The Third Secret of Fatima and the "Black Pope".

reply to post by adjensen


Thank you for contributing to the thread topic adj.

I tend to agree, he seems like he is trying to give the RCC a good name again since its reputation has been arguably tarnished with scandals the last few years.

The real danger to Francis, I'm afraid, is that he'll be murdered by someone within the Vatican, who is concerned about how he addresses the scandals, particularly those at the Vatican Bank.

The Vatican bank seems to be one of the scandals that has been largely ignored in the news, I had even forgotten it myself until you just mentioned it. I hope you're wrong about him being in danger from his own flock.

The St. Malachy prophesies have been sufficiently debunked, in my opinion, that I put little faith in the Pope (either Francis or a later one) being "Peter the Roman", who will destroy the church.

There are many prophecies that seem to fall in line with the theme of a final pope who destroys the church, not just St. Malachy. St. Malachy is one of the most well known, so that is the main reason I mention him in this thread. This website is particularly interesting to me on that topic.

www.marienfried.com...

reply to post by ccross

And yes the Bible was referring to the only Church that goes back to Peter, the Catholic Church. If he wasn't talking about an actual institution that is visible and concrete than what would be the point of creating a church at all?

The misconception that the Church will always have a large number of faithful Catholics, is not claimed in Sacred Scripture nor anywhere else. Quite to the contrary, Scripture tells us:

“… yet the Son of man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8).

..."you might would interpret it as he being an agent of the Christ."

YodHeVauHe.............I don't understand the highlighted (red) sentence. Please explain.

What that means that if your point of perception is that the RCC in general are the bad guys that if Pope Francis is shining a light on some of the fallabilities of the church then one might consider him to be a good guy.

=============================================================================================

And my educated and well informed response to that is:

There is no room for "interpretation" when it comes to the ludicrous possibility that our beloved pope would be spoken of in terms of the "AntiChrist. Its absurd on its face - therefore the issue isn't even open to discussion (either philosophically, spiritually or otherwise) let alone a so-called "interpretation." Anyone who dares to speak of the pope in this manner blasphemes, and all subsequent utterances to that effect from said person (or persons) are inimical to the Catholic faith.

The pope is "In Persona Christi"!

In persona Christi is a Latin phrase meaning “in the person of Christ,” an important concept in Roman Catholicism and, in varying degrees, to other Christian traditions. An extended term, In persona Christi capitis, “in the person of Christ the head,” was introduced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
For the Christological term, see Person of Christ

Cancerwarrior
This website is particularly interesting to me on that topic.

www.marienfried.com...

I took a look at the site, thanks.

This immediately jumped out at me:

Doctrinally, we know for a certainty that the current usurpers in Rome cannot possibly be Catholic, and therefore they cannot be the leaders of a Church of which they are not members. They may be in possession of the buildings once belonging to the Catholic Church, but they are not in possession of the Catholic Faith, and that is what really matters. For Faith is the life and heart of the true Christian, not just buildings or possessions.

That web page was written by someone who has fallen away from the Roman Catholic church (from other pages on that and an associated site, I presume over the reforms of Vatican II,) and wants it to be destroyed. As I said, there are many hard line Catholics who are very angry with Francis because of some of his words and actions, but that person has gone far beyond that point.

reply to post by YodHeVauHe

There is no room for "interpretation" when it comes to the ludicrous possibility that our beloved pope would be spoken of in terms of the "AntiChrist. Its absurd on its face - therefore the issue isn't even open to discussion (either philosophically, spiritually or otherwise) let alone a so-called "interpretation." Anyone who dares to speak of the pope in this manner blasphemes, and all subsequent utterances to that effect from said person (or persons) are inimical to the Catholic faith.

Thank you for your pointless reply and contributing absolutely nothing to the thread topic.

reply to post by adjensen


There are many, many websites that contain the same prophecies. A quick google will show you many more of them.

They all seem to say the same thing about an apostasy in the church, Maybe some of them were written by disillusioned Catholics, but the spirit the prophecies were written in is still there.

YodHeVauHe

littled16

YodHeVauHe

littled16reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

I think that whether or not the new Pope could be considered a candidate for Antichrist would depend on whether or not you interpret the Bible and the various prophecies literally or figuratively. If say you were to interpret the RCC as being corrupt ( Spirit of Antichrist) and the new Pope as being a dragonslayer (throwing the closets open and letting the skeletons and cobwebs fly out) you might would interpret it as he being an agent of the Christ. It just really depends on your perspective.

I don't understand the highlighted (red) sentence. Please explain.

What that means that if your point of perception is that the RCC in general are the bad guys that if Pope Francis is shining a light on some of the fallabilities of the church then one might consider him to be a good guy.

There is no room for "interpretation" when it comes to the ludicrous possibility that our beloved pope would be spoken of in terms of the "AntiChrist. Its absurd on its face - therefore the issue isn't even open to discussion (either philosophically, spiritually or otherwise) let alone a so-called "interpretation." Anyone who dares to speak of the pope in this manner blasphemes, and all subsequent utterances to that effect from said person (or persons) are inimical to the Catholic faith.

