Clashing Centennial Jubilees : 13.X vs 31.X

Something BIG Is About to Happen on OCTOBER 31, 2017 !!!
Bible Flock Box | added 10 oct. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQlA2u1oe8

I

Today is October 13 - Fatima Day.

100 years ago, it was the last apparition of Our Lady in Fatima to three young shepherd children.

She foretold a lot of the ensuing troubles. Confer Amos 3:7.

As to Luther, Galatians 1:9 I think it was (yes, I checked) tells how Catholic authorities had to deal with him.

January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X in a bull named Decet Romanum Pontificem was obeying Paul in Galatians 1:9 - Saint Paul, of course.

II

1:34 Bergoglio on this October 31 is of course NOT obeying St Paul.

He's obeying the advice of his friend, an Anglican "bishop" with no valid orders, whom he buried with the ritual reserved for a Catholic actual bishop, actual successor of the Apostles (OK, in reality that rite involves no Novus Ordo Mass, but the Traditional Mass, which we are sure he didn't use).

That dead friend of his was Tony Palmer. He died in a biking accident.

I wonder if Pope Michael is going to re-excommunicate Bergoglio over this step ... (he is already excummunicated by saying Evangelicals proclaim same Gospel as Catholics : Evangelicals proclaim same things on items of it, but not on the whole of it).

1:57 If he is not interested in making a compromise, he sure makes a good job of pretending so.

The 1999 declaration, signed either by Antipope Wojtyla or by his then cardinal, later Antipope successor Ratzinger, was a compromise which a Catholic cannot accept. Simple as that.

It was not well received by SSPX.
It was not well recived by Sedevacantists.
It was not well received by Pope Michael.

It was received by Catholics who have some claim of caring about keeping the faith even by opposing modernism and people who promote it while clad in sheeps clothes, as a tell tale sign there is something rotten in the Vatican.

III

2:43 In fact, the Jesuits were not formed to combat Protestantism, even if that is one of their major tasks since formation.

St Ignatius of Loyola and St Francis Xaver and St Francis Borgia and St Robert Bellarmine are not considering Bergoglio a Jesuit in the full sense of the word. No way that could happen, even if Hell freezes over. Unless he converts of course, to Catholicism.

IV

3:00 Sale of indulgences is a propagandistic canard.

You get indulgences for good deeds, some of them outlined in the Bible, like forgiving enemies (indulgence for yourself), like feeding just poor men at a burial (indulgence for the dead man).

Giving alms to St Peter's Basilica was one of those good deeds.

You were not buying anything and Tetzel was not selling anything. Luther was not even saying in so many words that Tetzel was doing that, more like what Tetzel did being tantamount to doing that. BUT some things got oversimplified in Protestant historiography, and Ellen White was not exactly a historic scholar. Cardinal Newman, by contrast, was : and he converted from a position originally Eavangelical, over Anglo Catholic, to Catholic in the full and Roman sense.

3:07 But the Church rejected his efforts.

Yes, as St Paul had told her to do in Galatians 1:9.

The Roman Catholic Church guilty of heresy, you say?

Well, if so, what exact Church was NOT guilty of heresy in 1507? Not Luther's, he hadn't founded one, not the Roman Catholic Church on your view, since it didn't change between 1507 and 1517. Not Münzer's, he hadn't founded the first Anabaptists yet. So, which one?

If you say that in 1507 NO Church on earth was free from heresy, you contradict Matthew 28:16-20.

In verse 20 it says "every day" or "all days", and for what, for Christ being with His Church. Obviously, Christ is not with heresy, not with a heretical "Church". But perhaps simple souls who were not accountable for Catholics being heretics, on the level of laymen and lower clergy? No, in verse 16 it says Christ was adressing these words to His highest clergy, the eleven disciples, not to every disciple He had. So, clearly, in 1507 at least ONE Church must have existed with teaching authority untouched by heresy. And it was NOT Luther or Münzer who founded it, since they each only started dissenting ten years later. Publically, that is.

