http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vINAUkhYj38/T-KOlWVlAAI/AAAAAAAAAuM/wJEbbAcM-xY/s1600/Vatican-26.JPG Is that it? You probably have a different perspective from your own photo. It's not at the foot of a mountain, correct?
I have remained hopeful about the Pope but if this man is credible, it doesn't sound good. I will continue to look to Cardinal Burke for direction, I know that he stated that a pope is no longer the pope if he is declared a heretic and this is not the case as of yet. Pray, hope and don't worry. The first two I have got covered.
I agree we should remain hopeful though things don't look good, I wish they did - just being attentive to the signs, stay informed without playing the guessing game, is good enough I think. In the event this Pope was that Pope, that would not be a reason to hate him or judge him or rattle about him, that doesn't help at all. We would rather have to pray for him and his collaborators, and the Church, even more. This I learned from Padre Pio who it is now known through Fr. Amorth that he saw the apostasy in the Church coming from a future Pope - his answer was to offer his intense sufferings to Christ even more for that particular event, for that Pope, for those prelates that would lead many souls into error. So even though we know through scripture of the coming of the false prophet, we don't know if he will be condemned (that would be predestination), so we can offer our prayers and daily duties for whoever seems to be the false prophet, specially if at some point it becomes evident that it is our Pope. We can't deny reality before us but at the same time we can't loose our hope on him, ever.
No, there are no mountains in Vatican City but it is probably around the highest point in Vatican City. Your photo is very much like the one I took.
Thank you, Jarg, for your informative posts. I envy your sense of calm. Is this the Francisco Sanchez Ventura you mentioned in previous posts on this thread? http://www.ourlady.ca/info/ApparitionsBook/author.htm There's a link to an English translation of his book about Garabandal on that website. Having read the Autor's Note and a couple of paragraphs of the book, I intend reading the whole book whenever I have more time on my hands. I'm on the fence about Garabandal, leaning on the sceptical side, but I am looking forward to reading about it from his perspective.
That third secret is fake. Do not believe that, although it contains true elements. Anna Katharina Emmerick also saw a pope with the demon's gaze and a false church. The written text in Portuguese and the Pope called Juan Pablo... Juan Pablo is spanish. In portuguese it is João Paulo. Do not trust in this third secret given by Tradition In Action. the fact of having written Pope John Paul II already shows that it is not that secret that some say have read in a piece of sheet with 25 lines etc
Which third secret do you mean? Is it this one: "Tuy September 1, 1944 or April 1, 1944 JMJ Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret: This part is the apostasy in the Church! Our Lady showed us the individual who I describe as the ‘holy Father’ in front of a multitude that was cheering him. But there was a difference from a true holy Father, his devilish gaze, this one had the gaze of evil. Then, after some moments we saw the same Pope entering a Church, but this Church was the Church of hell; there is no way to describe the ugliness of that place. It looked like a gray cement fortress with broken angles and windows similar to eyes; it had a beak in the roof of the building. Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960. In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter’s grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima. Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima. The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima. If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed. Our Lady told us that this is written,[in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44" If that's the one you mean, this from Steve Skojec should be enough to convince anyone that it's a fake: "Though it is not mentioned in the book, it is worth noting here that my own research indicates that the same text most likely first appeared on a bizarre website called Fatimamovement.com — a website which, despite its use of Catholic imagery, blasphemously claims that “Our Lady is God” and “The Biblical Lord is Satan.” The pages on the “Fatima Movement” website are not date stamped, but the author takes credit for having “asked God Our Lady [sic] for assistance in finding the Real Third Secret of Fatima. This Rosary request forced the Illuminati to release one of the two copies in existence.” The text of this alleged secret itself is claimed to have been introduced to the world by the author on April 21, 2010." I'm also a bit sceptical about some of the prophecies attributed to Ann Katherine Emmerich.
Sensus Fedelium had a wonderful message regarding Fatima this week. I know most all of us listen to these but in the rare event someone has not had a chance...
Douay-Rheims, Chapter 20, Verse 10: "And the false prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." I don't for a minute think that Pope Francis is the 'false prophet'. If he was, our prayers could do him no good. I think it possible he is a wicked pope, which is a different thing entirely. The verse from Revelation suggests that the False Prophet is of a different order of magnitude entirely and well beyond the pay-grade of mortals. We must leave this being to Christ's attention.
That blasphemy is pure Gnosticism. The Gnostics worshipped a Mother Goddess and taught that the Jehovah of the Old Testament was evil. As Bishop Fulton Sheen said, 'Old Errors and New Labels'. Nothing new under the sun.
