holy coincidence, batman.

published as I was composing this thread today.

here is a little research!

http://www.onepeterfive.com/anne-catherine-emmerich-and-the-two-popes/

and the comments are interesting also.

this thread may never die.

Yes, Francis, eft94530 is absolutely right about the PCOS, but you're welcome to share The Umbrella of Silence which accommodates a few more people:

I have entered the wonderful domed place, and it is a beautiful place... however, i can still hear you! ... and, can you still hear me?

Some of the interesting phrases from Emmerick:

“I saw also the relationship between two popes …

So you didn't actually read Skojec's article putting this into proper context?

yes Adam, I read the article... Boniface is the builder and (?)
is the destroyer.

Whether the pope who reigns over the false dark Church is Pope Francis, or some future successor, remains open to interpretation and debate — but one could, without great effort, make the case that these two sections of her prophetic vision apply rather startlingly to our present day, from the implications of uncritical ecumenism and interfaith gatherings to the celebration of the Protestant Reformation by Rome to the admission of communion to Lutherans to the nearly certain infiltration of the Church by Freemasons and Communists alike:

I was shown how weak the one had been in adherents and human support, but how strong in courage to overturn so many gods (I knew the number) and to unite so many different forms of worship into one; and, on the contrary, how strong in numbers and yet how irresolute in action was the other since, in authorizing the erection of false temples, he had allowed the only true God, the only true religion to be lost among so many false gods and false religions.

The point is, as I said above, we probably have ONE canonically elected pope.

How many times in how many centuries have too numerous to count 'prophets' and doomsayers predicted that the world would end on this day or that, based on their own 'revelation', arcane coded biblical messages, an ancient seer, a renaissance sage, a saintly apparition, and more? But alas! The world continues to be, and we continue to exist and procreate. We also continue to worship the one true and living God and his son, Jesus Christ, our only mediator and advocate, in spirit and in truth. Equally, we have been warned that The Anti-Christ will appear, that there will be a last pope, and similar dire events, about which we should not scoff foolishly, but, also, about which we should not engage in paranoid conclusions regarding a pope or other personage that we, simply, don't like for certain reasons, who pronounces 'hard sayings' that we don't like to hear. It is quite a long drawn out stretch, I think, to suggest that H.F. Francis is a false pope, or that he is in some way the agent of ill-happenings upon the Church. I, like some here, question the implications of participating in Reformation festivities and the like, but I do not attribute to it any evil intent or worrisome tidings for us. (And, one might be assured that there are, also, Protestants who will grumble at the presence of the old pope at their solemnities.) As for meeting with the Egyptian imam? Even Francis of Assisi fulfilled a desire to meet with no less than Saladin and had nothing ill to report from that encounter. Should we not embrace as a friend such a man who is as disturbed as are we over those who pervert religion for evil, unspeakable, war and mayhem? We should! No one is in any doubt about our profound religious differences, our deeply antithetical beliefs about God. This does not mean that we should not share in those manifestations of true godliness which we are able. I could carry on in this vein for quite a while yet, but think that this will do for now. Francis is pope. The real pope. Our (your and my) holy father. And, his example and teaching, though at times clumsy and lacking polish, are things that the Church has long been in need of hearing, seeing, and having stressed. As for associating with the heirs of the Reformation? I am no friend of this unfortunate movement, but any sensible person who knows history will acknowledge that it would not have happened if the Church's house had been in order. It was hundreds of years in the making, there were centuries of warning signs, and they all went as unheeded as the tennis court oath. (This time I'll actually stop here.)

I gave up on all papal prophecies when St. Malachy's "Glory of the Olive" pope ended up not being Martini. That was the easiest call in the history of prophecy interpretation.

“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.” Edgar Allan Poe.

“Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.” Benjamin Franklin.

Verily, I do not mean to slight those concerns which Francis calls to our attention. Such vigilance is taken by all wise persons. And while our age is not by any means unique in worrisome and seemingly 'last days' events and developments, it has its share of them. Indeed, we cannot be blind to the fact that even in this great 'land of the free' our religious freedom of belief, practice, and expression are the targets of a society and state governance which holds them with decreasing patience in increasing disdain and stricture. It is an existential climate which led one bishop (whose name I cannot recall) to note several years ago that he would die in his bed, his successor in prison, and that his successor's successor would be shot. That such a scenario could be even imagined in that state which is the acknowledged leader of 'the free world' only underlines how un-free we believers are daily becoming.