3:28 Reformation being "God's doing" as you put it is contrary to Galatians 1:9 and to Matthew 28.

V

4:08 Two historic blunders.

1) The Jesuits were not founded to LEAD the Counter-Reformation but became leading proponents after it.
2) While the Counter-Reformation was interested in bringing Protestant heretics back and Pagans in (they were missionaries to Red Indians and to Africans, when Protestants were considering "missionary efforts" like "works salvation"), the main reason for them being founded was St Ignatius of Loyola had a good concept of how to live the Catholic life, and it deserved to be tried, and Counter-Reformation was mainly about Catholics living like Catholics and not, like some Renbaissance men had done, as Pagans.

VI

4:17 Left side of photo (from our point of view) : Tony Palmer, already spoken about. Buried as "Catholic bishop" even if he wasn't, by his friend Bergoglio.

There are guys among Lutherans and - as in his case - Anglicans who do think there was something wrong about Reformation and its leading to a schism, but the coherent step to take on that light would be converting - he didn't. I did.

4:33 I don't think either Catholics (obviously) or Protestants (whom I consider rather as Leopard power) are the ones receiving the deadly wound.

Obviously, if Leopard power (or one of its four heads) is "one of the heads of the beast", Protestantism receivng a fatal head wound would qualify.

VII

4:39 No, the Catholic papacy which existed when Luther was excommunicated is not the beast.

4:51 No, Pius VI getting captive was not the deadly wound of the beast, he was a Catholic pope. I e a true successor of Sts Peter and Paul in Rome.

1929, Lateran treaty was only half of a regain, not after Berthier took Pope Pius VI, but after "Italy" took Rome from Pius IX. In 1870.

If you go by "day year principle", which is wrong, what do you get going back 1260 years from 1870?

610. It is not when Gregory the Great became or even ceased to be Pope, he died in 604.

It is not when his successor Sabinian died either, he died in 606. Sabinian's successor Boniface III was both elected and died in 607.

Boniface IV was Pope from 608 to 615. So the date you get is neither his date of accession nor of death.

He removed idols from, exorcised and made to a Church what had been Pantheon, but that was in 609 - missing your 610 date by one year.

Here are some real events from 610:

"October 4 – Heraclius arrives with a fleet from Africa at Constantinople. Assisted by an uprising in the capital, he overthrows and personally beheads Emperor Phocas. Heraclius gains the throne with help from his father Heraclius the Elder. His first major act is to change the official language of the Eastern Roman Empire from Latin to Greek (already the language of the vast majority of the population). Because of this, after AD 610, the Empire is customarily referred to as the Byzantine Empire (the term Byzantine is a modern term invented by historians in the 18th century; the people of the Empire itself always referred to themselves as "Ρωμαῖος" — tr. Rōmaios, Roman)."

Ah .... but 1870 changed nothing for Byzantine Empire, right?

"The Avars invade the Duchy of Friuli, an important buffer between the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy and the Slavs.[1] During the fightings Gisulf II dies and his duchy is overrun (approximate date)."

Well, 1870 was not exactly encouraging Italian particularism, and Friuli was only united to Italy after WW-I.

"King Witteric is assassinated during a banquet at Toledo, by a faction of Catholic nobles. He is succeeded by Gundemar, duke of Narbonne, who becomes king of the Visigoths in Hispania."

While this prequel to Gunpowder plot was Catholic, it accomplished nothing for Catholicism. Not directly, but Gundemar's successor was at least Chalcedonian or Catholic. However, 1870 was not exactly a change in Spain.

"King Theuderic II loses Alsace, Champagne and Thurgau to his elder brother Theudebert II of Austrasia. His Burgundian army is defeated east of the Jura Mountains against the Alemanni."

