update on the red heifer thing https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-practise-red-heifer-ritual-al-aqsa it seems the most immediate goal is making the dome of the rock mosque ritually clean for jews and\or building a third temple over it. They haven't done it yet because they need a 100% perfect cow I think. if it's ever done too many riots will occur and maybe even a 6 day war. that mosque is third most important I think (after mecca ,and medina, ones)
Observations of recent prophets. It seems the last two weeks the watchmen are literally trying to get our attention. I’m hearing, imminent, time is very short, be prepared etc. Mother Miriam, Medjugorge, several Priests, Mark Mallet, etc. Another non Catholic I listen to with caution, Brandon Biggs. He’s a bit off the wall but several of his prophesies have happened. The most unusual was the attempted assassination of Trump and that he would be elected. Well last night he was telling of a huge event we are getting very close to. He said when you hear the words ‘peace and safety’ look out the event will be like nothing mankind has ever witnessed and it will happen immediately. It sounded like the Warning. Just throwing that out there. I feel it will happen very soon. I think many in this group are feeling the sense of urgency. I’ve tried to explain the warning in a soft way to friends but I am sure they think I am over the edge. So I am praying for good outcomes.
Anyone who objectively looks at Catholic prophecy from the Bible (and interprets it according to tradition), the Saints, approved apparitions, and Garabandal, can tell you that the Antichrist isn’t in the world today. Catholics have always known that he can’t come until after the Great Monarch. That was until the Bayside “apparitions” in the 1970s. Of course that one was rightly condemned and is heretical (and Veronica clearly favored evangelical ideas in this regard - heck she even believed in the absurdity of the rapture), but the idea spread to copycat prophets and is now rampant. If any “prophet” or “apparition” tells you that we’re living in the times of the Antichrist, know that they are getting their ideas from condemned apparitions and are in the process ignoring dozens of Saints.
FiliMariae, you have made quite a bold statement. But you have offered no evidence. So show us "objectively" the texts of the "Catholic prophecy from the Bible" interpreted "according to tradition" that "tells" us "that the Antichrist isn't in the world today." You say it is there. Please prove it.
Let’s look on Venerable Holzhauser’s traditional interpretation of the Book of Revelation. He clearly states that Antichrist comes at the end of time, after the Great Monarch and Angelic Pontiff, and a great chastisement. Has three fourths of the world been annihilated in a great chastisement? No. Sure you can interpret the Bible in a way that twists that timeline. Sedevacantists and Protestants love to do that. Read the prophecies in the book Catholic Prophecy by Yves DuPont. They all give the timeline of: chastisement - peace - Antichrist. And you haven’t refuted the fact that the first apparition to say that the Antichrist is alive today is Bayside. Where has Mary or Jesus stated in an approved apparition that “the Antichrist is alive today”? They haven’t. Here is an excellent YouTube video on the subject:
It's a difficult period we live in and Satan, so much smarter than we are, ir a master of deceit. He can read each set if modern messages and continue on with the same. He does not know the future and if a 'prophecy' comes true it is either good guessing (and he does that well) or a message from heaven. It takes no prophet to fortell earthquakes in South America or economic collapse, seeing the economic madness today. I was reading Luz de Maria alot recently. In November & December 2024 the messages speak of “A GREAT LESSON…. A Great Signal… AN UNFORSEEN EVENT” in line with what Katfalls was saying, and an “unthinkable tragedy’ to “weaken the war”.(1/5) But she also says (30 Sept) the antichrist took power early October. It is so hard to discern the truth! Her messages speak of an unexpected asteroid (14 Oct), a precursor to The Warning (as always"SOON")
Okay. You didn't provide the "objective" evidence from public revelation that you claimed was available. You deflected to Ven. Holzhauser's writings, which I think is a good source on certain topics. Your timeline of "chastisement - peace - Antichrist" does not match either Biblical prophecy or what the Catechism teaches. If you think it does, please show me where a "chastisement" involving the "annihilation" of 3/4 of the world is discussed in either the Bible or the Catechism. The "chastisement" is a Garabandal term and comes at the end of the Garabandal timeline. It is intended for the people who choose to ignore "the Warning" and "the Miracle." These people continue to follow the teachings of the "man of sin," the Antichrist, even after they have been "warned." But those who, instead, follow the truth will be welcomed into the New Heaven and New Earth (Apocalypse 21) First, the Antichrist deceives. Some follow his deception. Some do not follow him. The apostasy [falling