You are right, Dolours. We don’t know that we can interpret what Sr Lucia saw as two Bishops. That is an assumption that has been made and it may very well not be correct. I also agree with the rest of your post.
Yes, I was surprised too. The discussion about Vatican 1 and the restrainer were, for me, the most interesting. It's a pity that Carol seems to have taken a break from the forum because she had some interesting input in previous threads about the restrainer. I'm very uneasy about suggestions that the primacy and the See of Rome can be separated but, thinking back on how things have played out, it's not surprising that people are coming to the conclusion that Benedict did just that. Taylor Marshall mentioned something that I had noticed from early on - that Pope Benedict was wheeled out to give his blessing and public approval to all the Francis appointees. And perhaps it wasn't only traditionalists who were unsure about the primacy of Pope Francis. Didn't one of the liberation theology people (was it Boff?) mention that he had been unsure when he met Pope Francis and asked about Pope Benedict to which Francis replied "I am Pope". Perhaps the primacy doesn't matter to Pope Francis (I don't think he's much of a believer in the infallibility aspect of it) as long as he gets to rule the roost, issuing encyclicals and appointing Bishops, especially the Cardinals who will choose his successor. ] If the hypothesis of Benedict retaining the primacy is correct, I don't see how that benefits the Church. What use is the primacy if nobody knows who holds it and the holder doesn't utilise it other than to take himself out of the picture? My timetable differs from yours. Mine is Chastisement, (possible but by no means definite 3DD), Era of Peace, Conversion of the Jews, AntiChrist and The End.
There is nothing neat or tidy about any of this. A good case can be made in either direction. My opposition to people like Ann Barnhardt isn't that her information is bad or that even that her conclusion is wrong. On the contrary, I think she is highly intelligent and a superb fact finder. My position has always been that no layperson has the authority to declare a sitting Pope invalid. All the Cardinals and Bishops in the world have told us Pope Francis is the Pope. They have access to much more information than any of us have and they all have said Pope Francis is the valid Pontiff. That is the safe bet for the average layperson's soul at this point. If they have deceived us or been derelict in their duties, God will deal with them. No layperson can say with 100% surety that they know Benedict is Pope, therefore to do so they risk separating themselves from the Papacy.
I agree. It does seem that Pope Benedict, lacked trust. I suppose in my scenario, I am imagining that the threats made to Pope Benedict (before 2013) would have been of such a horrific nature, that he had no other choice. But I can't imagine what that would be! What could possibly be worse than, the paedophilia scandals rife among the hierarchy, drug fuelled orgies in the Vatican, constant betrayal of the unborn, the Vatican banks financial fraud/misplaced funds found to be benefiting nefarious and immoral practices etc?, and we had already seen most of these. I can only suspect the intimidation that Pope Benedict encountered may have involved the threat of destroying reputations of otherwise good men and pastors, point in case Cardinal Pell. Because the destruction of reputations takes the good guys out forever! and they can never return, no matter if they are finally and fully proven innocent, no one is able to come back from that. Maybe threats of this kind were made. The fear of evil and distrust in God may have been the reason why Pope Emeritus Benedict's abdicated. Or perhaps it was something else. I suppose we will never know. Mother Mary, Queen of the Apostles, pray for our priests and bishops and us. Amen
My Timetable is: Antichrist/Chastisement, Conversion of the Jews and Moslems, Era of Peace, then the Second Coming where Our Lord will be welcomed by all mankind.
The Venerables, Blesseds, and Saints have all said pretty much the same thing throughout the centuries regarding the order of what is to come. It would seem to be: 1. Wars, revolutions, general nastiness, etc. (The man-made part of the Chastisement) 2. The Three Days of Darkness (The Heaven-sent part of the Chastisement) 3. A period of peace granted to the world (The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart) 4. Catholicism spreads over the globe. 5. The rise of the False Prophet 6. The conversion of the Jews 7. The reign of antichrist. 8. The return of The King. Here is just one example of the many detailed prophecies we have about this: Blessed Anna Maria Taigi God will send two punishments: one will be in the form of wars, revolutions and other evils; it shall originate on earth. The other will be sent from Heaven. There shall come over the whole earth an intense darkness lasting three days and three nights. Nothing can be seen, and the air will be laden with pestilence which will claim mainly, but not only, the enemies of religion. It will be impossible to use any man-made lighting during this darkness, except blessed candles. He, who out of curiosity, opens his window to look out, or leaves his home, will fall dead on the spot. During these three days, people should remain in their homes, pray the Rosary and beg God for mercy. On this terrible occasion so many of these wicked men, enemies of His Church, and of their God, shall be killed by this divine scourge, that their corpses around Rome will be as numerous as the fishes, which a recent inundation of the Tiber had carried into the city. All the enemies of the Church, secret as well as known, will perish over the whole earth during that universal darkness, with the exception of some few, whom God will soon after convert. The air shall be infested by demons, who will appear under all sorts of hideous forms. After the three days of darkness, Saints Peter and Paul, having come down from heaven, will preach throughout the world and designate a new Pope. A great light will flash from their bodies and settle upon the cardinal, the future pontiff. Then Christianity will spread throughout the world. Whole nations will join the Church shortly before the reign of the Antichrist. These conversions will be amazing. Those who survive shall have to conduct themselves well. There shall be innumerable conversions of heretics, who will return to the bosom of the Church; all will note the edifying conduct of their lives, as well as that of other Catholics. Russia, England and China will come into the Church. France will fall into frightful anarchy. The French people shall have a desperate civil war, in which old men themselves will take up arms. The political parties having exhausted their blood and their rage, without being able to arrive at any satisfactory understanding, shall at the last extremity agree by common consent to have recourse to the Holy See. Then the Pope shall send France a special legate, in order that he may examine the state of affairs and the dispositions of the people. In consequence of the information received, His Holiness himself shall nominate a most Christian king for the government of France… Religion shall be persecuted, and priests massacred Churches shall be closed, but only for a short time. The Holy Father shall be obliged to leave Rome.
