Below is a link to my article on Where Peter Is, covering the recent debacle concerning Fr. Michel Rodridgue and the milleanrian errors being promoted on the Countdown to the Kingdom website:
https://wherepeteris.com/apocalypse-when-catholic-millenarianism-rising/
1,850 comments:
1 – 200 of 1850 Newer› Newest»Emmett, do you think a vanilla layperson like myself, would it be worth it to write a letter to my archbishop sharing my opinion with how "The Warning", esp. since it is the very 1st encounter with Catholic eschatlology that many folks have had further than the end of the Our Father (like my sister who lent me the book, and from my sis's viewpoint it seemed to be burning it's way through our Catholic school district with teaching staff, inc. Christian Ethics teachers who are supposed to teach End Times' as the Church teaches it, so how problematic it could get...
Without a strong denouncement likely at least some kids will be taught this in our archdiocese's classes, and if local hierarchy knows this and take no corrective actions doesn't that spread culpability to then as well?
Is their any other sort of mechanism other than a written letter of petition urging the archbishop to clarify that this post tribulation 1,000 year reign of Christ comes directly from the SDA, Mormon, and JW's eschatology that even mainstream Protestant's don't accept, or is writing a letter the most I can do?
I'm worried that there could be real negative spiritual consequences for unwitting folks, like I almost was led astray by Fr. Iazumi (sp? sorry I know I mangled that surname badly) several times with a few writers come to think of it before Mark or Emmett or JMC or Bridget, I forget exactly who, was warned away from books with huge huge doctrinally errors at least 3 or 4 times now (thanks for that btw)... I guess in wanting to take some action also I want to somehow return that favour if possible.
Yes Jason, I think it would be a good idea that as many people as possible write to their bishops about this, in keeping with Canon 212:
CIC 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
Thanks for posting this, it helped steel my resolve or lessen my fear of writing my Archbishop about this. And it's a big issue, especially as the world may be entering the times leading to the Second Pentecost that Catholics don't have a twisted view of the times ahead. I guess people feeling intimidated to speak up is how heresies have spread at times to be the majority opinion.
Hey Jason - Are you in the same diocese as Mark Mallett? I haven’t kept up with him, so I don’t recall exactly where he was.
If so, it might actually be critical that you send the bishop something. Fr Michel Rodrigue’s bishop didn’t know about his statements until someone pointed it out.
And if you don’t mind a tidbit of advice, you should write two letters; one to the bishop’s administrative assistant, and a second to the bishop himself. In my experience in writing to bishops, I’ve found that there is almost no chance that the bishop will see your letter if the admin doesn’t like what you say. So I write a brief note to the admin explaining that I want to get a letter to the bishop, and could she forward it for me. Seal the bishops letter in an envelope that will fit in a larger one. Put the lot in the larger envelope and send it off. The admin will get all warm and fuzzy about you going to them first. I can’t say that it works every time, but I think it does increase the likelihood of the bishop actually seeing the letter. Your mileage may vary.
Question: If God wanted to tell people that after the destruction of the Antichrist will follow a "1000 year" period pf peace on earth, how else would have have to say it other then saying it like this:
Revelation 20:4: ... and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Here is what amillennialism is in a nutshell: When the book of Revelation says something is black it really means it's white. This must one of the most absurd interpretations of the Bible ever.
My friend, I appreciate your thinking on this issue. As you would know it's for very good reason that in the Catholic Church the Scriptures require careful interpretation, as various passages/words are intended by the sacred authors, for example, in a figurative sense. So whilst certain words/passages may appear to convey one meaning on the surface, an authentic interpretation of such words will have a very different meaning.
I agree, there is a lot of symbolism in the Book of Revelation. Problem with amillianists is that they decided that everything is symbolic and nothing can be taken literally.
But in the Catholic faith we have the church Father's for example St Augustine. St Augustine wrote clearly about the 1000 years of peace in the Book of Revelation and described it as a period of peace not a literal 1000 years.
God bless
Anthony W
Numbers in the Bible frequently have a symbolic significance; for example, the number 7 is often used to signify completeness. Since the symbolic meaning of numbers was a large part of Jewish culture in St. John's day, everyone would have known what those numbers meant, beyond just counting. The Church Fathers, if they weren't taught directly by the Apostles, were at most a generation or two removed from them, so it's likely they still clearly understood the meaning of the symbols. That's just a guess on my part, though.
The Vatican have just released a statement about The Amsterdam apparitions "Our Lady of All Nations" as being false. Some people did raise doubts about the apparitions in the past but the messages themselves were certainly consistent with other Marian apparitions. But what was very strange was the phrase in the prayer from the apparition that said "Who once was Mary". That is very odd. Why would Our Lady use such a strange term. I find that troubling.
God bless
Anthony W
Anthony w., would you have a link about the false OLAN vatican statement?
Hi Anonymous. My source was Spiritdaily.Com. which is a Catholic site. As I wrote the messages from Our Lady of All Nations are very good it's just the strange phrase "Who once was Mary" that has disturbed some people especially Priests and Bishops.
God bless
Anthony W
I had read something about it a few years ago; the site said that the bishops, upon releasing the prayer, had changed that troubling phrase to "the Blessed Virgin Mary."
.
Now I have to wonder if the prayer was properly released, or only "leaked," because, as I understand it, the hierarchy doesn't release anything regarding an alleged apparition until and unless they're satisfied that it's genuine. Of course, this doesn't stop visionaries and those associated with them from putting the material on the 'Net even when the bishop(s) in question tell(s) them not to do so, and that's usually one of the first signs that the alleged apparition isn't genuine. In every one of the approved apparitions I've read about, the visionary was always specifically told to obey instructions to keep silent about the matter, and reassured that, in His own time, God would arrange for the message to get out there.