That is a good book to read but I just want to mention that I don't believe that there is any mention of an anti-pope or a false prophet in that book. I believe the book "Garabandal" as mention of an anti-pope but I do not have a copy of it, nor have I read it. A page or 2 from the book have been posted on MOG an anti-pope was mentioned. http://motheofgod.com/threads/garabandal-info-answers.2443/page-284
I just asked Glenn on his thread if there was any more information on the anti-pope in this book and he answered no. So the page that I linked to appears to be all there is and I would think that if there was more information it would have been discussed on MOG. The book by Francisco Sanchez Ventura is very enjoyable, as is the book by Harry Daly. I think I may prefer Daly's more. She Went in Haste to the Mountain is good too. These 3 are all available for free online.
That is interesting. So, on Dec 20, 1962, Our Lady did confirm to Conchita that an anti-pope may have appeared during the pre-warning times prior to the miracle!
Thanks Carol. I'm interested in reading the book because it was written by a lawyer whose style would likely be more analytical than emotional when writing about Garabandal.
I would love to hear your thoughts about it when you are done reading it, if you don't mind. Since you are not currently a supporter of Garabandal it would be interesting to see what you think after reading the book. It is very interesting, in my opinion, it connects the apparition to Fatima once again if it is true that Sister Lucy referred to Rev 8 to 13 and if it is true that this anti-pope is possibly one of the beasts from Rev 13.
the FALSE PROPHET could be related to Islam. Mohammed is the greatest false prophet in history and knowing that the book of the apocalypse has many figurative meanings someone who represents him can be the false prophet or the Madhi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi There will be an ANTIPOPE in the Catholic Church who will abolish the Eucharist. And there will be an ANTICHRIST who will rule the entire world for a short period of time and will exert influence on these two characters above.
This text of the 3rd secret first appeared to me to be pure nonsense, and the provenance is just horrendous. However now we have a positive graphological study by a reputed graphologist and the confirmation of the study by three more graphologists, one them being considered the top graphology expert in Spain - he is the head professor of graphologists for the Madrid police and is considered 'the expert' go to in the country for the most difficult Police cases. None of them are practicing catholics and they knew little or nothing about Fatima. They are very used to authenticating digital copies for which there is no access to originals, such as the case in question. So this to me is a problem, because such an opinion from four reputable graphologists constitutes a definitive proof in both national or international courts, and so far no one has provided proof against it. The #2 problem we have is that John Paul II did actually send a fragment of the tomb of St Peter to Fatima. #3 The fact that the name of John Paul II appears makes it even more problematic. Because a good forger would never have mention the name John Paul II and even less so in Spanish when they are writing a letter in perfect portuguese. If they know portuguese so perfectly, why would the forger write the name of JPII in spanish and risk the reputation of the forgery? Why would it also name John Paul II in it - it just sounds so fake, right? Yet, in the second secret of Fatima the Virgin uses the words Pious XI and he did not reign yet in 1917. So we will see if the "Cathedral of Rome" is destroyed, that is the next step according to this text. If that happens then this text would be incredibly relevant. The Cathedral of Rome is Saint John Lateran and not St Peter as some may think. St John Lateran is the first and oldest of the four basilicas in Rome, the oldest church in the west, and the ecclesiastical seat or cathedral of the Roman Pontiff. Contrary to St Peter Basicila it is not very well secured and it could easily be destroyed by a terrorist attack.
Horrendous provenance does not guarantee falsehood. Whatever mysterious route the Secret might have taken, even via this most horrendous blasphemer who could have deceived another into thinking him traditional, does not necessarily negate the veracity of this document. Before ever hearing of this story, I months ago linked onto this despicable site, which I initially misinterpreted as one of those sedevacantist sites. I was wary enough, but it looked a real catholic site. Then I saw the calumny against Bishop Fulton Sheen. Then I found the blasphemy. I got out like a dose of salts!
If the source of the text is Satanic, it is very possible that a forgery could convince the best human experts. Yes, St. John Lateran is the Cathedral Church of the Pope and it is more vulnerable than St. Peter's. That text said the Cathedral of Rome "must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima". It reads more like an instruction than a prophecy. And what's with the line starting "If 69 weeks after this order is announed......"? That makes no sense. Anyway, even if by some fluke the text is genuine, whoever published it had no authority to do so which is reason enough for us to ignore it. God won't do anything to validate heretics.
