TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[fides' Jack]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

And there is absolutely nothing in those Bible verses about the entire leadership of the Church becoming corrupted and leading the faithful away from the truth.

The entire leadership of the Church cannot become corrupted.  The Church will last until the end of time.  The foundations of the Church are being shaken, but will not be entirely destroyed.  

 

My own interpretation of the end times, from the Bible and from other sources, is subject to error.  I typically try not to do exactly what you're trying to get me to do, by giving exact passages, for this very simple reason.   My level of understanding falls pretty short when I begin discussing the Bible.  I try to rely on other sources for the correct interpretation, though I admit my ability to pass on that information accurately is quite a bit more limited than my ability to understand it for myself (both of which are subject to error). 

When discussing the end times, one source I rely on more heavily is "The End of the Present World":

https://www.sophiainstitute.com/products/item/the-end-of-the-present-world

If it's good enough for St. Therese, it's good enough for me.

To know that we are in the end times, it is enough to know that the majority of bishops in the world shut down public Mass for a time.  There can be no greater precursor or warning than that.

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

COMMUNIQUÉ of the Superiors-General of the "Ecclesia Dei" Communities [on Traditionis Custodes]

"The mercy of the Lord is upon all flesh."(Sirach 18, 13)

This document was very moving.  When it came out I was very touched by the humility in it, and commitment to obedience.  It comes across as a plea for mercy from the Holy Father.  My guess is that it surprised him, too.

[fides' Jack]

Knight of Christ may have already brought this up, but in case he hasn't:

Quote

It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."

Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 4, ad. 2.

5 hours ago, Peace said:

You may not like it, but that is Protestantism, pure and simple.

Yes, and it's also a straw man argument.  Again and again and again, you say, "Here is what I'm seeing from you."  And then you go on to misrepresent people, and then accuse them, personally, when you don't agree with the misrepresentation.

You have not yet accurately represented my words or actions.

Edited September 8, 2021 by fides' Jack
grammar

[Peace]

52 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

You have not yet accurately represented my words or actions.

Well exactly what is the "end times" prediction that you keep alluding to? Stop hiding the ball and then getting mad when I tell you where I think you are going.

Is the Pope going to be a heretic? Is the pope currently a heretic? Is he going apostate? Is he going to lead the people away? Is he going to become the anti-Christ? Is the pope currently the anti-Christ?

Are the majority of the bishops in the world going to become heretics leading the faithful away from the truth, but save for a small minority of priests and lay-Catholics who uphold the true faith?

This is quite certainly the impression that I am getting of what your end-times prediction is. All of your visions, private revelations, and forth. And you know plenty well that you have insinuated most if not all of the above in the various statements you make about our clergy, and those are the same things that the Protestants insinuate.

Then you come along and say "Woe is me, I've never said bad things about the clergy. Please stop misrepresenting me." after having insinuated here for years that the pope is a heretic, I think you even called him an anti-Christ once, no?

So give me a break with the woe is me talk pal. I am not going to play that game. If you think me comparing the things that you argue and insinuate with the same things that the Protestants argue and insinuate is an unwarranted personal attack, too bad. I don't care about that. I think the criticism is valid. If Paul can correct Peter, as you note above, certainly I can correct you.

Now, please feel free to clarify exactly what it is that you think is going to happen, or that you think is happening currently. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

[fides' Jack]

49 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well exactly what is the "end times" prediction that you keep alluding to? Stop hiding the ball and then getting mad when I tell you where I think you are going.

Not mad.  Also not hiding the ball.  

The end times that I am alluding to, referring to, and outright talking about are those times prophesied in the book of revelation, about the coming Antichrist and the subsequent defeat of satan by Our Blessed Mother.  

However, I think it's important to distinguish, the term "end times" doesn't necessarily mean "end of time".

51 minutes ago, Peace said:

Is the Pope going to be a heretic? Is the pope currently a heretic? Is he going apostate? Is he going to lead the people away? Is he going to become the anti-Christ? Is the pope currently the anti-Christ?