Well, Austrasia preceeds in a way Charlemagne and Holy Roman Empire ... you might get some Greek Orthodox worked up by claims that Austrasia had too much power in German speaking areas up to replacement by Prussia in 1870. I'd not agree.

"Muhammad, Islamic prophet, begins secretly at 40 years old to preach a new religion that will be called Islam. According to Islamic teachings, the angel Gabriel appears to him in a cave on Mount Hira near Mecca (Saudi Arabia) and calls him: "The Prophet of Allah". Muhammad gathers followers, reciting to them the first verses of al-Alaq (surat Iqra), thus beginning the revelation of the Qur'an"

But nothing bad happened to Islam in 1870?

"Pope Boniface IV presides over a Council of Rome for the restoration of monastic discipline. Attendees include Mellitus, first bishop of London."

I don't think you can argue Western Monasticism as such is the Beast.

"Columbanus and Gallus begin their missionary work in Bregenz, near Lake Constance (Switzerland)."

Nor that going as missionary to Arians or Pagans is the work of the Beast.

"John V (the Merciful) becomes patriarch of Alexandria (approximate date)."

This is no major change in Alexandria.

But supposing the 1260 years are by a 360 day calendar?

360 : 365.25 = 0.9856262833675565
1260 * 0.9856262833675565 = 1241.88911704312119
= 1242

1870
1242
0628

"Spring – Byzantine–Sassanid War: Emperor Heraclius issues an ultimatum for peace to King Khosrow II, but he refuses his generous terms. The war-weary Persians revolt against Khosrow's regime at Ctesiphon, and install his son Kavadh II on the throne on February 25. He puts his father to death and begins negotiations with Heraclius. Kavadh is forced to return all the territories conquered during the war. The Persians must give up all of the trophies they have captured, including the relic of the True Cross. Evidently there is also a large financial indemnity. Having accepted a peace agreement on his own terms, Heraclius returns in triumph to Constantinople."

OK, but still no major change occurred in Byzantine Empire in 1870, right?

"Third Perso-Turkic War: The Western Göktürks, under their leader Tong Yabghu Qaghan, plunder Tbilisi (modern Georgia). The Persian defenders are executed or mutilated; Tong Yabghu appoints governors (tuduns) to manage various tribes under his overlordship."

Did any bad thing happen to Turkey in 1870?

"Battle of Cirencester: King Penda of Mercia defeats the West Saxons at Cirencester (south-west England), in what later will be Gloucestershire. After reaching an agreement, he takes control of the Severn Valley and the minor kingdom of the Hwicce."

I think Penda of Mercia had no successor suffering loss in 1870.

"February 25 – Khosrow II, the last great king of the Sasanian Empire, is overthrown by his son Kavadh II."
"September 6 – Ardashir III, age 7, succeeds his father Kavadh II as the twenty-fourth king of the Sasanian Empire, on the latter's death from plague."

Which hardly changed anything in Persia, very much?

"Muhammad, Islamic prophet, leads about 1,400 men on a pilgrimage to Mecca, where their passage is blocked. The Quraysh tribe and the Muslim community in Medina sign a 10-year truce (Treaty of Hudaybiyyah)."

Again, Islam hardly received a deadly head wound in 1870?

"Indian astronomer Brahmagupta writes the Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta, an early, yet very advanced, mathematics book, including rules for computing with zero."

Right, that is beastly enough, but bad mathematical philosophy also did not receive any deadly head wound in 1870.

"The Sharia enjoins women as well as men to obtain secular and religious educations. It forbids eating pork, domesticated donkey, and other flesh denied to Jews by Mosaic law (approximate date)."

Nor did school compulsion. While that too is beastly.

"Muhammad's letters to world leaders explain the principles of the new monotheistic Muslim faith, as they will be contained in his book, the Quran."

This starts making me curous : DID Islam in any sense get a deadly head wound in 1870?

No, not really. I checked.