Professor Mazza believes that Divine Providence is protecting the papacy and that is why Pope Benedict may have resigned as Bishop of Rome. Specifically the Divine Providence is guarding the papacy from the anti-church which is being built within the Church. All of this he calls his hypothesis but not a certainty. He seems humble and says he doesn't want anyone to lose their faith because of this hypothesis. As an aside, Archbishop Fulton Sheen said the anti-church would be built within the physical, juridical and sacramental system of the Church. In their interview, Mazza and Ann Barnhardt discussed the fact that St. Robert Bellarmine wrote that thepapacy could be split from the episcopacy of Rome. In addition, German theologians, including Joseph Ratzinger, had extensive discussions beginning in the mid 20th century proposing that the papacy did not have to be just one person; it could be constituted of a group of people-- like the Holy Trinity. Archbishop J Michael Miller of Vancouver wrote a compendium of these lengthy discussions. Prof. Mazza wrote to Archbishop Miller asking if it would be possible to split the papacy. The archbishop answered yes but added that it was not advisable. This is a very recent exchange. Prof. Mazza made this statement regarding Divine Providence in his interview with Ann.
Thank you Sunnyveil for the above information I've not seen nor heard the interview of Professor Mazza with Ann Barnhardt. I would like to see it; is it in this thread? I can believe that Divine Providence is protecting the papacy. However the splitting of the papacy itself would definitely not be a good idea, besides the obvious variances it could cause, it sounds heretical to me
Not long into the Bergoglio papacy when there was growing dismay and speculation about his ultimate agenda, I opined to a friend that it seemed as if he wanted reunion with the Protestants on their terms and with a shared, blasphemous, Mass. I think it was after the statue of Luther had been welcomed into the Vatican. Now it seems that the papal agenda might exceed these aims, but a new Mass with, say, ambiguity over the words of transubstantiation would seem likely. OK, I will concede that Benedict may well have known who his successor would be (though the old adage about entering a conclave a pope and leaving a cardinal springs to mind) but I believe him when he says the decision to resign came from him as a response to what he felt to be the Spirit's promptings. I watched the 2-hour video on the Mazza thesis and took notes because it's so full of detail. He is onto something. I'm not sure about the 'Pont. Max' 'explanation' but the fact that Francis doesn't use 'vicar of Christ' (Protestant appeasement again?) and Benedict still gives apostolic blessings and signs himself 'PP Benedictus' give pause. Of course the Petrine charism doesn't depart, ever, and that is all that may be meant...... but then he did answer the dubia...... ??? Can anyone remind me of the full prophecy (Google has failed me) where clergy were required to do something abominable and one elderly priest was seen weeping in the vision? It's been on my mind and I can't find it.
