This explains a lot…
Analyze This:
In new Interview Book, Francis reveals he spent 6 Months in Therapy with Jewish Psychoanalyst
[UPDATE 01-SEP-2017 19:45 UTC: Psychoanalysis was condemned by the Catholic Church until “Pope” Paul VI]
The French-speaking world is going to be enriched tremendously this coming Wednesday, Sep. 6, for it is then that a new book will hit the shelves entitled, Pape François: Politique et Société (“Pope Francis: Politics and Society”). The work is an “unedited dialogue” between French sociologist Dominique Wolton and the head of the Vatican II Sect, “Pope” Francis.
In other words, it’s another interview book, and it’s long — very long. At 432 pages, it is quite possibly a record for Jorge Bergoglio. And no wonder, because Wolton and Francis met for as many as twelve 2-hour meetings over the course of a year to produce the content for this book. (This shows that Francis has plenty of time for the projects he really cares about. Obviously, meeting with the family of Asia Bibi, who is still on death row in Pakistan for “blaspheming” Islam, didn’t make the cut.)
In its Sep. 1, 2017 edition, the weekly supplement to the French daily Le Figaro just published an exclusive preview with excerpts of the book. Francis’ unmistakable face graces its front cover, next to which appear the words, Le Pape, est-il de gauche? — “Is the Pope a Left-Winger?”. This must be the new version of the now totally obsolete and formerly rhetorical question, “Is the Pope Catholic?”.
The U.S.-based Jesuit rag America summarizes the new book as follows:
In this 432-page book, Pope Francis: Politics and Society. Conversations with Dominique Walton [sic], the Jesuit pope shares hitherto unknown aspects of his personal life and his vision of the world. He talks about many subjects including the migrant crisis, pedophile priests, “the fear” that is gripping Europe today, politics and religion, dialogue between religions, globalization, the inequalities in today’s world, ecology, relations with Islam, fundamentalism, ecumenism, the family, communion for the divorced and remarried, joy and much else.
(Gerard O’Connell, “In new book, Pope Francis says he consulted a psychoanalyst, speaks about the women in his life”, America, Aug. 31, 2017)
The fact that Francis acknowledges having been influenced by a Communist woman (a certain Esther Ballestrino de Careaga) and that he “accepts the civil union of people of the same sex”, is hardly deserving of mention, as it is simply par for the course for Jorge Bergoglio.
But there is a really big smoking gun that is sure to generate headlines for a few days. As Gerard O’Connell reports in the same America post, in this new interview book “Pope Francis reveals that he consulted a Jewish psychoanalyst once a week for six months when he was 42 years old and that it ‘helped me a lot at a moment in my life…when I needed to clarify things.'”
Breathe in. Breathe out. Did he really just say that?
Yes, he did. Apparently the Jesuits weren’t able to find a Catholic (even Novus Ordo) mental health professional for the then-“Fr.” Bergoglio, so he had no choice but to consult a female Jewish Freudian to help him “clarify things.”
Oh, but what’s wrong with that, you ask?
Let’s be clear about one thing: Of course there is nothing wrong with seeing a psychologist or a psychiatrist if one has a need. However, psychoanalysis is a different animal altogether.
Psychoanalysis was developed by the Austrian Jewish atheist Sigmund Freud. It is seriously flawed at its very root because it misconceives human nature, placing instinct over intellect and denying anything above and beyond the natural material world, including the very existence of the soul.
For those interested in a traditional Catholic critique of Freudian psychoanalysis, we recommend the books What’s wrong with Freud? (1941) and Sex Psychology (1937) by Dr. Rudolf Allers. A comprehensive introduction to real Catholic psychology in the Thomistic tradition can be found in “Fr.” Chad Ripperger’s tome, Introduction to the Science of Mental Health (2013).
Throughout his “papacy” and many years prior to it, Francis has shown that he is enamored with Jews. He constantly receives rabbis at the Vatican, either in audience, or for kosher meals, or to have a good time, or whatever. His close friendship with Rabbi Abraham Skorka — with whom he has even co-authored a book — is well known. When he visited the Chief Rabbis in Jerusalem, of course he covered his pectoral cross like a good goy boy. His favorite painting is a blasphemous rendition of the Crucifixion of Christ, and so it stands to reason that he would crack a joke with our Lord’s Redemptive Sacrifice as the punch line.
The truth is that Jorge Bergoglio’s mind is saturated with Jewish ideas. The influence of Rabbi Abraham Heschel, of the philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas, and of the existentialist Martin Buber on his thought is very evident. For someone who claims to be a Roman Catholic and in fact the head of the entire Church and the Vicar of Christ, that is a very big problem.
We must keep in mind that the apostate Jews of our day are the declared enemies of Jesus Christ. They have nothing to do with the Jews of the Old Covenant, whose fleshly descendants they might be (in many cases, they are not even that), but whose spiritual heirs they are most definitely not (cf. Jn 8:42-45; Jn 6:64). They are those “who say they are Jews, and are not” (Apoc 3:9). In 1928, Pope Pius XI reinforced the Catholic teaching on this matter:
Francis is on record claiming that today’s (apostate) Jews are still the Chosen People. This alone is heresy and diametrically opposed to the true Catholic doctrine, which holds that Catholics are the Chosen People, because they are the true disciples of Jesus Christ (cf. Mt 21:43; Rom 11:19-23). For this reason Pius XI was able to refer to himself as “the leader of the chosen people” (Encyclical Ubi Arcano, n. 51).
A wise man once said that it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled. The truth of this adage is verified in the case of Jorge Bergoglio a thousandfold, for despite the clear evidence that has presented itself for the last 4+ years on an almost daily basis, most people are still unwilling to acknowledge that “Pope Francis” is a fraud, a charlatan, an anti-Catholic, a blasphemer, and an apostate — most certainly not the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Alas, there are simply none so blind as those who refuse to see.
