posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 07:25 AM
Moreover, in addition to what already is said,
the primacy of the pope and especially the infallibility are issues accepted only by the Catholic church after the Great Schism 1054, and after
Vatican1 for the infallibility. It is the Catholic church that is fallen from grace according to the majority of Orthodox and other Eastern Churches,
not the vice versus. Much water passed since then of course. Vatican II changed much in that direction.
However, if Benedict is the second to the last pope before the Second Coming, we should have expected those issues to be settled better by now. Will
the Christians meet Jesus divided during the last persecution of the Antichrist? I wonder why most Catholic preachers are speechless on these vital
With the real possibility the next pope to be the last one, the current cardinals electors may have changed their views since so many centuries have
passed. They could have prepared for a better and wiser election if they were given more time. Why not a month for reflection, or more? They have the
right to elect anyone baptized man who can become bishop. That hasn't been done for a long time, and the last time to be done was to elect a bishop
non-cardinal as pope. Why not again today? What stops the 118 wise old gentlemen to decide the best candidate who will untie the church, who will
accept as equal the other descendants of the apostles - the eastern patriarchs, and who in all respect will prepare for the coming Tribulation and
ultimately for the Second Coming of Jesus? Why should instead the cardinals be forced to accept in a hurry as never before in pre-set conditions a
candidature most likely from the curia or in close connection with the current administration? It is a pity the catholic church goes that road of
administrative choices without much real reform. The time came and passed for a real reform. Let remember the honorable electors that we are now 2013
So I suggest, because the conditions are not met for the Second Coming of Jesus, no pope will be elected either. If we are talking of real prophecies,
something many people believe they are such. Even people who do not belong to the catholic church or even to the much broader Christianity.
You have a dozen of apostolic successors of the apostles if not more, with several of them having apostolic succession from the same St Peter, mostly
in Antioch. That doesn't mean they are the same as the successor of Peter in the see of Rome. But the Roman hierarchy would do good to change its
long stance on the issue. Indeed changed in Vatican II but not enough. I don't know if I can be more precise, the other conclusions you can build up
from there. What we see is a command-administrative regime (to avoid the word totalitarian or authoritarian) instead of the much larger community of a
12-apostles brotherhood that Jesus created himself. Jesus never said to Peter: go in Rome! Never said: crown the kings in my name and rule the world
until I come! Never said: rule over your brethren! Instead He said:"whoever wants to be first among you, let be servant to all". And these "ALL"
are all apostolic churches today. Peter was not crowned king, he was hiding in catacombs, sharing with brethren, and he was crucified. Quite a
difference, if there could be comparison at all. The current pope did one of the most honorable things to step down. Let he show it was not
superficial move for unknown ends. The clock is ticking. Not only for pope Benedict but for the Roman church as well.