I don't know.  I'm not in a position where I could answer any of these questions with any certainty.  If I thought I could it would be more reason to disbelieve it.  I'm guessing that no, the pope will not be the Antichrist.  Many of the Church fathers were pretty certain that the Antichrist would be Jewish and would reign on the earth from the Holy Land.  As far as I know PF is not Jewish...?

I submit myself to the true authority of the pope.  I always have and always will.

54 minutes ago, Peace said:

Are the majority of the bishops in the world going to become heretics leading the faithful away from the truth, but save for a small minority of priests and lay-Catholics who uphold the true faith?

It's possible they already are, but I don't know that with any certainty, either.

Certainly the majority of bishops in this country are not doing their job.  More than that I can't say.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Then you come along and say "Woe is me, I've never said bad things about the clergy. Please stop misrepresenting me." after having insinuated here for years that the pope is a heretic, I think you even called him an anti-Christ once, no?

I'm not saying "woe is me".  I'm correcting you.  Maybe you just don't like being corrected?  Perhaps we share that in common.

I haven't insinuated here for years that the pope is a heretic.  He is to be publicly corrected when he publicly makes speaks or acts against the Church's teachings, which he does so now with increasing frequency.

Yes, I did call him an antichrist, and I hold to that charge.  He is not a good pope.  That's obvious and it doesn't help to pretend that he is a good pope.  But I certainly don't think he is or will become the Antichrist.  

By the way, I also hold that I have been more of an antichrist throughout my life than a good Christian, if that makes any difference for you.  I'm trying to change that every day.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

If you think me comparing the things that you argue and insinuate with the same things that the Protestants argue and insinuate is an unwarranted personal attack, too bad. I don't care about that. I think the criticism is valid. If Paul can correct Peter, as you note above, certainly I can correct you.

Absolutely you can correct me.  Just do it honestly.  I mean, you don't have to be honest.  It's really more of a courtesy.

That being said, I don't think you were lying, either.  I just think you follow what's not written more than you do what actually is written.  You infer more than others imply or insinuate.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Now, please feel free to clarify exactly what it is that you think is going to happen, or that you think is happening currently. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

Certainly!

I believe it's likely the Antichrist (whoever that is) will become in some sense the leader of the world before the end of 2026, and then will reign for 3.5 years.  Until that time, many things will occur.

I do believe in the prophecy of St. Patrick that Ireland will sink or be otherwise covered in water 7 years before the fall of the Antichrist.  If I'm right about the Antichrist falling in 2029, that puts that event sometime in 2022.

So many different prophecies throughout the centuries are starting to converge, already...

As that number is fairly specific, I want to say here, I don't know the day or the hour or even the year, for sure.  But I have complete faith that it is coming, because Our Lord says it is.  I completely admit that I could be wrong, and it might not happen in this century.  But I have a lot of signs pointing to it happening now, which is why I do believe.  

If I'm right, the Church will continue to move further and further from established doctrine.  At some point, which is probably a different point for each individual person, most Catholics will cease to be Catholic and will become part of a false Church.  Even during that time, it will be impossible for anyone to say in most cases that "so-and-so has fallen".  God knows the heart.  I do not. 

We will experience periods of the loss of sacraments, which is one of the chief goals of satan (and it will become law during the reign of the Antichrist).

The state will assume greater and greater control over people's lives while simultaneously moving closer and closer to a single government over the whole world.  

Everything that's been happening in this crazy world for the last few years, and everything that happens over the next few years, is/will be another step in satan's plans to attempt to destroy the Church.  God will let more and more people fall into the falsehoods that they don't desire to escape from.  Many will lose their souls, as they resign their belief more and more to the dictates of "scientists".  

We will see drastic earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, flooding, and other natural disasters (if you live near a coast, I would recommend moving as soon as you can).  This will be blamed on climate change, which will cause many more to turn to "science", rather than God.  Truly though, it will a result of our sinfulness and refusal to accept God's graces.  Some of these things can be mitigated or even stopped through our prayers and fasting and offering our daily crosses to Our Lord.