VIII

9:16 Looking up 2 Tim 3 verses ... 15, 16 ... wait, I got 1 Tim, same chapter and verse:

[15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [16] And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.

Now, here is an indication Bible is not SOLE authority, since Church of the Living God is authorty too. Now to 2 Tim, same verses and chapter.

[15] And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

This does not say "Bible alone". It says "All scripture" or "all of the Bible". That is something different.

How long will you repeat a prooftext which does not prove what you say it proves, before discovering that?

Bible alone is not in all of the Bible!
9:43 Yes, we do rely on Apostolic Tradition.

Unlike "Bible alone", that is in the Bible:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
[2 Thessalonians 2:14]

So, St Paul continues in the Church in TWO ways : both by the 14 Epistles AND by Apostolic Tradition.

Btw, the Greek Orthodox in Thessaly, while neglecting some Apostolic Tradition, referring to Papacy (part of it also in the Bible) are at least not neglecting this principle.

9:57 You might be aware that neither Lutherans nor Anglicans have been taking a strong stance against Bible and Tradition, lately?

There are definitely Protestants who are aware Protestantism overdid certain things.

And the coherent thing for them to do would be to become Catholics. Like I did.

IX

10:26 I see your text for Ephesians 2:8-9.

I also see nothing in it which in any way contradicts justification by Baptism or by Penance.

Works in the context means good works, and we don't get right with God again by giving someone alms or by even not repeating a mortal sin, we get right with God by a sacrament of the faith - by Baptism, if not baptised before, or by Penance, if sinning after Baptism.

The good works, while not making us children of God again are however necessary once we are so.

11:50 Since your misclassification of Sacraments of the Faith as "works" is another Gospel than the one the Catholic Church has heard, that IV (?) Session of Trent (trusting you got the reference right, I thought that was the session dealing with the Bible) or whichever Session it was (subtitles could be wrong) is simply applying Galatians 1:9.

11:57 "in the Roman Catholic Church, you can't obtain salvation without the Sacraments"

OR the desire of them!

If you are a Pagan, convert, desire Baptism but die on the road to the Catholic priest who would be baptising you, or are even martyred on that road, well, you are saved without actual Baptism but not without the desire of Baptism. Since this salvation comes before you have a chance to sin after baptism, you neither need Penance, nor desire of Penance. You do need to desire the ultimate gift of God in this life, the Eucharist.

This is certain for a sacrament like penance, it is probable, though disputed, for baptism.

One can take a word in John 3 and another definition of Trent as saying, in the case of baptism, you need the sacrament itself, it is not enough to just desire it.

11:59 Sacraments are not rules of human action.

"It's not until you observe them"

No, in the sacraments you are not doing a work, God is doing a work in you.

It is very obvious in baptism of small children : they contribute nothing of very little, except the fact of being physically present, to God's work in them.

X

12:14 Catholics certainly believe all believers are in a sense priests, this does not mean all believers are equal to the special priesthood.

As a believer you get one very general kind of priesthood by Baptism and Confirmation : it allows you to fruitfully RECEIVE the Eucharist. Before you can however CELEBRATE Holy Mass, you need another special kind of priesthood.

Biblical proof : Christ had his twelve apostles at the Last Supper when He instituted this Sacrament. It is to them He said "do this", and this means not what He had just said (take and eat), but what He had just done, turned bread into His body, turned wine into His blood (for this is).

1 Peter 2:[5] Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Spiritual sacrifices are offered up even in receiving sacraments. Therefore, St Peter is NOT saying all faithful can celebrate Holy Mass, he did not say "all of the spiritual sacrifices".

He does say we should in the passive "be ... built up", this means there is someone actively building us up. And, under God, that is the clergy.

12:46 You believe you need no priest to forgive your sins?

Have you read John 20:21-3?

James 5:[16] Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

St James is adressing priests.

