Divine Will revisited.

Can you imagine Jesus making a prayer to His Father or giving us a prayer to His Heavenly Father that would not be answered in full and in the fullness of time. He prayed "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." That request will not be refused. When granted that must mean a time of perfect peace and grace will be visited on earth. In other words there will be heaven on earth. That will come through the Church and the working of the Holy Spirit. Mary is the embodiment of the Holy Spirit- Full of Grace and as such the source of all grace. There is nothing lacking in the grace that is Mary. She is Full of Grace. That is why She could assure us in Fatima and Akita that She alone can save us from the calamities - physical and spiritual - which approach. In Garabandal she promised the girls that The Great Miracle was for the conversion of the world. That is why She could promise at Fatima that in the end Her Immaculate Heart would Triumph. And so there will be a period of peace during which the granting of The Lord's Prayer will take place and God's will on earth will be done as in heaven. The only way that God's will can be done is perfectly. There will be a time between the Great Miracle and the Chastisement when things will settle down as human beings gathers their wits and decide which way to go. This is not the time of heaven on earth. But when that time of heaven on earth has come to pass in answer to a The Lord's Prayer and served its purpose, a time in which the powers of darkness will be totally subjugated to the Power of Heaven, Jesus will return to share in The Triumph of His Mother and once again to Crown Her Queen of Heaven. But mark well what Mary said IN THE END my Immaculate Heart will triumph. Not until the end. Not until complete victory has been won in the final battle between good and evil under the command of Mary and Michael. Then will the words of the angel be fully understood: "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up to the sky. This Jesus who has been taken up to heaven will return as you have seen Him go." Maranatha. If you want a sequence of events I would suggest Tribulation, Warning, Miracle, Conversion, calm, reversion, chastisement, Armageddon,Triumph, Peace, Parousia.
My apologies if this contains any doctrinal errors. It just came to me before going to bed after a hard days work. I am no theologian or prophet. Just an ordinary Joe Bloggs.

 

Matthew 24:1-14

1Jesus left the Temple, and as he was going away his disciples came up to draw his attention to the Temple buildings.

2He said to them in reply, 'You see all these? In truthI tell you, not a single stone here will be left on another: everything will be pulled down.'

3And while he was sitting on the Mount of Olives the disciples came and asked him when they were by themselves, 'Tell us, when is this going to happen, and what signwillthere be of your coming and of the end of the world?'

4And Jesus answered them, 'Take care that no one deceives you,

5because many will come using my name and saying, "I am the Christ," and they will deceive many.

6You will hear of wars and rumours of wars; see that you are not alarmed, for this is something that must happen, but the end will not be yet.

7For nation will fight against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.

8All this is only the beginning of the birth pangs.

9'Then you will be handed over to be tortured and put to death; and you will be hated by all nations on account of my name.

10And then many will fall away; people will betray one another and hate one another.

11Many false prophets will arise; they will deceive many,

12and with the increase of lawlessness, love in most people will grow cold;

13but anyone who stands firm to the end will be saved.

14'This good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed to the whole world as evidence to the nations. And then the end will come.

 

Matthew 24: 15-24

15'So when you see the appalling abomination, of which the prophet Daniel spoke, set up in the holy place (let the reader understand),

16then those in Judaea must escape to the mountains;

17if anyone is on the housetop, he must not come down to collect his belongings from the house;

18if anyone is in the fields, he must not turn back to fetch his cloak.

19Alas for those with child, or with babies at the breast, when those days come!

20Pray that you will not have to make your escape in winter or on a Sabbath.

21For then there will be great distress, unparalleled since the world began, and such as will never be again.

22And if that time had not been shortened, no human being would have survived; but shortened that time shall be, for the sake of those who are chosen.

23'If anyone says to you then, "Look, here is the Christ," or "Over here," do not believe it;

24for false Christs and false prophets will arise and provide great signs and portents, enough to deceive even the elect, if that were possible.

 

Matthew 24: 25-30

25 Look! I have given you warning.

26 'If, then, they say to you, "Look, he is in the desert," do not go there; "Look, he is in some hiding place," do not believe it;

27 because the coming of the Son of man will be like lightning striking in the east and flashing far into the west.