And so the latest news is that in the late 1970s, as a Jesuit “priest” Jorge Bergoglio spent six months on the couch being psychoanalyzed by a Freudian Jew.
Perhaps all who read this post can agree at least on one thing: that this explains a lot.
It starting to fit into place. Vatican II was created by those who fundamentally did not believe in Christianity . For whatever reason they fell out of union with Christ, from sin , disillusionment , the demonic whatever. They fell into humanist and secular solutions for sin, a stance that would fail at every level. As did many before him Bergoglio i.e. Luther , Knox, Smyth etc. They all applied human understanding to questions that only a divine nature can answer. It is the same old sin from the garden. Psychoanalysis is a flawed and dangerous tool that parades itself as science . Bergoglio is lost and confused he needs much help but it won’t come from a heretics couch.
It is good that it is starting to fit into place for you. However, I would suggest you read the Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay, which was a last ditch effort to try to rally Catholics against what was happening in the Church just as Vat II was starting. I think you’ll find it most enlightening. The main orchestrators of the New Order were not people who fell out of union with Christ. They were never in union with Him. They have attempted this kind of thing before, and even managed to get an anti-pope on the throne, way before Vatican II.
I guess I wasn’t wrong when thinking to myself that there is something strange about the behavior of this man….he acts and thinks like someone who has major psychological issues!
He isnt a Bishop. Not a Catholic one. As far as Conciliar goes, his success in that apostate organization is not surprising at all.
You are right about the bishop….
Just a good goym serving his Talmudic masters
Perhaps it’s better to be a useful idiot. Then one is unaware of one’s idiocy. There must be a certain amount of worthwhile comfort in ignorance or else the invincibly ignorant wouldn’t get to heaven.
Please allow me to interject here and just clarify that the invincibly ignorant, per se, do not go to Heaven. Ignorance is not a ticket to Heaven. If that were so, then preaching the Gospel would put them in danger of hell. I am sure you didn’t mean this, but I wanted to clarify it so that others do not misunderstand your point.
Inculpable ignorance can excuse one from incurring guilt in certain matters, but it does not make one holy or acceptable to God.
Bravo! Just because someone has a dull mind, doesn’t mean he cannot have an evil will. Jorge is a great example.
Having a so-called dull mind has zero to do with invincible ignorance of the Faith. One can even be insane and be a saint.
Agreed. But the string from Sonia started with the words “useful idiot.” Synonyms for idiot are: dullard, dolt, simpleton, dimwit, etc.
Not to forget that invincible ignorants of the faith must still live according to divine and to natural law….as basic conditions…!
I don’t believe this man is ignorant! He is old enough to have been educated catholic, in a good catholic Italian family…He rejected the faith…and is very manipulative…
In defense of the Freudian Jewess, her patient probably didn’t go into the therapy any more Catholic than he left.
Dear Jay:
I believe all the Holy Roman Catholic Church teaches and proposes to the faithful. I do not take stock in private revelations. I have up-close and personal experience with what reliance on private revelations can do to a soul.
I know of a very pious man who succumbed to private revelations as a means of coping with the apparent destruction of Catholicism back in the early 1960’s. He first believed in Garabandal, then he got into Bayside. Before you know it, the man who had avoided the new mass, was now going to it, and going to the N.O. fake priests for advice, too. He died in the Novus Ordo. What a tragedy.
I know of the prophecy of St. Malachy with regard to a description of the Roman Pontiffs. But I don’t know all that much else. Who is to say that the prophetical descriptions after Pius XII apply to Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Jorge? If so, Jorge is Petrus Romanus. (I think not.) Regardless, the prophesies of St. Malachy are not the rule of faith.
Prophecies, even from Saints, can be wrong. The Roman Catholic Church, established by Christ to teach rule and sanctify the faithful, cannot be wrong. It is the infallible magisterium of the Church, which makes us all CERTAIN that Roncalli through Jorge are not Roman Pontiffs, because they contradict what the Church has taught for approximately 2000 years.
I really do not bother with trying to figure out how the prophesies of St. Malachy jive with current events.
The same pious man, mentioned above, had me read the prophesies of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich, Mary of Agreda, Theresa Neumann, and others. I believe Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich said our Lady was conceived merely by an embrace of St Joachim and St. Anne, outside, under a gate of the city of Jerusalem. If I recall, Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich said all humans would be conceived that way, if Adam and Eve had not fallen into sin. (I think not.)
Some mystics have the wound in Our Lord’s left side when He hung on the cross, whereas other mystics have it on the right side. Both cannot be correct.
The point is that mystical revelations are not infallible, and are not meant to be infallible. They are not our guide. Our Lord did not tell us to follow mystics. Our Lord told us concerning the apostles: He who hears you hears Me. He established a Church to teach us His morality, dogmas, and worship. We would not know anything with certainty about Christ and His religion without the Church. We would not even know which books belong to Sacred Scripture, and which do not.
PLEASE be careful. I would caution you to not look to mystics for the answers to today’s problems. I have seen scores of folks ruined by their attachment to folks (even to Saints) who bleed, folks who have visions, etc. Their belief or attachment to these paranormal things became a replacement to the faith in the Church. These folks either become weird Novus Ordites or in some cases Feenyites.
In my opinion, Jorge is NOT confused. He is an evil apostate. He may not be the sharpest pencil in the box, but that is no excuse for his complete lack of faith in what the Church has taught, much less his utter abhorrence for anything which smacks of the religion which was suppressed by Roncalli and his successors. Jorge HATES all things traditional. But, what would you expect?
Plot Against the Church can be obtained through the NOW website, or look it up on the web
.
Thank you for your opinion. I understand your position on private revelation. But I believe that apparitions approved by the Church were given to us for a reason. I realize that we are never to place them next to Holy Scripture as an authority but I don’t believe we can discount them. The Church places Holy Scripture above dogma and tradition, private revelation stand below all these but it does stand. I would have to believe that much of the church that is now in the catacombs are there because the Holy Spirit has guided them there to stand apart from the Vatican II heresy this is really a personal and private revelation that has affected even the most unlikely .