However, having given vigilance its due, we should not become so paranoid, so threatened, so fearful and suspicious, that we overlook the immense good that continues to be done under our very noses. While we often, here on this forum, take note of the reprehensible liturgical and spiritual praxis of thousands of our priests and their bishops, who cause immense emotional, professional, and intellectual damage (not to mention violence to conscience) to many of our dedicated colleagues, and to the faithful who are in their care, we would be remiss and overly alarmist if we failed to give thanks for and be encouraged by those other thousands who deserve high praise for their orthodoxy and furtherance of that liturgy, faith, and doctrine which is consistent with our treasured patrimony, with the Church's historic witness to faith and culture. <> In addition, there is no shortage of those who care for the sick, the lonely, the destitute, and all those who, in the words of the BCP and Divine Woship: The Missal, 'suffer from afflictions of mind, body, or estate', who are 'in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any other adversity'. The 'angels' who fulfill these heavenly tasks are around us every day, living out Christ's call to compassion, love, forgiveness, and mercy. <> Too, there are countless men and women who, often under trying circumstances, heroically educate the young with knowledge of substance, teach the mature with greater stuff, pour out upon the feet of Jesus the precious ointment of exquisite worship and music, who preach the truth unabashedly, and those who flinch not at all from the obstacles thrown in their paths by the evil one, or by thoughtless and immature prelates, priests, authorities, superiors, and a society which finds their witness onerous and inconvenient. We have much from the grace of God for which to be thankful, countless good works from those who do not count the cost. Even our nation, as more and more antagonistic towards religion and faith it becomes each day, does immeasurable good (it would seem in spite of itself) throughout the world by feeding the hungry, aiding the victims of disaster, attempting (however feebly) to thwart tyrants, and championing 'human rights'. We, here, live almost in a fairyland compared to most of the outside world. Indeed, I have more than once remarked to friends that this country (and, to a degree the entire 'west') is to the rest of the world what Versailles was to XVIIIth century France.

So, all is not nearly lost. Whilst remaining vigilant, as Francis wisely reminds us to do, we ourselves, each one of us, remain remarkably free to live the gospel of Jesus Christ the Righteous, our only mediator and advocate. The Enemy, be he the devil himself or the state, wins a great victory every time we become alarmed, break ranks, surrender to worrisome and hopeless states of mind, or begin to think that a pope is a false pope (if not anti-Christ) because he meets with an imam, attempts to heal breaches within Christendom, washes the feet of heathen, preaches love and acceptance to those whom we wish to despise and alienate - in short, doing the very things that Jesus did.

Yes, by all means be vigilant. But, don't let vigilance be a substitute for living and practicing the faith to the utmost that one is able, fulfilling one's own vocation.

I might add that, vigilance, like many aspects of our Faith, has categories of theoria and praxis. These are two sides of the same coin. In saying this, I mean to stress that vigilance is not only 'being on the look out' for badness, but 'looking out' that we do the works which we (each individual) are called to do. Let not, then, our occupation with theoria and observance prevent us from praxis, the active doing of good. Vigilance, properly understood, is both of these. Faith, as St Paul wisely saith, is no faith at all without works. What he said of faith he might, as well, have said of vigilance. The sin, after all, of the unwise virgins was twofold: that they failed to be 'on the lookout' and that they failed 'to do' what that 'lookout' would have suggested to them.

Think not to win the fight, ’tis won.
Think not completion: all is done.
‘Tis ours then only loud to sing,
and serve, and work, and ‘wait our King.

- AMW, 2012

Since we are now quoting, or originating, hymnody, here's this:

Soldiers of Christ arise,
And put your armour on,
Strong in the strength which God provides
Through his eternal Son.

Strong in the Lord of hosts,
And in his mighty power;
Who in the strength of Jesus trusts
Is more than conqueror.

Stand then in his great might,
With all his strength endued,
And take, to arm you for the fight,
The panoply of God.

From strength to strength go on,
Wrestle, and fight, and pray:
Tread all the powers of darkness down,
And win the well-fought day.

That, having all things done,
And all your conflicts past,
Ye may o'ercome, through Christ alone,
And stand complete at last. Amen.
- Charles Wesley, 1749

No. 552, The Hymnal 1940
Silver Street

Another apt 'battle cry' for each and all is that hymn of the Most Holy Trinity which we just sang or contemplated Sunday last: St. Patrick's Breastplate! There could hardly be a better way to begin each day or to face each challenge than 'I bind unto myself this day the strong Name of the Trinity...'. Such as this does immeasurably more good than wondering if we have two popes, etc.

See no. 268, The Hymnal 1940, and others.

Best commentary I've seen so far on the innovative new dual Petrine ministry:
(Fr. Pio Pace on Rorate Caeli blog)

" . . . That means we have in the history 'a new phase in the history of the papacy.' Just as there are two liturgical forms in a single Roman Rite, there would be two Pontifical members within a single papal position. Each person may choose the liturgical form or Pontifical member that is adequate to one's own sensibility..."

Fr. Pace goes on to explain how this is theologically not possible, but this made me laugh out loud. Of course, with all due respect to both, if I had to choose, my preference would be . . . .

Yea, I saw that article too JulieColl... the part that struck me was this:

We are only beginning to measure the extension of the earthquake caused by Amoris Laetitia, which in fact relativizes the entire Moral Magisterium, an essential part -- why not say, the only remaining part -- of the papal Magisterium after Vatican II. From now on, any unequivocal moral stance will be impossible (as well as, obviously, any condemnation).

