St Faustina Warns us of Bergoglio's Heresies and Apostasy.
#41
(12-01-2019, 12:06 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: That this "prophecy" could describe the sedevacantist notion of the Siri theory, the fake Paul VI theory, Benevacantism or any other number of possible force fits if we ignore certain aspects and cling to others shows how it does not actually describe today any more than 1958, or 1976, or any other period.

LOL It clearly cannot describe anything other then Benevacantism. Where else in history have we had a dubious election, two men in white and that person taking the name Francis of Assisi (Who doesn't reside in the Papal residency, nor wear the Papal garments nor change his name but maintains the use of Bergoglio on all his documents) and teaches and promotes outright heresy?

(12-01-2019, 12:06 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Without the ability to judge the election

Who has this ability? Who makes up this 'universally accepted'? I don't accept it in light of what we are witnessing today, his heresies and the evidence of collusion and that it may have been rigged.


(12-01-2019, 12:06 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-30-2019, 05:15 PM)maso Wrote: - Saint Francis and our Holy Father have the same name. Odd coincidence.

St Joseph and Stalin have the same name.

If Stalin a grown man taking office decided to be named after St Joseph and then there was an old prophecy attributed to St Joseph that described Stalin and what he's doing, then yea, otherwise it's not the same at all.

(12-01-2019, 12:06 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

lol

God Bless You
Reply
#42
(12-01-2019, 12:06 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-30-2019, 05:15 PM)maso Wrote: I cannot imagine that Br Lucas Wadding could have invented this prophecy out of thin air.

No one claimed he did.

(11-30-2019, 05:15 PM)maso Wrote: Certainly it already existed in older documents, printed or manuscript books or letters that he copied.


None of which establish its link to St Francis. Coupled with the stylistic problem, the history and other matters pointed out in the article, this certainly does not establish thus "prophecy" as spoken by St Francis. Add to this that the spirituals (Fratticelli) were proven liars and heretics, those documents could be from them and false just as easily. Thus their provenance is of import.

(11-30-2019, 05:15 PM)maso Wrote: - Which would be the aims of writing this kind of fake prophecy by the beginning of the 17th century?


If the linked article is correct the Fratticelli would have been trying to vilify the Popes who had condemned them and assert their justification by claiming St Francis had predicted their need to rebel.

That would put the date of the forgery much earlier, which is perhaps why people were not so scrupulous about including it.

(11-30-2019, 05:15 PM)maso Wrote: - How could a forger describe so accurately some of aspects of the Church we are undergoing nowadays ?


The assumed premise needs proving. Who says that the "prophet" is trying to describe today at all? This is the same assumed premise that New Age folks use with Nostradamus or cold reading, psychics, mediums, etc. Confirmation bias and pattern recognition. We will often make a description fit even when it is vague or contradictory, because we desire the conclusion and never evaluate the reality. It is the same seeing of evidence where there is none, just as in a static pattern or the clouds people see objects which do not really exist.

That this "prophecy" could describe the sedevacantist notion of the Siri theory, the fake Paul VI theory, Benevacantism or any other number of possible force fits if we ignore certain aspects and cling to others shows how it does not actually describe today any more than 1958, or 1976, or any other period.

(11-30-2019, 05:15 PM)maso Wrote: - The writer speaks of a "non canonically elected pope". He doesn't claim he is a false pope: That is the exact situation of Francis.


Nope. Francis was canonically elected. Or at least that's my claim. It's at least as valid a claim as yours. Without the ability to judge the election, which does not belong to me or you, we can only assume that universal acceptance means a canonical election.

Also since that discussion is restricted to the appropriate thread, I'd point out that in this thread the assumption must be that Francis was canonically elected.

(11-30-2019, 05:15 PM)maso Wrote: - Saint Francis and our Holy Father have the same name. Odd coincidence.

St Joseph and Stalin have the same name.