Dear Jay:
This is not the venue for arguments. I would ask that you speak to a WELL TRAINED Catholic priest for clarification. The Church teaches that Tradition and Sacred Scripture are both equally the Word of God. It is the Church which teaches us what constitutes the “Bible” and what does not. It is the Church who interprets Sacred Scripture. It is the Church who teaches us Tradition, because it was to the Church that Christ confided the deposit of Divine Revelation, which ended with the death of St. John the Evangelist. Dogma, Sacred Scripture, Tradition are all rolled up into one package of divinely revealed TRUTHS. The Church does not place Sacred Scripture above dogma and Tradition.
I would not have you discount the PRIVATE revelations which the Church approves. But one does not have to concern himself with them either. One does not need to know that Our Lady of La Salette predicted that Rome would become the Seat of the Antichrist, when one can see it happening with one’s own eyes right now. A person will not be judged on how well versed he is the apparitions of Our Lady of Walsingham, but I dare say every Catholic will be judged on whether he has educated himself with the Catholic truths to believe, the moral duties to perform, and the means to employ for worship, according to his state in life and his abilities.
Maybe another way to put it would be this: Make sure the foundation, walls, roof, and drainage system of a building are sound and secure, before decorating it with ornamentations and non-essential accoutrements.
Please, Jay, keep pursuing the truths of the Catholic Faith, but please get some guidance from a WELL TRAINED Catholic priest. In the mean time, you might consult The Spiritual Life: A Treatise on Ascetical and Mystical Theology by Rev. Adolphe Tanqueray SSDD, 1930, which was often taught in the first year of seminary studies.
I would also recommend you look into a good catechism, such as Exposition of Christian Doctrine, by a Seminary Professor, a course of Religious Instruction from the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools 1908, 1913, 1927. It comes in three parts (hence, the three years of its publication from John Joseph McVey, Philadelphia PA). The three parts are I Dogma, II Moral, and III Worship. These “catechisms” were used in high schools in bygone days, and are well written in easily understood English.
And, please pray for me. I hope I have not scandalized you.
Jay, while I agree with BurningEagle’s points about prophecy and being cautious, I wanted to offer this thought for what it is worth.
Assuming the irregularities at the 1958 Conclave ( https://novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958/ )
produced an actual Pope, then that pope would have been the “Shepard and sailor” as predicted by St. Malachy, not John XXIII. If that true pope was in fact Cardinal Siri as some of the evidence has suggested, or even if it wasn’t him but was someone else who was forced to recant his office, then until his death, there could be no other pope. (Blessed Catherine Emmerich had a prophecy about a weak Pope giving into the demands of his enemies.)
By the time Cardinal Siri had died in 1989, the anti-popes had already done the damage needed to ensure that no true Pope could or would be elected in the modernist church, by installing heretics at all levels of the hierarchy, and changing the rite of ordination of priests and the consecration of Bishops, so that there would in fact be no true priests or
bishops (let alone Catholics) left in the modernist hierarchy that elects the Pope. They even made it so that older, true cardinals could not be involved in electing a Pope by creating a voting age for electing a pope.
For the sake of argument, if Cardinal Siri was in fact the last validly elected Pope, then the next Pope in St. Malachy’s prophecy would in fact be the “Flower of flowers”. The flower of flowers as you probably already know, is the Lily. This seems no small matter when you think about the facts many Catholic prophecies have given us with regards the Holy Pope and the Holy Monarch who are to be instrumental in restoring all things in Christ,
presumably after the coming chastisement and the reign of Anti-Christ. The lily
is always associated with the Holy Monarch in prophecies and given the
relationship between these two in prophecy; I can’t help but believe the “Flower
of Flowers” must reign at the time of the Holy Monarch, hence the title that
was given to him by St. Malachy.
I might mention also that prophecies about the Holy Pope and Holy Monarch have mentioned that they will come to power at the beginning of the “6th age of the Church”. From my understanding of the ages of the Church, we are currently at the end of the 5th
age, which in salvation history would culminate with the Crucifixion and death of Christ on the Cross. The Church is presently being crucified, and will appear to die under anti-Christ. The Sixth age begins with His resurrection, where He stayed 40 days on Earth. This is the time when the Holy Monarch and Holy Pope’s will come to power and will “resurrect” the Church, presumably for a generation or so as alluded to in the period of peace mentioned in the Prophecy of LaSallete. Then the 7th age begins, illustrated by the Ascension of Jesus into Heaven. The 7th age would be the heavenly age, which never ends, so in other words, it comes after the last Judgement.
There is a prophecy of the last 5 popes found here on pg 142… http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/Library/The%20Christian%20Trumpet.pdf This prophecy linked below amazingly describes the last 5 Popes, the exact amount left in St. Malachy’s prophecy, assuming the last true Pope was the hidden one elected in 1958.
The first Pope described in this prophecy is the same Pope described in other prophecies related to the Holy Monarch. He will come to power following great trials in the Church and a period of martyrdom (under anti-Christ). According to this prophecy, all 5 of the last popes will be very holy and perform miracles as was done in the early Church.
Mike:
Wow. I read from pages 136 to beyond 142, and I did not get the same understanding of these prophesies as you did.
I must say your explanation of them is more coherent than the speculations in that book.