The pope is "In Persona Christi"!

Aaaaawww........ Well then call me blasphemer because if you aren't able to look at all things from every possible angle you're not denying ignorance- you're facilitating it. Did you come to your beliefs as a result of blindly taking someone else's word for what is right and true for you or did you come to them by asking your own "what ifs"?

the church, in and of itself is an abomination, in my opinion. the whole concept of needing a church, or pastor, or reverend, or father or pope to find god or Jesus is an abomination.

come to our church and i will speak to god for you, through me only can you find god, seems like it's against everything Jesus was known to teach, but it fits well when creating an abomination to control minions with.

"the church" what a waste of mankind, space, resources and lives ruined by control freaks and the wealthy to pillage generations of un suspecting human beings.

LittleBlackEagle
the whole concept of needing a church, or pastor, or reverend, or father or pope to find god or Jesus is an abomination.

An abomination? Really?

'Cause the church was founded by Christ, and is spoken about as being necessary throughout the New Testament. The "Me and my Bible" mentality is what results in distorted Christianity like the Westboro Baptist Church -- since there is no hierarchical structure for the Baptists like there is for Catholics or Lutherans, a Baptist can say whatever they want with no consequences.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


Thanks for your opinion, however this thread is not about bashing religion. There are many other tired old threads for you to do that on.

And my educated and well informed response to that is:

There is no room for "interpretation" when it comes to the ludicrous possibility that our beloved pope would be spoken of in terms of the "AntiChrist. Its absurd on its face - therefore the issue isn't even open to discussion (either philosophically, spiritually or otherwise) let alone a so-called "interpretation." Anyone who dares to speak of the pope in this manner blasphemes, and all subsequent utterances to that effect from said person (or persons) are inimical to the Catholic faith.

The pope is "In Persona Christi"!...........In persona Christi is a Latin phrase meaning “in the person of Christ,” an important concept in Roman Catholicism and, in varying degrees, to other Christian traditions. An extended term, In persona Christi capitis, “in the person of Christ the head,” was introduced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. For the Christological term, see Person of Christ

Cancerwarrior's ILL MANNERED REPLY to my post, which in actuality contributes much to the topic of this thread

Thank you for your pointless reply and contributing absolutely nothing to the thread topic.

I found your response to be impolite and filled with spitefulness and hate. It is NOT up to the standards set by ATS respecting their "Terms of Service."

Therefore I would like to ask the MODERATOR of this section to strike the offending post or to at least reprimand the ill mannered poster.

reply to post by YodHeVauHe

I found your response to be impolite and filled with spitefulness and hate. It is NOT up to the standards set by ATS respecting their "Terms of Service."

I found your post to be impolite and contributing absolutely nothing to the thread topic. Especially since you've changed it 3-4 times already.

Therefore I would like to ask the MODERATOR of this section to strike the offending post or to at least reprimand the ill mannered poster.

And I would ask the moderator to strike yours as an off topic post.

EDIT: since you have changed it around so much from your original post it is more in line with the thread topic. No need for a mod to delete it now.

adjensen

LittleBlackEagle
the whole concept of needing a church, or pastor, or reverend, or father or pope to find god or Jesus is an abomination.

An abomination? Really?

'Cause the church was founded by Christ, and is spoken about as being necessary throughout the New Testament. The "Me and my Bible" mentality is what results in distorted Christianity like the Westboro Baptist Church -- since there is no hierarchical structure for the Baptists like there is for Catholics or Lutherans, a Baptist can say whatever they want with no consequences.

that's your take on it as a supporter and i offered my take on it as a neutral. i don't have any against people believing what they want to, it's your choice really and we could argue all day, but honestly something that is truly good and needed, shouldn't need to be defended.

the church was founded by Christ, got any proof of that?

Cancerwarrior
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

Thanks for your opinion, however this thread is not about bashing religion. There are many other tired old threads for you to do that on.

i'm not bashing religion, just offering my opinion in a respectful manner and i though "everyone was welcome" in gods fake house? i say fake because god has no single house, nor religion, that was created by the wealthy to control the masses and relieve them of extra moneys.

my opinion is that the new pope is not the abomination, but the entire practice of organized religion is the abomination and or anti christ you speak of.

LittleBlackEagle
the church was founded by Christ, got any proof of that?

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18 NIV)

Combined with the book of Acts of the Apostles along with the writings of the early church fathers, the words of Jesus there in Matthew indicate that HIS church would be founded by Peter, and we know that the church that Peter founded, by the process of Apostolic succession, is today the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church (and some, including myself, would include the Anglican church in that grouping.)

If the words of Jesus, along with the historical record, aren't proof, I'm not sure what would be.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

my opinion is that the new pope is not the abomination, but the entire practice of organized religion is the abomination and or anti christ you speak of.

So when the Bible (as well as many other works of prophecy) talks of the anti christ, it really is talking about religion? I'm sorry, but that really makes no sense to me.

Personally I do not claim any religion, I figured out that it was not for me a long time ago. However it does help people pay more attention to the spiritual aspect of themselves, so its not all bad IMO.

reply to post by YodHeVauHe


While I support the right to not be insulted at every turn, I also believe that people can disagree with various beliefs. As you appear to be a Catholic, I would love to hear how you answer this issue:

Deu 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.




