heretic. Honorius' actions were not from the papal office to the whole Church.
-
As I mentioned, St. Francis de Sales wrote that Honorius was not an explicit heretic. Honorius' actions were not from the papal office to the whole Church.
And not not every heretic loses office.
If Honorius was truly pope (he was), and yet was:
1. condemned by an ecuмenical council,
2. anathematized by name as a heretic,
3. condemned by a subsequent pope,
…but did not lose the papacy,
then the sedevacantist position is already destroyed.
Because the Church herself gives you the principle:
A pope can be condemned posthumously for heresy or negligence
without having lost the papacy during his life.
That is the exact teaching St. Francis de Sales defends.
Therefore, the slogan “a heretic can’t be pope” is completely refuted by the Church’s own history and dogmatic councils.
-
And not not every heretic loses office.
If Honorius was truly pope (he was), and yet was:
1. condemned by an ecuмenical council,
2. anathematized by name as a heretic,
3. condemned by a subsequent pope,
…but did not lose the papacy,
then the sedevacantist position is already destroyed.
Because the Church herself gives you the principle:
A pope can be condemned posthumously for heresy or negligence
without having lost the papacy during his life.
That is the exact teaching St. Francis de Sales defends.
Therefore, the slogan “a heretic can’t be pope” is completely refuted by the Church’s own history and dogmatic councils.
Affirm or deny:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
-
Affirm or deny:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
Hi CatholicKnight, if this is an invitation extended to all I will participate, with regards to the proposition in quotes above my response is as follows: I Affirm.
Now your turn: Affirm or deny: Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic.
-
Hi CatholicKnight, if this is an invitation extended to all I will participate, with regards to the proposition in quotes above my response is as follows: I Affirm.
Now your turn: Affirm or deny: Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic.
I affirm that Pope Honorius remained pope until his death.
I affirm that he was condemned as a heretic.
I deny that he was truly guilty before God of the public sin of heresy.
-
Affirm or deny:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
Your insistenced upon a binary Yes or No drives the answer toward a false dichtomy.
I believe this to be true, though I object to your constant use of the world sin, as in public sin, since it can imply a judgment regarding the internal forum, which is not required.
Other than that, I hold the proposition to be true, and Pope Pius XII taught this.
Nevertheless, the Cajetan opinion and others have not been explicitly condemned, so one can hold them as a Catholic.
In addition, does a manifest heretic sepeparated from the Church lose office? And that too can be distunguished, where, for instance, the sedeprivationists hold that he loses office not simpliciter, but secundum quid, where he loses the ability to formally exercise the office (and Fr. Chazal would say the same with sedeimpoundism), but remains nevertheless in material possession of and with legal claim TO the office.
I also don't believe, however, that the question is even relevant, since the I hold to the "Siri Theory", where none of them have been legitimate popes after the election.
So the tactic of trying to force binary yes-no answers to questions that admit of various distinctions is an attempt to drive toward acceptance of your false dichotomy.
-
In addition, does a manifest heretic sepeparated from the Church lose office? And that too can be distunguished, where, for instance, the sedeprivationists hold that he loses office not simpliciter, but secundum quid, where he loses the ability to formally exercise the office (and Fr. Chazal would say the same with sedeimpoundism), but remains nevertheless in material possession of and with legal claim TO the office.
This question is no longer merely in the realm of theological opinion. It has been practically settled and Canon Law forces Catholics to abide by 1917 Canon 188.4 in this matter.
Theological opinions do not overrule the currrent discipline of the Church found in Canon Law.
-
I affirm that Pope Honorius remained pope until his death.
I affirm that he was condemned as a heretic.
I deny that he was truly guilty before God of the public sin of heresy.
Honorius remained pope until his death and was condemned by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council; to deny his objective guilt of heresy is to mock the Council’s binding authority, relativize its dogmatic judgment, and contradict immutable Church teaching.
The question was strictly affirm or deny, and introducing a third option by denying his guilt before God not only violates the poll’s structure but effectively claims that an Ecuмenical Council, which defines dogma infallibly, erred in its judgment, a logical and theological impossibility that undermines the Church’s authority.
-
Honorius remained pope until his death and was condemned by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council; to deny his objective guilt of heresy is to mock the Council’s binding authority, relativize its dogmatic judgment, and contradict immutable Church teaching.
The question was strictly affirm or deny, and introducing a third option by denying his guilt before God not only violates the poll’s structure but effectively claims that an Ecuмenical Council, which defines dogma infallibly, erred in its judgment, a logical and theological impossibility that undermines the Church’s authority.
What is your point in bringing up a controversy like this? You do realize that historians and theologians don't even agree on the facts of the case. The records kept were not perfect.
And you do realize that the action of the Third Ecuмenical Council was a disciplinary action, right? If they did not correctly understand the facts of the case, their judgement was not valid.
Just because the disciplinary action dealt with the dogmatic subject matter of a "heresy," that does not mean that the disciplinary action was itself a dogmatic statement.
-
Honorius remained pope until his death and was condemned by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council; to deny his objective guilt of heresy is to mock the Council’s binding authority, relativize its dogmatic judgment, and contradict immutable Church teaching.
The question was strictly affirm or deny, and introducing a third option by denying his guilt before God not only violates the poll’s structure but effectively claims that an Ecuмenical Council, which defines dogma infallibly, erred in its judgment, a logical and theological impossibility that undermines the Church’s authority.
So, affirm or deny, are you condemning St. Francis de Sales for saying Honorius was "perhaps" a heretic?
-
Honorius remained pope until his death and was condemned by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council; to deny his objective guilt of heresy is to mock the Council’s binding authority, relativize its dogmatic judgment, and contradict immutable Church teaching.
The question was strictly affirm or deny, and introducing a third option by denying his guilt before God not only violates the poll’s structure but effectively claims that an Ecuмenical Council, which defines dogma infallibly, erred in its judgment, a logical and theological impossibility that undermines the Church’s authority.
The condemnation of a person as a heretic is not a divine judgment. It is a human judgment.
-
I believe this to be true, though I object to your constant use of the world sin, as in public sin, since it can imply a judgment regarding the internal forum, which is not required.
You keep spewing this and yet when I ask you for evidence you go silent only to reappear over and over again. I have demonstrated to you that a judgment in the external forum implies a judgment of sin in the internal forum. Otherwise, the competent authority would have no basis to make the judgment in the external forum. Canonical delicts are based on the underlying sins. So please stop with acting as if you were the authority on this matter.
-
I affirm that Pope Honorius remained pope until his death.
I affirm that he was condemned as a heretic.
I deny that he was truly guilty before God of the public sin of heresy.
So ... your opinion means nothing, and it rests on some uncanny ability you must have to read the internal forum, which you admit in the last proposition with "truly guilty before God". You know this how? BEFORE GOD effectively entails a judgment of the internal forum.
This is all a setup to justify your begged question that Bergoglio and Prevost were/are non-Popes but that Razinger was a pope, since Bergoglio "meant" his heresies and, like Padre Pio, you can read souls and declare that he was "truly guilty before God" for them, and using this same power can read Ratzinger's soul and declare that he did NOT mean his heresies, even when he and Bergs said that same objectively heretical things.
If anything, it would be precisely the opposite. Why? Ratzinger was an extremely well-educated man, having obtained advanced degrees prior to Vatican II, when they meant something, whereas Bergoglio comes across as a moron, with seminary training worthy of a certificate you might find in a CrackerJack box ... where he attacked Trads for being Pelagians when he quite clearly meant something like Jansenists. Ratzinger KNEW that what he was saying contradicted Tradition, whereas Bergs might struggle to pass a quiz based on Baltimore No. 1. Ratzinger made some production about a "hermeneutic of continuity", but that was little more than a cynical attempt to lure Trads back in to the Conciliar Church, and his hermeneutic was in fact of the Hegelian variety.