Nevertheless, the Siri thesis has troubling aspects to it. It was as if Siri did not know he was pope. He treated Roncalli as Pope John XXIII, he treated Montini, as Pope Paul VI, and he treated Wojtyla as Pope John Paul II. He said the new Mass. One can see pictures of him with all three of these usurping imposters on the intenet:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Siri+and+John+XXIII&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS9Ni754bWAhWD6oMKHR1kBo4Q_AUICygC&biw=1920&bih=934#imgrc=CSQqe5Mq-flIjM:&spf=1504365845061
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=934&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Siri+and+Paul+VI&oq=Siri+and+Paul+VI&gs_l=psy-ab.12…168323.170630.0.172585.7.7.0.0.0.0.197.788.4j3.7.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.351…0j0i8i30k1j0i24k1.Ysi9QCE_mZQ#imgrc=yuQ4RlRJSDTv3M:&spf=1504366020170
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=934&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=John+Paul+II+in+Genoa&oq=John+Paul+II+in+Genoa&gs_l=psy-ab.12…227070.233365.0.235593.14.14.0.0.0.0.362.3075.5j1j2j6.14.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..1.6.1876…0j0i7i30k1j0i30k1.59eiFewuhk4#imgrc=l43R8hgda0U0JM:&spf=1504366656637
It is strange that a real pope would not know that he is pope. It is strange that a real pope would concelebrate the Novus Ordo Missae with Wojtyla, the imposter. If Siri did get elected, and if he did accept the office, he apparently abdicated it.
I don’t see how the Siri thesis solves anything at all for us in the practical order.
One more note: I would suggest you not refer to Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich as “Blessed,” in as much as the “Blessed” title for her is a result of Wojtyla’s pretended papacy.
Burning Eagle,
It just dawned on me why you didn’t get at all the same jist as me with regards the linked prophecy… I have a feeling you went to page 142 of the PDF, I was talking about the actually scanned book page, which would be pg 168 of the PDF. It is the “PROPHECY OF THE ABBOT MERLIN JOACHIM.” Hope this makes more since now. I edited the original post so that others aren’t confused by this as well.
I agree, the explanation by the authors in the book do not seem to fit many of the
prophecies in that particular book, but I still found the referenced prophecy
interesting in lite of today’s events. Also, I also think you may have read the
wrong pages given your comment. I was referencing the actual book pages. I
suspect you went to page 142 of the PDF. The PDF page is 168. As for Card. Siri,
I have reservations about him as well for the same reason as you, but he is the
best known example. Something seems to clearly have happened at the 58
conclave, but only time will tell what actually took place. Catherine Emmerich
did say he would be a weak Pope, who would give in to the demands of his
enemies. I am sure that if he was the valid one elected in 58, then he has a
lot to answer for in the next life. Card. Siri himself refused to say he was
not elected when supposedly asked this question point blank. Maybe he had
doubts whether his abdication was valid or not. All he would say is that…”terrible
things have happened”. Maybe he was forced to do the things you mentioned to
avoid some calamity? We will never know. As for the “Venerable” title…opps,
slip of the tongue so to speak. I certainly wasn’t purposefully referencing the
title given her by JPII.
Dear Mike: I read the newly referenced pages, and I must be missing something. Your explanation makes more sense than the pages you mentioned. I find them difficult to understand. And, I find them very vague. The stuff reads like Chinese fortune cookies or psychic medium scams: “You have a big decision ahead of you,” or “You are going to suffer an event that will sadden you,” or “Your next challenge will be difficult, but hard work will ensure success.” These kinds of vague prophesies can be applied to anyone and anything, and are easily fulfilled. Maybe I am too cynical, but that’s how they sound to me.
In any case. your explanation is just speculation, as is the stuff in the pages referenced. It has no bearing on us in the practical order.
Some think the prophesies of St. Malachy refer to anti-popes along with popes, some think they refer to several popes under one name, and so on. Quot homines, tot sententiae.
As for the Siri theory, it will only be a matter of time before some nutbag will start calling himself the real pope, and doing all kinds of things to make “traditional” Catholics look like nuts. Of course, the nutbag will say he was secretly ordained and consecrated by Siri, and that Siri demanded that he (the nutbag) succeed him (Siri), and that a secret conclave of secretly nominated electors (designated by Siri) had a conclave, and the new “pope” was elected. Get ready for Gregory XVIII, or Pius XIII, or Leo XIV, or Benedict XVII, or Clement XII.
Although I have no problem per se conceding that an election may have taken place on October 26, 1958 – with 5 minutes of white smoke from the Sistine Chapel chimney, and I have no problem per se with the idea that Siri may have been the man elected, I do have a problem with what he did with that alleged election. If elected, it has all the appearances that he either refused the office, or he abdicated it. In the practical order, it has no consequence for us.
B.E.
My only point about the referenced prophecy was to point out 1. The prophecy speaks of 5 different Popes and 2. The first one of these 5 Popes spoken of is clearly the one who is to come and work with the holy Monarch to restore the Church (pg 143…”At that time a handsome monarch, a scion of King Pepin, will come as a pilgrim to witness the splendor of this glorious pontiff…”) I don’t know how you don’t see this unless you are reading the wrong text. The fact that there are 3 differnt Popes mentioned is given by counting 1. the first pope related on pgs. 142 and 143… Pope #2 pg 144 mentions his successor, with a brief discription of this Pope, followed by a mention of the 2nd Pope’s (#’s 3-5) “three immediate successors”, all “men of exemplary holiness”. With that said, since I am still not convinced that you are reading the correct text that I referenced, I am posting it here to be clear. None of the “vague prophecy” quotes you gave are in this text that I can see. This will make for a long post though.
THE CHRISTIAN TRUMPET. 142
PROPHECY OF THE ABBOT MERLIN JOACHIM.
Merlin Joachim, on account of his prophetic spirit surnamed the Prophet,
was born in 1130, in the town of Celico near the city of Cosenza, Kingdom
of Naples. In his youth he was page to Roger, King of Sicily; but some years later
he became a Cistercian monk in the Monastery of Corazzo, of which, on account
of his great knowledge and eminent virtue, he was soon elected prior and abbot.
But with the permission of Pope Lucius III, in the year 1185, Joachim retired to
the solitude, of Casemara, where he occupied himself in writing commentaries on
Holy Scriptures. He returned to his Monastery of Corazzo in 1187; but having been ordered by the Pope to continue his learned biblical commentaries, he asked and obtained permission to renounce his abbatial dignity, and withdrew to Flora, in Calabria, where he established a new monastery with a rule similar to that of Citeaux. He died in 1202, when he was seventy-two years old, leaving a great number of works which were printed in Venice in a large folio volume in the year 1510. Dom Gervais, Monk of La Trappe, wrote his Life in two volumes, which he published in 1745. In the Bollandists many details can be found about this holy and learned monk. We give here only some extracts from his prophetic writings.
