do you think Pope Francis will also go into exile as Benedict XVI when there are persecutions against the Church around the time of the Warning?
I don't sense either will be in exile, but within the Vatican area until it is attacked. I don't have a clue what Pope Francis will be doing during this attack upon the Vatican. I have not heard any alleged prophecy on his fate during it all or if he will even be around when Rome is under siege. I only hope he repents from all the confusion he has caused the church to this point. The one prophecy that may find Pope Francis within it, is the Garabandal prophecy, as the pope who goes to Moscow and upon his return war begins.
The Novus Ordo isn't a bad Mass. What was clearer in 1960 was the spread of Russia's errors. Ordained a priest in 1968 and consecrated Bishop in 1992, Archbishop Vigano wasn't one of the elect at Vatican 11. The elect at Vatican 11 weren't deceived. They disgraced themselves by their treatment of Cardinal Ottaviani. Whether they loved him or hated him, he was a Cardinal of the Church and probably much older than many of those applauding his having been effectively silenced at the Council. They were probably showing off to the non-Catholic observers who voiced their approval of that despicable behaviour. How very Christian of them . Some of those "elect" were evil, some were opportunists, some ambitious, some lukewarm and some of them were faithful. None of them could claim to have been deceived. They all were well warned by both Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre, both of whom had a role in saving us from the imposition of a bad Mass. A bad Mass would be one where transubstantiation doesn't happen because it would leave us without the Blessed Sacrament which is the source and summit of our Faith and without which, as Jesus said, we would have no life in us. Vatican 11 certainly wasn't the highlight of Pope Benedict's life although the part he played in swinging open the Church's doors and windows to the smoke of Satan was likely the springboard to his becoming a Bishop and eventually Pope. It could be argued that his concessions on the celebration of the TLM were too little, too late. How much responsibility does he bear for the state of the Church in Germany? Nobody knew better than him who the culprits were. As prefect of the CDF and then as Pope, he could have rooted them out but he didn't. They had no problem giving him the elbow and his resignation has given us their ideal Pope who isn't nearly as tolerant of faithful Bishops as Benedict was of the apostates who ousted him. Could the reason be that Francis is doing exactly what young Fr. Ratzinger wanted all those years ago? The hermeneutic of continuity is Pope Benedict's phrase. I'm not sure, but isn't that what Archbishop Vigano meant by the deception? Having said all that, I'm pretty sure that Jesus was referring to false prophets and false Christs when he warned about even the elect being deceived if that were possible. There hasn't been anyone fitting that description since the NO was introduced. Saints have celebrated the NO and many saints knew no other Mass. The NO probably laid the groundwork but the bad mass itself isn't here yet. Most likely it will come under the guise of ecumenism.
I presume you agree with Dr Mazza hypothesis....... that Pope Benedict separated the Papacy from the position/ ministry of Bishop of Rome. As has been discussed over the last few pages. Some believe Pope Benedict executed a brilliant move in order to protect the Church. Which seems to be your position. He may or may not have gotten instructions in a mystical manner but what is certain is that he knows the contents of the unreleased part of the Third Secret of Fatima, and in all probability, acted in the manner that he thought was best for Holy Mother Church. Additionally Dr Mazza's hypothesis indicates that Pope Benedict abdication could mean that the restrainer has been lifted as mentioned in Thessalonians 2. I personally believe that if what Dr Mazza's concludes is correct than Pope Emeritus Benedict has achieved a brilliant save of the Petrine office! But we need to wait and allow the hierarchy to judge and draw the final conclusions to all hypotheses and to all prophecies. I am about to listen to Dr Mazza and Ann Barnhardt's podcast (posted by DonD), on this very subject! You may be interested, it's post # 16217.