-
So ... your opinion means nothing, and it rests on some uncanny ability you must have to read the internal forum, which you admit in the last proposition with "truly guilty before God". You know this how? BEFORE GOD effectively entails a judgment of the internal forum.
You keep spewing this and yet when I ask you for evidence you go silent only to reappear over and over again. I have demonstrated to you that a judgment in the external forum implies a judgment of sin in the internal forum. Otherwise, the competent authority would have no basis to make the judgment in the external forum. Canonical delicts are based on the underlying sins. So please stop with acting as if you were the authority on this matter.
-
You keep spewing this and yet when I ask you for evidence you go silent only to reappear over and over again. I have demonstrated to you that a judgment in the external forum implies a judgment of sin in the internal forum. Otherwise, the competent authority would have no basis to make the judgment in the external forum. Canonical delicts are based on the underlying sins. So please stop with acting as if you were the authority on this matter.
Evidence is not required to realize that not even the Church judges the internal forum. Simply Google up de internis Ecclesia non judicat ... a notion that's repeatedly taught everywhere by Popes, Doctors, theologians, etc. Last recollection of something I read recently was in Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII, but there are countless examples, and it's a theological maxim that no one disputes.
-
You keep spewing this and yet when I ask you for evidence you go silent only to reappear over and over again. I have demonstrated to you that a judgment in the external forum implies a judgment of sin in the internal forum. Otherwise, the competent authority would have no basis to make the judgment in the external forum. Canonical delicts are based on the underlying sins. So please stop with acting as if you were the authority on this matter.
Just shut up you babbling moron and simply Google up how the Church does not judge the internal forum.
It's absolute bullcrap that the Church has no basis to make a judgment in the external forum simply because the Church does not judge the internal. Again, Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, simply the last of many that I recall. St. Robert Bellarmine teaches also quite clearly that we judge a man a heretic, plain and simple, by his outward actions only, and to not pretend we can determine internal forum considerations like whether he's "truly guilty before God", as if we can read souls. You don't know a darn thing about theology, clearly, in constantly claiming that the internal forum has any bearing on the judgment of manifest heresy.
There is an external forum criterion regarding pertinacity, but pertinacity simply refers to persistnece, where it wasn't a slip of the tongue, a fleeting misjudgment, quickly correct once alerted to it, etc. ... but that you cling to the false opinion, as generally indicated by saying it over and over again, emphatically, in a manner where they would not accept correction on it. Even in that case, however, the individual might in fact be absolutely convinced that his error is truth, that it can be reconciled with Church teaching somehow, and be persistent in the error in good faith before God, i.e. where he's not "truly guilty before God" for it. But the Church cannot and does not presume to sort that out.
Anyone who knows anything about theology understands this principle, but you keep bloviating about it simply because you have an agenda, which is to declare Bergoglio and Prevost non-popes outside the Church while somehow saving Ratzinger and Wojtyla for teaching the exact same things, and actually INVENTING the heresies that you claim causes Bergs and Prevost to lose office. In fact, if we're judging internal forum, I could simply declare the OPPOSITE of your judgment, namely, that because Wojtyla and Ratzinger were well educated before Vatican II and because they invented these heresies, they are FAR MORE "guilty before God" than Bergoglio or Prevost, since they should know better and they innovated the heresies in the first place, whereas Bergoglio might have just been mindlessly regurgitating the errors of his predecessors because he mistakenly thought they were popes. Of course, I don't know and can't prove that anymore than you can prove your version of events, but this is to illustrate that I don't know, and neither do you, that neither of us can judge the internal forum. PERHAPS Wojtyla was sincere. But PERHAPS he was an evil sinister crypto Jew and Communist agent who deliberately infiltrated the Catholic Church to destroy it. There is some evidence to suggest this. Meanwhile, Bergoglio is just a moron who regurgitates stuff he got elsewhere. Who's more guilty? But I don't now. AND YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER. You absolutely cannot judge popes based on some mystical judgment of yours that requires reading intenrnal forum.
-
Evidence is not required to realize that not even the Church judges the internal forum. Simply Google up de internis Ecclesia non judicat ... a notion that's repeatedly taught everywhere by Popes, Doctors, theologians, etc. Last recollection of something I read recently was in Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII, but there are countless examples, and it's a theological maxim that no one disputes.
The Church does not judge internals when the sin is occult. She indirectly judges internals when the sin is expressed outwardly. This is the basis for canonical delicts.
-
Just shut up you babbling moron and simply Google up how the Church does not judge the internal forum.
It is you that had better shut up.
-
So ... your opinion means nothing, and it rests on some uncanny ability you must have to read the internal forum, which you admit in the last proposition with "truly guilty before God". You know this how? BEFORE GOD effectively entails a judgment of the internal forum.
This is all a setup to justify your begged question that Bergoglio and Prevost were/are non-Popes but that Razinger was a pope, since Bergoglio "meant" his heresies and, like Padre Pio, you can read souls and declare that he was "truly guilty before God" for them, and using this same power can read Ratzinger's soul and declare that he did NOT mean his heresies, even when he and Bergs said that same objectively heretical things.
If anything, it would be precisely the opposite. Why? Ratzinger was an extremely well-educated man, having obtained advanced degrees prior to Vatican II, when they meant something, whereas Bergoglio comes across as a moron, with seminary training worthy of a certificate you might find in a CrackerJack box ... where he attacked Trads for being Pelagians when he quite clearly meant something like Jansenists. Ratzinger KNEW that what he was saying contradicted Tradition, whereas Bergs might struggle to pass a quiz based on Baltimore No. 1. Ratzinger made some production about a "hermeneutic of continuity", but that was little more than a cynical attempt to lure Trads back in to the Conciliar Church, and his hermeneutic was in fact of the Hegelian variety.
Sadly, you are spreading lies about a legitimate Pope, Benedict XVI, who was made to appear to be a heretic by his enemies. You are a willing accomplice with the destroyers of the Church because you don't like Benedict XVI.
All I can say is God's mercy is infinite, when He shows you your error, be ready to beat your breast in sorrow for these comments that you have made. He will forgive you, but it is best to prepare. The Warning will "come like a thief in the night." And it will be coming very soon.
-
If one could not form a judgment that another has sinned, then every judgment in this regard would be a rash judgment. However, we know that a rash judgment is one where there is not sufficient evidence to attribute sin in another. The key term is "sufficient".
Stop with your nonsense, Laudislaus, on this topic.
-
Just shut up you babbling moron and simply Google up how the Church does not judge the internal forum.
Yes, but you claim that you can know the internal forum of Benedict XVI. Here is what you claimed above:
"Ratzinger made some production about a "hermeneutic of continuity", but that was little more than a cynical attempt to lure Trads back in to the Conciliar Church, and his hermeneutic was in fact of the Hegelian variety."
With the bolded comment you are claiming to know his internal motives. You cannot possibly know that.
So, stop doing to a legitimate Pope what you correctly say that the Church does not even claim to be able to do.
-
This question is no longer merely in the realm of theological opinion. It has been practically settled and Canon Law forces Catholics to abide by 1917 Canon 188.4 in this matter.
Theological opinions do not overrule the currrent discipline of the Church found in Canon Law.
If we put the modernist popes into context with the 1958 coup d' etat of the Seat, what I don't understand is how R&R trads assume that post 1958 Conclaves are valid and that the newChurch operating under the butchered 1983 Code of Canon Law is legitimate?