What you claim here is not true. Dr Mazza did not minimise that part. Instead, he gave a lengthy explanation about the term "Supreme Pontiff", how it developed over the ages and what it actually means. That Benedict XVI used the term in his resignation speech does not go against Dr Mazza's thesis about Benedict XVI separating the Primacy (Peter) from the See of Rome. It is discussed from ~29 - 40 min marks of the Taylor Marshall/ Mazza video. +
It says what it says. We can’t put all our eggs in the basket of a video, or one man’s hypothesis. A hypothesis is a guess. Benedict HIMSELF says both Sees will be vacant as of February 28, 2013. That’s definite. I fail to see how anyone can twist that or fail to acknowledge the veracity of that statement. Edited
The first words spoken by Bergoglio after his election support Dr Mazza's position: This is the transcript of his speech, which was made in Italian, according to Vatican Radio. "Brothers and sisters, good evening. You all know that the duty of the Conclave was to give a bishop to Rome. It seems that my brother Cardinals have come almost to the ends of the Earth to get him ... but here we are. I thank you for the welcome that has come from the diocesan community of Rome. First of all, I would say a prayer: Pray for our Bishop Emeritus Benedict XVI ... Let us all pray together for him, that the Lord bless him and Our Lady protect him. Our Father ... Hail Mary ... Glory to the Father ... And now let us begin this journey, the Bishop and people, this journey of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity over all the Churches, a journey of brotherhood in love, of mutual trust. Let us always pray for one another. Let us pray for the whole world that there might be a great sense of brotherhood. My hope is that this journey of the Church that we begin today, together with help of my Cardinal Vicar, be fruitful for the evangelization of this beautiful city." +
And this article appeared soon after his election: Pope Francis officially de-emphasizes papal titles May 23, 2013 by Joshua J. McElwee https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/fra...francis-officially-de-emphasizes-papal-titles Pope Francis has possibly de-emphasized a number of the formal titles normally taken by the leader of the Roman Catholic church, choosing instead to list himself first by the basic title "Bishop of Rome" in the Vatican's annual directory. The directory, known as the Annuario Pontificio, lists the Vatican's official information regarding church leaders and dioceses throughout the world. Release of the 2013 edition was delayed following Pope Benedict XVI's resignation in February and Francis' election in March. As is traditional for the reference book, information about Francis, who leads the world's 1.2 billion Catholics, is listed towards the front of the material. In a departure from previous editions however, the information about the pope is split into two distinct sections, according to Italian media reports, including one at veteran Italian journalist Sandro Magister's site at the Italian newsmagazine l'Espresso. In the first section, the new pope is described simply as "Francis / Bishop of Rome." In the 2012 edition, Pope Benedict had also been described that way, but had listed under his title as bishop several other titles normally taken by the pope, including: “Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of Vatican City-State, Servant of the Servants of God.” In the 2013 edition, Francis is also described by those titles, but on the back of the page that describes him as "Bishop of Rome," perhaps giving a signal of which of the titles he finds more relevant. While popes have over the centuries developed numerous titles, they also function as a diocesan bishop of Rome, where the apostle Peter is traditionally claimed to be the first bishop of the some 2,000 year old church. Pope Francis has on several occasions emphasized his role as a bishop, rarely referring to himself as pope or pontiff -- even on the night of his election telling crowds in St. Peter's Square it was "the task of the conclave was to give Rome a bishop." The 2013 edition of the Annuario Pontificio is also the first since the directory's beginning in the year 1716 to feature a description of a retired pope, Benedict XVI, who is titled as "supreme pontiff emeritus." In another change from the 2012 copy, the signature under Francis' official portrait is given in Italian and not Latin. While Benedict previously signed his name in Latin as "Benedictus" (and not the Italian "Benedetto"), Francis has signed his in the Italian "Francesco" (and not the Latin "Franciscus"). Additionally, Benedict's signature appeared with the initials PP following his name, standing for "pope," while Francis' does not. +
The night he was chosen pope, March 13, Francis emerged from the loggia of St. Peter's Basilica without the ermine-rimmed red velvet cape, or mozzetta, used by popes past for official duties, wearing instead a simple white cassock. +
In the 2020 edition of the Annuario Pontificio, there is a single page describing Bergoglio as “Francis, bishop of Rome.” And instead of heading a subsequent page with the title "Vicar of Christ." as it did in 2019, the 2020 edition has his baptismal name, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, followed by a brief biography. The term Vicar of Christ was listed under a section headed “historical titles”. +
It's from Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions: April 12, 1820 “I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps…” May 13, 1820 “I saw also the relationship between the two popes. . . I saw how baleful (harmful) would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city (of Rome). The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness…” “Then the vision seemed to extend on every side. Whole Catholic communities were being oppressed, harassed, confined, and deprived of their freedom. I saw many churches closed down, great miseries everywhere, wars and bloodshed. A wild and ignorant mob took violent action. But it did not last long…” “Once more I saw that the Church of Peter was undermined by a plan evolved by the secret sect [Freemasons], while storms were damaging it. But I saw also that help was coming when distress had reached its peak. I saw again the Blessed Virgin ascend on the Church and spread her mantle [over it].” July, 1820 “I saw the Holy Father surrounded by traitors and in great distress about the Church. He had visions and apparitions in his hour of greatest need. I saw many good pious Bishops; but they were weak and wavering, their cowardice often got the upper hand…Then I saw darkness spreading around and people no longer seeking the true Church.” http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/09/25/blessed-catherine-emmerich-two-popes/ +
That doesn't agree with the timeline. Our Lady of Fatima wanted the Third Secret released in 1960 because it would become clearer then. The bad mass that came then was the Novus Ordo mass. A bad mass coming in our future wouldn't have made sense to the faithful in 1960. Abp Vigano admitted that he had been deceived. Is he not part of the elect? +