away] from Jesus continues for 42 months (Apocalypse 13) during the reign of the Antichrist. Then, Jesus says "enough." He grants His Divine Mercy by providing a "warning" or an "illumination of conscience." It is His attempt to salvage souls. Some repent and eventually receive their eternal reward. Some do not repent and continue to follow the deceptive teachings of Antichrist, and, by doing so, choose Hell as their eternal dwelling. Essentially, the same sequence occurred during Jesus's life on earth. Israel (the Jews) were in a state of apostasy. Jesus came to bring them the truth. Some chose to follow the truth and eventually became Catholics. Some chose to reject the truth and persecute Jesus's followers. The Catechism says the same set of events will happen to the end times Church, the mystical body of Christ, that happened during the life of Jesus. I will now provide you with the end times timeline that is both from the Bible, public revelation, and is the official interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church: Here is the timeline laid out by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2? He says that "the day of the Lord" [the illumination] will come only AFTER there is a revolt [the apostasy] led by the Antichrist, "the man of sin." 2 That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt [apostasy] first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? So the "revolt" [apostasy] is first, then the "Day of the Lord." St. Paul goes on to say that the Antichrist will be "killed." He will be killed "by the spirit of His mouth" and "with brightness of His coming": 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of His mouth; and shall destroy him with the brightness of His coming... There is then, says St. Paul, a period of time AFTER the Antichrist is "killed." St. Paul describes those led astray by the Antichrist: 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: 11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. So logically, these people who will "perish" have been seduced by the Antichrist BEFORE the illumination. These people made the wrong choice early on. They followed "the man of sin." Then Jesus sends "the spirit of His mouth" (called St. Michael by St. Thomas Aquinas) to remove all error, to bring true light, the illumination, to all men. But some of those deceived people choose to remain in darkness after this illumination. Therefore, they will "be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity." When did St. Paul tell them these things about "the Day of the Lord?" He told them in 1 Thessalonians 5, where he says that there will be a false, earthly "peace" just BEFORE the "Day of the Lord": 2 For yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord shall so come, as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, peace and security; then shall sudden destruction come upon them, as the pains upon her that is with child, and they shall not escape. 4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5 For all you are the children of light, and children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. So the time of apparent earthly "peace and security" is before the "Day of the Lord" also. And St. Paul, makes it clear that after the "day of the Lord," humanity will be split into two groups: the children of light and the children of Darkness. St. Paul's timeline looks like this: Apostasy and False Peace of the Antichrist --> Day of the Lord --> Chastisement of the Wicked/Reward of the Just Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to agree with St. Paul's timeline: The Church's ultimate trial 675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.573 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth574 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.575 676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,576 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.577 677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.578 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.579 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.580 573 Cf. Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12. 574 Cf. Lk 21:12; Jn 15:19-20. 575 Cf. 2 Th 2:4-12; I Th 5:2-3; 2 Jn 7; I Jn 2:1 8, 22. 576 Cf. DS 3839. 577 Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, condemning the "false mysticism" and "counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly"; cf. GS 20-21. 578 Cf. Rev 19:1-9. 579 Cf Rev 13:8; 20:7-10; 21:2-4. 580 Cf. Rev 20:12 2 Pt 3:12-13. So, here is the CCC timeline: Revolt of evil/Antichrist --> Bride comes down from heaven --> New Heaven and New Earth/Last Judgement The key takeaway is that "the period of the Antichrist" is at the beginning of "the end times" events, not at the very end. The Antichrist is "working" even before he "is revealed" at the illumination, the Day of the Lord. That is how the Antichrist's "deception" works. It works in the period of darkness BEFORE the Day of the Lord. Those who heed "the warning" are eventually rewarded with the "New Heaven and New Earth." Those who obstinately continue to consent to the Antichrist teaching will be Judged and proceed to Hell.