We see here that God does not want us adding to or taking away from his word. I find it amazing that God set the sabbath as Friday sundown to Saturday sundown and the Church has taken upon itself to change it. I find it amazing that God gave us HIS feast days and said they were to be perpetual and the Church has changed them including moving Easter just so it would NOT fall on Passover when it just happened to.

From this the Protestants followed suit, and really, the whole of Christendom is in sin in this. Thanks to us deciding what was fit and what was not. I could expect non-believers to set up rules contrary to God, but to say the Pope can override the very rulings of God written down for us is the height of arrogance. Do not tell me that because he is the "vicar of Christ" that he has that right to tell God what's what. That is the same as the Rabbinical Jews saying they get to set the rules because God is in heaven and as leaders on earth they have sway.

Christ is the head of the Church and no man or woman who claims to be a believer should find anyone speaking other than the bible they so profess to be holy and inspired should even approach the idea they have the right to change it. We will answer for our INDIVIDUAL decisions regardless of what some man says. God will not hear, "I was just following orders".

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Christ is our Sabbath. We worship God, not a day.

Kinda surprised you would have missed that.

This is a general reply to all readers and respondents of this thread - including the OP. w/ of course. Christ admonishes us all to "smile" when confronted by our enemy.

As for the propositions laid forth in this thread with respect to the so-called Malachy prophecies and the alleged "Black Pope:" Much to the chagrin of many non-believers, atheists, and Catholic bashers alike there is NO so-called "Black Pope." Its a disparaging term invented to malign the Jesuit Order - therefore its nothing but a mythic construct deserving of no attention whatsoever, and the same can be said for the so-called prophecies of Saint Malachy.

As for those same fraudulent prophecies - please be aware that the aforementioned non-believers, atheists, and Catholic bashers are already sharpening their respective 'blades' prompted by an inordinate desire to malign our pope in particular, and the Church in general by referring people to those so-called prophecies (they're not prophesies at all, but outright forgeries proven to be so by the Catholic Church) according to which (depending on one's interpretation) there remains only one pope after Benedict XVI, a pope who will be known as Peter the Roman. Please keep in mind that the Church never has accepted this purported prophecy as true in any way, shape or form. It undoubtedly is a absolute forgery. Supposedly the prophecy was made around 1139 by St. Malachy, but the prophecy was unknown until 1595 and seems to have been concocted to influence a papal election of that era. In other words, give no weight to it and derive no anxiety from it.

As for the awkward description of the last pope contained within this absurd "prophecy," it reads as follows: “In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The end.” The implication: after the reign of this pope ends, the world will be destroyed.

Now for a dose of reality.

The esteemed College of Cardinals elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio pope. Bergoglio took the name of Francis, thus ending the speculation of a Pope Peter II. In addition, the new pope's birth name is missing any reference to a 'Peter' as well. As for his place of birth, Pope Francis was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which is thousands of miles from Rome.

The selection of all previous popes, and of pope Francis in particular, is and always has been, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, to whom we should give thanks for having provided us such a fine pope who shall be operating magnificently under the mantle of Our Blessed Mother Mary, and under the protection and guidance of one of the most revered of all Catholic saints - St. Francis of Assisi - loved by all, Catholic and non Catholic alike, and from whom many great blessings shall flow with respect to a "revolution in the Church" (

adjensen

LittleBlackEagle
the church was founded by Christ, got any proof of that?

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18 NIV)

Combined with the book of Acts of the Apostles along with the writings of the early church fathers, the words of Jesus there in Matthew indicate that HIS church would be founded by Peter, and we know that the church that Peter founded, by the process of Apostolic succession, is today the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church (and some, including myself, would include the Anglican church in that grouping.)

If the words of Jesus, along with the historical record, aren't proof, I'm not sure what would be.

what you have is a book, several books, written by men, common men with no proof Jesus ever said any of that, you have no proof, just belief, at least admit that to yourself. i'm not indicating you need proof to believe in something, just that you should be aware of what you're doing from day to day.

heck your own scholars from all walks of organized religion can't even agree to anything and that's because they are all playing by a rule book written by corruptible men and edited by many generations of the same, good luck with that, you'll need it.

Cancerwarrior
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

my opinion is that the new pope is not the abomination, but the entire practice of organized religion is the abomination and or anti christ you speak of.

So when the Bible (as well as many other works of prophecy) talks of the anti christ, it really is talking about religion? I'm sorry, but that really makes no sense to me.

Personally I do not claim any religion, I figured out that it was not for me a long time ago. However it does help people pay more attention to the spiritual aspect of themselves, so its not all bad IMO.

what corrupt people have done with the church is indeed an abomination, killing in the name of god, do i have to show you?????????? how many countless lives have been butchered, tortured and so on in the name of the church?

i wasn't around when Jesus was here, as far as i know, but i'm certain any decent being would look upon what "organized religion" was made into thousands of years ago, as some kind of sadistic joke.

the pope is a master of deceit, like all the puppet masters before him, but he's far from alone.