Supposedly St Patrick cut a deal with the Almighty that before Ireland could be overcome by the antichrist she would be submerged beneath the sea. Flooded. At least that is the way it was told to me.
Yes, there's a prophecy attributed to St. Patrick that Ireland will be covered by the ocean seven years prior to the reign of the AC. At least believers in the rest of the world will know to be extra vigilant when they see Ireland submerged by the Atlantic.
Yes, the prophecy does seem to exist. That the flooding would be caused by the collapse of a volcano in the Atlantic ocean, however, is pure speculation. It could be caused by an axial tilt of the earth, or the Atlantic being hit by an asteroid, or an atomic device being dropped in the ocean (as German seer Alois Irlmaier seems to suggest), or a number of other causes - who knows...
Sister Lucy describes a flamelike a sword tipping the earth's axis and floods like huge.vortex sucking everything in. I believe this description comes from the recently published biography. But as you say it is pure speculation.
More interesting news coming during Eastertide 2017. "Shroud of Turin coins may finally have been identified" http://aleteia.org/2017/04/26/shroud-of-turin-coins-may-finally-have-been-identified/ GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
More on Roman/Judean Lepton coins. Also called The Widow's Mite. "Browsing Ancient Co History of the Widow's Mite- coinage of Judaea, Pontius Pilate" http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/judaea/pontius_pilate/t.html "History of the Widow's Mite" http://www.jtv.com/library/widows-mite-history.html GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
I had no idea that the widow's mite was actually something called a widow's mite. I thought it might have been made up, but no, it was an actual coin, of no really high value. Thank you, Crew Dog. I admire people who study this type of ancient history.
The Secret is not “strictly reserved to the Holy Father” (Declaration of Cardinal Ottaviani, February 11, 1967), it does not just concern Portugal … I will spell it out: “We are running out of time, if we are not coverted soon, we will fall into apostasy and we will die in terrible chastisements, which will already be among these cataclysms, wars, famines, and persecutions which the Holy Books announce for the coming of the End of Time.” The Third Secret — by Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité (page 830). St Januarius blood miracle to take place this Sunday.[hopefully]
I forgot about this but not sure I'm a believer it means anything any longer. Last fall it didn't liquidity and something was supposed to happen before Sunday.
I think that it was enough of a sign that Campi Flegrei was showing signs of reawakening around the last time that the blood was expected to liquefy on December 16th. Hopefully is liquefies on Sunday, keep praying. http://thecostaricanews.com/volcano-activity-strengthening-around-world/ http://strangesounds.org/2017/04/65500-earthquakes-hit-central-italy-in-9-months.html https://watchers.news/2016/11/05/mud-volcano-santa-vittoria-in-matenano-italy/
By contrast, they are bringing the Virgin of Fatima to the UN headquarters on May 12, saying that she brought a message of 'peace' to the world. I wouldn't be surprise if this becomes the new official mantra, that Fatima is all about 'peace' when in reality it is a final call to repentance and a warning of the coming chastisements if we don't change. But watch out, indeed, because this may be the year when the message of Fatima is officially buried in the ground under the guise of global peace and brotherhood.
jarg, that would be a further satanic perversion and probably one of the final dark eclipses we might have to undergo as the remnant church on our way to Calvary. Just a feeling, as you said, keep watching
nos. 1000 and 1 | by Tom Fatima Perspectives: nos. 1000 and 1 In the May 3rd Fatima Perspective, Christopher Ferrara celebrates the 1000th issue since January 2001. He references no. 1 and gives a chronology of “landmark events” relating to Fatima and the Church during that period and concludes: This much I view as certain after sixteen years of following Church affairs from the Fatima perspective: events in the Church and the world are aligning for a dramatic resolution of both the ecclesial and the related civilizational crisis that now confronts us. As the Church goes, so goes the world. This indeed is what we see in the Third Secret vision published in 2000: a persecuted Church, a murdered Pope and hierarchy, and a devastated city, filled with the dead. This too must be viewed as certain, however: “In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph.” Given Our Lady’s infallible promise, faithful Catholics must never cease promoting the authentic Message of Fatima, whose glorious fulfillment will come only with the Consecration of Russia to that same Immaculate Heart. The day after (May 4th) Brian Kelly of the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, posted an article “Vatican Cardinal Gives the Reason Why Russia Can’t Be Named in Papal Marian Consecration: for the sake of human respect [that] it would offend the Russian Orthodox and impair Vatican diplomacy” on its website Catholicism.org noting and referencing Fatima Perspective no. 1, the complete text of which is below: Vatican Admits… Russia Deliberately Omitted From Consecration Formula by Christopher A. Ferrara For years Father Nicholas Gruner has been saying that the reason the Pope failed to mention Russia in the 1984 consecration ceremony is that his advisors told him not to do so, because it would offend the Russian Orthodox and impair Vatican diplomacy. Thus, for the sake of human respect the Vatican has not followed the precise request of Our Lady of Fatima. We now have confirmation that Father Gruner is right. In the November issue of Inside the Vatican, a leading cardinal, identified only as “one of the Pope’s closest advisors,” is quoted to the effect that “Rome fears the Russian Orthodox might regard it as an ‘offense’ if Rome were to make specific mention of Russia in such a prayer, as if Russia especially is in need of help when the whole world, including the post-Christian West, faces profound problems…” The same cardinal-advisor added: “Let us beware of becoming too literal-minded.” No, we mustn’t be too literal-minded about the requests of God, delivered by His Mother and confirmed with an unprecedented public miracle witnessed by 70,000 people. Let me see if I understand the Vatican line correctly: The “consecration” of Russia was accomplished by a ceremony which deliberately omitted any reference to Russia! I see. We are expected to believe that Russia was consecrated by means of a