28 Wherever the corpse is, that is where the vultures will gather.

29 'Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

30 And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven; then, too, all the peoples of the earth will beat their breasts; and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

 

Matthew 24: 31-51

31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet to gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

32 'Take the fig tree as a parable: as soon as its twigs grow supple and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.

33 So with you when you see all these things: know that he is near, right at the gates.

34 In truth I tell you, before this generation has passed away, all these things will have taken place.

35 Sky and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

36 But as for that day and hour, nobody knows it, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, no one but the Father alone.

37 'As it was in Noah's day, so will it be when the Son of man comes.

38 For in those days before the Flood people were eating, drinking, taking wives, taking husbands, right up to the day Noah went into the ark,

39 and they suspected nothing till the Flood came and swept them all away. This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes.

40 Then of two men in the fields, one is taken, one left;

41 of two women grinding at the mill, one is taken, one left.

42 'So stay awake, because you do not know the day when your master is coming.

43 You may be quite sure of this, that if the householder had known at what time of the night the burglar would come, he would have stayed awake and would not have allowed anyone to break through the wall of his house.

44 Therefore, you too must stand ready because the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

45 'Who, then, is the wise and trustworthy servant whom the master placed over his household to give them their food at the proper time?

46 Blessed that servant if his master's arrival finds him doing exactly that.

47 In truth I tell you, he will put him in charge of everything he owns.

48 But if the servant is dishonest and says to himself, "My master is taking his time,"

49 and sets about beating his fellow-servants and eating and drinking with drunkards,

50 his master will come on a day he does not expect and at an hour he does not know.

51 The master will cut him off and send him to the same fate as the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth.'

 

Joe, How insightful! Thank you!

Yes Our Lady said................................................. IN THE END my Immaculate Heart will triumph.
Not................................................. just before the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph.
or................................................... in the middle resurrection, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.

Our Lady said......
I am the handmaid of the Lord let it be done unto me, according to Your word.

Thank you Dearest Mother.

 

The Vatican's international Theological Commission in 1979 (in a document approved by the Cardinal Prefect) stated " history remains practically captive to the play of the world and death, as long as, before the final Coming, the amazing primacy of Christ cannot yet attain an unrestricted actualization of itself for the good of all mankind."
Concerning the understanding of the Coming of the Kindgom it has already been shown from the Catechism that its primary meaning is the event that occurs at the end of the world. St John Paul II said:""Thy kingdom come!". A petition which has risen to heaven many times in human history like a great breath of hope: "May the peace of your kingdom come to us", Dante exclaimed in his paraphrase of the Our Father (Purgatorio, XI, 7). A petition which turns our gaze to Christ's return and nourishes the desire for the final coming of God's kingdom. This desire however does not distract the Church from her mission in this world, but commits her to it more strongly (cf. CCC, n. 2818), in waiting to be able to cross the threshold of the kingdom, whose seed and beginning is the Church (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 5), when it comes to the world in its fullness. Then, Peter assures us in his Second Letter, "there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Pt 1: 11).

 

Emmett, as I tried to say earlier, our positions are actually a lot closer than the heated tone of this debate might suggest. We are both arguing that what we are headed for sooner rather than later is the Second Coming in the traditional sense of the word. This is not a metaphor or a uniquely spiritual event, but the visible manifestation of Christ's glory. So in a sense, while I appreciate St Bernard's notion of an 'intermediate coming' inasmuch as Christ comes to us in the Eucharist and is perpetually renewing His Church, I personally don't think that St Bernard's concept exhausts what is about to happen. Let me emphasize that I'm speaking for myself on the basis not only of Fr Gobbi's messages but also those of the Itapiranga apparitions because of the unusual level of Church support for them - I'm bracketing Fr Iannuzzi's scenario out of the equation for the moment.

I also have no objection to talking of the Second Coming as eschatological judgment, indeed I would say that no interpretation of any of this material can be accepted which does not talk about the Second Coming as judgment: the texts are very clear on this, as is Matthew 25:31-32 ("When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on this throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before hm, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats."). How exactly this relates to Revelation 20:11-15 I want to leave an open question for the moment.