I am rejoiced at what has been said to me. After many prolonged sufferings endured by Christians, and after a too great effusion of innocent blood, the Lord
shall give peace and happiness to the desolated nation. A remarkable Pope will be seated on the pontifical throne, under the special protection of the angels. Holy and full of gentleness, he shall undo all wrong, and through his amiable virtues he shall recover the states of the Church, and reunite the exiled temporal powers. He shall be revered by all people, and shall recover the kingdom of Jerusalem. As the only Pastor, he shall re-unite the Eastern to the Western Church, and thus one only faith will be in vigor. The sanctity of this beneficent Pontiff will be so great that the highest potentates shall bow down before his presence. This holy man shall crush the arrogance of religious schism and heresy. All men will return to the primitive Church, and there shall be one only pastor, one law, one master, — humble, modest, and fearing God.
THE CHRISTIAN TRUMPET. 143
The true God of the Jews, our Lord Jesus Christ, will make everything prosper beyond all human hope, because God alone can and will pour down on the wounds of humanity the oily balm of sweetness. Excellent man! When a monster shall appear to thee in the sky, thou shalt find a ready escape towards the east, and after nine years thou shalt render thy soul to God. The heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the faithful are in joy and happiness, because the Lord has vouchsafed to be merciful to them. He shall invite his elect to the banquet of the Lamb, where melodious canticles and harmonious concerts will be heard.
The power of this Pontiff’s holiness will be so great as to be able to check the
fury and impetuosity of threatening waves. Mountains shall be lowered before him, the sea (in some places) shall be dried up, the dead shall be raised, the churches shall be reopened and altars erected. (From this we learn that this great Pope will be elected during some terrible persecution against Catholics.)
At that time a handsome monarch, a scion of King Pepin, will come as a pilgrim
to witness the splendor of this glorious pontiff, whose name shall begin with R . . .
A temporal throne becoming vacant, the Pope shall place on it this king whose
assistance he shall ask. (See David Lazzaretti, page 115.)
It should be known that there will be two heads, one in the East and the other in
the West. (Does this mean two emperors, or an anti-pope in the East?) This (true)
Pope shall break the weapons and scatter the fighting hordes. He will be the joy of God’s elect. This angelic Pope will preach the gospel in every country. Through
his zeal and solicitude, the Greek Church shall be forever reunited to the Catholic
Church. At the beginning, in order to obtain these happy results, having need of a
powerful temporal assistance, this holy Pontiff will ask the co-operation of the
generous monarch of France. Before, however, being firmly and solidly established in the Holy See, there will be innumerable wars and violent conflicts, during which the sacred throne shall be shaken. But through the favor of Divine clemency, moved by the prayers of the faithful, everything will succeed so well that they shall be able to sing hymns of thanksgiving to the glory of the Lord.
This holy Pope shall be both pastor and reformer. Through him the East and
West shall be in everlasting concord. The city of Babylon shall then be the head
and guide of the world. Rome, weakened in temporal power, shall forever preserve her spiritual dominion, and shall enjoy great peace. During those happy days the angelic Pope shall be able to address to Heaven prayers full of sweetness. The dispersed nation shall also enjoy tranquility. But six years and a half after this time the Pope will render his soul to God. His death will be illustrated by miracles. The end of his days shall arrive (take place) in an arid province, situated between a river and a lake near the mountains . . .
THE CHRISTIAN TRUMPET 144
A man of remarkable sanctity will be his successor in the Pontifical chair.
Through him God will work so many prodigies that all men shall revere him, and
no person will dare to oppose his precepts. He shall not allow the clergy to have
many benefices. He will induce them to live by the tithes and offerings of the
faithful. He shall interdict pomp in dress, and all immorality in dances and songs.
(There is an urgent need of such interdict.) He will preach the gospel in person, and exhort all honest ladies to appear in public without any ornament of gold or
precious stones. After having occupied the Holy See for a long period of time, he
shall happily return to the Lord.
His three immediate successors shall be men of exemplary holiness. One after
the other will be models of virtue, and shall work miracles, confirming the teaching
of their predecessors. Under their government the Church shall spread, and these
Popes shall be called the Angelic Pastors.
Thank you, MikeN. I was confusing this stuff with some of the earlier stuff in the work. Thanks for the clarification.
Also, I might add, given the time and circumstances surrounding this particular Pope spoken of in so many prophecies, you shall know him by not only his miracles and sanctity, but also for the fact that he will be the one chosen by God to anoint the King. From things I have read, I also believe this Pope will be known by Enoch and Elias when they return during the reign of anti-Christ. They will likely make him known. I have no doubt that faithful Catholics will know him when his time comes. God himself will testify to his Papacy by the miracles he will perform.
I am not worried at all about the mirage of false claimants (nutbags as you put it) that are already out in the open today (yes they are already there, not just a “matter of time” until they come), because I know they are not real. If you have faith, then when the time comes, you will know.
Thanks, MikeN.
So there is already someone claiming to be pope by special designation of Cardinal Siri? That kind of stuff gives sedevacantists a bad name.
Not necessarily by Siri that I am aware of. Guess I missed that point. There are at
least 3 prophecies I have seen that say St. Peter himself will elect the next
Pope. Take that for what it is….my only point is that it does not have to be
a Cardinal Siri claimant, and someone claiming as much should be avoided. Again
my points in the previous post should be your guide. As far as I am concerned,
the interregnum will continue until after the chastisement and reign of the A.C. and assuming I make it through that event (or even live to see it), only then could I expect to see a true Vicar of Christ seated upon the Throne of Peter once again.
