I have to disagree with Fr. Kramer with respect to the current pope because I am not one to issue value judgments about another without complete information available to me. Pope Francis is way too easy and convenient a target, especially for traditionalists. So I see no benefit whatsoever in denying the validity of his papacy, regardless of what his critics claim. But incidentally, I believe what Frs. Kramer and Gruner have stated with regard to Pope Benedict XVI being assassinated, if only because it fulfills the alleged vision of Pope St. Pius X regarding a future successor "of the same name" who will flee Rome "over the bodies of dead priests," and eventually suffer a horrific death....
I have no idea if Pope Francis is some kind of anti Pope. I have equally no idea if he is not. So I suppose it is better not guessing. But I admit I do privately wonder sometimes. He is just so totally awful. But I better not write or think about him anymore. The less I think about him the happier I am.
You know if I had to guess I suspect a Pope a hundred times worse than Pope Francis is waiting on the sidelines waiting to ascend the Throne. You may think that it is impossible that there could be a Pope worse than our present Holy Father..but wait and see...
there is a type of Catholic who has not left the Church because he believes that Francis' statements (which are often ambiguous in themselves) are misrepresented by the media; so imagine what will happen if a liberal comes along who clearly says what he wants for the Church.
I think you are right, Padraig. In one sense, Pope Francis has done the work (is doing the work) of eliminating opposition - presumably for a future Pope. Through Synodality, the restriction of the Latin Mass, removing all traditional voices from leadership, challenging the Catechism, being purposefully evasive and unclear in his words, and many other means, he seems to be weakening avenues for direct opposition to the work of a future Pope. Through these and other methods, the Pope will not need or be forced to directly address any opposition.
Yes Pope Francis kinda snuck behind the bushes and occasionally peeped out and showed his true colours. But a Pope is coming who will not sneak and hide. The time for being in the closet with these things is fast coming to a close.
Dear God have mercy on us all. I could ask, 'What have we done to deserve it?' But we all know we well deserve it. Out of the depths I cry to you oh Lord...
when Francis was elected most of us welcomed him enthusiastically because he appeared to be a conservative in his years as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, this time there can be immense apprehension already at the announcement of the new pope's name.
May be just sensational, but very weird. https://twitter.com/megynkelly/status/1538810945144770560?s=21
No, Pope Francis is not the “antiPope” and neither is he “so totally awful.” In my view, much of this vitriol aimed at this pontiff is really misplaced, and I say this as someone very much opposed to and concerned about the current state of the Church and this papacy. For those of us who are serious students of modern Catholic prophecy, we should focus more on the “bigger picture” rather than getting all worked up and allowing ourselves to be distracted from doing more to achieve our eternal salvation.
As a student of Catholic prophecy, I recall being less concerned about Pope Francis appearing to be “conservative” and more about how he fit into the timeline as per St. Malachy’s “Prophecy of the Popes.” Was he the one referred to as “Peter the Roman?” Stay tuned….
We have yet to see an “authentic” copy of the Third Fatima Secret so how can we determine if specific countries and cities are mentioned?
I finally did listen to the video, but it merely provides hints, not anything in particular that we could use to latch on to a specific candidate….From what I understand, the False Prophet will be an antipope in the service of the Antichrist….
I understand that if the 10 horns of the first beast represent 10 kings who give him power; so the two horns of the second beast (false prophet) indicate that he comes in the company of two other sinister figures.
Funnily enough I was listening to a very prominent Catholic lay Traditionalist broadcasting about the Holy Father yesterday. I did notice how very, very angry he was and for a very long period of time. In fact I would say it was in the nature of a 40 minute impassioned rant. I think in the first place getting angry is not helpful, also getting fixated on the goings on of Pope Francis is not helpful either (I used to get shocked and angry at the Holy Father's goings on but gave it all up thinking to myself what good does it all do, it only gets me upset and does not achieve anything...also the Spiritual Signs of such a loss of Peace were not good) . On the other hand I totally did agree with the substance of what the poor gentleman said. My concern was the impassioned and disrespectful way he said it. But there you are. For the same reason I would not go over the rights and wrongs of this present Papacy. What good would it do? If at this stage someone is fine with Pope Francis nothing I could say will change anyone minds. For myself personally going through the goings on of the Holy Father, past and present, would be like raking through a garbage can. I am just not going to do it. I have closed the book on Pope Francis and I am not about to open it again. I have moved on. But there is one point I would like to raise. Secular commentators talk of a , 'Conservative' and a 'Liberal/Progressive ' , wings in the Church. Rather as though it were some kind of political contest. But that is not how I see it. I see those Catholics who maintain the Faith of the Ages and its teachings facing those who are Apostate, Heretical and corrupt and who are trying to construct an anti Church as Catholic Prophecy foretells. There you are, I'll leave it at that . As far I'm concerned Pope Francis is the worst Pope in 2,000 years. But I'm not going to get into a big debate about it. If someone else feels different, that's fine. I'll leave it at that. I understand that asking any questions about a current Pope takes some people far outside their comfort level and I am willing to cater for that.