A visible Jєωιѕн actor sitting in the Seat along with his non Sacramental fake Holy Orders See, are imposters and do not represent the Catholic Church.
Their Kayfabe "imagery" of the papal throne... is false and not a mark of the Church.
Our current situation is far more degenerate and illegitimate than Church conditions during Pope Honorius's time.
-
Yes, but you claim that you can know the internal forum of Benedict XVI. Here is what you claimed above:
"Ratzinger made some production about a "hermeneutic of continuity", but that was little more than a cynical attempt to lure Trads back in to the Conciliar Church, and his hermeneutic was in fact of the Hegelian variety."
With the bolded comment you are claiming to know his internal motives. You cannot possibly know that.
So, stop doing to a legitimate Pope what you correctly say that the Church does not even claim to be able to do.
:facepalm: Nice try taking that statement out of context, the point of which is that you can opine and speculate Bergoglio meant it but Ratzinger did not, whereas I speculate the opposite ... and that who's the arbiter of truth? Your own personal speculation that Ratzinger was well meaning, despite his repeated pertinacious adherence to and promotion of heresy, the same heresies as Bergoglio, does not suffices to save Ratzinger from loss of membership in the Church while at the same time somehow causing the loss of membershp for Bergoglio.
You can speculate, I can speculate the opposite ... but either one of us can take our opinion and go to a coffee shop with it, where that and $10 will get us a large cup of fancy coffee.
MANIFEST HERESY is what causes loss of membership in the Church, not your personal judgment that someone does or does not mean the heresy.
If you hold that Bergoglio lost membership in the Church on account of heresy, then so did Ratzinger, and so did Wojtyla. Period.
You have this pathetic and absurd narrative that Bergoglio is the problem in the Church, and as long as we went back with Ratzinger, then Church Crisis Over! Are you nuts?
-
Sadly, you are spreading lies about a legitimate Pope, Benedict XVI, who was made to appear to be a heretic by his enemies.
What? He did that all by himself and well before he traded in his V2-era suit-and-tie for a white cassock.
When I read your words above, it made me think of those who endlessly excuse and defend Trumpenstein's clearly problematic words and actions. He is not being thwarted or made to look bad by those around him; he is doing the job he has been assigned and doing it really well while far too many remain utterly oblivious to the reality of the situation.
-
What? He did that all by himself and well before he traded in his V2-era suit-and-tie for a white cassock.
When I read your words above, it made me think of those who endlessly excuse and defend Trumpenstein's clearly problematic words and actions. He is not being thwarted or made to look bad by those around him; he is doing the job he has been assigned and doing it really well while far too many remain utterly oblivious to the reality of the situation.
Yeah, this guy's a deluded liar, like many of the idiot Bennyvacantists. That's a great one LMAO ... that Ratzinger only APPEARED to be a heretic.
:laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1: ... whatever they're smoking must be pretty potent.
So, these jokers claim that Bergoglio MEANT his heresies, by Ratz did not really mean them.
-
I am so sick of the filthy liars who infest the Trad movement, constantly lying and slandering, twisting truth and reality ... just to get the outcome they have a prior emotional attachment to, like that scuмbucket there who keeps lying about the case of Honorius to "prove" the opinon among the "5 Opinions" that was held by the fewest actual theologians, that a Pope can never lose his office, even if he's a heretic ... other than by death or resignation, the same lie that pseudo-Bishop Schneider was selling. After citing the fact that theologians are divided regarding the Honorius case, but all say that he was not actually a heretic who adhered to monotheletism, and quoting Pope Leo II, who differentiated between the actual heretics and Honorius, who PERMITTED them to sully dogma.
But they completely ignore the actual facts and evidence ... and then proceed to reiterate their lies as if they had not seen what was just posted that refutes their errors. They are not interested in truth, but only in promoting some agenda.
Recall that this Angelus moron was the same one who kept insisting over and over again that Bergoglio's election was invalid because Wojtyla's UDG docuмent said that the conclave should begin after the funeral rites of the Pope, and since Ratzinger didn't have a funeral, this invalidated the election of Bergoglio ... despite citations from the docuмent where it talks about resignation, and mention of how the Latin grammar has the verb in the subjunctive, clearly indicating that it's referring to "funeral rites IF ANY", i.e. in the case of death, and not to some absolute requirement that there be a funeral rite. That would lead to the absurdity that after a resignation of the Pope, the See would then remain vacant until the Pope actually died.
-
I am so sick of the filthy liars who infest the Trad movement, constantly lying and slandering, twisting truth and reality ...
Disagreements are fine, but what isn't fine is to simply lie, to slander, to ignore those pesky little things called facts, etc. If you want to impose a different interpretation on something, then go ahead and try to make a case, but it's not fine to simply ignore it and then to repeat your lies.
When they claim that Leo II condemned Honorius as a heretic, and then I provide 3 citations from Leo II where he clearly differentiates between the heretics and Honorius, by referring to his having PERMITED or ALLOWED the heresy to flourish ... both the current heretics arguing that point, simply ignore those quotes and re-state their lie that Leo II condemned Honorius as a heretic.
If you want to provide an alternative quotation, or you want to explain why I misread what he was saying ... by all means, go ahead. But when you simply ignore it and then claim the opposie anyway ... you are a liar and that exposes your heresy as no longer having been made in good faith, and demonstrating that you are pertinacious.
-
:facepalm: Nice try taking that statement out of context, the point of which is that you can opine and speculate Bergoglio meant it but Ratzinger did not, whereas I speculate the opposite ... and that who's the arbiter of truth? Your own personal speculation that Ratzinger was well meaning, despite his repeated pertinacious adherence to and promotion of heresy, the same heresies as Bergoglio, does not suffices to save Ratzinger from loss of membership in the Church while at the same time somehow causing the loss of membershp for Bergoglio.
You can speculate, I can speculate the opposite ... but either one of us can take our opinion and go to a coffee shop with it, where that and $10 will get us a large cup of fancy coffee.
MANIFEST HERESY is what causes loss of membership in the Church, not your personal judgment that someone does or does not mean the heresy.
If you hold that Bergoglio lost membership in the Church on account of heresy, then so did Ratzinger, and so did Wojtyla. Period.
You have this pathetic and absurd narrative that Bergoglio is the problem in the Church, and as long as we went back with Ratzinger, then Church Crisis Over! Are you nuts?
Bergoglio was never a legitimate Pope to begin with because Benedict XVI was still alive at the time of the 2013 false conclave. His election was null and void.
If one needed to prove Bergoglio was a manifest heretic, his teaching that divorced and remarried Catholics w/o annulment can receive Communion, would be sufficient for that. But again, he was never a legitimate Pope.
-
What? He did that all by himself and well before he traded in his V2-era suit-and-tie for a white cassock.
When I read your words above, it made me think of those who endlessly excuse and defend Trumpenstein's clearly problematic words and actions. He is not being thwarted or made to look bad by those around him; he is doing the job he has been assigned and doing it really well while far too many remain utterly oblivious to the reality of the situation.
Benedict XVI was not perfect. But he was made to look much worse by his enemies. He was definitely not a manifest heretic.
The problem is that "trads" who have been in "the movement" for decades stopped paying attention to the details of what was happening in the Church long ago. They got their news filtered by outfits like Novus Ordo Watch. They didn't actually read any of the papal docuмents to discover what was really said. They just see the headline and give themselves a self-congratulatory pat on the back for their great foresight in leaving the Novus Ordo before everyone else did.
