Hi David, I often read some of your comments . I don´t agree with most of what you write but think you are an asset to the forum. After you posted that message by Vassula (whom I believe is a true messenger) in which Our Lord allegedly urges us to support Pope John Paul I think I´m beginning to understand where you´re coming from. Your unwavering support of the current Pope, which sometimes seems to defy logic and ignore facts stems, I believe, from the messages of Vassula urging unity. Messages such as this: Orthodox! Catholics! Protestants! You all belong to Me! You are all One in My Eyes! I do not make any distinction... My Vassula draw three iron bars with a head on the top these represent the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and the Protestants, I want them to bend and unite but these iron bars are still very stiff and cannot bend on their own, so I shall have to come to them with My Fire and with the power of My Flame upon them they shall turn soft to bend and mould into one solid iron bar, and My Glory will fill the whole earth Message of October 27, 1987 I myself completely believe that Unity is desirable and will eventually come - it´s God who wishes so. I think you support the current Pope because you see him as "bending" so that the three churches may unite. You see him as the vehicle through which Our Lord will unite Christianity. And because unity is so desirable (and let me repeat: I agree!) you are willing to "turn a blind eye" on any decision of his, even the ones that seem to contradict the words of Our Lord and 2,000 years of Chruch tradition. Am I right? The questions that spring to mind are: what does Our Lord mean by "bending"? Is it bending the words of Our Lord, a kind of "anything goes" as long as we achieve Unity? Our Lord did seem to urge support for Pope John Paul in that 1987 message. But that was specific support for a great Pope, a defender of Tradition, a Pope that did not stray from 2,000 years of Church tradition. Has Our Lord said anything about the current Pope? Has He urged the same kind of unrestricted support, no matter what he does or where he intends to take the Church? By saying he wants to create "a big mess" (what Pope ever said something like this?), by ignoring abortion, same-sex "marriages", by cozying up to the world leaders and the UN, by praising abortionists, by welcoming population control advocates, by saying Chistians should apologize to gay people, by supporting contraception, by saying Marxists are the new Christians, by persecuting those who adhere to Tradition he may be indeed building some kind of unity with protestants and with the powerful elite, but is this the kind of Unity that Our Lord desires? is this the kind of Unity that will bring good fruits and help establish Our Lord´s Kingdom on earth? Please ponder all this. I wish you the very best.
Well Blizzard I like your way of replying: with respect and with effort to understand. May all comments continue like this.
I think you support the current Pope because you see him as "bending" so that the three churches may unite. You see him as the vehicle through which Our Lord will unite Christianity. And because unity is so desirable (and let me repeat: I agree!) you are willing to "turn a blind eye" on any decision of his, even the ones that seem to contradict the words of Our Lord and 2,000 years of Church tradition. I don't see Pope Francis as the person through which Our Lord will unite the Christian Churches. We simply do not know how the Lord will achieve it but He has promised it so it will happen. But Pope Francis is certainly helping the process. The questions that spring to mind are: what does Our Lord mean by "bending"? Is it bending the words of Our Lord, a kind of "anything goes" as long as we achieve Unity? Absolutely not! The messages of True Life in God are the very opposite of 'anything goes'. When Vassula speaks to non-christians, she doesn't compomise her message. The 'bending' of which the Lord speaks is primarily a bending in humility. That means the avoidance of the "we are right and you are wrong" mentality which totally blocks unity. Our Lord did seem to urge support for Pope John Paul in that 1987 message. But that was specific support for a great Pope, a defender of Tradition, a Pope that did not stray from 2,000 years of Church tradition. Has Our Lord said anything about the current Pope? Has He urged the same kind of unrestricted support, no matter what he does or where he intends to take the Church? The message I quoted was a reference to any and every Pope. I believe it specifically named the incumbent Pope possibly to undermine those who believed John Paul was not a valid pope. By saying he wants to create "a big mess" (what Pope ever said something like this?), by ignoring abortion, same-sex "marriages", by cozying up to the world leaders and the UN, by praising abortionists, by welcoming population control advocates, by saying Chistians should apologize to gay people, by supporting contraception, by saying Marxists are the new Christians, by persecuting those who adhere to Tradition he may be indeed building some kind of unity with protestants and with the powerful elite, but is this the kind of Unity that Our Lord desires? is this the kind of Unity that will bring good fruits and help establish Our Lord´s Kingdom on earth? There are many criticisms of Pope Francis embedded in that paragraph! Too many to respond to here. The focus of Pope Francis is always on the individual person. He does not focus on the sins of people. He wants to attract everyone to Jesus, whatever their background. I believe he acts just as Jesus would want him to.
I quoted the St. Francis prophecy in the context of an exchange between Fatima, Muzhik and Brian. What you quoted from Mark Mallet doesn't really address the possibility raised in Muzhik's comment: "Actually, if he knowingly held heretical views (such as communion for all regardless of the state of their soul) and did not reveal them before the election, then that would invalidate the election. The cardinal electors could not then make an informed choice when voting." I must stress here that Muzhik wasn't giving an opinion on the validity of the Francis papacy. He was merely giving an example of how an apparently validly elected Pope might not have been canonically elected. It does, however, explain for me the apparent contradiction of how Our Lord could send us a Pope who was not canonically elected. Mark Mallet was addressing the question of whether Pope Benedict's resignation was invalid. Muzhik's hypothetical scenario doesn't depend on a situation where there is a Pope Emeritus and a reigning Pope. When I quoted the St. Francis prophecy, I did point out that that questions had been raised about its authenticity. If memory serves me, the doubts are due to whether the prophecy was invented by someone long after the death of the saint. It is included in an English translation of a book about St. Francis. The translation was published in 1882. I understand that there are doubts about both the original and the translation but I could be mistaken. The translation that is available on line includes this footnote: "Mark of Lisbon and others think that this prophecy received its accomplishment in the great schism which desolated the Church after the election of Urban Vl in the year 1378. But it may also partially refer to other calamities which have befallen the Church in the latter ages." If the prophecy itself is authentic, I fail to see how these words can have been fulfilled in 1378: "except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error". That Gospel reference is about the times leading up to the second coming of Christ and the abomination of desolation.