I believe the Illumination of Conscience will occur before the coming of the Antichrist, and it will serve as a warning.  6 weeks later, the world will experience nuclear war, but God will divert many warheads.

I believe that after the fall of the Antichrist, the world will change drastically, and we will experience the era of peace described by Our Lady.  I don't know that it will be a thousand years, but I'm leaning in that direction.  During that time, the earth itself will appear healthier.  Crops will grow like never before.  The human race will be much smaller, but all will be Christian, or at least more Christian.  All will be happy.  Mortal sin will be almost entirely or entirely gone.  It will be a more joyous time than the world has seen since Adam and Eve.  Life will be simpler (possibly no electronics or engines).  All who live, despite being happy, will long for Heaven.  Disease will be gone or almost gone.  

I believe during that time Christ will truly reign in the hearts of men.

After that time, however long that is, satan will once again be loosed on the earth for a short time, after which Christ will come again, in person, and defeat him, at which point will be the General Resurrection and the General Judgment.  

[Ash Wednesday]

16 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

This document was very moving.  When it came out I was very touched by the humility in it, and commitment to obedience.  It comes across as a plea for mercy from the Holy Father.  My guess is that it surprised him, too.

I'm glad to see the appreciation for their response, I have to say I disagree with the critics that felt they "caved" -- I believe that the humble and obedient response is the wiser route as opposed to whatever kind of bold and resistant flex some of the armchair quarterbacks from the laity online were apparently hoping for.  As if that would totally end well. 

[Credo in Deum]

Apparently what was once sacred isn't sacred anymore.  At least not until a different Pope tells us it's sacred again.

 

 

Hot potato!

 

[KnightofChrist]

"Real to the touch but capable of being created, destroyed, and created. All on a whim." - Jean-Luc Picard

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

We need the good man Desmond Birch back to bring some perspective to the end times 'speculation'.  

Too bad he would never consider coming back after how he was treated last time.

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

We need the good man Desmond Birch back to bring some perspective to the end times 'speculation'.  

Too bad he would never consider coming back after how he was treated last time.

 

 

 

 

[Peace]

15 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Apparently what was once sacred isn't sacred anymore.  At least not until a different Pope tells us it's sacred again.

 

 

Hot potato!

 

Well you don't take what is holy and give it to dogs. The TLM is sacred, but the issue is that it was being abused by a significant number of trads. So it is being taken away from them. Hopefully there will be a time when the pope decides to bring it back, and people have enough sense to stop using it as a point of reference for denigrating the NO.

15 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I'm glad to see the appreciation for their response, I have to say I disagree with the critics that felt they "caved" -- I believe that the humble and obedient response is the wiser route as opposed to whatever kind of bold and resistant flex some of the armchair quarterbacks from the laity online were apparently hoping for.  As if that would totally end well. 

Yeah I thought it was good. The one thing that has been lacking in the responses I have seen is actual reflection upon some of the reasons for the ban set forth in Pope Francis's letter. I've seen some of those problems from trads with my very own eyes. Some folks are simply in denial concerning their own culpability in creating the circumstances that lead to the pope's decision. I don't think you are really going to have any change from the pope with respect to the TLM until folks own up to those problems and earnestly seek to correct them. The response seems to be more along those lines, rather than the "The Pope hates anything traditional and is a heretic" response, which ultimately is just a shifting of blame and will achieve NOTHING.

[fides' Jack]

39 minutes ago, Peace said:

The TLM is sacred, but the issue is that it was being abused by a significant number of trads.

If that is true, and I'm not saying it is, the Ordinary Form has been far more abused, exponentially so, by anti-trads.  In fact, the most respectful celebrations of the OF, and those most in line with the teachings of VII that I've seen, have been by priests with traditionalist leanings.

I suppose that's a bit of whataboutism.  But true nonetheless.  

16 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I believe that the humble and obedient response is the wiser route

Time will tell.  Probably.

I'm anxiously awaiting the news of how Rome reacts to this.  It certainly isn't over.  I expect schism to increase and belief in the true presence to decrease.