The end times deception really is a very complex deception that causes confusion in many groups, traditional Catholics included. We see this with the SSPX getting sucked back into the false Church at the time of the greatest apostasy.
BXVI, Joseph Ratzinger, will redeem himself. It is prophesied. He is the Pope of "the same name" as Joseph Sarto, Pope Pius X. He is "the Venerable Old Man of Rome who will be vested in his former garments" as Don Bosco said. There is no need to argue with me. You are free to disagree. I cannot prove anything.
I know it sounds crazy. But the only thing more crazy than that is to think that the current hierarchy is going to elect a trad Pope and take it all back to 1959. No, the real solution will be something that most people cannot imagine. And it will involve supernatural events like the Warning and the Miracle, along with human events like the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart by a true Pope.
-
BXVI, Joseph Ratzinger, will redeem himself. It is prophesied.
^^This^^ statement is puzzling, to put it mildly. He has been dead for almost four years. What, if anything, am I missing?
-
Benedict XVI was not perfect. But he was made to look much worse by his enemies. He was definitely not a manifest heretic.
The problem is that "trads" who have been in "the movement" for decades stopped paying attention to the details of what was happening in the Church long ago. They got their news filtered by outfits like Novus Ordo Watch. They didn't actually read any of the papal docuмents to discover what was really said. They just see the headline and give themselves a self-congratulatory pat on the back for their great foresight in leaving the Novus Ordo before everyone else did.
The end times deception really is a very complex deception that causes confusion in many groups, traditional Catholics included. We see this with the SSPX getting sucked back into the false Church at the time of the greatest apostasy.
BXVI, Joseph Ratzinger, will redeem himself. It is prophesied. He is the Pope of "the same name" as Joseph Sarto, Pope Pius X. He is "the Venerable Old Man of Rome who will be vested in his former garments" as Don Bosco said. There is no need to argue with me. You are free to disagree. I cannot prove anything.
I know it sounds crazy. But the only thing more crazy than that is to think that the current hierarchy is going to elect a trad Pope and take it all back to 1959. No, the real solution will be something that most people cannot imagine. And it will involve supernatural events like the Warning and the Miracle, along with human events like the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart by a true Pope.
Wow, dude....
-
^^This^^ statement is puzzling, to put it mildly. He has been dead for almost four years. What, if anything, am I missing?
What you're missing is his death was faked. The prophesied final Pope, Benedict XVI, [St. Malachy's Prophecy of the Popes] was forced to "resign" from office, imprisoned and thought to be dead [Pope Pius X's prophecy] and will appear publicly again [Don Bosco's Prophecy of the Venerable Old Man] just after the Warning [Garabandal].
The Miracle [Garabandal] is probably related to this Pope and to the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart that only he, as the Pope, can do [Fatima]. He will be the Holy Pope. The reign of the Blessed Virgin Mary will begin during this time.
After the Miracle there will be a short period of peace [Holzhauser, La Salette]. And then will be the final battle between the just and the reprobate, symbolized by the Two Witnesses [the Apocalypse]. Then the Second Coming. Then the General Judgment. Then the New Heaven and New Earth.
-
What you're missing is his death was faked. The prophesied final Pope, Benedict XVI, [St. Malachy's Prophecy of the Popes] was forced to "resign" from office, imprisoned and thought to be dead [Pope Pius X's prophecy] and will appear publicly again [Don Bosco's Prophecy of the Venerable Old Man] just after the Warning [Garabandal].
The Miracle [Garabandal] is probably related to this Pope and to the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart that only he, as the Pope, can do [Fatima]. He will be the Holy Pope. The reign of the Blessed Virgin Mary will begin during this time.
After the Miracle there will be a short period of peace [Holzhauser, La Salette]. And then will be the final battle between the just and the reprobate, symbolized by the Two Witnesses [the Apocalypse]. Then the Second Coming. Then the General Judgment. Then the New Heaven and New Earth.
Where is the antichrist in this?
-
Where is the antichrist in this?
Sitting in the Temple of God, acting as if he is God [St. Paul].The Temple of God refers to the institutional apparatus of the Roman Catholic Church. The reference is to Bergoglio, the man of sin. Prevost is Bergoglio's mini-me. All of his Cardinals and Bishops of the Counterfeit Church implement Bergoglio's agenda
Just as the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, the Synodal Church was founded by Bergoglio.
-
The quote below is from the Opus Imperfectum, an incomplete commentary on Matthew's Gospel that the Church for centuries attributed to St. Chrysostom . . . until the modernist "scholars" determined otherwise. It is said of St. Thomas of Aquinas that he remarked that he would rather have the complete Opus than be mayor of Paris.
St. Thomas quoted the work in the Summa, and in the Catena Aurea. Here's an example of the modernists at work in the Summa:
On the contrary, Chrysostom [*Hom. xi in Matth. in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says: "He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but even the good to do wrong."
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q158_A8.html
Here's the Opus quote:
What shall we say then? All these things have to be understood spiritually in this manner: “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” and “So when you see the desolating sacrilege … standing in the holy place.” That is to say, when you see a godless heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the church, at that time “let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,” that is, let those who are in Christianity hasten to the Scriptures. For just as the real Jew is a Christian, as the apostle says (“For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly.… He is a Jew who is one inwardly”), so also the real Judah is Christianity, whose name is understood to mean “confession.” But the mountains are the Scriptures of the apostles and prophets, concerning whom it is said, “Glorious are you, more majestic than the everlasting mountains.” And again he says about the church, “On the holy mount stands the city he founded.” And why does he order all Christians to hasten to the Scriptures at this time? Because at this time, ever since a heresy lay hold of those churches, there can be no other test of true Christianity or any other refuge of Christians who want to know the truth of the faith than the divine Scriptures. For previously he was showing in many ways what the church of Christ is and what heathenness is, but now those who want to know what the true church of Christ is can know it in no other way than only through the Scriptures. Why? Because also the heretics in their schism have all these things that are rightly Christ’s in truth: they likewise have churches, the divine Scriptures also, bishops and the rest of the ranks of clergy, baptism, the Eucharist in other respects, and all the other things, and finally Christ. Therefore, if someone wishes to know what the true church of Christ is, how will he know it amid the confusion of such similarity unless he learns it only through the Scriptures?
Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray, eds., Incomplete Commentary on Matthew (Opus Imperfectum), trans. James A. Kellerman, vol. 1 & 2, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2010), 382–383.
A former member, Struthio, had a great thread on the abomination of desolation and the Great Apostasy that we are witnessing:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/210/
My view: the "antichrist" is the spirit of a vast apostasy foretold in Scripture that invades the church via "locusts" (Apoc. 9:1-3), an army of false "prophets - popes, bishops, etc. - with an anti-Gospel, not a single man, though there may be a leader of them, who is just a figure head, or a point man for the discessio, the revolt, the apostasy. The "single man" thing just causes divisions, finger pointing, false claims, claims not capable of being substantiated, etc.
We see the heresy, and the many that espouse it. They have "encompassed the camp of the saints, and the beloved city." Apoc. 20:8. The remedy and relief will come with Christ appearing in the fire of judgment. Apoc. 20:9.
Look to the sacraments if you can get them, the Rosary, and Scripture.
No human calvary of a "good pope" or any other man or men is coming.
-
The quote below is from the Opus Imperfectum, an incomplete commentary on Matthew's Gospel that the Church for centuries attributed to St. Chrysostom . . . until the modernist "scholars" determined otherwise. It is said of St. Thomas of Aquinas that he remarked that he would rather have the complete Opus than be mayor of Paris.