MikeN: I hope I do not scandalize you, but my guide is not private revelations, but rather the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, the fathers of the Church, the common teaching of the theologians. I really do not concern myself with the prophesies and revelations of mystics. I stay away from the various “3 Days of Darkness,” and “coming Chastisement” proponents. I was exposed to all of that stuff through the man who got into Garabandal, Bayside and other such things, and who died back in the Novus Ordo. By the way, those private revelation folks usually push on everyone that little blue book, sometimes called the Pieta book, with all kinds of strange things in it (such as the letter of St. Joseph etc.) which the proponents say I MUST believe in in order to be Catholic. I rely on what the Roman Catholic Church proposes to the faithful as my guide. (The Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Apostles Creed, etc do not make mention of the Pieta book with all the private revelations in it. One would think a little booklet of such importance would be mentioned in one of the Creeds of the Catholic Church. I do not find it mentioned in the Enchiridion Symbolorum of Denzinger , or in any standard catechism. The Oath against Modernism of St. Pius X makes no mention of it either.)
Thank you for your information. We’ll have to see how all of this plays out.
One last thing, since I referenced it, and maybe you have not seen it, Ven. Catherine Emmerich said this about the Pope during those evil times…(ie…today).
October1, 1820
“The Church is in great danger. We must pray so that the Pope may not leave Rome; countless evils would result if he did. They are now demanding something from him. The Protestant doctrine and that of the schismatic Greeks are to spread everywhere. I now see that in this place (Rome) the (Catholic) Church is being so cleverly undermined, that there hardly remain a hundred or so priests who have not been deceived. They all work for destruction, even the clergy. A great devastation is now near at hand.”
It certainly seems this must have taken place around the time and following the conclave of 1958. She also had the prophecy of the “2 Popes” that I am sure you are aware of, or could easily find if you do an internet search, that so many in the N.O. and indult communities want to say is Ratzinger and Jorge. Obviously they are wrong, since the protestant doctrine clearly got its foothold beginning with Vat. II. and Ratzinger was one of the biggest proponents of it. So this prophecy has to have been talking about the one who was validly elected in 1958 (Siri or probably more likely, someone else) having the demands made upon him. Siri could be the name put out there by those who want to give scandal and cause doubt to this theory, but the only thing that makes since is for the restrainer ( 2Thess2:6) being taken out of the way, ie…the Pope, and a false pope put in his place. According to scripture, it is only at this point could Satan begin to work his magic of deception on, “if possible, even the Elect”. Those thinking Ratzinger is the “True Pope” will still fall under his deception.
MikeN: Interesting, but was Siri or some other allegedly elected pope from 1958 conclave in a burning building, as mentioned in the prophesy?
No, I am not familiar with the “2 Popes” prophesy. As I have said before, I do not place much value in researching private revelations and prophesies.
I read somewhere that the man who recorded Ven. Emmerich’s visions put a lot of his own imaginations in them. When you couple that with the fact that these are PRIVATE revelations, they really do not concern me much.
What we do know from Sacred Scripture and the Fathers of the Church is that there will be a great revolt (falling away, or apostasia in Greek). We know that the abomination of desolation will occur (it could refer to the New Religion and New Sacraments in place of the Catholic Religion). Bp. Sanborn’s 4 part sermon on the Antichrist and the end times (which can be accessed in the N.O.W. website) may be of some interest to you.
Thanks for the info.
I have heard most of Bp. Sanborns sermons already that are on the traditionalcatholicsermons.org website, including the one you mentioned. He is a great orator. As for Catherine Emmerich, “A LOT of his imagination” seems pretty presumptive. Did he add some clarifying details, probably, but he himself claims to have accurately and faithfully related the prophecies as they were dictated to him by Catherine Emmerich. What seems to speak in the favor of the prophecies as not having “A LOT” of imagination put into them by someone other than Catherine Emmerich as you suggest, is how accurate they are in describing things that would take place during the “great falling away” or “revolt”. Many of her prophecies are very cryptic like most prophets (such as the burning building, which in my eye is not physical but symbolic of what is going on around the true Pope elected. Indeed the smoke of Satan enveloped the Church at that moment), but many are also very clear and seem to be accurately being fulfilled in our very day. You choose to ignore them, then that is your prerogative, but just because others don’t doesn’t make then less Catholic than you, as some of your posts seem to imply. God has given us prophets throughout the history of man. I choose to think he did this for a reason. Prophecy for me is only a tool in understanding where we are in salvation history, nothing more. It is certainly not the main focus of my faith, as seemed to be presumptively implied in another of your posts.
Dear MikeN:
Since you are more familiar with Ven. Ann Catherine Emmerich than I am, is there any credibility to the following things in Wikipedia?:
*In his 1923 theological thesis, German priest Winfried Hümpfner, who had compared Brentano’s original notes to the published books, wrote that Brentano had fabricated much of the material he had attributed to Emmerich.[5][14]
*By 1928, the experts had come to the conclusion that only a small portion of Brentano’s books could be safely attributed to Emmerich.[4][5]
*…in 1928 the Vatican suspended the (beatification) process when it was suspected that Clemens Brentano had fabricated some of the material that appeared in the books he wrote, and had attributed to Ann Catherine.[19]
It is for reports of this nature that I have said “a lot.” It is not a “presumption” on my part.
Catholicism does not admit degrees. You either are, or you are not. Its like being pregnant. You either are, or you are not. I do not imply that folks interested in prophesies are not Catholic. I think that inference is unwarranted. But I do say that these prophesies should not be our rule of faith, our rule of conduct, or our justification for our rejection of the new religion.
I am also very concerned with the disproportionate amount of energy and fervor many folks put into studying the prophesies of various mystics, the stigmata of various mystics, and other paranormal things, WITHOUT HAVING LEARNED EVEN THE BASICS of the Catholic faith with regard to doctrine, morality, and worship. I almost succumbed to this in the 1970’s. Thank God, I had the great grace to be corrected by some good priests. If we all spent more time studying essential things, and less time studying non-essential things, we all would be much better for it.