The Blessed Virgin appeared in Amsterdam as "the Lady of All Nations, who once was Mary" and asked the Pope to proclaim the last marian dogma: Our Lady is Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. Replacing the phrase "who once was Mary" is a punch at the meaning of the Amsterdam apparitions, because the Holy Virgin wanted the term "Lady" to be associated with Her, just as when Catholics say "the Lord" they mean Jesus Christ. So the Lord and the Lady, Redemptor and Co-Redemptrix.
In the Vatican' CDF - already in the first year of the pontificate B16, when the content of this famous prayer was changed - they either did not understand the meaning of the Amsterdam apparitions, or they consciously try to bury the intentions of the Blessed Virgin. I think that the latter possibility exists here, and B16 paid for this audacious attempt to contradict the will of the Divine Mother of the Church with the loss of the papacy.
Thank you for that bit of information, Myron. I remember being taught in grade school, in the early 1960s, that Our Lady was Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate; it wasn't until fairly recently that I learned that wasn't already defined dogma. In fact, the Salve Regina, as we all know, contains the petition, "Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us." With what you've explained about the Amsterdam apparitions, I see a direct connection to Fatima, since it was there that Our Lady requested that the Salve Regina be added at the end of the Rosary, along with the prayer said after each Glory Be.
.
I agree with you that certain parties in the Vatican may be trying to bury the true meaning of the Amsterdam apparitions, just as they've been trying for the past century to bury Fatima. It makes even more sense if the link I spotted truly does exist between the two. (Which it probably does, since all approved Marian apparitions throughout history have similar themes.)
.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was finally formally defined in the late 1800s precisely because every Catholic had believed it since the earliest days of the Church. It was part of "small-t" tradition. Given the fact that schoolchildren up until at least the 1960s were being taught that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, I suspect that is also part of small-t tradition, and thus probably likely be formally defined as part of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart. One way or another, whether the world wants it or not, God's will shall be done.
Hi I need to make a correction about "Our lady of All Nations". The Vatican (CDF) have not declared the apparition false but have gone back to the notification that was signed by them in 1974 which said. "It is not opportune to contribute to the dissemination of the veneration of Mary as "Lady of all peoples". The misunderstanding happened because of a mistranslation by a European reporter.
God bless
Anthony W
Sorry about the late response Mark!
Yes, Mr. Mallet lives in, well, specifically he lives in one of two suffragan dioceses that are under the jurisdiction of my archdiocese.
I don't know if my archbishop will ever see my letter after considering what you said about the archdiocesan admin. She *really* dislikes me, lol. When we had a drought of priests after the Redemptorists pulled out of my province we got her as a spiritual something-or-other (I forget the exact title) that presided over communion services and gave homilies. During one she said during Sunday morning services that Catholics never even considered the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist before the Middle Ages, and being the dummy I am, I stood up in the middle of her homily and called her out that that was wholly untrue. My parents were extremely embarrassed, but I couldn't sit there when a huge lie was being preached about a core tenant of our faith, part of the clear deposit of faith, etc. I said really loudly, "That isn't true , like all heresies the Church might not formally include something when it's already a universal belief until it is challenged, blah blah", and then sat down. You could've heard a pin drop, and I felt like I made a big mistake disrupting a service like that instead of maybe talking to her in private or calling the archdiocese office about what she was preaching (this was just one example, she taught very suspect things about Our Lady that bordered on Protestantism, hinting that scriptures tell us Joseph and Mary had more children, etc.).
But I did get a few phone calls from people who were getting fed up like I was, and also from people who had left the parish to go to the other Catholic church in town. I also had a lesser run in when in 2000 with her, when I went to Mass on the 1st day of classes when I went back to school. It was just her, 2 nuns and a number of Jesuit priests that were professors on campus, and it was one weird Mass. All gender inclusive language, I'd never tried to pray the Our Father that way, but every part of the Mass was gender neutral. And the worse part was at the consecration, where the priest celebrating handed out hosts *before* the consecration, so we were holding the hosts ourselves. I knew this was highly illicit if not an invalid Mass, so I just placed the (I hope) non-consecrated host on the altar and just walked out while all of them in unison were trying to apologize, or get me to stay, or maybe were worried about me reporting the incident (though I didn't).
So, yea, lol, I don't think my letter will make it to my archbishop's eyes. I think maybe I should send a 2nd letter to him with "strictly personal & confidential" written on it. Though, I can't help thinking that our archbishop already knows about Mark Mallet's heretical teaching and small media empire, haha; he's a younger guy (for an archbishop at least, just 8 years older than I am). I've met him only a couple of times, but he's a tech savvy, up-on-things sort of man, but I guess a letter of concern, if he already has some concerns, couldn't hurt, even if it gives a bit of ammo that members of the archdiocese are worried about a Mormon/SDA/JW/etc. version of eschatology is being promoted that even mainstream Protestants mostly reject.
Good for you, Jason. As I understand the rules governing Communion services in the absence of a priest, a woman shouldn't be officiating at one in the first place, and certainly not preaching at one. The few I've been to in my life were always led by ordained deacons.
"During one she said during Sunday morning services that Catholics never even considered the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist before the Middle Ages, and being the dummy I am, I stood up in the middle of her homily and called her out that that was wholly untrue. My parents were extremely embarrassed, but I couldn't sit there when a huge lie was being preached about a core tenant of our faith, part of the clear deposit of faith, etc. I said really loudly, "That isn't true , like all heresies the Church might not formally include something when it's already a universal belief until it is challenged, blah blah", and then sat down. You could've heard a pin drop..."
This is now one of my favorite stories. I'm going to print this out and put it on my monitor.These days - especially these days - we should all be calling out things like this.
Well done, Jason. As we say in the nautical world: BRAVO ZULU!