It's not clear how you came to the conclusion that a bad Mass can only mean one where transubstantiation does not occur. Here are some quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict XVI that tell us otherwise: Ratzinger on the Liturgical Reformers Creating a ‘Fabrication, Banal Product’ The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104) Ratzinger on the Degeneration of Liturgy and ‘Liturgical Fabricators’ “[W]e have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims. Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the ‘doing’ becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.” (Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to the French translation of Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, 1992). Ratzinger on the ‘Disintegration of the Liturgy’ “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” (Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977) Ratzinger against ‘Homemade Liturgy’ “It is also worth observing here that the ‘creativity’ involved in manufactured liturgies has a very restricted scope. It is poor indeed compared with the wealth of the received liturgy in its hundreds and thousands of years of history. Unfortunately, the originators of homemade liturgies are slower to become aware of this than the participants…” (Feast of Faith p. 67-68) Ratzinger on the Latin Mass as the ‘Holiest and Highest Possession’ “I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.” (Ratzinger Salt of the Earth (1997) Ratzinger on the Danger of Creative “Presiders” at the Mass In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest — the “presider”, as they now prefer to call him — becomes the real point of reference for the whole Liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing. Ratzinger on the Danger of ‘Creative Planning of the Liturgy’ Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the “creative” planning of the Liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, “make a contribution of their own”. Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a “pre-determined pattern”. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3) Ratzinger on Why the Priest Should Not Face the People During Mass The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is locked into itself. The common turning toward the East was not a “celebration toward the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian Liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord”. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3) Ratzinger on the Priest and People Facing the Same Direction On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3) Ratzinger on the ‘Absurd Phenomenon’ of Replacing the Crucifix with the Priest Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than Our Lord? (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3) https://taylormarshall.com/2013/01/eleven-great-quotes-from-pope-benedict.html (emphases in red are mine - SgC) +
Abp Vigano and Bp Schneider have clearly said that the Novus Ordo Mass is a Protestantized version of the Tridentine Mass. To me it is clear that means a bad version, i.e., a bad Mass. +
I'm wary of Ann Barnhardt. When I'm in the mood for caustic comment, I prefer Mundabor. The latter has no pretences to be intellectual (and maybe all the better for it), but remains doctrinally sound.
What is your understanding of the term ' the elect'? Here is the definition given in the Catholic Encyclopaedia at NewAdvent.org: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05374a.htm Elect Denotes in general one chosen or taken by preference from among two or more; as a theological term it is equivalent to "chosen as the object of mercy or Divine favour, as set apart for eternal life". In order to determine the meaning of the word more accurately, we shall have to study its usage both in the Old Testamentand the New. The Old Testament The Old Testament applies the term elect, or chosen, only to the Israelites in as far as they are called to be the people of God, or are faithful to their Divine call. The idea of such an election is common in the Book of Deuteronomy and in Isaiah 40-66. In Psalm 104:6 and 43 and 105:5, the chosen ones are the Hebrew people in as far as it is the recipient of God's temporal and spiritual blessings; in Isaiah 65:9, 15 and 23, they are the repentant Israelites, as few in number "as if a grain can be found in a cluster" (ibid., 8); in Tob., xiii, 10, they are the Israelitesremaining faithful during their captivity; in Wisd., iii, 9, and iv, 15, they are God'strue servants; in Sirach 24:4, 13 and 46:2, these servants of God belong to the chosen people. The New Testament The New Testament transfers (excepting perhaps in Acts 13:17) the meaning of the term from its connection with the people of Israel to the members of the Church of Christ, either militant on earth or triumphant in heaven. Thus 1 Peter 1:1, speaks of the elect among the "strangers dispersed" through the various parts of the world; 1 Peter 2:9, represents them as "a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people", called from darkness into God's marvellous light. St. Paul, too, speaks of the elect (Romans 8:33) and describes the five degrees of their election: they are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (loc. cit., 29, 30). He returns to the idea gain and again: 2 Thessalonians 2:12 sq.; Colossians 3:12; Titus 1:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:10. St. John gives the title of elect to those who fight on the side of the Lamb against the powers of darkness (Revelation 17:14). According to Luke 18:7, God hears the cries of his elect for vengeance; according to the first two Evangelists he will shorten the last days for the sake of the elect (Matthew 24:22, 24, 31; Mark 13:20, 22, 27). If it be asked why the name elect was given to the members of the ChurchMilitant, we may assign a double reason: first, they were freely chosen by God's goodness (Romans 11:5-7, 28); secondly, they must show in their conduct that they are choice men (Ephesians 4:17). In the sentence "many are called, but few are chosen", the latter expression renders a word in the Greek and Latin text which is elsewhere translated by elect (Matthew 20:16; 22:14). It is agreed on all sides that the term refers to members of the Church Triumphant, but there is some doubt as to whether it refers to mere membership, or to a more exalted degree. This distinction is important; if the word implies mere membership in the Church Triumphant, then the chosen ones, or those who will be saved, are few, and the non-members in the Church Triumphant are many; if the word denotes a special degree of glory, then few will attain this rank, and many will fail to do so, though many are called to it. The sentence "many are called, but few chosen" does not, therefore, settle the question as to the relative number of the elect and the lost; theologians are divided on this point, and while Christ in the Gospels urges the importance of saving one's soul (Luke 13:23, 24), he alternately so strengthens our hope and excites our fear as not to leave us any solid ground for either presumption or despair. +
I'm wary of anyone who thinks they have the silver bullet answer to all of this and are so sure of it that they go against what the magisterium teaches regarding our required obedience. Once a writer starts calling the Pope "Bergoglio" I stop reading. Two things the writers who refer to Pope Francis in this way share is a great deal of hubris and a lack of charity. A big part of this Chastisement is confusion. It is obviously meant to be this way. Pray and let God sort this out.
We know that the wolves around Benedict XVI wanted him out of the way. There is that strange happening with the Vatican's ATMs not working and then being restored swiftly after Benedict XVI announced his resignation of his Ministry as Bishop of Rome. So, he clearly couldn't speak plainly. That's where his brilliant move came into play. I think you are being unjust to Dr Mazza. He is after the Truth, and is not simply 'twisting' the facts. On the other hand, you seem to ignore all the facts that tell us Benedict XVI still behaves like he is the Pope, which have already been enumerated many times here. And Bergoglio has repeatedly referred to himself as the Bishop of Rome, said that the 'conclave' was held to elect the Bishop of Rome, refused to wear the regalia reserved for the Pope, dropped the title of Vicar of Christ and even relegated it to a historical title in the latest Annuario Pontificio. As discussed by Drs Mazza and Marshall, and quoted by Mario: "I was surprised that the Vatican I Council had the opportunity to definitively declare that the Primacy (i.e. Peter) and the Roman See are inseparable, but didn't. Then it threw me that there are some respected theologians from the past that believe the 2 can be separated for just cause." +
Even in the latest Annuario Pontificio, his titles are listed under the name Jorge Mario Bergoglio. +
At least Mundabor does not deny that Francis is pope. Given the record of Pope Francis, it is not hard to understand why people might be angry with him. Where is the hubris in being annoyed with one's pope when he allows pagan symbols to be placed on the altar above the burial place of the pope Christ Himself appointed? Or when he seems to surreptitiously permit the reception of Communion in a state of mortal sin? Or when he praises Italy's premier abortionist? Or when he seems to consider saving the planet as his job instead of saving souls? Why is charity due to such behaviour? Is it not all the more appalling in a pope? Anyone angry with such grievous failure to fulfill the papal role is certainly not guilty of confusion. Barnhardt, however, does display some confusion with doctrinal truth. Deciding the licitly elected pope is an imposter is hubristic and not of her station. This is my problem with her, not the anger she often displays against a pope who has let us down so often. I have not found this with Mundabor. He might be vulgar, but he's orthodox.
