That I can't see Pope Emeritus Benedict living another four years is true, but mostly everything is happening so quickly...apart from the release of the McCarrick report. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
I agree with most of what you say HH, but I honestly don't think Paul McCartney is the fake Sister Lucy. For me, that is just a bridge too far. Just sayin'
Understood It’s shocking how quickly events are unfolding now. And you are right about the McCarrick report...almost out of thought, out of mind. Hmmmm
Hi Praetorian! In the past 2 days, I had actually been wondering if you were following this thread Hope you are keeping well. +
The discussions and explanation of this are in the thread “The Third secret of Fatima and corruption in the Church”. +
Thanks SG I actually came back to have a look if people were talking about the Taylor Marshall shows with Dr. Mazza. I figured you would at least post them lol. I found the 2 talks quite interesting, though I think the safest opinion to take right now is to assume Pope Francis is legitimate. It is not up to the laity to make these decisions independent of the hierarchy. We are just footsoldiers, not generals. I think Dr. Mazza is trying to stretch his point with an elasticity that it doesn't have. He points out the parts of Pope Benedict's resignation that seem to support his thesis, while minimizing the parts of it that don't. Like that pesky little part: "...as from February 28, 2013, at 8 p.m., the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked..." That seems pretty clear to me. You guys with the red hats pick a new Pope, I'm outta here... I found particularly interesting the parts Dr. Mazza noted about the works of Fr. Berry and Fr. Kramer (not the Fatima Center Fr. Kramer). I had read those before and found them very intriguing. It seems to me the safest thing a Catholic can do right now is accept that Pope Francis is Pope unless those whose competence it is tell us otherwise. We do not want to take any chance with our souls by breaking with a valid Pope and severing ourselves from the Church. Frankly, I think the substantial error argument may have more legs to it than Dr. Mazza's bifurcation idea. If Pope Benedict is giving the apostolic blessing more often than it is allowed by a bishop (3 times annually, unless perhaps Pope Francis has delegated this power to him more often) and signing his letters with the papal "PP" then I think he doesn't understand that he is in no way Pope anymore.
So both the See of Rome and the See of Saint Peter were vacated by Benedict. This brings me back to what I posted a few weeks ago. This means that there are now two Bishops dressed in white in Rome. So there doesn’t seem to be a neat little tidy explanation as to how that prophecy given to Sr Lucia is going to play out. Stay tuned.
Thank you. I should have used a more charitable word than sodomite but I was tired after a rough week. Working the plantation without slaves takes its toll .
Yes, we all got that impression. Were the people present the same ones who told us how surprised they were that the Holy Spirit had chosen a complete unknown? Did they all sleep through the previous Conclave when Cardinal Bergoglio from the ends of the earth was the runner up? We don't know what led up to the resignation. We do know that Cardinal Martini told Benedict to resign if he couldn't sort out the Curia. Leaving his pallium on the tomb of St. Celestine was a signal to someone. It's anyone's guess who was that someone. For all we know, it could have been a signal to the St. Gallen/Catholic Spring crowd that he was ready to negotiate regime change. Sure, that's a conspiracy theory but we know that there were people conspiring to take over the papacy (the St. Gallen group) and to change Church teaching (the Catholic Spring crowd). Cardinal Bergoglio was their man and they all have been personally promoted or had their agendas promoted by him since he became Pope. As far as I know, there's nothing to stop a Pope choosing his successor. I could be wrong about that but it has happened in the past. If a Pope can choose his successor, what's to stop him negotiating the terms of the succession? And it appears now, if Dr. Mazza is correct, that the primacy is not inseparable from the See of Rome although that's something it would take more than one Church historian to determine. We don't have the competence or authority to decide who is or isn't the Pope, therefore, we have to take the Bishops' word that Francis is the Pope. I haven't read JP11's diaries. I did see a BBC programme hinting that he and a lady were more than friends. Did they use information from the diaries to make that hit piece of a programme? No matter how impressive or well intentioned the priest was, there's nothing noble about betraying the wishes of a deceased Pope. Whatever is in Benedict's testament, it won't have the same weight as the testament of a reigning Pope but I'm sure it will be well worth reading.
Let's not forget that all the Vatican 11 modernists were products of the era when the TLM was the only option for the vast majority of Catholics.
We don't know that the children of Fatima saw two Bishops. What they described was one Bishop in white that they saw as though looking at a mirror. Looking at something in a mirror doesn't always show both the person/thing and the reflection. We can't be sure that the children saw both. Sr. Lucy never said that it looked like two Bishops. In my admittedly unlearned opinion, the problem with the Vatican 11 documents is not so much what they contain as what's omitted from them. I suppose the faithful Bishops never expected that the groundwork was being laid for future documents like Amoris Adultery. I think that Vatican 11 left us with a terrible mess. Nevertheless, it's a dangerous business for Catholics who value Tradition to get into questioning the merit or documents of Church Councils. "The elect" weren't deceived. Negligent maybe, but not deceived. If that warning about a bad Mass is correct, I think it more likely that the bad Mass isn't the Novus Ordo but something coming down the line in the not too distant future.
The scenario would most definitely cause a schism. I don't see how that could be of more benefit to the Church than had Benedict exercised his authority when nobody questioned that he was the only valid Pope. What bothers me most about your scenario (and Dr. Mazza's) is that it gives me the impression that the Pope lacked trust in God.