Thanks guys, I've always felt a lingering unease about interrupting a Church service like that,so it feels good to get feedback that it was a proper thing to do!
This person had her doctorate in religious studies plus an MDiv so I guess they assumed she could be trusted to speak the truth of the Church. I'm amazed she's been an integral part of our archdiocese/U of Regina's Catholic college for decades when she believes a ton of things that are the opposite of what the Church teaches us. But I'm guessing that isn't a one-off!
No, it's not a one-off. Sadly, too many Catholic colleges have made it publicly plain that they're Catholic in name only.
Well done Jason! That very much needed to be said!
Thanks Emmett et al so much. I've been wondering if that was wrong of me to do for a good 26 years (!) or so and felt guilty every single time I thought of standing up in the middle of Church, my face still flushes just thinking of it now, so y'all's stamp of approval means a lot to me personally, it's huge.
On s totally off topic subject, I was wondering if anyone wanted to give me a refresher in what possible way Antolia/Asia Minor/Turkey plays in scriptural prophecy? I remember something about a pagan altar that pointed towards Turkey playing a nefarious role of a "kingdom to the north" maybe?
My memory is too foggy to know much, but with Turkey flexing muscles in Syria (vs. Russia, Syrian govt and Kurds), Libya (vs. Ryssia and Egypt), and against Greece, Cyprus and Egypt over E. Med. undersea resources, and I highly highly suspect Turkey is behind Azerbaijan's attack on the break-away enclave of Armenians in their country at this precise time as well, there can be little doubt that they are going for broke on gaining regional hegemony in all the areas of the former Ottoman Empire and now even beyond into Central Asia (anywhere Turkic speaking people are + Ottomsn area it seems).
Does anyone have any Eastern Orthodox friends or acquaintances? If so I'm guessing you heard much gnashing of teeth over the Hagia Sophia being turned from a museum back into a mosque recently. There was no reason to mess with the status quo other than to placate Muslim Brotherhood supporters of Erdogan that I can see, except also to purposeful antagonize Greece even further beyond the naval standoffs.
My buddy Pete had to seriously forbid his 20s-something son from trying to travel to Greece this weekend, thinking that a big war of Orthodox versus Turkic speaking Muslims is brewing in Armenia (which, who knows, with Armenia backed by Russia and Azerbaijan by Turkey, maybe that could occur? Or at least other players coming in, like reports that Turkish warplanes newly painted with Azerbaijani colours are being flown by Turkish air force pilots).
More likely I'm sure that this won't be that, but the Hagia Sophia episode seems to have caused *a lot* of consternation among Orthodox all over that still consider it, used as such or not, as their St. Peter's, the world's oldest basilica I believe and a miracle for the time in which it was built.
But if Turkey is mentioned or any references that Erdogan might match from prophecy I'd love a refresher course.
To Jason. Some good news a replica of the Hagia Sophia cathedral has been built in Syria. Putin and Assad did this to raise the spirits of Christians in the region. As for the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan this conflict has been bubbling under the surface for a few years now but hopefully it will not escalate to full war. Russia may well be able to restrain Turkey and Azerbaijan.
God bless
Anthony W
I'm not clear on the details, but I do know there is a prophecy concerning the re-conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque.
.
On a slightly lighter note, I'm seriously considering having a T-shirt made to wear on New Year's Day, 2021. It will read, "I survived 2020!" ;D
Norway has it's first Catholic Bishop in central Norway in eleven years. Erik Varden a Catholic convert will be consecrated Bishop at the St Olav's cathedral in Trondheim on Oct 3. Norway has seen a big rise in Catholics over the years.
God bless.
Anthony W
The model of the Hagia Hagia Sophia is a wonderful spiritual gesture, and interesting, the detail in reconstructed, but at 13 feet by q3 feet the whole model is smaller than my bathroom, so while the symbolism is there it's not in any league as any substitute. My friend's boy (named Paul, just about every Greek guy I know is Peter or Paul) is still gung ho to go fight for Armenian, he's got a bunch of contacts in Greece and also Serbia that are of the same mind. I dont think it will happen for them unless Russia transports them which I find pretty unlikely.
But it sure makes everything there hit much closer to home. Pete is worried sick, but his son's 18 and can go and do what he wants. I know I am often very wildly alarmist, but it feels like as Russia and Turkey both have been on a mission to extend their influence in the region as America has retreated, and maybe sense that disengagement is going to end soon so are scrambling to lock in their gains, but in the history of warfare those rushes into power vacuums are by far the biggest reason I believe for big wars kicking off (Napoleon's rise after a brilliant performance invading Italy is a good example, no one dreamed of the many years of carnage that would trigger).
Then reading the news about Erdogan and a UN restricted area by the illegal Turkish Northern Cypriot state was dumbfounding. I had lots of buddies that served as peace keepers in Cyprus for years, and they uniformly said out of all their peacekeeping mission in Golan, Sinai, Former Yugoslavia, the Greeks and Turks on Cyprus absolutely loathe each other with a religious fervour we usually only think of with the Crusades or groups like ISIS.
I hope like you wrote that Russia will keep Turkey in check... it feels like Turkey is making moves to become the dominant E. Med/Middle East/Caucausian power, increasing ties with Turkic speaking people deep into Central Asia as well. I know every tin pot dictator is the next Adolf Hitler, but Turkey is a very powerful country for the area especially and in a perfect geopolitical position to carve out an Ottoman wannabe sphere of influence. They seem to be sticking it emotionally to Greece in particular, I think wanted to provoke a fight they know they'll win so Erdogan can grab the resource rich E. Med. basin, just like the Turkish invasion and takeover of much of Cyprus years ago.