The private revelations and prophesies of mystics are not essential to the faith. I agree with you that they may be edifying, and may be helps, but there are precautions one must take with them. There is no guarantee the visions of Ven. A.C. Emmerich are without error, even if Brentano was 100% accurate and added nothing of his own.
I do admit a certain animosity to the what I sometimes perceive as an unhealthy curiosity in the mystical and paranormal. I knew a very pious Catholic man who rejected the new Mass in the 1970’s, who would go only to traditional priests in the late 1960’s and 1970’s for weekly confession, attended only the traditional Latin Mass of very old priests, or the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom of old Ukrainian Catholic priests. But, he always had a high curiosity in the paranormal, which got the best of him.
He put much of his spare time not into studying the faith, but into studying Padre Pio, Theresa Neumann, Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich, etc. He eventually got into Garabandal, and even pre-paid for seats on a pre-paid Pan-Am air flight to Garabandal (the date has yet to be determined, and Pan-Am is now out of existence) to be part of the miracle that would cure the attendees of every physical malady. Then, he got into the visions of Bayside. He became a fan of the little blue “Pieta” booklet. He was a very vocal proponent of “the coming Chastisement” and the “3 days of Darkness,” etc. Out of obedience to “Our Lady” at Bayside he went back to the Novus Ordo, and went to Novus Ordo priests for confession. He became shipwrecked in the faith. He eventually allowed and condoned his daughter to live in sin with her boyfriend in his own home. He died in the Novus Ordo, and was buried with their “Mass” of the Resurrection, with all of its concomitant atrocities.
I contend that if he had put as much time and energy into studying the pronouncements of the Popes, the decrees of the councils, the well-accepted books on ascetical and mystical theology (e.g. Tanqueray), apologetics, commentaries on Canon Law, and sound moral theology books, he would have never fallen into the what eventually ruined him.
I wish you all the best, MikeN. I mean you no disrespect and no harm. Please be careful. I suggest that you ask a well trained Catholic priest whether the advice I am giving you is correct.
All I know is that by 1923 the plans of the enemy of the Church were well underway. (Just read the Alta Vendita) Modernists, communists and Freemasons had already found a foothold inside the Church. Did this tie into this priests claims? I don’t know. Time will tell.
I agree with you whole heartedly with regards your friend. I can promise you I am not on the same boat as him. He was a vision chaser. I am not. He consumed himself with false apparitions that promoted the N.O. As for your last comment, you have offered me no advice that I don’t already know or heed. Like I said before, prophecy is only a small part of my faith. Much more time has been spent learning it. I take the salvation of my soul and those entrusted to me very seriously. In the end, that is all that matters.
MikeN: A point of clarification: I have no animosity towards the prophesies of pious Catholics and Saints. I do have an animosity towards an UNHEALTHY CURIOSITY in the paranormal, and the erroneous view that private revelations of themselves are things on which we can rely for infallible truth. This is especially evident in folks who know little or nothing about the faith, who have never learned even their catechism, but who look towards the paranormal as their guide. Without a firm grasp on the ordinary and normal, it is difficult or impossible to have the right view of the extraordinary and paranormal.
You may have seen these people. They often have several of these characteristics:
1) They wear ostentatious pectoral crucifixes
2) The women often have blue skirts and blue berrets
3) The aforementioned blue Pieta booklet is their prayer book
4) They sprinkle folks with holy water (at home, on sidewalks, in parks, wherever)
5) They wear sandwich board sized brown scapulars (the bigger the better)
6) They know better than the clergy, (whom they regard as not part of gnostic elite)
7) They know little or none of the basics of doctrine, morals, or liturgy. (They do not know their catechism.) And they usually do not want to learn it.
8) They spend the bulk of their time studying the extraordinary and paranormal, such as private revelations, exorcisms, and stigmata; and little to no time studying the normal.
9) They do NOT believe that Divine Revelation ended with the death of St. John the Evangelist, but continues even to this day.
10) They believe all kinds of strange things (e.g. there must be 33 signs of the cross during Mass) just because a fellow gnostic has told them. But they refuse to look these things up for themselves to verify them.
11) They substitute private revelations in place of the magisterium of the Church for any and all instructions for saving their souls.
My association with the “vision chaser” as you have accurately called him, has made me acutely aware of these kinds of folks. And, I have seen them in “traditionalist” chapels, too.
Thank you for the information and your insight. I was to understand that St. Malachy didn’t differentiate between true Popes and anti Popes he just listed them chronologically . Unlike the “Eagle” I believe that there is profit in this research but of cause our faith is not based on it. I have run across others who felt the same way as the Eagle who were Orthodox Catholics of the eastern rite that maybe a connection. My syntax may be some what wanting and I don’t debate but I was taught that dogma and tradition had to line up with Scripture to be on a equal footing thus putting scripture as the ‘rod’ to measure. 2 Timothy 3:16″ All Scripture, inspired by God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct to instruct in justice’ This to my knowledge has always been a Catholic teaching . The author of holy writ is God”. God Bless you and yours.
Sorry, Jay, I am not an Eastern Rite Catholic. But if I were an Eastern Rite Catholic, it would not make a difference, anyway. I am a Roman Rite Catholic. I am not Orthodox, but I am orthodox.
Whoever taught you that “dogma and tradition had to line up with Scripture to be on equal footing” was dead wrong!
The apostles went out and taught, ruled and sanctified the faithful before one word of the New Testament was written. Therefore the Catholic Church predates Sacred Scripture. And, it is only due to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that we know which books belong to the Old and New Testaments, and which should be rejected.
The author of Sacred Tradition is also God. Catholic Dogma can in no way be in opposition to either Sacred Scripture or Tradition. To say otherwise is a heresy.
For proof, please see Denzinger 302 to 304, 308, 783, 786, 995, 1471 2021, 2022, 2023 and ESPECIALLY 1787, 1792, 1793. In English, Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum is called The Sources of Catholic Dogma.