Additionally, we both locate the coming of Peace as subsequent to judgment and impossible without it. Where we differ is in whether we consider it temporal or not. My own sense it that it cannot be seen otherwise without violating the plain sense of Scripture, not only of Rev 20 but also of Isaiah 65. However, I'm not sure how important this distinction regarding temporality is in practice as we can agree that the Peace of the Kingdom (see Luke 21:31, "when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near") will indeed come on this earth.

What I will not give up exegetically is the requirement that Revelation 20:4-7 must come after Rev. 19 because of the reference to those who had not worshippped the beast or his image. And whatever it may mean in terms of the number symbolism, the 'thousand year' reign cannot be skirted around. It must mean something. Interpreting it exclusively as the time of the Church subsequent to the chaining of Satan at the first Easter doesn't work, because that would imply that the beast and false prophet have also already appeared and been defeated (on this point, Fr Gobbi's messages and those of the entire 'prophetic consensus' say the absolute contrary, at length).

In other words, the position for which I personally am arguing - which, I would hasten to add, is by no means set in stone - is more or less as follows, conceived as a 'best explanatory fit' with Scripture, Catechism and credible private revelation.

- However we may evaluate them, the messages of Fr Gobbi and those of the Church-supported apparitions of Itapiranga clearly state that we are nearing Christ's Second Coming. The language in which this is described ('on the clouds' etc.) makes it very plain that this is not some event other than that predicted in the Gospels and by the angels at the Ascension.

- This is indeed synonymous with eschatological judgment.

- Christ's Second Coming must be preceded by the arrival and defeat of the Beast and False Prophet. Contrary to what some eschatologists are suggesting, if the Second Coming is near, so must be the arrival of the Antichrist.

- The Second Coming of Christ is simultaneous with the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart and the Second Pentecost in their fullness, although the Triumph and Second Pentecost have, like the Kingdom, already begun and are in progress

- Christ's Second Coming is the End of the Age (see Matthew 24:3), the world as we know it. It brings about the renewal of that world in such a radical fashion that we can even speak of the 'end of the world' as long as we do not understand this in terms of the disappearance of planet Earth. The era of Peace brought about moreover retains a temporal dimension. Although Satan is bound and cast into the Abyss, death is not yet abolished at this point, fallen human nature remains, and the very last rebellion (Gog/Magog) is yet to come, resulting in Satan's ultimate defeat and casting into the 'lake of burning sulphur' (Rev 20:10) which is definitive (Rev 20:10) and obviously not the same as his imprisonment in Rev. 20:3. I would like to suggest that this era can be considered as 'phase 1' of the 'New Heavens and New Earth', which is a concept that needs to be understood in the light of Isaiah 65 as well as Revelation 21. 'Phase 2' comes about when the abolition of death itself (Rev. 20:14, 21:4) brings about its completion and the transition to eternity.

My grounds for saying that the end of time does not come immediately are

i) the references to the passage of time in Isaiah 65's description of the 'new heavens and a new earth', e.g. 'he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth'.
ii) the 'thousand years' of Revelation 20:4
iii) the words in Itapiranga, to take just one example (30.11.96) to a time of peace approaching together with Christ's Second Coming.
iv) the massive convergence of the modern mystics concerning the coming of an Era of Peace

 

Indeed!

Additionally, those who argued that the "thousand years" were merely a reference to the current age (since the birth of the Church) did so by arguing that Satan's influence largely had been restrained, when compared to the sinfulness of pre-Christian paganism.

That opinion is simply no longer tenable even by a mere brief observation of the unprecedented degree of evil that dominated the world over the 20th century. Not to mention, early 20th century Papal proclamations made it clear that we were then living in the most sinful time in the history of the world, thus making the "we are now in the thousand years" argument basically impossible.