The chance for miscalculation and the law of unintended consequences with Putin's back against the ropes for the first time in a long while, Putin cant Aggies to look weak, or not rescuing fellow Orthodox peoples if civilian casualties mount in Turkey. The region has a long memory, and it's been just over 100 years since the Turkish genocide again the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks in Anatolia, and from just my personal experience with Orthodix friends I grew up with, that still looms large as a great historical evil that has never been addressed or redressed.
It reads like a potential powder keg, though I'm not sure how it would relate at all to any prophecy, trouble brewing in the Middle East is always something to watch (and any cooperation between Turkey and Israel is dead... I swear some of Erdogan's speeches sound like they're coming from Tehran metaphorically. Once I read a couple of full ones, not just soundbites, it was a bit unsettling to say the least. The red meat he consistently throws his Islamist core supporters is very nationalistic and even expansionist.
Anyway, that is a very warm and bright bit of news from Norway. Any Protestsnt N. European nation with a rise in Catholicism is a big deal to me, whether through immigration or converts, it doesn't matter. As the faith disappears each generation more and more in the industrialized nations any vivtirycus a huge cause of thanksgiving.
p.s. I reread my comment, please my apologies for some of the horrendous spelling mistakes and just mix ups e.g. I meant to say Putin protecting Orthodox believers from Turkey rather than "in Turkey. I'm sure my point was clear but it makes for an unpleasant reading experience with words like "vivtirycus" aka "victory is".
I should have proofread before posting, I'll make a concerted effort to do that in the future. And sorry about the double posting in a row, too, I'm trying hard to be much more brief so I don't irritate with such an avalanche of opinion all at once. 🙄
@Jason R.
Since you mentioned the potential place of Turkey, Armenia or Russia in end-times chronology, I think it would be interesting to mention an Eastern Orthodox saint, Elder Paisios, mentioned that in the future Greece will expand it's native sea-region from 6 miles to 12, which will cause Turkey to declare war on Greece and then Russia will intervene and take over Istanbul, while the EU, America and maybe also China IIRC will go against Russia in a third world war.
He said this likely based on the prophecies of St. Kosmas of Aetolia from the 1700's who preached on issues relating to Turks and war. However, he (Paisios I think) also says that at the end of the bloodshed an angel will stop the fighting in Istanbul and will resurrect the Marble King - a legendary figure associated with Constantinople, thought by many to be the Duke John Vatatzis III of the Kingdom of Nicaea during the 13th century who fought the Venetians and Franks that split up the Byzantine empire after the 4th Crusade in 1204, and whose body was incorrupt and location kept secret down through the generations - to rule over the Greeks again and give them back their lost Byzantine territory. At the end of all this 1/3 of the Turks will be dead, another third will convert to Christianity and the other third will flee into the east where the Turks originally came from. Orthodoxy would also spread all over the world because of this.
Some parts of this - especially some versions of the story/prophecy that implicate the Vatican in opposing Greece due to being of the Antichrist, but also the parts about Orthodoxy triumphing and a Greek king saint raised from the dead - may be contrary to the Catholic faith and so questionable / false, but the other aspects aren't necessarily as problematic.
Either way, it's an interesting tidbit related to the end-times as well.
Amy Barrett. What an inspiration this Catholic women is. The Democrats have been trying to demonise her because of her Catholic faith and trying to block her from being a Supreme court judge but they will not succeed.
God bless
Anthony W
Don't you think Emmett that the lockdown measures in Ireland would have been different if the result of the Irish abortion referendum would have been different?
I have a strong tendancy to think that we are living the return of the days of Noah just before the Second Coming of Jesus.
We have to pray a lot, especially the Holy Rosary and the prayer to Saint Jude.
Anon, the lockdown measures EVERYWHERE would have been different if abortion had never been legalized ANYWHERE. It's that simple.
.
I recently heard one priest discuss what might happen at the General Judgment; he stated that each one of us, in an instant, will see how his sins, even his most private ones, affected every person in the world from the time he committed it onward. What I take from this is that very sin we commit opens the gates of Hell a little wider. With a world as steeped in sin is ours is today, those infernal gates may as well have been taken off their hinges altogether.
.
Think about it in terms of Pope Leo's vision. Already in the late 19th century, sin had become so bad in the world that those gates were wide open. Satan knew it, and that's why he was bold enough to challenge God, claiming to be able to destroy the Church if he were given enough power. On God's part, I imagine He saw this as one last chance, as it were, to shower His mercy on the world, to send chastisement on us in order to move us to repentance. For some of us, that is precisely what has happened. We recognized what happened and amended our lives. For many of us, however, it only served to encourage us to ever-greater evils.
.
The devil will claim many souls. We know this. However, we also know that those are only small battles in the greater scheme of things. No matter how many battles the devil may win, he will not, CANNOT, win the war, for the simple reason that no creature can be equal to the Creator. God will be glorified in the end, along with those of us who cooperate with His grace and get to stand at His side on the Last Day. May all of us here be among them.
I agree with you JMC.
Here in Quebec, things are very different compared to my youth.
In my town, they will demolish maybe 3 or 4 or 5 churches, they do not know yet but they are discussing it. The Catholic diocese here sold those churches and the people that bought it do not know at this time if they can use the buildings for whatever project they have.
The few practicing people are over 70 years old, most of them.
I can remember the time when "French Canadian" and "Catholic" were inseparable words.
And curiously, at the same time it is more difficult now among the younger generation of French Canadians (18-35) to find the "folkloric French Canadian", you know, the big strong guy who was a lumberjack or a hockey player. It seems there were more of them when I was younger.
Very strange times. Maybe the return of the days of Noah. We have to pray much, especially the Rosary and the prayer to Saint Jude.
To Anonymous. What an appalling unchristian comment to make. No wonder you are Anonymous. You are also factually incorrect. Pope Francis has not endorsed Gay unions or Gay marriage. He was speaking about his time in Argentina when the subject of Gay marriage was being debated in that country and Pope Francis said that a Gay union would be preferable to Gay Marriage but only in the context of the state legislating. He did not and does not endorse gay marriage or gay unions. The Pope was trying to save the sanctity of marriage to be only between a man and women.