Garabandal appears to indicate what lies in the immediate future to the Church in the world. This also ties in with the hidden part of the Third Secret of Fatima (not released) ..concerning corruption and a Future Synod (this is clearly the German Synod , which is coming to a close) which will bring about a Schism in the Church. It is at this point that the Signs from Heaven will come. See here: https://spiritdaily.org/blog/news/the-elephant-in-the-room 'In several months, German bishops will conclude a two-year meeting or “synod” with no doubt some very controversial statements and actions. As the far-left news service National Catholic Reporter noted in April, 74 bishops from elsewhere around the world “signed a letter to the German bishops expressing concern about that country’s ‘Synodal Path,’ which voted on a series of reforms in February. The letter warns the German synodal consultations hold the ‘potential for schism…’ At the meetings of German Catholics earlier this year, the synodal body publicly voted for a document calling for women deacons and for involving laypeople in the selection of bishops, as well as calling for a relaxation of the rule of celibacy for the clergy and for some kind of blessing of same-sex unions.” This is interesting beyond just the ears of Church-news aficionados. According to a new book, Revelations: The Hidden Secret Messages and Prophecies of the Blessed Virgin Mary, by Xavier Reyes-Ayral [see below], a seer from a well-known and controversial apparition site in north-central Spain, when speaking of major future events, uttered the very word “synod” six decades ago — without knowing what the word fully indicated. This was according to María de la Nieves García, head of a school in Burgos, where the seer studied in 1966 and 1967. The nun derived the information from two priests. Stated the superior (reportedly): “During the apparition, the Virgin told [the visionary, Conchita Gonzales] that before the future events occur, a synod will take place, an important synod.” “Do you mean a Council?” the aunt allegedly asked (it was the time of Vatican II). “No, the Virgin didn’t say Council,” the seer purportedly responded. “She said ‘Synod,’ and I think Synod is a small council.” It’s all hearsay from an apparition that has had a topsy-turvy history. Apparently the mother superior drew her information from a priest who penned an early book on the alleged apparitions and relayed it to a second priest who according to the mother superior, “discussed that with Professor Lacques Serre who works at Paris-Sorbonne University and he decided that Synod as a pre-Warning.” “It is impossible,” the superior is quoted as stating, “for a 12-year-old girl without any knowledge and culture to talk about a Synod that didn’t exist.” We remain open to discerning this apparition as long as there is no final official rejection (as there is no current one, though there have been rejections in the past). As for the specific synod account: Much hearsay. But interesting it is in the wake of what is transpiring in the world and Church. Time will tell. “Let us note,” says author Reyes-Ayral, “that the children of [the apparition site] Garabandal were also told that the Warning [a huge future event prophesied there] would take place after… something very much like a schism takes place within the Church.” Meanwhile, if what’s happening in Germany isn’t enough, we also have a great challenge in how the devil-in-sheep’s-clothing is using the Church’s failings in this area, especially in the U.S., to stir division. The enemy is in front and behind us. Lay Catholics feel free to rip into cardinals, bishops, and priests by name on YouTube and elsewhere, as if this is mere politics. The Pope is also fair game. But the uncomfortable truth is that the Catholic Church, however august and to be respected, turned a blind eye toward admittance of homosexuals to seminaries from the late 1950s through the 1990s (and to current times, in some dioceses), leading to the literal avalanche of sexual abuse that has badly, tragically discredited Catholicism in the eyes of the world and caused the defection of many pewsitters, especially men, who even before the scandals had tired of the effete presence in some pulpits. Liberal Church trends in some dioceses have included the display of rainbow banners (though thankfully, not yet from steeples) and made the situation yet more unpalatable for devout rank-and-file heterosexuals who might want to become priests. Steeples? For whom does the bell toll — if indeed it now tolls at all? (That’s another baffling development: the absence in recent times of church bells or chimes, which, along with reminding the faithful of daybreak, were invented to chase the enemy away). We hear a report of a church in Upstate New York that not only flies the “pride” banner in its gathering space but also has hired a teacher who identifies as a “mermaid” (perhaps utilized also as a swimming coach).' Madre María de la Nieves García