I really enjoyed your link, Don. Thank you! O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
Praetorian, I'm not replying to you to convince you that Benedict is still Pope, but since you pointed out the above objective signs, I will say the following. Pope Emeritus Benedict deliberately chose to maintain the: Papal ring, the white cassock, the titles, the PP with his signature, the apostolic blessings, and on and on... It was not an insignificant or random choice. Do we know yet conclusively why? No. But knowing his intelligence and his purposefulness, he chose to leave us hanging. We will find out one day. He will clarify, even if it is in his Last Will and Testament. And this I am convinced of, it was not done for a frivolous reason; it will speak about the nature of the Office from which he resigned. I patiently await that day. I will rejoice, too, because it will make sense! That is one commodity he had a lot of, though we're very short on it these days! Safe in the Barque of Peter!
None of what you quoted from Pope Benedict adds up to "the Novus Ordo is a bad Mass". Unless there has been a major shift since my school days, Holy Mass is the re-presentation to the Father of Christ's sacrifice for us on Calvary and the means by which bread and wine are transubtantiated making it possible for us to share in (eat and drink) His body, blood, soul and divinity. To be valid, it requires an ordained priest, valid matter, the offertory, consecration and priest's communion. The Novus Ordo gives us all that. That abuses occur doesn't make the Mass itself bad. For many traditionalists, their only experience of the TLM are Masses offered by priests who love everything about it and are fastidious in how they celebrate it. Experiencing a few Latin Masses celebrated by priests who make the Novus Ordo all about themselves would soon burst their bubble. All those priests and Bishops who rejoiced at the silencing of Cardinal Ottaviani were raised with the TLM. If Pope Benedict truly believed that the Ordinary Form of the Mass was bad, he had the authority to forbid its celebration and order all priests to be trained in and celebrate the TLM exclusively. He didn't. And now people would have us believe that he's saving the papacy by retaining its primacy, and we just have to wait until he dies to find out for certain? This is the same Pope Emeritus who declared that obedience to his successor has always been unquestionable? If Benedict has bifurcated the papacy, he has been deceiving the people of God since 2013. We Catholics aren't entitled to a whole lot from our superiors but we are entitled to know who are our superiors. We're also entitled to clear teaching from our shepherds. Pope Francis has failed miserably on the clear teaching, and if Dr. Mazza is correct, Pope Benedict has failed since 2013 to make it known to us who is actually Christ's Vicar on earth. Maybe we wouldn't be in this mess if the Church had valued holiness over brilliance when selecting candidates for the priesthood and episcopacy.
Yes, I have read that page in the Encyclopaedia. I see nothing in it which ties Vatican 11 to the passage of Revelation saying that even the elect would be deceived if that were possible. (I think that the elect in that passage could be the Church Triumphant). I agree with you that very little good came from Vatican 11. I agree with you that Pope Francis is a bad Pope . I regard him as the worst Pope in the history of the Church despite the fact that some of them were terrible scoundrels. That doesn't mean I believe that Pope Francis is a scoundrel. He's just a bad Pope. Unfortunately, he is the Pope and, for the sake of our own salvation, we can't break communion with him. Being in communion with him means being in communion with every one of his predecessors (even the scoundrels). It doesn't mean that we should pretend that he didn't participate in idolatry. Nor does it mean that we have to believe every word from the mouth of Jeffrey Sachs or the Pope's other climate change alarmist and population control friends. And we certainly don't have to believe in the greatness of Emma Bonino. We are obliged to have a lot more respect for the Petrine office than is displayed by its current occupant. Nowadays, many people treat the Pope as though he were Christ reincarnated while others barely stop short of calling him the AntiChrist. Both positions are wrong. Satan is very clever. When Pope Benedict dies and his spiritual testament is published, and if there's anything in it about a bifurcated papacy all the Bishops, historians and theologians will fight over it. There may well be a schism and then we can pray a lot before deciding which side is the one God wants us to take. Please God, we won't have to make such a decision.