God bless.
You have read different sources than I then.
Check Archbishop Vigano comments on lifesitenews.com or YouTube I believe.
Michael Voris I'm sure has something.
to John Francis. The sources that you cite are all hostile to Pope Francis. If you go onto the Catholic News Agency they explain what Pope Francis said and the context. But there is also a bigger picture here of the prophecies of Akita. Satan is trying to destroy the Catholic church from within by unfaithful clergy and lay people. That is why I urge all Catholics to be faithful and to be careful about there sources.
God bless
Anthony W
Anthony, thank you so much for explaining that. I was deeply troubled to hear that comment, so it's a great relief to hear that, once again, his words were taken out of context.
I truly believe Anthony that your comments defending various remarks made by Pope Francis are motivated by your genuine love of our beloved Catholic Church.... but in the face of a long series of Pope Francis's statements that can be viewed by ordinary Catholics as deliberately ambiguous and unclear, to put it very mildly, your comments seem like an attempt to get rid of, or at least to reduce, the dissonance that most of us experience when we juxtapose many of Pope Francis's statements with the Church's traditional teaching, especially in such areas as marriage and sexuality... I'm not sure which article exactly on the CNA you refer to in your comment. If the article you refer to is the one I have read (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/context-of-popes-civil-union-documentary-comment-reported-14270), then your suggestion that the article fully explains what the Pope meant when He said "But what we have to have is a law of civil union (ley de convivencia civil), so they have the right to be legally covered" is misleading. What its author draws attention to is precisely the fact that Pope's comment is confusing and begs clarification, which the Vatican has refused to offer. And by the way, why has the Vatican press office refused to respond to requests for clarification about the pope’s comments? Shouldn't our statements be "yes", "yes" and "no", "no"?
I agree with you that satan is trying to destroy the Catholic Church from within but you seem to deny the fact that it is Pope Francis himself who seems to exacerbate the crisis. I'm faithful to Pope Francis and with God's grace I will remain so but I'm tired and fed up with all the naive rationalisations and justifications of Pope Francis' statements and comments... There's an elephant in the room and sheer honesty demands that we as Catholics admit that.
God bless
Sylvester
And one more thing.... Can I ask you all to keep Poland in your prayers in these days? Following a ruling by Poland's Constitutional Court that abortions, even in cases of foetal defects, are illegal, we are experiencing a series of diabolical attacks on our Churches and violent disruptions of Masses across Poland. It's like hell let loose... But our Lady has already crushed his head so we have nothing to be afraid of.
God bless everyone
Sylvester
how is it possible that a pope's statements are misconstrued each and every time, both sides of the religious aisle. It comes down to 'somebody' having to unravel it's hidden and/or ambiguous meaning. Shouldn't what he utters be for the benefit of confused catholics already in a state of bewilderment? (and he never wants to clarify). Why should the catholic laity have to defuse them and take sides? why is it clergy such as Vigano who is just pointing out the problems of Francis' statements are labelled hostile while the other side gladly embraces whatever comes out of his mouth? The sides are growing and are sharply divided...Frankly, at times can understand the sedes argument. I also like to think Francis has an agenda, towards the good of the church as well.
sam
To Sylvester. I will definitely keep Poland in my prayers. God bless Poland for defending the unborn.
The problem really lies with the MSM in our world who are mostly secular and often very anti-Catholic and not Pope Francis. What can Pope Francis do? He makes a statement which is then distorted by our wonderful fake news media. I could be here all day going through the countless times that this has happened. Maybe Pope Francis should be silent all the time but then he would be criticised for that. I think we have to accept that we are living in the time of the 100 years of Satan and therefore this will continue. But there is a solution for Catholics, go to the Vatican website and you can clearly read what the Pope has said. I have a friend in Germany who is a member of Opus Dei and this is what he does.
God bless all.
Anthony W
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pope-francis-former-auxiliary-bishop-in-buenos-aires-distances-himself-from-gay-civil-union-remarks?utm_source=editor_picks&utm_campaign=standard
Has Francis' former bishop misunderstood his previous boss too?
sam
Pope Francis is an intelligent, articulate and very experienced man and prelate. He knows what he is doing when he decides to address some controversial doctrinal issues in the footnotes of his papal encyclicals or to make a statement whose meaning is ambiguous and, consequently, can be construed in many different ways. If Pope Francis wanted his statements to be clear and unambiguous, they would certainly be so. The question that baffles many people who love the Church is why the Pope decided to adopt this strategy...
God bless
Sylwester
The pope has declared he is not afraid of schism. He knows he cannot be deposed as the Vicar of Christ even though he denies or relinquishes the title. I bet even he knows he cannot teach formal heresy too. (Makes for interesting water cooler conversation doesn't it) And who appears to be questioning him? Why some pretty high cardinals and bishops. Take your pick. These guys seem to be quite a bit upset at the scandal given by the pope. I'm sure the pope is intelligent. That's a good reason to be chosen by the college of Cardinals. In the meantime, the barque of Peter is floundering and he is not in the least bit concerned about schism. I would like to think he's got the plan of the century up his sleeve , like the cleansing of the church spoken of by Malachi Martin.
sam
The point I was trying to get across in my previous comment is that after seven years of this pontificate it simply can't be denied that Pope Francis (who does, writes and says things the very way he wants them to be done, written and said) consciously and deliberately decides to make statements and remarks that are meant to be ambiguous, confusing and controversial from the Catholic point of view. Although this seems obvious, even self-evident, there are many well-intentioned Catholic priests and ordinary believers who don't want to or are not ready to accept this fact... If we don't have the courage and honesty to call a spade a spade (let me reiterate that a spade refers here to deliberately ambiguous or doctrinally controversial statements made by Pope Francis) and prefer to remain ignorant, are we acting in accordance with our Catholic faith and values or not?
i understand the pope makes deliberate ambiguous statements. To whom are they directed? Catholics at large? Prelates? Protestants and Muslims? My point is some prelates have issues with these deliberate ambiguous statements which are confusing faithful catholics.