St. Thomas quoted the work in the Summa, and in the Catena Aurea. Here's an example of the modernists at work in the Summa:
Here's the Opus quote:
A former member, Struthio, had a great thread on the abomination of desolation and the Great Apostasy that we are witnessing:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/210/
My view: the "antichrist" is the spirit of a vast apostasy foretold in Scripture that invades the church via "locusts" (Apoc. 9:1-3), an army of false "prophets - popes, bishops, etc. - with an anti-Gospel, not a single man, though there may be a leader of them, who is just a figure head, or a point man for the discessio, the revolt, the apostasy. The "single man" thing just causes divisions, finger pointing, false claims, claims not capable of being substantiated, etc.
We see the heresy, and the many that espouse it. They have "encompassed the camp of the saints, and the beloved city." Apoc. 20:8. The remedy and relief will come with Christ appearing in the fire of judgment. Apoc. 20:9.
Look to the sacraments if you can get them, the Rosary, and Scripture.
No human calvary of a "good pope" or any other man or men is coming.
DR, there will be a short restoration, period of peace, for the benefit of the elect to prepare for the final battle.
This short period of peace is the period discussed by Our Lady of Fatima as being contingent upon the Pope consecration Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. Therefore, this period of peace that comes as a result of the Consecration is not the same as the final Rest of the Saints in the New Heaven and New Earth that comes after the Second Coming. That final Era is without end. The promised peace of Fatima is a short period.
Again, the purpose of the short peace is to prepare the Saints for the final battle. These events are discussed in Apocalypse 10-11. First event is the Warning [Apoc. 10:1-11]. Then the Holy Pope, "the reed like a rod" is mentioned teaching the witnesses [Apoc. 11:1-2]. Then the battle is described [Apoc. 11:3-11. Then the assumption of the martyrs into Heaven [11:12]. Then the Second Coming.
Jesus Christ is coming secretly/interiorly/invisibly in the Warning. Then the Holy Pope and the Virgin Mary do their things. Then the final battle ensues. Then Jesus comes visibly in the Second Coming.
-
What you're missing is his death was faked.
Ah...and your evidence? :popcorn:
-
...the Warning [Garabandal].
The Miracle [Garabandal]...
Garabandal is beyond suspect, so that is a bit of a problem.
-
Just as the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, the Synodal Church was founded by Bergoglio.
So who founded the Conciliar Church and how does that fit in your, shall we say, interesting understanding?
-
Wow, dude....
Yeah ... that's probably the only response to this. Ratzinger's heresies are well docuмented. Bishop Tissier, no sedevacantist, made a thorough study of Ratzinger's writing and concluded that he was a "heretic worse than Luther".
While of course people will attack the source, this video consists of little more than their reading directly from the writings of Ratzinger, showing the actual pages, with the relevant sections underlined, combined with some other interesting footage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uFeMMt-zFY
-
Ah...and your evidence? :popcorn:
The man on the bier was not Ratzinger. Totally different profile. Nose, chin, forehead do not match that of Ratzinger.
But the real evidence is in the prophecies. The 70 years since John XXIII failed to announce the Third Secret BEFORE 1960 is almost up. And the Pope with the "same name" as Guiseppe [Joseph] Sarto is not Bergoglio or Prevost.
It should be obvious who the Holy Father who had "much to suffer" was. It was Benedict XVI, who was forced to "resign" so that Bergoglian revolution could be finalized before God said His "enough."
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/210/
My view: the "antichrist" is the spirit of a vast apostasy foretold in Scripture that invades the church via "locusts" (Apoc. 9:1-3), an army of false "prophets - popes, bishops, etc. - with an anti-Gospel, not a single man, though there may be a leader of them, who is just a figure head, or a point man for the discessio, the revolt, the apostasy. The "single man" thing just causes divisions, finger pointing, false claims, claims not capable of being substantiated, etc.
We see the heresy, and the many that espouse it. They have "encompassed the camp of the saints, and the beloved city." Apoc. 20:8. The remedy and relief will come with Christ appearing in the fire of judgment. Apoc. 20:9.
Look to the sacraments if you can get them, the Rosary, and Scripture.
No human calvary of a "good pope" or any other man or men is coming.
I disagree that there isn't a good pope on the way. Obviously we don't now when, and this isn't the same as the Q deception, which too many people fell for, but there's a significant amount of credible Catholic prophecy which foretells the arrival of a Holy Pope and Great Monarch, who together bring about a Triumph of the Church, via a consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which will come late, but that it will result in a sudden, immediate, and full conversion of Russia, which will then be used by God to spread the faith to the rest of the world (which I suspect means also taking down China). Then after that there will be a period of peace, after which Anti-Christ.
There's also too much both prophecy and just interpretations of Sacred Scripture by Church Fathers that do indicate that Anti-Christ will be a single individual.
I personally believe it will present as an Alien, causing nearly everyone to lose faith, as he will change appearance, and then claim that Christ, Moses, Muhammed, were all aliens, sent to benefit mankind, and he will be attempting to replicate the miracles of Christ in order to prove the claim, and then gets struck down while attempting to mimic Our Lord's Ascension into Heaven.
BTW, Struthio's basic blunder on that thread, and I'm not sure if anyone called him out the entire time ... was, yeah, he was focused on the Latin ... but then mistranslated the Latin constantly, assuming that it was correct. saeculum does NOT mean "the world", but rather an epoch of time, an age, and era, so that "end of time" is a perfectly legitimate translation, but it could also mean the end of an epoch, as in one of the ages of the Church. Yet by context, if at the consummation (completion or filling out or perfection) of this age, Christ returns, then it's more than just the end of any epoch, but in fact the final epoch or the larger epoch that includes all of human history (my personal favorite), so IMO "end of time" might just actually be the best translation.
-
The man on the bier was not Ratzinger. Totally different profile. Nose, chin, forehead do not match that of Ratzinger.
But the real evidence is in the prophecies. The 70 years since John XXIII failed to announce the Third Secret BEFORE 1960 is almost up. And the Pope with the "same name" as Guiseppe [Joseph] Sarto is not Bergoglio or Prevost.
It should be obvious who the Holy Father who had "much to suffer" was. It was Benedict XVI, who was forced to "resign" so that Bergoglian revolution could be finalized before God said His "enough."
This reminds me of another alleged prophecy about a 150-year-old Montini returning.
What fantasies people entertain just to avoid sedevacantism ... since ultimately that's what this is about and what drives this.
As for the 70 years, assuming that's a solid number ... could also be from the time that Pius XII died and/or the Anti-Pope Roncalli died.
So ... how about Giuseppe Siri, eh? He was the Pope legitimately elected instead of Roncalli and uncanonically forced out. But the same name could also be a Pius, and could also be someone yet to come.
2029 is a good time for something to happen, since it'll mark 100 years since Our Lady requested the consecration of Russia, and would be just a bit over 70 years since Roncalli usurped the papacy
-
Garabandal is beyond suspect, so that is a bit of a problem.
Garabandal is just an extension of the other well known Marian prophecies. The Warning is Biblical. The Miracle relates to the Consecration/Era of Peace discussed by Fatima.
You are not required to believe anything. But you would do well to at least learn about the Warning so you are prepared for it. It is the event that will "come like a thief in the night." Watch and pray.
-
Garabandal is just an extension of the other well known Marian prophecies. The Warning is Biblical. The Miracle relates to the Consecration/Era of Peace discussed by Fatima.
You are not required to believe anything. But you would do well to at least learn about the Warning so you are prepared for it. It is the event that will "come like a thief in the night." Watch and pray.
Says you. Garabandal was a diabolical parody of Fatima.