Again, false pattern recognition and confirmation bias.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

May I differ from you in that I and a lot of other people think that Pope Francis was not canonical elected ? This does not mean that Francis is not the Pope since nobody challenged his election during and immediately after the conclave. 
We know that a group of cardinals contravened seriously to the Pope John Paul II's Instructions Universi Dominici Gregis. 
In addition the writer and journalist  A.Socci revealed that there was one supernumerary ballot  in the last voting.
Reply
#43
(12-01-2019, 12:06 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Also since that discussion is restricted to the appropriate thread, I'd point out that in this thread the assumption must be that Francis was canonically elected.

I've now seen everything.
Reply
#44
(12-01-2019, 12:54 AM)boredoftheworld Wrote:
(12-01-2019, 12:06 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Also since that discussion is restricted to the appropriate thread, I'd point out that in this thread the assumption must be that Francis was canonically elected.

I've now seen everything.

Assumption is not certainty.
Reply
#45
(12-01-2019, 12:52 AM)maso Wrote: May I differ from you in that I and a lot of other people think that Pope Francis was not canonical elected ?

Fine. Keep it in the Benevacantism thread where it belongs!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#46
It certainly is an interesting correlation to make. Was it a coincidence? A mystical event? Does it mean anything for us? I don't know. Who really knows? I'm not sure it's possible to know. Maybe sometime later on we will, though. Thanks for sharing.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#47
(12-01-2019, 01:04 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(12-01-2019, 12:52 AM)maso Wrote: May I differ from you in that I and a lot of other people think that Pope Francis was not canonical elected ?

Fine. Keep it in the Benevacantism thread where it belongs!

Where's that thread? Can you give me a link to that thread, Jovan? I like to take another look at it. Maybe even stick my two cents in. Thanks.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#48
Maybe it's in the cornfield.  :D Remember the cornfield?
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#49
(12-01-2019, 07:30 AM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote:
(12-01-2019, 01:04 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(12-01-2019, 12:52 AM)maso Wrote: May I differ from you in that I and a lot of other people think that Pope Francis was not canonical elected ?

Fine. Keep it in the Benevacantism thread where it belongs!

Where's that thread? Can you give me a link to that thread, Jovan? I like to take another look at it. Maybe even stick my two cents in. Thanks.
I am neither sede nor benevacantist. Do you ignore that a few popes were not "canonically elected" in the Church's history ? Francis is one of them, though he has been acknowledged as our true Pope. Even the Saint Francis' prophecy okays this since it says that Jesus (not the Devil) "will send them not a true pastor but a destroyer"
Reply
#50
(1 Thessalonians 5:20)
 …"Do not extinguish the Spirit. 20Do not treat prophecies with contempt, 21but test all things. Hold fast to what is good".
It is too easy to dismiss a prophecy, labelled "fake" forever by the advanced exegetic study of pundits. I am not of the opinion that the prophecies ended when Jesus died on the Cross and resurrected. We got many prophets and prophecies during these last two millenaries and their number has increased since we are getting closer to the end times.
How many prophecies in the biblical times were forwarded through mouths and ears for generations until they were engraved in the marble in the same state as we can read them when they were written? During these oral lapses who knows how many times  they were twisted, shortened, lengthened or amended with the aim to match their actual times ? Should this worry anyone?
If the Spirit eventually delivered us as they are, staying now immutable in the Scripture this was for our spiritual enlightment.
In the same immutable way, in 1917 we got the Fatima prophecies through Sr Lucy's mouth (or pen). The 3rd Secret was disclosed only 19 years ago and everybody knows the fierce controversies that have emerged in this short lapse from those who said it was a forgery, those who suspected there was an undisclosed addendum, the cardinals who dared to say in 2000 that "it belonged to the past" and eventually Benedict XVI who declared that "we would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic message has been completely realized"
Saint Francis' prophecy makes no exception. We got it in latin by the early 17h c. through the book of Br Wadding, accurately translated and published in vernacular by the end of the 19th c. and probably there isn't nor will be any other version challenging it. Our duty is to test this prophecy according to the tenets of our Faith, not to discard it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)