Not sure what you're suggesting here: If we don't have the courage and honesty to call a spade a spade (let me reiterate that a spade refers here to deliberately ambiguous or doctrinally controversial statements made by Pope Francis) and prefer to remain ignorant...are we acting in accordance with our faith? What does that even mean? Are we as laity supposed to figure out what he really means?
sam
Your comment made me realise that in my attempt to address this issue as graciously and cautiously as I possible can, I have actually made my last comment ambiguous and unclear:) I find it quite funny given the nature of the problem we are addressing here. Let me clarify my point yet again. I share the frustration of many Catholics at the Pope Francis's tendency to make deliberate ambiguous statements which, as I wrote in my first comment, clearly exacerbate the current crisis in the Church. It is crystal clear to me that Pope Francis makes such statements consciously and purposely so we can no longer, in good conscience, lay the blame at the feet of secular media or some Catholic media portrayed by some as hostile to the current Pope. Yet, many priests that I have come across and many ordinary well-intentioned Catholics (like Anthony W) still blame the media or some alleged enemies of Pope Francis for distorting his statements or remarks and thus for the controversies and confusion that such statements trigger. They refuse to face the fact that it is Pope Francis himself who bears the responsibility for this confusion. As I previously wrote, sheer honesty demands that we admit that and yet, time and time again, I see Catholics going to great lengths to rationalise the situation in their minds. But in my humble opinion, a truth-seeking Catholic can no longer, in good conscience, blame the media or some hostile forces conspiring against the Pope for the confusion caused by his statements and remarks. So all I am suggesting in my previous comments is to stop pretending that Pope Francis wants his statement to be clear and unambiguous and that he is not responsible for the confusion. The question remains why Pope Frances repeatedly chooses to make such ambiguous statements... But I am not attempting to answer it here. This is a different issue... and it is far more important that the one I have been trying address in my comments.
It is now the second to last day of October (Rosary month).
What are we seeing in the world?
A war in Artsakh / Nagorno Karabakh, started by Azerbaijan and supported by Turkey and Syrian jihadists. Fighting against ethnically Armenian control of the region. At least one Armenian Apostolic cathedral attacked and partially destroyed by Azerbaijan.
Emmett has pointed out the significance of the Armenian genocide.
We also see rising tensions between France and Muslim countries, especially Turkey. Several terrorist attacks in France, yesterday one inside a church, where the sacristan and two others were murdered.
Now a couple of minutes ago I received breaking news about a 6.6 earthquake in the west of Turkey causing buildings to collapse and even a tsunami reaching Izmir in Turkey.
Earthquakes, tsunamis, Armenian genocide ... am I the only one to see this?
-- Raphael
Let's not forget what is happening in Poland now with Masses being interrupted by pro-choice protesters, vandalism against churches.
Of course in the United States as well, churches are vandalised, statues of saints or even the Lord destroyed, beheaded.
-- Raphael
Earthquake and tsunami. SomeOne is clearly not pleased with Turkey right now. Any bets on whether or not they get the message?
I'm of a similar mind Raphael that Tuekey is stirring the pot wherever it can and Erdogan in particular making it about religion.
I'm not trying to equate the Arkenians with the militia of the Great Monarch, but I just watched the video on the conflict the BBC pit out today that showed every Arnenian soldier has a large white cross on their uniforms in honour of what they at least believe they are fighting for, Christianity itself. It couldnt help but remind me somewhat of what St. Paola wrote in the famous letter prophesying the Great Monarch, "These devout men shall wear on their breasts, and much more within their hearts, the sign of the living God, namely, the Cross."
It was strange seeing the protests on Poland on TV. My dad was baptized in one of the cathedrals where was Mass was forcibly stopped (in Posen/Poznan). And with this big earthquake between Greece and Turkey (a 7.0... just how deep was that Turkish exploration ship drilling?? j/k).
If Turkey were hit with further catastrophes of a natural type, it just makes one wonder with all that's already been written above of jihadis being shipped in en masse from Syria and Lybia to fight the Armenians... it would very much seem that both sides are viewing it as a war between religions, not simply ethnicities.
But the Moslems will never admit that, despite the fact that they know we're all well aware of what "jihad" is. They never admit publicly that those they've beheaded or killed in some other way were killed precisely because they're Christians, because they know darn well that, at that point, the world will view them as martyrs, and then those who still persist in calling Islam a religion of peace will have to change their tune, meaning they will lose the "supportive silence" of that group.
https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/GettyImages-1229158207-2048x1365.jpg
The fact is that this issue has not been decisively settled:
"…[it is not against our Catholic Faith to] ...hope in some mighty triumph of Christ here on earth before the final consummation of all things. Such an occurrence is not excluded, is not impossible, it is not all certain that there will not be a prolonged period of triumphant Christianity before the end. If before that final end there is to be a period, more or less prolonged, of triumphant sanctity, such a result will be brought about not by the apparition of the person of Christ in Majesty but by the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church." - The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine, London:Burns Oates & Washbourne, p. 1140 from the Theological Commission of 1952 (a magisterial statement)
Emmett, I think Anonymous above may have found that quote on this webpage from Mark Mallett's blog.https://www.markmallett.com/blog/millenarianism-what-it-is-and-is-not/ It is entitled MILLENARIANISM — WHAT IT IS, AND IS NOT
Would you clarify whether you believe Mark Mallett has gotten this wrong and if so, in what way does he get it wrong?