-
So who founded the Conciliar Church and how does that fit in your, shall we say, interesting understanding?
That was Bergs, don't ya know?
-
The man on the bier was not Ratzinger. Totally different profile. Nose, chin, forehead do not match that of Ratzinger.
But the real evidence is in the prophecies. The 70 years since John XXIII failed to announce the Third Secret BEFORE 1960 is almost up. And the Pope with the "same name" as Guiseppe [Joseph] Sarto is not Bergoglio or Prevost.
It should be obvious who the Holy Father who had "much to suffer" was. It was Benedict XVI, who was forced to "resign" so that Bergoglian revolution could be finalized before God said His "enough."
The imprisoned Benedict XVI had better hurry up. He isn't getting any younger.
-
Bergoglio was never a legitimate Pope to begin with because Benedict XVI was still alive at the time of the 2013 false conclave. His election was null and void.
I honestly can't believe you're still clinging to this crap. So UDG does specify that the Conclave should begin after the death and funeral rites of the Pope, but I pointed out that this reference, using the subjunctive (hypothetical) mood in the Latin clearly refers to ... death and funeral of the Pope ... IF ANY, and the earlier parts of the docuмent speak about the resignation scenario, which would be nonsensical to discuss at all then, and Wojtyla would have specified "in case of resignation the see must remain vacant until the pope who resigned has died, and no new pope can be elected in the meantime." So, hypothetically, had they elected a 29-year-old and he resigned at the sage of 30, if he died at the age of 100, there would be a forced 70-year vacancy of the Holy See ... by your reading.
I love it how on the EENS thread you derided us as nuts, when you're over hear pushing this stuff ... even after it's been soundly debunked by my citation of the Latin ... and just be, ahem, COMMON SENSE, and now you're talking about how Ratzinger never died, but was replaced by some lookalike? And WE are crazies for disputing the existence of Baptism of Desire (which numerous Church Fathers rejected)? When people run this terribly afoul of basic common sense, that's often a sign if insanity, a denial of and detachment from reality. No Pope would ever declare that after a resignation, the vacancy of the See cannot be filled until the Pope who resigned had died and had his funeral rites conducted.
-
So who founded the Conciliar Church and how does that fit in your, shall we say, interesting understanding?
If you will read about the Beasts discussed by Daniel in chapter 7, you can see that they are successive papal regimes. The 7 heads are 7 kings (the Pope-Monarchs) of the Vatican City-State that was founded by the Lateran Treaty in 1929.
That was the foundation of the First Beast which included Pius XI and Pius XII. The Second Beast was John XXIII and Paul VI. The Third Beast was JPI, JPII, Benedict XVI. The Fourth Beast was Bergoglio and the other Cardinals.
The Beasts, again, are regimes. They are reflections mainly of the Cardinals who were running the show behind the scenes. The Pope were puppets of the Cardinals for the most part. Less at the beginning. More as time when on.
The Fourth Beast was not like the others because it did not have a legitimate head. It is described as the worst of all. It is the Synodal Church.
The Conciliar Church was the seed. The Synodal Church is the rotten fruit from the Conciliar tree.
-
I honestly can't believe you're still clinging to this crap. So UDG does specify that the Conclave should begin after the death and funeral rites of the Pope, but I pointed out that this reference, using the subjunctive (hypothetical) mood in the Latin clearly refers to ... death and funeral of the Pope ... IF ANY, and the earlier parts of the docuмent speak about the resignation scenario, which would be nonsensical to discuss at all then, and Wojtyla would have specified "in case of resignation the see must remain vacant until the pope who resigned has died, and no new pope can be elected in the meantime." So, hypothetically, had they elected a 29-year-old and he resigned at the sage of 30, if he died at the age of 100, there would be a forced 70-year vacancy of the Holy See ... by your reading.
I love it how on the EENS thread you derided us as nuts, when you're over hear pushing this stuff ... even after it's been soundly debunked by my citation of the Latin ... and just be, ahem, COMMON SENSE, and now you're talking about how Ratzinger never died, but was replaced by some lookalike? And WE are crazies for disputing the existence of Baptism of Desire (which numerous Church Fathers rejected)? When people run this terribly afoul of basic common sense, that's often a sign if insanity, a denial of and detachment from reality. No Pope would ever declare that after a resignation, the vacancy of the See cannot be filled until the Pope who resigned had died and had his funeral rites conducted.
The EENS related discussion was dogmatic and doctrinal. Anyone who rejects what Pius IX taught about Invincible Ignorance or rejects what Trent taught about Baptism of Desire is proclaiming clearly heretical things.
The end times prophecies and private revelations are speculative in nature. We can agree to disagree. But I think it will be best if people actually check the sources I refer to and consider what I said with an open mind. These things are going to happen. Maybe not exactly as I understand it. But they are going to happen and soon.
-
The EENS related discussion was dogmatic and doctrinal. Anyone who rejects what Pius IX taught about Invincible Ignorance or rejects what Trent taught about Baptism of Desire is proclaiming clearly heretical things.
I love it how you claim that rejecting your interpretation of what Pius IX and Trent taught are to reject Pius IX and Trent. We've demonstrated quite clearly why Pius IX didn't mean what you claim that he did, misreading it.
Let the reader here take note that this is the interpretation of a guy who believes that Bergoglio was an Anti-Pope because JP2's docuмent said a Pope had to be dead before a Conclave could begin (could not resign), and then believes Ratzinger was some great hero of the faith, who's not really dead ... but whose body was replaced by some look-alike for the burial, and that Ratzinger will return (will be 98 in two weeks I supposed) to restore the Church.
-
I love it how you claim that rejecting your interpretation of what Pius IX and Trent taught are to reject Pius IX and Trent. We've demonstrated quite clearly why Pius IX didn't mean what you claim that he did, misreading it.
Let the reader here take note that this is the interpretation of a guy who believes that Bergoglio was an Anti-Pope because JP2's docuмent said a Pope had to be dead before a Conclave could begin (could not resign), and then believes Ratzinger was some great hero of the faith, who's not really dead ... but whose body was replaced by some look-alike for the burial, and that Ratzinger will return (will be 98 in two weeks I supposed) to restore the Church.
And you are the guy who said that "Most [of the trad bishops] are heretics." Here is the post where you said that:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sanborn's-anti-eens-(aka-'anti-feeneyite')-'catechism/msg1010950/#msg1010950
And FWIW, I confirm everything you said about me in the second paragraph above. So, by all means, "reader" take note of that.
-
And you are the guy who said that "Most [of the trad bishops] are heretics." Here is the post where you said that:
Of course, as per your typical lying ways, you truncate the sentence, right ... when I wrote, "Most are heretics ON THIS POINT." meaning that they hold a heretical position on this point, meaning EENS dogma. This denotes an objectively heretical opinion regarding a specific concrete point rather than attributing pertinacity to any particular individual who adheres to this position. In fact, I explicitly stated that I cannot judge their pertinacity ... but I am able to judge your pertinacity, because you refuse to apply any kind or reason, you ignore the clear refutations of your errors, and come up with one reason after another to deny the dogma EENS, rendering you clearly pertinacious, a manifest pertinacious heretic who's outside the Church. About these others, I can only say they are heretical ON THIS POINT, secundum quid and not heretics simpliciter.
But this has nothing to do with our dispute over the maning of Pope Pius IX's teaching. You claim that you have correctly interpreted it. We not only claim (gratuitously like you) that ours is the correct interpretation, but we actually demonstrate it by pointing out elements within the teaching that you simply ignore in order to twist it to your own meaning.