 

Peter,
Of course the thousand year reign means something; the end times, which began with Pentecost and the birth of the Church and the subsequent history until the last day. Your requirment that Rev 20 4-7 must come after Rev 19 is not shared by Pope Benedict XVI. And this is at the heart of the problem. You are basically providing(or trying to) an alternative interpretation that does not fit at all with the teachings of the Church. Take for instance the question posed to you about the papal teaching on the second coming being the last judgment- were they only partially telling the truth? You have avoided answering it because in doing so, you would either be accepting at long last the truth of Jesus judging the living and the dead as professed in the Creed (in one event), or you would be sowing doubt about their ability to interpret Scripure. When you say "I will not give up exegetically" the words of Pope Benedict XVI spring to mind "We preach not private theories and opinions, but the faith of the Church, whose servants we are" (Chrism Mass 2012).
So moving towards your last comments, again you are taking a literal reading of Isaiah when it shouldnt be read that way. Take John Paul II for instance: " Then the horizon broadens and a new land is promised. The final goal is a new Jerusalem, where all affliction will cease, as we read in the Book of Isaiah: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth.... I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress” (Is 65:17-19).
3. Revelation takes up this vision. John writes: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rv 21:1f.).
The passage to this new creation requires a commitment to holiness, which the New Testament will clothe in absolute radicalism, as we read in the Second Letter of Peter: “Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pt 3:11-13).
He is not talking about the same era of peace that you are is he?
The International Theological Commission stated "The book of Revelation, following Isaiah, speaks of “a new heaven and a new earth” as the final result of redemption.
John Paul II again quotes Isaiah with its proper interpretation: "We too need to renew this trusting expectation of the Lord. Let us listen to the prophet's words. They invite us to look with hope to the definitive foundation of the kingdom of God, which he describes with highly poetic images that can shed light on the triumph of justice and peace to be brought about by the Messiah. "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb ... the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them" (Is 11:6). These are symbolic expressions which anticipate the reality of universal reconciliation. We are all called to collaborate in this work of cosmic renewal, sustained by the certainty that one day all creation will be completely subject to the universal lordship of Christ." (2nd Sunday of Advent, 1998)
Continued...

 

I fear Peter that you have too much of a protestant take on Sacred Scripture which is why you are unable to accept so easily what Stephen, Emmett, Mac, Josephite, Harper and many others -in fact the vast majority of Catholics can. When we submit to the authority who can interpret Scripture -especially those passages clearly defined such as the second(final)coming of Jesus, then its quite easy to come to the conclusion that these others do.
And again the problem of modern day mystics resurfaces. You will never convince the majority of catholics to accept what every so called visionary espouses because some contradict each other, and most have messages that are basically millenarian. But in the case of Fr. Gobbi, Emmett has shown without doubt they refer to the last judgment and universal renewal to come forever after that. I will give you credit though in the fact you seem to be distancing yourself a little from the Mallett/Ianuzzi position (or so it seems).
Peace
Bill

 

Danny,
No longer tenable? Okay pick and choose your mystics then, but as was shown about 10 days ago a doctor of the church who was also an authentic mystic begged to differ with you (or so God the Father did who explained salvation history in its sequence just as Stephen and Emmett have done) . The world is evil now because Satan has been let loose for his "short while".
Peace
Bill

 

Emmett, going back to the messages you quote from Fr Gobbi's 'Blue Book', once again we don't read in the same way. Looking at the Italian of n.166, for example, I really do think that there is a clear distinction being made in the message between 'il ritorno di Gesù nella gloria ' and 'sua ultima venuta per il Giudizio finale la cui ora è invece ancora nascosta nei segreti del Padre' (if the hour of the Final Judgment is still hidden in the secrets of the Father', how can Mary be talking about it now?).

This having been said, a note of caution - to myself as much as to anyone here. We can't discount the possibility that this or any other specific message in the book, or any private revelation, might simply be 'private meditation', so we need to hold it lightly. Using this material for theological purposes - particularly in isolation from other sources - is a very risky endeavour, because even if we feel inclined (as we do, I think) to posit a supernatural origin in general, that cannot make it infallible in the specifics, and we need to remember that. There are some things in the 'Blue Book' that I don't claim to know how to interpret, and others that don't fully convince me when read at face value, and suggest that something may have got scrambled in transmission, for example

n. 389 (Lourdes, September 18, 1988)
In this period of ten years there will come to completion the time of the great tribulation, which has been foretold to you in Holy Scripture, before the second coming of Jesus. [...]