In verse 14, when it says to bring in priests of the Church for another need - extreme unction - James is not saying this like "are you sick, then you bring in the priests of the Church". No, in third person:

"[14] Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."
[James 5:14]

Note that the continual prayer part also makes more sense if:

• there are people who are delegated to prayer as a calling of their daily work
• they are chosen so as to be just (meaning, a priest who is a child predator or even having a romance with a teen, outside either marriage or celibacy, is degrading what he could do for the faithful by praying).

12:50 Your quasi equal (at least in theory) priesthood of all faithful would be based on 1 Tim 2:5, if Christ had not been telling the apostles they are His own extensions in the salvific work. Not all of his faithful, but specifically His apostles, the twelve, His own highest clergy (which it is, if you actually check the Gospel story). Like, "as the Father sent me, so I send you" (quoting from memory).

13:04 Yes, the priest is a successor of the eleven (or at occasion ten, St Thomas was absent) Apostles to whom Christ very specifically gave the power to forgive and to withhold sins. John 20:21-3, again.

OK, your diabolic protest against what Christ instituted is not over.

XI

13:25 sound doctrine you rejected:

The mediation of Mary

In Luke 1, Her mediation was involved in Incarnation.

In John 2, Her mediation is involved in the first public miracle.

and of the saints

The dead rich Pharisee is well aware the Poor Lazarus can mediate favours - but he momentarily forgot he was in Hell, therefore beyond receiving any, and he had not been aware that his brothers were heretics who, as long as not believing Moses and the Prophets could not benefit from a miracle made for themselves either.

transsubstantiation

Against Christ's very express words. Note, Lutherans and some Anglicans at least do not completely reject the Real Presence. Luther went against Zwingli on that one!

the Mass as a sacrifice

Hebrews "Habemus altare, de quo edere non habent potestatem, qui tabernaculo deserviunt."
[Hebrews 13:10]

In other words, we eat from the altar that we have. Note that since the tabernacle is a place of OT sacrifice (not yet destroyed in AD 70, when St Paul wrote this before his death in 64), the logical contrast makes Eucharist a sacrifice even if you translate the object of "we have" as other than "altar".

Hebrews again "Quemadmodum et in alio loco dicit: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum, secundum ordinem Melchisedech."
[Hebrews 5:6]

In other words, Christ is sacrificial priest in the same way as Melchisedch was - and in Genesis we find he offered bread and wine.

Malachi, OT prophecy other than Genesis and Psalms in relation to Hebrews:

1:[11] For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

But the sacrifice of Calvary was in one place only. Therefore we need sacrifice in another way, which is fulfilled if Eucharist is a Sacrifice.

Now, there is a place in Hebrews which says the Sacrifice of Calvary is UNIQUE, and this would mean one of two things:

1) either the Eucharist is not a sacrifice - this is false, a protestant heresy in light of previous
2) or the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as Calvary - this is not only true, but an actual dogma, reaffirmed at Trent with the usual anathema against those coming with another Gospel.

purgatory, prayers for the dead

We know Jews believed in praying for the dead (specifically Pharisees, if not Sadducees) since back in the times of the Maccabees.

Whether you consider II Macc canonic Scripture or not, the historic certainty remains : Jews believed this.

Then we ask, what did Jesus do about this belief? If it was wrong, where did Jesus take His distance?

Nowhere.

You may consider prayers for the dead are condemned as useless in Rich man and Lazarus. No.

The rich man cannot be object for such prayers, not because he is dead, but because he is damned. Note very well, the gulf between him and Lazarus is not between a dead and a living person, both were dead.

It's a gulf between saved and damned.

Also, other passages, both Gospels and Epistles, clearly hint at there being a purgatory.

13:32 "and the authority of the Pope"

To your loss.

If you claim the Pope "is not successor of Peter in Rome", where and who is anyone successor to St Peter?

If you claim "Peter had no special authority", you contradict Acts 2. You also contradict Matthew 16 and John 21:15-17.

13:38 Identifying true Catholic Popes as Antichrist is seriously wrong.