55 minutes ago, Peace said:

"The Pope hates anything traditional and is a heretic" response, which ultimately is just a shifting of blame and will achieve NOTHING.

The problem is our sinfulness.

12 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

We need the good man Desmond Birch back to bring some perspective to the end times 'speculation'.  

Too bad he would never consider coming back after how he was treated last time.

He joined the forum at some point?

Agreed that all I have said on the issue thus far is speculation, but it is speculation based on multiple perspectives (including magisterial) on current events.

I'm a fan of Desmond Birch.  I admit I haven't completely read his work on the end times, and I'm sure he's done a lot of work outside of just T, T, & T.

It would be especially interesting to hear his take on current events.  This inspired me to look him up and he has a rather strong take on the Pachamama scandal - still very much in line with my own.

10 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

 

I completely listened to this video.  I agree 100%.  I will most likely listen to the entire series presented in that youtube channel - they mentioned at the end that they're going to get into the idea of the Era of Peace.  I'll be interested to hear his take on that.

Any idea when the original recording was?  I see it was uploaded in 2012 to youtube.  I'm assuming it's early 2000's or 90's?

What's really interesting to me in the first half, and puts into better words than I can (and I've tried), where he highlights the importance of the fact that Christ's Kingdom is already here, and we experience it through the sacraments (among other things).  I can only come to the conclusion that most bishops today don't believe that, sadly.  It really speaks to the truth: there is absolutely no reason to shut down sacraments - even if there is a disease out there that kills 99% of people who get it - in fact, especially not then.

Here's another video by a Catholic theology professor that discusses, in great depth, the two prevailing theories that Catholic theologians have regarding the Era of Peace. (and strongly advocates for one of them) - 2 hrs, but well worth it.  I've listened to it a couple times.

 

[Peace]

7 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

If that is true, and I'm not saying it is, the Ordinary Form has been far more abused, exponentially so, by anti-trads.  In fact, the most respectful celebrations of the OF, and those most in line with the teachings of VII that I've seen, have been by priests with traditionalist leanings.

Well let's say that hypothetically the pope had concluded "The NO is being abused, and in my judgment it is better that we return to the TLM as the ordinary form, to prevent these abuses".

I'd say OK, that is what the pope decided is best in his prudential judgment, and I'd be attending the TLM on Sundays. And when people who were mad about the NO being banned started whining and complaining, I would say "Well, the reason for that is because of the significant abuses that many people are responsible for."

In either case it's up to the pope and the other bishops to make determinations as to the extent of problems, and the best way that they can be remedied. It's for me to follow their decision. That's the way I look at it at least.

 

[fides' Jack]

37 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well let's say that hypothetically the pope had concluded "The NO is being abused, and in my judgment it is better that we return to the TLM as the ordinary form, to prevent these abuses".

I'd say OK, that is what the pope decided is best in his prudential judgment, and I'd be attending the TLM on Sundays. And when people who were mad about the NO being banned started whining and complaining, I would say "Well, the reason for that is because of the significant abuses that many people are responsible for."

In either case it's up to the pope and the other bishops to make determinations as to the extent of problems, and the best way that they can be remedied. It's for me to follow their decision. That's the way I look at it at least.

 

I agree with you, to a point.  It's difficult to say more, because there are a lot of different directions this could go.

If the pope did decide that, and banned the NO, and the NO was mostly 1500 years old (with few alterations during that time), I would still raise my objections (read: whine and complain), and I don't see a problem with that, as long as it's respectful.

The faithful have a canonical right to bring their concerns up with their pastor AND their bishop, and (depending on circumstances) engage with their concerns in the public sphere.

All that being said, what hurts the celebration of the EF can only hurt the OF.  The opposite is not necessarily true.

[Peace]

6 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

The faithful have a canonical right to bring their concerns up with their pastor AND their bishop, and (depending on circumstances) engage with their concerns in the public sphere.

Absolutely.

[fides' Jack]

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Taylor Marshall, though I don't always agree with him.  His most recent take on the reaction to Traditionis Custodes below.  At the very least, he presents the possible stances that a Catholic might take.