ceremony designed precisely to avoid any suggestion that Russia in particular needs to be consecrated! Yes, and I am the Emperor Napoleon. Well, there we have it: the men of the Vatican evidently consider themselves more prudent than the Mother of God. According to Inside the Vatican the Pope’s advisors have literally amended Heaven’s request to avoid giving offense to men as if Our Lady of Fatima had committed a breach of etiquette by requesting the consecration of Russia in the first place. Nearly seventeen years after the putative “consecration” of 1984, Russian society continues to unravel. Catholics comprise one-tenth of one percent of Russia’s population “less than in 1917” while Muslims comprise 9%. The second largest religious affiliation after Orthodoxy is atheism. If this is the conversion of Russia promised as the fruit of the consecration, I would hate to see Russia’s apostasy. We must not miss an opportunity to bring to the Vatican’s attention the continuing and ever-deepening consequences of this stubborn refusal simply to let the Pope do what Our Lady of Fatima requested. angelqueen.org
https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2017/05/this-disastrous-papacy-and-big-question.html This Disastrous Papacy and the Big Question! Will the real pope please stand up! I've always admired Phil Lawler for his integrity and clear writing as well as his charity. So when I saw his article, This Disastrous Papacy, in the March 16th issue of The Wanderer; I read it carefully. He minces no words. Acknowledging that he criticized the two former popes for what he considered imprudent actions, he then stresses that "never did it cross my mind that [they] posed any danger to the integrity of the Catholic faith." Then he writes more pointedly about Pope Francis: EWTN has an interesting article on the level of authority of papal writings. It quotes Vatican II: This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. [Lumen gentium 25]This quote, however, is prefaced by a statement saying that "documents may also contain teachings which come from the common teaching of the Church, but which cannot yet be said to be de fide, and even new insights and explanations which manifest the mind of the Magisterium. Such authentic teaching has a presumption of correctness and deserves the reverence and submission of Catholics." So, does a document like AL deserve the "reverence and submission of Catholics?" Does it, in fact, "come from the common teaching of the Church" and does it "manifest the mind of the Magisterium?" The papolatrists, of course, would say that every word from the mouth of Francis is gospel truth. On the other hand, many experts in canon law, scripture, and doctrine at the highest levels are expressing concern about the direction Pope Francis is taking the Church. Meanwhile, what happens when he uses praxis to change the doctrines on the indissolubility of marriage and the proper reception of the Holy Eucharist by allowing adulterers and fornicators to receive Communion while living in their sin? What impact does that have on the Sacrament of Confession as well? Is a "firm purpose of amendment" no longer required for absolution? Sum it up. AL cast doubt on the doctrine of Marriage, the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, and the doctrine of Confession. How many other doctrines have been undermined by this pope in his other statements and writings? And now the big, controversial question which likely will get me in trouble. (Oh well.) I recently read an article that originated with Ann Barnhardt. No matter how you feel about her astringent style, she brings up an interesting point. Some have said they believe Benedict was forced out and is therefore still the legitimate pope because he resigned under duress. Barnhardt doesn't go there. She brings up another possibility under Canon Law 188 which reads: "A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself." She goes on to make a case that Pope Benedict resigned under the "substantial error" that he could be a kind of co-pope executing the role of prayer and contemplation while Francis took on the role of the active pope. Could she be correct? I've always wondered why Benedict continued to wear the papal white and call himself Pope Emeritus while continuing to reside in the Vatican. Isn't that a source of confusion for the faithful? And so I urge you to read Ann's article. I'm no canon lawyer, but I know how to read and I think she makes a good argument. There is no provision in Canon Law for two men to occupy the See of Peter at the same time. So did Pope Benedict resign under the substantial error that he could still legitimately serve as a kind of co-pope? And, if so, is he still the real pope until he resigns properly? I'd love to hear your opinion about the big question: Who is the real pope? Is the answer obvious. Of course, Pope Francis is the legitimate successor of St. Peter. Or did Pope Benedict impact the legitimacy of his successor by the manner in which he resigned? Will the real pope please stand up.
"She goes on to make a case that Pope Benedict resigned under the 'substantial error' that he could be a kind of co-pope executing the role of prayer and contemplation while Francis took on the role of the active pope." Where is the evidence that he intended to do this? In reading his resignation statement, there is no doubt that he intended to resign his ministry as the bishop of Rome, the pope. Yes, I admit, I wish we could find some technicality that would make BVI's resignation invalid and PF an anti-pope, but I don't think this is it and I don't think one exists. If PF is actually an anti-pope that would explain a lot of things. But exactly how does the fact that he is praying for Pope Francis and is practicing contemplative prayer make him a "co-pope"? That's ridiculous. Wouldn't we expect him to pray for his successor? "There is no provision in Canon Law for two men to occupy the See of Peter at the same time." Certainly not. But that's immaterial because only one occupies the See of Peter, unless and until something heretofore unknown is brought to light and proven beyond a doubt. Actually, there would still be only one occupying the See of Peter, but it wouldn't be Jorge Mario Bergoglio. If there was something, I think it would have come up in four years' time. Please pray for Pope Francis, that, like all of us need to, he has a conversion and that the Holy Spirit would guide him in his ministry as pope. We have a sacred duty as Catholics to pray for our clergy - our priests, our bishops, and in a special way, for the bishop of Rome. Personally, I don't think he will be our pope for much longer. God bless (and hang in there) Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