Blessings,
I don't know all the theological ins and outs of the subject. Most of that article seems to be spot-on, but the very last line bothers me a bit. It refers to a period of "peace and justice." It's the "justice" part that bothers me. Yes, a period of peace has been promised at Fatima. There are other prophecies which speak of renewal of the Church, which Emmett refers to as the "Second Pentecost," which almost by definition will see an increase in faith and morality in the world. But in light of some other things Mallett says in this particular article, the word "justice" in his context also can be taken to imply the total absence of evil, which simply cannot happen before the Final Judgment. Perhaps Mallett himself has a clear idea of what millenarianism is and isn't, but the line between orthodoxy and that particular heresy is very thin, and too many of his followers have crossed over it.
Mark Mallett attempts to limit the definition of millenarianism to Christ coming to rule for the duration of the "thousand years" mentioned in Rev 20 "in the Flesh". This is done in order to suggest that the belief in some sort of spiritualised version of millenarianism is permitted by the Church, which he equates with the "era of peace". According to this definition, the error of Joachim de Fiore concerning the "ago of the Spirit" is not millenarianism, whilst in reality, it is one of the most widely studied versions of millenarianism in modern academia. The millenarianism of Joachim de Fiore, which Mallett presents in a very thinly veiled form, has been condemned by the Church since the 13th century. Joachism duplicates the events of the end-times, with two antichrists before and after the millennium, two "second" comings of Christ before and after the millennium, and rejects the teachings of St. Augustine that Satan was bound during the events of the Crucifixion in order to suggest that he will be fully bound in the future, and evil will cease to exist on earth.
Mark Mallet and others have their opinions on the Millennium. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. The Church has told us in limited fashion what the Millennium is not, but as the magisterial document quoted by Anonymous above makes clear: it is still possible that a period of "triumphant Christianity" will occur before the Second Coming. I would view this as the public defeat and reversal, on a Governmental level, of the power of Freemasonry over secular and political affairs. I would view this as a fulfillment of the Great Monarch and Angelic Pope prophecies - which I do not believe have yet reached fruition. The Church and the Western World are at rock bottom right now on so many levels, so a Miraculous Restoration and Renewal are something we should all pray and hope for.
It depends on your take of the millennium. In terms of an actual 1000 years where Jesus comes down from heaven to reign with his people in a perfect world, the Catechism teaches that there is no such thing in time.
What I wonder is what the "unbinding of Satan for 100 years" means? Does it not mean that after 100 years, he will be bound again? If he is to be bound again, at least for a while, could that not be when we experience the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and an era of Peace? Could this mean that we may have a respite before the Antichrist comes?
But then again, I am also hearing a lot about the "Katechon", the restrainer, and people talk about something that is supposed to happen "when the restrainer" is removed. When the restrainer is removed, what is supposed to happen? Is that when the Antichrist is supposed to appear? People are wondering if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is the Katechon in the spiritual realm and, or perhaps Trump in the secular realm. If Benedict is the Katechon and since he is likely to die soon, wouldn't that mean that the Antichrist will soon appear?
Emmett, have I understood you correctly to have said that you believe the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will only come with the Second Coming and that the Era of Peace would be when we get to Heaven?
What I wonder is what the "unbinding of Satan for 100 years" means? Does it not mean that after 100 years, he will be bound again? If he is to be bound again, at least for a while, could that not be when we experience the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and an era of Peace? Could this mean that we may have a respite before the Antichrist comes?
But then again, I am also hearing a lot about the "Katechon", the restrainer, and people talk about something that is supposed to happen "when the restrainer" is removed. When the restrainer is removed, what is supposed to happen? Is that when the Antichrist is supposed to appear? People are wondering if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is the Katechon in the spiritual realm and, or perhaps Trump in the secular realm. If Benedict is the Katechon and since he is likely to die soon, wouldn't that mean that the Antichrist will soon appear?
Emmett, have I understood you correctly to have said that you believe the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will only come with the Second Coming and that the Era of Peace would be when we get to Heaven?
Yes, prophecy indicates that the Devil will be bound again at the end of the period of his unbinding, so we do have some respite. The Katechon is associated with the Great Monarch in private prophecy, who together with the Angelic Pope, brings about the restoration of the Church. I don't think Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is connected with the prophecy of the Katechon, although he does seem to feature in the prophecies of La Salette, which foretold that the pope who succeeds the one who survives an attempt on his life would not live to see the restoration of the Church (which I would equate with the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart). The "era" of peace is short-lived however, as the Antichrist will appear immediately after the "restrainer" is removed.
Thank you, Emmett, for this clear answer! I appreciate your taking the time to respond.
Emmett, regarding Final Confrontation book by Mark Mallett.
this site : https://www.countdowntothekingdom.com/is-the-era-of-peace-a-heresy/
mentions that the bishop of Saskatoon has approved of Mallett's book : Mark Mallett’s book The Final Confrontation, which explains the Era of Peace and differentiates it from the old heresy of millenarianism, just received Nihil Obstat from his bishop.[1] https://www.countdowntothekingdom.com/nihil-obstat-granted/
Has this been rescinded of late?
Emmett, regarding the Great Warning. I saw you on the 'US Grace Force', a year ago. Didn't you say that the solar eclipse on August 21, 2017, was a sign of Jonah? I believe it was the beginning of the great tribulation. 3.5 years from that date is February 20, 2021, which I believe is the Great Warning. I believe Pope Benedict leaves the Vatican on February 13, 2021. These 2 dates are the feast days of Jacinta and Lucia of Fatima.