I said that the objective truth with combining the traditional interpretation (Holhauzers), the saints, and approved apparitions. Not just looking at the Bible. I’m no Protestant… My timeline is what the Saints have taught. I guess they were all wrong and the new interpretation you and a host of condemned visionaries have concocted is correct. Our Lady NEVER mentioned the Antichrist at Garabandal. In fact Our Lady has ONLY mentioned it at La Salette. She said to Melanie: “After all these will have arrived, many will recognize the hand of God on them, they will convert, and do penance for their sins. A great King will go up on the throne, and will reign a few years. Religion will re-flourish and spread all over the world, and there will be a great abundance, the world, glad not to be lacking nothing, will fall again in its disorders, will give up God, and will be prone to its criminal passions. Among God’s ministers, and the Spouses of Jesus-Christ, there will be some who will go astray, and that will be the most terrible. Lastly, hell will reign on earth. It will be then that the Antichrist will be born of a nun, but woe to her!” At Garabandal Mary said that there would be four popes and then the end of the times, NOT the end of the world. There will be a new time, the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, the sixth Church age from Holhauzer. So the Antichrist comes after the great King and the period of peace. He will be born to a nun, so he certainly isn’t Pope Francis. Moreover, if he was, or even if another man today was the Antichrist, why didn’t Jesus or Mary tell us at any apparition? They’ve told us exactly what to expect in our times, but according to you they would have conveniently left that part out. Anyways, the second part of your post is correct. The Catechism is outlining the second tribulation, not the first. The Catechism is simply stated what we are required to believe as Catholics, not including private revelation and writings from the Saints. The timeline when looking at approved private revelations, Holhauser’s interpretation of Scripture, and quotations of the Saints is: a century of Satan > worldwide sin and apostasy > invasion of Europe > Warning > Miracle > Chastisement > Peace (under Great Monarch and Holy Pontiff) > return to sin > the great apostasy > the Antichrist > Second Coming > Final Judgement. The proof is in the book I recommended and is summarized in the video I sent.
We are in agreement about the sequence of the last five periods in the timeline you just posted. The return to sin = 1960s The great apostasy = Being fully-implemented now (has grown slowly since Vatican II, culminates with "synodal church") The Antichrist = "false Pope" after the "glory of the olive" Second Coming = imminent Final Judgment = after the Second Coming But you have many things mixed up in the other part of your timeline. The CCC says that the culmination of the Great Apostasy/Antichrist/Second Coming/Final Judgement take place in the "the end times." Garabandal seers say that Invasion of Europe/Warning/Miracle/Chastisement take place in "the end of the times." The "end times"/"end of the times" is the same period. How do I know this? Because, private revelation must agree in essentials with public revelation. And the Church does not say there are two "end times/end of the times." There is one period when all these events take place, and, as Our Lady told Conchita, it begins after the 4th Pope after John XXIII. Garabandal does not mention the Antichrist because the Garabandal messages have a different purpose. Garabandal came after the Third Secret of Fatima was supposed to be announced to the world. The Third Secret was suppressed because it revealed a future antipope as the instrument of the great apostasy. In order to allow the messages of Garabandal to spread, Our Lady, held back the information about the Antichrist. Garabandal promotes penance, Rosary, and the Eucharist. These are Our Lady's weapons against Satan and his minister, the Antichrist. Many of those other things you mention will occur. But you are misunderstanding certain prophecies, which are figurative and intentionally obscure. Like the phrase "born of a nun." That is figurative reference to the Antichrist being spiritually born [baptized] in the Church. The Antichrist is also said to be "the son of a bishop." The reason for that is that he is himself a Roman Catholic bishop, and another bishop made him a bishop through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The Holy Pope will arrive soon, but it will probably be a spiritual arrival. St. Thomas Aquinas refers to him as St. Michael in his discussion on 2 Thessalonians 2 (link). The period of peace will come for a very short time after the "illumination." The men of "good will" eventually receive their reward, and a permanent period of peace, the New Heaven and New Earth. The reprobate eventually go to perdition because they refuse God's offer of mercy.
This has been a very fascinating read on all sides of this discussion. I have always felt too that this is not the period of Antichrist and the second coming but the period of St. John Bosco’s dream and the end of an era and the triumph of the immaculate heart of Mary but what do I know? Only God knows the hour after all but many saints speak of the great monarch and triumph. I consider Garabandal and personally believe in it however it is not approved yet so hard to determine ultimate validity until the Warning comes.
One thing though I can’t seem to shake is time in God’s mind vs ours. If a day is like a thousand years then we truly are about to enter the third day after Jesus was crucified. That seems meaningful to me that the third day could be coming soon.
The St. John Bosco prophecies are all "end times" prophecies. They are figurative as are all apocalyptic revelations from heaven. The "end of the era" is what is discussed in Apocalypse Chapter 21, with the New Heaven and New Earth. It is part of "the end times" events. The triumph of the Immaculate Heart are all of the souls that the Virgin Mary was able to save with her apparitions over the centuries.