In this period of ten years all the secrets which I have revealed to some of my children will come to pass and all the events which have been foretold to you by me will take place.

On a strictly logical level, the usefulness of these alleged locutions for a theological discussion of the present sort is IMHO real but limited:
i) We can say with certainty on the basis of the Imprimaturs accorded to the 'Blue Book' that the material is not heretical
ii) when cited carefully in conjunction with other sources (taking pains to distinguish their level of Church approval), Fr Gobbi's or comparable material can be used as part of a cumulative case that can suggest a plausible eschatological scenario. This is one reason why I tried to compare the 'Blue Book' with the messages from Itapiranga, looking for possible convergence. However, private revelation can only play an auxiliary role at best in this. The real reasons for arguing in terms of a temporal era of peace are Scriptural: Revelation 20 and the description of the 'New Heavens' and 'New Earth' in Isaiah 65 where it is clear that a great transformation has taken place in the world but that death has not yet been abolished.

[/quote]

 

Mark and I have said time and again that we honestly don't see the discussion on eschatology as having been defined dogmatically in the way that the opponents of a temporal era of Peace consider to be the case. Cardinal Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said so much explicitly to theologian Mario Penasa in 1990 when asked about the question of the millennial reign/'temporal kingdom': 'the Holy See has not yet made any definite pronouncement in this regard', but for some reason this has not been accepted as valid (which of course begs the question of just who is actually being faithful to the Magisterium here...).

In short, we just have a plain old disagreement, and that's life, I guess...

As for the question of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, what I have tried to say consistently is this: if someone interprets Magisterial teaching in such a way as to bring it into conflict with the plain sense of Scripture, the problem lies neither with the Biblical text, nor with the Magisterium. The problem lies with the way one or both has been read, or rather mis-read. If Church documents are 'proof-texted' out of context in order to address issues which they were clearly not designed to address (e.g. using Benedictus Deus in relation to the First Resurrection of Rev. 20, or CCC 676 in relation to the Era of Peace when it is clearly targeting extreme forms of liberation theology and other Hegelian concepts), then erroneous conclusions will most likely be drawn because a mistaken logical inference was made in the application of the text.

In what I just wrote in my previous post, I'm not trying to support anybody's position, but rather trying to see what emerges from a consideration of the material itself. I acknowledge that there are many unresolved exegetical tensions here - theological constructs need to be viewed as 'work in progress'!

 

How can anyone claim that Satan has already been chained, after that first Pentecost as suggested above, for that period of time promised in order for that period to fulfill the Divine Will being done on earth perfectly? It hasn't happened unless one is delusional and hasn't been living the same reality as all. And that period comes via the Spouse of the Holy Spirit with her Immaculate Heart triumphing. She is now taking refuge in those hearts consecrated to her heart and they will be rewarded in this coming Era. Her mission is not for the end judgement. In fact in other private revelation it is said for that final horror at the very end she will be taken to heaven in order to prevent her from viewing what will take place in judgement of some of her children at that time!

When she speaks through her messages of Fatima and elsewhere and says, for our hope, that "in the end" she is speaking to this period given to her that is only involved in the messages of Fatima for she spoke those words in connection to that mission there, and its still to be revealed full secret/s. That period of Satan's being forced out of this world must come as it is stated in scripture before Satan is then later released until the total end of the world and final judgement. People are deliberately leaving out this scriptural period that has to come between the world of corruption now and the world of even greater corruption at the very end/that battle then. Now the time is "as in the time of Noah"....and worse than anything in previous history....that necessitates, in order for that Divine Will to be accomplished on earth, the Holy Spirit must renew the face of the earth (it isn't completely annihilated as in the very end) and man must be "recreated" by Him in order to live in such a renewed world since that was the plan in the very beginning for Adam and was lost when he separated from the Divine Will. God's will does not change and "in the end" through His mother this Divine Will will come to live among the creatures for a period. To deny this period is to deny scripture. Her children will fulfill the Divine Will as she has and therefore there will be the accomplishment of the Triumph of her Heart. That is her happiness for us to be like the Mother in our love for God.