An Antipope can be Antichrist or especially False Prophet. There is even Catholic prophecy more or less about that, if you trust Mélanie Calvat's account of La Salette apparition.

It could of course refer to Kingdom of Italy as precursor of Antichrist, which is certainly the case with Leo XIII Exorcism.

But Papacy has lasted too long to have power for only 1260 DAYS. Not years, DAYS. To persecute the saints.

Your day year principle is not supported by 70 weeks meaning 490 years, since there was a year week as well as a day week in the old law.

13:46 I seriously owe Martin Luther no more obedience than I owe Antichrist, none at all.

If you had quoted an actual work of Luther instead of quoting LeRoy Froom quoting him, I could have checked some of that reformers idiocies in the work itself. If it was the letter to Bohemians (one o fthe places he said such things) he would have implied he was already damned as having taken the mark of the beast, since in that letter he identifies mark of the beast with Catholic Ordination to Priesthood : and he was ordained.

14:00 I'll say one thing more.

If Lutherans and Anglicans regret the words of Luther you just quoted as "excessive", they should in consistency ask if Luther or Reformation is any good as an authority (even under the Bible) at all.

They should, some of us did, me among them, ask if they should not become Catholics.

And if the "present Pope" pretends they don't need to as long as their "protest is over", they would be wise to ask if he can really be a real Catholic Pope.

XII

14:11 "The Protestant Reformation of the 1500's helped move Europe out of the Dark Ages"

OK, and Columbus helped prove the Earth was round to an Europe with universal Flat Earthism, too?

Is your authority for post-Biblical (OK, not post-Apocalypse, but post-Acts) history Washington Irving and similar nincompoops?

"and led to the rise of"

Tyrannic nation states, for one. Swedish and English kings were both happy to persecute Catholics, but not on the authority of a single Bible, nor any single interpretation of it. Lutherans and Anglicans are not all that similar.

But let's see what you were thinking of.

14:13-14

"true religious freedom and the separation of Church and State"

* seriously *

The Reformation of 1500's immediately led to a much closer alliance between clergy and crown. It came to involve measures against Catholics which reminded of some of the worst parts of defeating Albigensians.

It involved making Catholics take the place of Heretics, but unlike that other legislation, since Heretics had popped up out of the ground some times over through the middle ages, but the Catholics now persecuted were suffering for the Faith of their Fathers. Usually back to the day when the people became Christians.

14:17 First Amendment neither expresses "separation of church and state" (a war cry of Clémenceau before persecuting Catholics in 1905, retaken by some Supreme Court decisions after that date as a wild interpretation of First Amendment) nor is a direct result of the Reformation. You could as easily argue it was a result of Tetzel's "selling" indulgences or of Torquemada's burning Crypto-Jews : because between your "cause" and your "effect" you are anyway several layers of human conflict and reacting against what someone else did.

Also, the Supreme Court decisions have been used to persecute Christians in US. And to persecute Ten Commandments.

14:33 As it happens, Protestantism has persecuted, directly and indirectly (even more), quite a few times over Catholicism. And when Protestantism didn't do it, it was at least applauding those who did.

I saw Evangelicals in Mexico honour the persecutor Porfirio Diaz, on a video.

15:54 I wish we had more medieval religious practises.

How about monks flogging a king who persecuted the Church? That was done after killing of St Thomas Becket.

How about an Emperor having persecuted a Pope walk barefoot in the snow to be forgiven? That was done after Gregory VII had been obliged to flee to Canossa.

OK, these two instances presuppose a persecution first. But the kind of atmosphere in which the penances were done shows the true progress made through the Gospel being preached to Pagans, not by Luther, but by St Boniface, not by Olaus or Laurentius Petri, but by Ansgar and by Sigfrid and by a few more, not by Cranmer or Henry VIII, but by Augustine of Canterbury. All of them honoured as saints and hopefully perhaps even interceding for these countries.