Also, please see the aforementioned Exposition of Christian Doctrine Volume 1 (Dogma) questions 30, and 51 ff concerning the sources of Divine Revelation.
You can also reference the popular Deharbe’s Catechism questions 12, 13, 15, and especially 22, 29, 30, and 32. And see the section on Tradition: questions 34 through 40.
You can even go to the very basic Radio Replies volume III #517 through 526.
I would suggest first learning the catechism before getting into mysticism, prophesies, and paranormal. You have an obligation to learn the catechism. You do not have an obligation to learn about prophesies, ecstasies, stigmata and private revelations.
Sacred Scripture is just that , I spoke of nothing that was written down but what was Given to us by Christ , handed down to us by the Apostles . One of the reasons Vatican II came about was because of a non adherence to the Holy Scriptures . Dogma and tradition can only be taken as truth if it aligns with what Christ gave us as truth if it differs then you might as well accept Vatican II . I suggest you reread what you implied stating “dogma and tradition didn’t have to line up with Scripture to be on one equal footing” I’m sorry you are couldn’t be a Roman Catholic Maybe Mormonism is closer to your spirituality Or the Vatican II’s Baltimore catechism .
Please read the references I have provided you.
Dear Eagle , It is apparent that we have different opinions on Scripture as a the bed rock of our faith. As Protestant fall into the Sola Scriptura trap many Catholics run from Scripture. The Apostles had the Old Testament Our Septuagint though it was the lesser to the new Testament because of Christ it was Holy scripture . I believe you mean well and I will look at your offerings . I would think that any Catholic would take Holy scripture over the conclusions of Deharbe. Just a thought.
Dear Jay:
I would think that any Catholic would conform his thought to those of The 2nd Council of Nicea, The Council of Trent, Pope Benedict XIV, Pius IX and the First Vatican Council, St. Pius X, any good Catechism pre-dating the rot of the Modernists, including Deharbe’s, that of the brothers of the Christian Schools, etc.
Sacred Scripture (Old Testament and New Testament) is the written word of God. Tradition is the unwritten word of God. But the Roman Catholic Church is the infallible guide to both. The Dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church are infallible, and must be believed with divine faith. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. I Timothy 3,15.
The bedrock of the Roman Catholic Faith is the Roman Catholic Church. Christ did not command us to learn to read. He did not ask that his teachings be written down. Rather he commanded us to listen to the Church. It is the Church which determined what is and what is not Sacred Scripture.
Deharbes catechism is not his conclusions, but rather, an accurate teaching of the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Please reference where in those Councils Deharbes catechism became the infallible word of God. Catechisms are guides that is all. Pope Eagle
If you look at all the references I gave you from those Denzinger numbers, you will find that Deharbes Catechism, is an accurate synopsis of The 2nd Council of Nicea, The Council of Trent, Pope Benedict XIV, Pius IX and the First Vatican Council, and St. Pius X. Martin Luther jay.
Dogma and Tradition , it most be a new religion . It is interesting that you use a black scavenger bird as your emblem very telling . When are you going to reinstate Arianism as dogma, a heresy that came about because the Church went against Sacred Scripture.
Please, Jay, do some studying. Get some advice from a well trained traditional Catholic priest. See if the priest will say I am wrong.
I guess Christ was wrong (may God forgive me for having to use this choice of words to illustrate the point) when He said “thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
Arianism was never a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Please, Jay, get some tutoring.
With regard to the emblem, I would hope that it is very telling. Please google Trent coat of Arms (as in the City of Trent, Italy where the Council of Trent was held). Or google stemma di Trento (Italian language)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Trient.JPG
https://leporelo.info/pics/small.php?f=trento-_znak.jpg&s=400
http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/images/archive/a/a5/20150419120134%21Trento.jpg
http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/images/c/cc/1446.aba.jpg
I confess I have an affinity to the teachings of the popes and councils of the Catholic Church, especially the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council.
While I am at it, I will also say unabashedly that I am “guilty” of HATE. I hate all that is opposed to the Roman Catholic Faith. I hate that which is evil, and I hope and pray that I always adhere to all that is truly good, to paraphrase St. Paul. May Almighty God preserve this hate in me, while increasing my charity for Him and for the souls He wishes to redeem.
I wish you all the best, Jay. Please consult a well trained Catholic priest. May God bless you.
Jay: Take a listen:
https://www.truerestoration.org/season-4-this-is-catholicism-episode-4-tradition-and-qualities-of-faith/
I was recently given this reference by a kind blogger on N.O.W. concerning a more recent topic.
From now on I will not use sacred scripture as a point of reference since you feel it is not important to our conversation .
Sacred Scripture is the written Word of God. Tradition is the unwritten Word of God. The Church is the divinely established guardian and teacher of both. The Church existed for a long time before any of the new testament was written. The Church tells us which books belong to the canon of Sacred Scripture, and which books do not (Old Testament and New Testament).
I do not know where you think I said Sacred Scripture was not important. I will not continue with this. I sent you this radio program out of charity, and without rancor.
The apostles creed makes no mention of Sacred Scripture, but does say I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.
You can elect to believe what you want. But if it does not conform to what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the Faith, and the motive for the Faith, then we will never agree. I choose to believe what the Church has taught. You can concoct your own system. Good luck with that.
Why is it that you seem to harbor the spirit of the Pharisees . Who are you kidding there’s no charity in you. your pride will be your downfall . I suggest you keep your opinions and self righteous judgments to yourself . Good luck with that.
For the sake of brevity, Please read Denzinger # 1787 through 1794, which is from Pius IX and Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith. I am not aware of how to upload a .pdf file to you, or I would send scanned pages of all that I have referenced.
God is unconditional love and forgiveness, God the Father’s ways and His Son Jesus ways are not known to us in perfect form do to our fallen nature. I think it’s best to leave the judging up to them and just try to live out the sermon on the mount to the best of our ability. We don’t see the whole picture but God does.