Nor is my interpretation of Pius IX my own. I provided a link to Msgr. Fenton, a respected theologian, who also denounces your misreading of it as a misinterpretation and warping of the text.
So, either Msgr. Fenton and I and also Fr. Mueller, who was also quoted here by someone else are wrong, or else you are wrong, you and the Modernist heretics who also interpret Pius IX the way you do.
But, then if there's any doubt about our respective judgments, the reader can take note of the fact that you believe Ratzinger is a saintly holy orthodox man, a veritable St. Pius X, who merely faked his death, but will return to restore the Chruch, based on your warped interpretation of some dubious private revelation. Readers can also note the fact that you "interpret" Wojtyla's Universi Domini Gregis docuмent to declare that a resignation would leave the See vacant until the Pope who resigned has died and has his funeral conducted, thereby rendering resignation moot, and potentially forcing a many-decade vacancy of the Holy See.
So ... yeah, let's accept YOUR interpretation of Pope Pius IX's meaning rather than mine, and that of Msgr. Fenton ... when you have shown such tremendous interpretation skills as to come up with the borderline-insane absurdities above. You've really disqualified yourself from any rational debate on any subject.
-
Of course, as per your typical lying ways, you truncate the sentence, right ... when I wrote, "Most are heretics ON THIS POINT." meaning that they hold a heretical position on this point, meaning EENS dogma. This denotes an objectively heretical opinion regarding a specific concrete point rather than attributing pertinacity to any particular individual who adheres to this position. In fact, I explicitly stated that I cannot judge their pertinacity ... but I am able to judge your pertinacity, because you refuse to apply any kind or reason, you ignore the clear refutations of your errors, and come up with one reason after another to deny the dogma EENS, rendering you clearly pertinacious, a manifest pertinacious heretic who's outside the Church. About these others, I can only say they are heretical ON THIS POINT, secundum quid and not heretics simpliciter.
But this has nothing to do with our dispute over the maning of Pope Pius IX's teaching. You claim that you have correctly interpreted it. We not only claim (gratuitously like you) that ours is the correct interpretation, but we actually demonstrate it by pointing out elements within the teaching that you simply ignore in order to twist it to your own meaning.
Nor is my interpretation of Pius IX my own. I provided a link to Msgr. Fenton, a respected theologian, who also denounces your misreading of it as a misinterpretation and warping of the text.
So, either Msgr. Fenton and I and also Fr. Mueller, who was also quoted here by someone else are wrong, or else you are wrong, you and the Modernist heretics who also interpret Pius IX the way you do.
But, then if there's any doubt about our respective judgments, the reader can take note of the fact that you believe Ratzinger is a saintly holy orthodox man, a veritable St. Pius X, who merely faked his death, but will return to restore the Chruch, based on your warped interpretation of some dubious private revelation. Readers can also note the fact that you "interpret" Wojtyla's Universi Domini Gregis docuмent to declare that a resignation would leave the See vacant until the Pope who resigned has died and has his funeral conducted, thereby rendering resignation moot, and potentially forcing a many-decade vacancy of the Holy See.
So ... yeah, let's accept YOUR interpretation of Pope Pius IX's meaning rather than mine, and that of Msgr. Fenton ... when you have shown such tremendous interpretation skills as to come up with the borderline-insane absurdities above. You've really disqualified yourself from any rational debate on any subject.
You really are confused. Fine, you called "most of the Trad bishops heretical on the point." Then you try to deny that they are "pertinacious" on this point. Pertinacious is defined as "holding firmly to an opinion or a course of action." So your little caveat amounts to a distinction without a difference.
Bishop Sanborn is certainly "pertinacious" in his interpretation against Feeneyism which you started a thread on. He hold firmly to the opinion that Feeneyism is heretical precisely because is contradicts Pius IX's teaching, correctly interpreted. Here it is that article:
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Combined-Feeney-articles-red.pdf
Therefore, even though you try (and fail) to squirm out of what you said, you cannot avoid the fact that you call "most of the trad bishops heretical" because the condemn Feeneyism just like 99.9% of all Catholic bishop and theologians have since then controversy started. Even if you claim they are not "pertinacious heretics," you are calling them "manifest heretics" which means, according to Catholic theology that we should avoid them anyway.
It is you and your Feeneyite buddies who hold and proclaim "from the rooftops" the heretical position, not "most of the trad bishops." But you will continue to weave your little web of lies that confuse a bunch of 20-somethings and simpletons who have not yet figured out your game.
-
2029 is a good time for something to happen, since it'll mark 100 years since Our Lady requested the consecration of Russia, and would be just a bit over 70 years since Roncalli usurped the papacy
FWIW, those who oppose all that is good and true and beautiful are clearly pushing for the completion of their agenda at exactly the same time. Why?
-
That was Bergs, don't ya know?
Pardon my insurmountable density :fryingpan:
-
FWIW, those who oppose all that is good and true and beautiful are clearly pushing for the completion of their agenda at exactly the same time. Why?
Because Our Lord gave Satan 100 years do make his attempt to destroy the Church [Leo XIII]. The 100 years started in 1929 [Jesus to Sr. Lucia at Tuy].
-
Because Our Lord gave Satan 100 years do make his attempt to destroy the Church [Leo XIII]. The 100 years started in 1929 [Jesus to Sr. Lucia at Tuy].
... all speculation. So, there are varying accounts of this story, one with 75 years, one with 100. While Father Cekada claimed the story was fabricated, I actually tracked down there there was an original source that was very close to the story Father claimed was completely made up, but the missing element in the original was the specification of the timeframe, 75 or 100 years. The original source of Pope Leo's vision was a well-respected secretary of Pope Leo XIII, whose account was then related by a highly respected Cardinal (Segura) who said he heard it directly from that secretary. After Mass, as the story goes, Pope Leo did in fact have a vision where he froze and went pale, and after a long time, where people wondered if he had died, he immediately rushed out to his office and composed both the shorter-form St. Michael prayers and the longer Excorcism prayer. Pope Leo told this secretary that he had seen a vision of the forces of Hell swarming over top of the Vatican with the intent to invade the Church, and some details can be inferred from the Exorcism prayers, about replacing the See of Truth with their throne of inquity so that when the Shepherd had been struck, the sheep would be scattered.
Now, Father Cekada pounces on this as well, claiming that this Throne "in the Holy Place" was a reference to the Quirinal Palace, a Castel Gondolfo like place that the Pope had controlled as an alternative residence, but had been taken over by the Italians, claiming that the reference in the prayers was to past events, including the Quirinal Palace as "the Holy Place". Problem is that there's no evidence of Quirinal Palace EVER having been referred to as a Holy Place, as it was merely an administrative location when the Pope wasn't in Rome.
But, anyway, one version of the story say 75 years, and that could have begun in 1958/9 with the election of Roncalli. How did Satan largely take control over the Church in 1929? Yes, the pontificates of Pius XI and Pius XII were not particularly good for the Church, but I would say that it would be an exaggeration to say that one could mark some period of greater control starting from 1929. NOW ... you definitely could surmise that this could have begun in 1958.
-
Lateran Treaty...1929....fwiw.
-
Lateran Treaty...1929....fwiw.
Yes, and I'm sure it factors in. February 11, Lateran Treaty signed. June 13, Our Lady requests consecration of Russia.
I know, of course, that the Dimonds Brothers trace the 10 kings to the 10 popes begining from that point forward as corresponding to the ones in the Apocalypse, and even the AntiPopes are included because a "priestly kingdom" is described, and through Ratzinger you had valid priests.
-
Yes, and I'm sure it factors in. February 11, Lateran Treaty signed. June 13, Our Lady requests consecration of Russia.