 

If quoting a mystic settles the matter, then this debate would have ended long ago by me quoting the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta, who was clearly told by God (even in her approved volumes) that His Will shall triumph upon Earth; not merely by annihilating Earth at the end of time so that His Will may triumph solely in Heaven.

And of course it's no longer tenable. We are now in Satan's "short while"?? Over a hundred years of the most diabolical evil in history pervading the entire world? That is just nonsense. Not to mention it implies you believe we've already lived through the the Antichrist et al. of Revelation, which is clearly not the case.

 

This is all not to mention a very simple logical principle that the Era of Peace opponents are forgetting: whatever has been already on this Earth, can be again. Whatever can be achieved in one soul on Earth, can be achieved in all souls on Earth. Whatever is achieved in one Monastery can be achieved in a worldwide Kingdom. The Garden of Eden really existed, and we really can return to the holiness of it; otherwise the Prayer of the Mass would be in vain which says "You call human nature back to its original holiness and bring it to experience on this earth the gifts you promised in the new world to come." There really are souls alive today who have become so holy that they no longer even feel the slightest pull toward sin of any type. There really have been Monasteries that have become, as a whole, so sanctified that they resemble the Kingdom of Heaven almost as much as is possible on Earth. To say that these graces somehow cannot be spread to worldwide dominion is to doubt God's omnipotence and it is to judge God's grace by human standards of what is realistic.

Heaven is the Beatific vision. Confirmation in Grace ensures it with absolute certainty for all eternity. These benefits cannot possibly happen in time, but we are not claiming that the Era of Peace will consist in these things. To dismiss this by saying "you don't get to Heaven until you get to Heaven," implying that the Earth must always be a miserable place until its very consummation in flames, is ridiculous. The Beatific Vision is to the Era of Peace (and indeed, to the Garden of Eden itself) as the sun is to a candle. There is no risk of conflating the two if you have meditated seriously for even one moment on the Beatific Vision. Perhaps this, then, is what I then recommend most to the opponents of the Era of Peace.

 

To address a couple of issues in the first half of your post (which I only saw after writing my last reply). Of course I don't disagree with any of the Magisterial statements you quote. It's just that I don't regard theology as a 'zero-sum game' which rich, multi-level concepts such as 'New Heavens and New Earth' can be reduced to just one meaning or context. Ultimate redemption has its preliminary stages, starting as far back as the Protoevangelion of Genesis 3! A classic case in point is the expression 'the Kingdom of God', which Jesus already spoke of as a present reality ('the Kingdom of God is within you') while simultaneously praying for its coming, which can be interpreted in terms of Christ's rule in the Church, which can be said to be expanding when we speak of 'building the Kingdom' and which will one day come in all its fullness. In other words, we are dealing with dynamic, not static concepts. By analogy, I don't see what the problem is with saying that the visions of the 'New Heavens and New Earth' in Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21 can have both a temporal and an eternal aspect. You may think that the quotes above preclude this, and you're welcome to your view, of course, but it is your interpretation/inference and not stated explicitly.

 

What I see, after reading the many posts on this thread, is that those who oppose an era of peace, after the tribulation and antichrist era, are for whatever reason not listening to the reasoned views of Peter and Mark. Rather, they seem not interested in hearing what they have until now refused to open their ears on their own prejudged criteria (or misunderstood statements by Popes and Church Fathers, along with other approved messages) and keep going back to kick a dead horse. I contend these are hardened hearts, who refuse to pray, reflect and allow the Spirit to enlighten the mind and heart to see what He is trying to get the faithful to understand at this moment. I am very thankful that Peter and Mark have provided a wealth of information to demonstrate what heaven is revealing. I don't know how much longer they can continue to repeat themselves upon deaf ears.

 

How come it takes a theologian to tell us the sequence of end time events? God would explain to everyone
and He has. The very, very few Catholic watchers disagreeing with Heaven's revealing this to the world, they do not respect the yet to be approved messages.