There was one mystery about the election of Pope Francis that at the time was very unusual. I did bring it up on the forum before, but there was no response. Does anyone else remember this. It was on the news here in the UK on the day of the election of Pope Francis. On the day Pope Francis was elected Pope. Earlier that day, the bells were rung I believe in Milan celebrating the election of another Cardinal to the Papacy, they were that certain of who would be on the balcony later. I can't remember the name of the Cardinal, he must have been from Milan. When Pope Francis came out on the balcony at St Peters in Rome, I thought there must have been a group within the Vatican who had wanted another Cardinal elected, and another group within the Vatican who got Pope Francis elected. That struck me as very strange at the time, and I wondered if it was Italian Cardinals trying to keep the papacy Italian. Now with all that is happening and being said, it makes you wonder was there some coup at the time. Only God knows.
I don't remember that, Julia, but it wouldn't be unusual for the cathedral bells to be rung celebrating the election of the Pope before knowing the new Pope's identity. In fact, I think that ringing the bells is the norm rather than the exception as soon as there's white smoke. Perhaps the rumours were about Cardinal Martini. He made no secret of canvassing and I think he was from Milan but I don't think that Pope Francis would have been his first choice. I could be conflating my memory of what I read about two conclaves - the one that elected Pope Benedict and the later one that gave us Pope Francis.
I was thinking the same thing Dolours. Martini campaigned hard for PF. He himself was very ill so could no longer be a Papabile but said he trusted Jorge Bergoglio to do what needed to be done. I read that at the time of the election. Martini was a very liberal Cardinal.
The one strange element in all this is an unspoken question. Was BXVI coerced into resigning? It was tried on JPII but he said at one point something to the effect that a pope may not resign. He is Pope until Christ calls him home.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-mistake-idUSBRE92D0LA20130314 Italian bishops thank God for wrong pope | Reuters Italian bishops were so convinced that one of their own would become pope that they sent a congratulatory message to the media thanking God for the election of a prelate from Milan. The trouble was, the new pope had already been named as Argentinian cardinal Jorge Bergoglio. The secretary-general of the Italian conference, Monsignor Mariano Crociata, expressed "joy and thanks" to God for the election of Cardinal Angelo Scola of Milan in a statement sent to reporters at 8:23 p.m. (3:23 p.m. ET) on Wednesday night. About 10 minutes earlier, Bergoglio had made his first appearance before the crowds in St. Peter's Square. At 9:08 p.m. (4:08 p.m. ET), the Italian bishops conference sent another statement thanking God for the election of the pope, but this time got the name right. In the days leading up the secret conclave, many Italian newspapers openly promoted Scola as the next pope. The newspapers - and the bishops conference - appear to have missed the warning contained in a traditional Italian saying that front-runners at a papal conclave are often disappointed. "He who enters a conclave as a pope, leaves it as a cardinal," the saying goes. Perhaps it was never more true in the modern age than in the conclave that elected Bergoglio instead of the Italian favorite Scola.
Cardinal Martini was certainly a controversial figure. Italian Freemasons were very sad at his passing and expressed annoyance that Pope Benedict didn't appear to share their grief. May the Lord have mercy on his soul.
I had never heard anyone tried to make Saint JPII resign. I think they would not succeed because he was a true fighter in the Heavenly sense of the word. God bless Saint John Paul. How we miss him.
Chilling video. I better go back and check the source. I know I read this after the election in 2013. But on the video it mentions Martini died in 2012 so maybe I got it wrong. My apologies. I will have to chase down the article.
Fr. Malachi Martin spoke about it. Fr. Martin died in 1999 and Pope John Paul outlived him by six years. Although I don't think there's any doubt that people in the Vatican wanted him to resign when he was ill, Fr. Martin didn't give the impression that his illness was the reason they wanted him out. Cardinal Martini died in 2012. This blog more or less sums up what I read about him: http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/065837621bedf51d45b91a5e75699ef5-174.html It appears to be the blog of a very traditionalist Catholic and, although the author wouldn't have been the Cardinal's biggest fan, there's nothing in it that jumps out as being especially inaccurate. I'm editing this to say that even if Cardinal Martini had been a Freemason, his rowing in behind Cardinal Bergoglio after his own bid for the papacy having failed at the first count doesn't mean that Pope Francis was also a Freemason. It could have simply been a case of supporting a fellow Jesuit. Also, perhaps what stuck in your memory was the headline from the NCR acclaiming Pope Francis as Martini's Pope.
Yes that may be what I read. At the time the article wuoted Martini sYing something to the effect that he knew PF had courage and integrity and could make the changes that needed to be made. I had not realized that Cardinal Martini was also a Jesuit. I think Fr Martin indicated that the "progressives" in the hierarchy hated JP II and wanted him out and were politicking to do so but he outfoxed them bless his heart. Windswept House goes into this.