You have yet to explain why Holhauzer doesn’t agree with you and why Bayside is the first worldview to promote your opinions. The Dimond brothers share very similar views to you. If your eschatology comes from sedevacantists and heretical apparitions perhaps you should rethink it. We can argue what the “end of the times” means for days, but the Garabandal visionaries have never stated they think that Jesus’ return is imminent. Moreover Jacinta states in her recent interview that she believes Francis is the Pope. So she does not share your opinion. Surely a visionary who spoke near daily with the Mother of God for two years can interpret her own prophecies better than you. So when an apparition doesn’t agree with you it’s symbolic? That’s awfully convenient and seems like an easy out. Marie-Julie Jahenney clearly states that both Angelic Pontiff and Great Monarch are literal men who will live and do earthly acts. We even have prophecies on their nationalities and life before their mission. They aren’t symbolic or angels. Just read the Breton Stigmatist. She and others also state (like La Salette, the saints, etc) that they’ll reign in a literal earthly kingdom (not the Kingdom of Heaven). The pope is predicted to hold a council. If we are living in the new Heaven and earth a council is pointless. The King will ask the pope to canonize people and will travel the world conquering nations. They ALL say this will happen prior to the Antichrist. Mary said at Fatima that the triumph of her Immaculate Heart was a “certain period of peace” not “the return of my Son in glory and total peace”. You have also not explained why Jesus or Mary have never said that the Antichrist is alive or is the Pope. “Garabandal didn’t talk about it so the message could spread” - is Mary frightened of censorship or not appearing politically correct to the Vatican? “Many Cardinals, many Bishops, and many Priests are on the road to perdition” sure sounds like something Mary would say to make the Vatican spread her message (sarcasm).
I’m indeed old enough to remember the condemned Bayside apparitions. They were a pall upon the Church.
You seem to be upset. Maybe we should discuss this later after you have had a chance to calm down? I will understand. Let me now. Otherwise, I'll try to answer your questions in an orderly way: 1. My knowledge of Ven. Holzhauser is pretty limited. The things that I have read from his Commentary on the Apocalypse make sense to me. And I think his interpretations are reasonable. But I am not an expert on Ven. Holzhauser. 2. I'm not sure why you bring up Bayside. I read some of the Bayside prophecies many years ago. But I hardly remember anything from them. She talked about "the comet" and told people not to leave their diocesan Churches. That is about all I remember off the top of my head. Did you think I am promoting Bayside? I assure you I am not. What does what I said have in common with Bayside? 3. I am definitely not a follower of the Dimond Brothers. However, a few years ago, I watched a few of their videos. One of them had a photo of the 7 heads of the Beast from the Sea, identifying those heads with the monarch-Popes of the Vatican City State, which was founded in 1929 with the Lateran Treaty. I believe that is the correct interpretation. It is the only thing that I can think of that I agree with them about. I am not a "sedevacantist." I think all the Popes through Benedict XVI were validly-elected Popes. And I think BXVI was the best of the 7, FWIW. 4. The Garabandal visionaries were children when the events and visions happened. They know what Our Lady told them and what they lived through. Different people receive different gifts from the Holy Spirit. You will notice in 1 Corinthians 12 that St. Paul explains that the gift of prophecy is different from the gift of interpretation. I don't think the Garabandal seers have ever claimed to be the final authority on the interpretation of what Our Lady told them or of the events at Garabandal. That Jacinta does not share my opinion about Bergoglio is not surprising, but irrelevant. 5. Most apocalyptic language is symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical. It is meant to be obscure. The literal interpretation is probably not the correct one. Different prophecies use different allegorical schemas to discuss the same events. These allegories obscure the real persons by giving them the name of a person in the allegorical narrative. For example, Pope Paul VI is called "Manasseh" in the Book of Jeremiah; but he is called "Darius" in the schema used in the Book of Daniel. This is not to say those ancient kings did not exist. They certainly did exist. But the Prophecies are not histories of past events and people. They are figurative narratives relating future events (mainly events related to the end times) using real people from the past to represent the real people in the future. 6. It is easy to see that Marie-Julie Jahenney's prophecies are using allegorical language when discussing the French Monarch, when you compare what she has to say to Holzhauser. Ven. Holzhauser discusses similar events but describes a different monarch. And your comment about the Great Monarch not being a "literal man" and not an angel contradicts Ven. Holzhauser himself: https://greatmonarch-angelicpontiffprophecies.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_57.html Apparently, this is Ven. Holzhauser's interpretation of Chapter 10 of the Apocalypse featuring the great Angel who gives St. John a book to eat: “The 'angel' is the Great Monarch: 'from heaven' means he will be a catholic: 'clothed in clouds' implies he will be humble and modest; 'rainbow' he will bring peace to the world; 'sunshine' refers to his wisdom, talents and title; 'feet' refers to his power and zeal; 'Open book' he will rule with justice 'Right and left foot' he will exercise power over all the world; 'Lion Voice' he will put fear into the wicked. The 'Golden Crown' refers to his Holy Roman Empire; 'Cutlass' means his victorious army; the other 'angel' refers to the pope (Angelic pastor). 'Other angels' are the other helpers of the Great Monarch who will help him crush the Turks…” I'll stop here. Hopefully you can see that you don't really have a good grasp of these matters. The prophecies use figurative language, which you are oblivious to. Go back and study those things you think you understand so well. Try to read with spiritual eyes. Once you put aside your literalism, maybe you will see that there are other reasonable interpretations. The prophecies are mainly about spiritual realities. If you find yourself interpreting them as geo-political predictions about the future of our current world, then you are on the wrong track.