Pat O'Brien
125: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLf9q36UsB
152
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xg3vE8Ie_E
07
46
121
227
313
340
Since the time of St. Augustine, most Catholics have tended toward the so-called "amillennial" ("no millennium") position he hade popular. Amillennialists might more accurately be termed "present millennialists," because they do believe in the "millennium" of chapter 20 of Revelation. But they insist that the "thousand years" refer symbolically to the present age between Christ's two advents rather than to some era in the future.
As the Catechism (667) teaches: "The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven (cf. Rv 13:8; 20:7-10; 21:2-4)."
25: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA4iX5D9Z64
206
226
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqbleas1mmo
14
135
141
217
232
256
942
2027
54: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1reY72ktEc
635
653
1813
20
27:35: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CxZCUhi0Do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFa1wno8SyA
345: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xg3vE8Ie_E
347: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLf9q36UsBk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7C4DvKOgfE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjAoFehxVIE
Here we read for the first time of the duration of this initial phase of the reign of God on earth—1,000 years! We are also given insight into why it will be a very good time: Satan the devil, the enemy of God and His plan, will be banished for those same 1,000 years. Welcome to the Millennium!
328
In verse 7 we read of the release of Satan the devil after the 1,000 years is complete and how he will have one last chance to go out and deceive the nations of this world before being cast into the lake of fire and brimstone (verse 10-11).
Here in Revelation 20 we read the phrase “thousand years” six times. This chapter makes it clear there will indeed be a millennial reign of Jesus Christ on earth and that it will be a much better time than this age of man that precedes it.
Elsewhere—especially in the writings of the Old Testament prophets—we can read of the impact the ruling Kingdom of God will have during the Millennium in areas that include world peace, economic stability, the restoration of true education and right values, the role of the resurrected saints, the roles of various physical nations and even changes in the nature of animals.
The Millennium is going to be a wonderful and exciting time—something we can eagerly look forward to. To learn how you can be part of this exciting future, read “Seek First the Kingdom of God.”
Which is better? The book of Revelation makes it clear: “Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years” (Revelation 20:6).
After the rapture of the church, after the seven-year long tribulation, after the war of Armageddon and the resurrection of the saints, Jesus will rule on the earth for one thousand years (Revelation 20:4-6). The purpose of the millennial kingdom is to establish Christ as King in Jerusalem, sitting on the throne of David (Luke 1:32-33) and to fulfill the promises God has made to Israel. They will bless the other nations, fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12:1-3). They will take control of the promised geographical borders, fulfilling the Palestinian covenant (Deuteronomy 30:1-10). And they will experience forgiveness and a renewed relationship with God, fulfilling the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:10-13).
The millennial kingdom will give us a taste of what life would have been if Adam and Eve had not sinned. Jesus will be the King and Judge (Isaiah 2:4; 11:3-4). Animals will live in peace with each other and with humans (Isaiah 11:6-9), and believers will worship God at the new Temple (Isaiah 2:2-3; Ezekiel 40:1-46:24).
It will be how God always intended the earth to be. A haven of peace and righteousness and joy. A creation in complete harmony with its Creator.
But now it is finally enough, and Satan’s time is up. God will send fire down from heaven to devour them. The devil will finally be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone. (Revelation 20:7-10)
Finally, the heavens and earth will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:10; Matthew 24:35; Revelation 20:11) and remade (Revelation 21-22; 1 Corinthians 15:35-58), and the believers will live on the New Earth for eternity.
239
259
13: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1at7kKzBYxI
108
225
19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eitDnP0_83k&pbjreload=101
37
204
220
226
130
132
137
Under Jesus' leadership, the world will still be divided into nations. Jews will be drawn back to Israel, which will finally have its promised borders (Genesis 17:7-8; Isaiah 11:10-13). The Gentiles will be divided into nations with Jesus as king (Psalm 2:8; Isaiah 42:1; Daniel 7:14, 27).
337: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG0a9WFkgzU
215: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrX1XKtShSI
226
241
253
118: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXKlJuO07eM
135
243
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXKlJuO07eM
234: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GibiNy4d4gc
301: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GibiNy4d4gc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEKLFS-aKcw
05
56
205
215
255
334
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrZxwPwmgrw
58
147
243
*325
429
he end of the millennium will be the setting for the final judgment over the earth. Despite the examples of those around them, the peace in the kingdom, and the presence of Christ, not all of the people will choose to follow Christ. At the end of the thousand years, Satan will be released from the Abyss. He will deceive the unbelievers and gather an army to march against Jesus and Israel. The ensuing battle will be short-lived. Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire and his human army killed (Revelation 20:7-10).
58
141
159
233
115: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVW9QOIeqQg
118
139
203
*256
305
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLGBEETtEPc
205: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeQ_TTyLGMs
154: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpza2z4jmDk
Other Old Testament prophets further speak of a time when the Messiah will reign for a long period of time from Jerusalem. The millennial kingdom will be marked by an ideal environment of peace (Micah 4:2-4), joy (Isaiah 61:7), prosperity (Amos 9:13-15), and comfort (Isaiah 40:1-2). Jerusalem will serve as the leading center of the world (Zechariah 8:3).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTWhvp_OD6s
222
317
50: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4KTqce-9Z0
158
131: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNq4VxhzaoQ
230
250
315
A new heaven, new earth, and new Jerusalem will be created where the Lord will dwell with His people forever (Revelation 21-22). The creation that began in the Garden of Eden will end in the City of God where the Lord's people will dwell in community with their Creator forever.
151: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRXmAIHYQR4
151: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuFLaSqNvQk
237
340
408
450
554
235: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoFa-4YQp0k
Par. 676 "The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the 'intrinsically perverse' political form of secular messianism."
00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf-Fi8VBltA
10
14
28
48
151
200
222
232
236
317
818: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCyTmYSRuTQ
834
904
929
]Par. 675 "Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the 'mystery of iniquity' in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah in the flesh."
236: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_TZWU7ZR4Q
Post a Comment