I know, of course, that the Dimonds Brothers trace the 10 kings to the 10 popes begining from that point forward as corresponding to the ones in the Apocalypse, and even the AntiPopes are included because a "priestly kingdom" is described, and through Ratzinger you had valid priests.
7 Kings are the 7 Popes, starting with Pius XI. The 10 horns are the Cardinals that take over the Church during the period of the Fourth and last beast of Daniel, starting with Bergoglio and his gang of Cardinal advisers.
It all started with Pius XI because he refused to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart. And the Lateran Treaty was the final collapse of the temporal power, making the Holy See unable to sustain itself without reliance on the secular powers controlled by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
-
7 Kings are the 7 Popes, starting with Pius XI. The 10 horns are the Cardinals that take over the Church during the period of the Fourth and last beast of Daniel, starting with Bergoglio and his gang of Cardinal advisers.
It all started with Pius XI because he refused to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart. And the Lateran Treaty was the final collapse of the temporal power, making the Holy See unable to sustain itself without reliance on the secular powers controlled by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
You're right ... it was 7 Kings, with 10 horns and/or crowns. There was someone here posting about that Francis of Palau, and I think he likened the horns/crowns to 10 temporal leaders or something, not Cardinals. It's so hard to say, that it's little more than guess work.
What I do find striking, though, and hard to ignore is the likenss of the Whore of Babylon to the Conciliar Church, and that dovetails also with Francis of Palau's take on it.
-
BTW, Struthio's basic blunder on that thread, and I'm not sure if anyone called him out the entire time ... was, yeah, he was focused on the Latin ... but then mistranslated the Latin constantly, assuming that it was correct. saeculum does NOT mean "the world", but rather an epoch of time, an age, and era, so that "end of time" is a perfectly legitimate translation, but it could also mean the end of an epoch, as in one of the ages of the Church. Yet by context, if at the consummation (completion or filling out or perfection) of this age, Christ returns, then it's more than just the end of any epoch, but in fact the final epoch or the larger epoch that includes all of human history (my personal favorite), so IMO "end of time" might just actually be the best translation.
Lad,
You're missing Struthio's point. The consummation is not a one shot thing like the "end of the world" suggests. The issue was "shepherds until the consummation." Here is Struthio's point, in his words, succinctly:
The abomination of desolation, which is the beginning of the consummation of the world, would be the Robber Council 1962-1965 where virtually all apostolically authorized shepherds met to declare their revolt (2 Thess 2,3) and apostasy and adherence to the "synthesis of all heresies" in a most solemn act. They found a new religion of man and make fire to come down from heaven unto the earth (Apoc 13,13) for their new pentecost.
The Vatican Council explains the promise of our Lord (Mt 28,20) that there shall be apostolically authorized sheperds until the consummation.
The consummation is lasting more than 50 years now. It may last 70 years like the babylonian exile (Dan 9,2), or end before the generation of witnesses of the abomination will pass (Mt 24,32-34).
The essence of his argument is that the "consummation" is a period of time at the end of the age, or the end of the world, no matter. The consummation has a start date and an end date years later. If there are "shepherds" until the "consummation," so understood, then there's a period of time after it begins when there will be no shepherds.
That was the essence of his argument.
He has a lot of authority behind him in that thread.
DR
-
The consummation is not a one shot thing like the "end of the world" suggests.
This understanding has crossed my own mind many times over the years.
Just as everything involved in Our Lord's final period on earth (Passion until Ascension) far outstripped the grasp of mortal minds, why would it not be the same where His Mystical Body is concerned? No one would have thought He could die, but He did. Was He somehow less Divine for dying? Of course not. The Church, as She has existed since Her founding, is no longer as She was and no one has any idea how She will be resuscitated, so to speak. What shall we call such a state of affairs? Mystical death? Real death for His real Body, mystical death for His Mystical Body?
-
This understanding has crossed my own mind many times over the years.
Just as everything involved in Our Lord's final period on earth (Passion until Ascension) far outstripped the grasp of mortal minds, why would it not be the same where His Mystical Body is concerned? No one would have thought He could die, but He did. Was He somehow less Divine for dying? Of course not. The Church, as She has existed since Her founding, is no longer as She was and no one has any idea how She will be resuscitated, so to speak. What shall we call such a state of affairs? Mystical death? Real death for His real Body, mystical death for His Mystical Body?
Gladius,
If you haven't read Struthio's thread, you might want to take a look:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/
-
If you haven't read Struthio's thread, you might want to take a look:
I have not, but I will. Thank you.
-
Gladius,
If you haven't read Struthio's thread, you might want to take a look:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/
Looks interesting, thanks for the link
-
Lad,
You're missing Struthio's point. The consummation is not a one shot thing like the "end of the world" suggests. The issue was "shepherds until the consummation." Here is Struthio's point, in his words, succinctly:
The essence of his argument is that the "consummation" is a period of time at the end of the age, or the end of the world, no matter. The consummation has a start date and an end date years later. If there are "shepherds" until the "consummation," so understood, then there's a period of time after it begins when there will be no shepherds.
That was the essence of his argument.
He has a lot of authority behind him in that thread.
DR
No, I'm not missing the point at all ... saeculum is not a reference to the world in the sense of the world, which is the impression get when it's mistranlated, but an epoch of time, and the filling out or consummation of time is in fact the same thing as when time ceases. End of Time is a very good translation, as the expression refers to "until everything has all been wrapped up" and it's all over in terms of this world, and we fade into the saecula saeculorum, aka eternity, aka the end of time. In other words, it's precisely the mistranslation that might in English give the impression that it's come kind of process, but the Latin doesn't indicate that at all, but simply means until this world or age (in time) has been "wrapped up", when everything's done and over with. It's not referring some kind of Teihardian process of moving toward an Omega point.
-
No, I'm not missing the point at all ... saeculum is not a reference to the world in the sense of the world, which is the impression get when it's mistranlated, but an epoch of time, and the filling out or consummation of time is in fact the same thing as when time ceases. End of Time is a very good translation, as the expression refers to "until everything has all been wrapped up" and it's all over in terms of this world, and we fade into the saecula saeculorum, aka eternity, aka the end of time. In other words, it's precisely the mistranslation that might in English give the impression that it's come kind of process, but the Latin doesn't indicate that at all, but simply means until this world or age (in time) has been "wrapped up", when everything's done and over with. It's not referring some kind of Teihardian process of moving toward an Omega point.
I took this over to the other thread, Struthio's, as more relevant there.
-
Using private revelation to prove or disprove a point of doctrine or dogmatic truth is not only stupid but also shows how weak the argument is. When opposing sedevacantism or the recognize-and-resist doctrine, its just best to refer to doctrinal statements, papal bulls, the church fathers, theology manuals, etc.
Private revelations should always be taken with a grain of salt, even those that have been met with approval by The Church. However, at the end of the day, private revelations are not binding on the faithful
-
Do most Trads here agree that we're in the 5th Age of the Church, according to Ven. Bartholomew Holzhauser?
Holzhauser (https://cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/7-ages-of-the-church-history-ven-bartholomew-holzhauser/)
The 5th Age is estimated to be a "dress rehearsal" for the final 7th Age of the Church.
So said Bp. Williamson and many other qualified Church prelates.
The theme of this topic is that Our Lady of LaSalette recognized the current popes (and their usurpation of the Seat) therefore sede-vacantism is wrong.
But in the same message Our Lady of LaSalette said:
"Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."
(https://i.imgur.com/jIWZSYI.png)
This why Our Lady had broken down and was crying profusely.
If you can't see what pope Bob represents, pray for discernment.