I’m not upset. 1. Read what he has to say. He spells out the eras of the Church in a clear way that is mirrored throughout all reliable prophecies. 2. The idea of the Antichrist being alive today originated in Catholic circles from the Bayside apparitions. Similarly the Antichrist being a bishop also originates from them. No apparition prior to Bayside claims that. Many popular ideas in eschatology come from false apparitions, even if people don’t realize that. 3. The fact that you got some of your eschatology from sedevacantists is to me very alarming. Once again you have to look at your sources. If you’re getting your ideas from schismatics and condemned apparitions it can’t be from God. 4. Why should I trust you over Jacinta? I’d rather trust the interpretation of the women who saw Our Lady than some random person on the internet creating new interpretations of what those girls experienced. Once again, I think I’m safer sticking with the Saints and these holy women than a person who thinks the Antichrist is the Pope (an idea which also comes from yet another awful source - Protestantism!) You still have yet to answer why Jesus or Mary never plainly identified the Antichrist. 5. Or perhaps you don’t understand those verses and they actually represented the people Bible says they did. 6. Marie-Julie Jahenny and other saints are clearly describing a literal man - King Henry V of the Cross. I really don’t know how anyone can deny that. Read the Breton Stigmatist and Catholic Prophecy. If you have to twist all prophecy to be allegorical to fit your timeline you clearly aren’t actually looking for the truth, you’re looking for things to fit your narrative. The blogpost you linked is really great. You should read the timeline on that website. You’ll find it agrees with mine. They have a lot of quotations and their interpretations are near irrefutable. I think I see this quite well, as do many others. The position I hold is the traditional one held by many holy men and women for centuries. The positional I hold is the consensus before modern “prophets” came in and changed interpretations. My timeline is firmly sourced in approved apparitions and quotations from the Saints. Your timeline has ideas that are shared with Sedevacantists, false prophets, and Protestants. It is a new interpretation that is not supported by authentic seers. Moreover, this interpretation tells me that the Pope is the Antichrist. I’m not willing to put my eternal salvation on the line to follow revolutionary ideas and twisted interpretations.
Clearly you don't want to listen to me, so might I suggest you listen St. Thomas Aquinas. Here is his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2: https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~2Thess.C2 His commentary incorporates the opinions of the Church Fathers as well as his own. Aquinas explains that "the revolt" [apostasy] comes immediately BEFORE the Antichrist is "revealed." So, St. Paul's epistle, as part of dogmatically inerrant Sacred Scripture, and interpreted by the Angelic Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, agrees with my interpretation of the "end times" sequence of events. Do you understand that? You, on the other hand, claim that there is not an apostasy/revolt from the Church immediately before the Antichrist. No, you think there is a Period of Peace immediately BEFORE the Antichrist is revealed, right? Clearly both cannot be correct. And I know that St. Paul, the Church Fathers, and St. Thomas Aquinas are correct and to the extent that anyone disagrees with their timeline, they are far from the truth. I suspect that the Holzhauser texts have been mistranslated or that Holzhauser is being taken out of context or misinterpreted. I don't know. And it doesn't really matter. Holzhauser is not infallible. St. Paul's 2 Thessalonians 2 as interpreted unanimously by the Church Fathers is infallible.
There are two tribulations. We are approaching the minor one. You are jumping ahead to the final one. Anyways, the second part of your post is correct. The Catechism is outlining the second tribulation, not the first. The Catechism is simply stated what we are required to believe as Catholics, not including private revelation and writings from the Saints. The timeline when looking at approved private revelations, Holhauser’s interpretation of Scripture, and quotations of the Saints is: a century of Satan > worldwide sin and apostasy > invasion of Europe > Warning > Miracle > Chastisement > Peace (under Great Monarch and Holy Pontiff) > return to sin > the great apostasy > the Antichrist > Second Coming > Final Judgement. The proof is in the book I recommended and is summarized in the video I sent. From FiliMariae's post We are clearly not anywhere near the Antichrist, the Second Coming, and the Final Judgement.