I think we have finally sung the NuChurch into being!!!

Better yet, here's one with Jesus singing to Mary:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tnVKGgPpETs

Me velut tibi vaticinor.

*PCOS on*

I'm not saying anything more, even under The Umbrella of Silence, eft. *sotto voce* However, did you see Christopher Ferrara's most recent article about Arbp. Ganswein's remarks? This comment was most intriguing:

The other conclusion, says Socci, is that “this discourse [by Ganswein] brings into view the ‘nullity’ of the renunciation by Benedict XVI.” Indeed, if Benedict’s renunciation of the papacy was premised on his false opinion that he would remain a “contemplative member” of a “broadened” Petrine office by way of an innovation he himself had just originated, then how could the validity of that qualified renunciation not be called into question? Is it not the case that Benedict still regards himself as the Pope in some sense? And if that is so, how can he be said to have renounced the papacy unequivocally?

I will leave it to others to decipher these things which are certainly above a lowly Control Agent's pay grade.

*PCOS on*

Good thinking, eft. Was it the old bait and switch trick? Are you thinking what I'm thinking? What if The Admiral suddenly decides to reactivate his status? What do we do if there are two active Pontifical Members? What will Siegfried say then?

("Idiots! Dummkopfs! Sissies!")

It keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.

It's a two way street. Blindness can also result from the refusal to look at what is right in front of you.

Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.
Matthew 15:14

Yep, Liam, nothing to see here. : ) So we have Arbp. Ganswein, Pope Emeritus Benedict's closest associate, announce to the whole world a major evolution of dogma: that the papacy is now "an enlarged ministry" and essentially a diarchy, but if we seem startled, we are told to shuffle along in our striped prison suits and stop staring.

Sorry if this offends any sensibilities, but I'd like to float a few questions out there, since it's sometimes helpful to discuss the hypothetical. What happens if Pope Francis retires and another pope is elected, will it be a triumvirate? Does Pope Benedict's contemplative status preclude him from exercising papal authority? Is it possible for Pope Benedict to become an active Pontifical Member again? What happens if there are two active Pontifical Members at the same time? What if their decisions and statements conflict? Could this end up like the Great Western Schism? Maybe they'll have to re-open the Papal Palace at Avignon?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U37F278vub0

I don't see any issue with this. The Papacy has already had this nature to it, but in the past, the contemplative, prayer focused aspect has usually been performed by dead popes. I don't in any way see this as a "major evolution of dogma", which would be akin to if Mary were declared Mediatrix of All Graces, the proposed 5th Marian dogma. This is more like a minor doctrinal development or discovery. Usually, popes die and exercises his Petrine ministry in the Communion of Saints while the new Pope excercises the Vicarship of Christ on Earth. The only difference is that Benedict is still on this side of eternal rest. We've always had "two popes" since Peter died and Linus took over.

Anyways, that's my too sense. This all seems like a bit over the top reactionism. The Church is trying to work out a theology of this always tricky situation. Let's not worry too much.

This is one of the reasons I'm inclined to just ignore Marian Apparitions. Since it's not the deposit of faith, I'm never wont to put too much weight on such matters. If it's a boon to some people's faith, great. When I see all the conspiracy theorists and reactionaries saying that everything wrong with the world is because Russia wasn't consecrated to Mary and generally using Fatima as fuel for vitriol or self-aggrandizement or perhaps more than anything else the worried and distrusting "remnantism" and desire for gnostic "hidden knowledge" that comes from such conspiracies, it makes me want to get away from all that and get back to scripture and the Magnificat. One is inspired, the other is take it or leave it. I'll take the inspired any day. If you think the world is going to hell because Russia isn't consecrated, or any other such nonsense, you need to get back to the fundamentals and remember that world's always been going to hell, and that Christ has won the decisive victory.

One more thing: I was thinking about my dad who was a letter carrier all his life and worked very hard. Yet, every night, in all weather, he'd be out on the front steps star gazing for hours. He literally knew the night sky like the back of his hand. He also knew every peak in the Colorado Front Range. Must have inherited that habit of looking up and outwards from him.

Everybody is different. Some look down, some look back, some look to the side, some look inwards. It's our own way of coping, I guess.

I'm not directly criticizing anyone on here for being the reactionaries I'm talking about, it's more that there's a hint of that kind of reactionism. I can't blame anyone for looking ahead and trying to read the signs of the time. I'm a worrier by nature, and it's one of my character flaws that's brought me the most useless pain, so I probably tend to overcompensate when it comes to even a hint of conspiratorial drift.

Among the dangers of putting too much stock in Marian apparitions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church

Francis, may I ask that you please offer some sort of meaningful response to my position rather than naysaying it?

You've constructed a straw man. When did I say to ignore the Theotokos? I love my lady and queen, of whom I am instrument and slave, and I'll have none say otherwise. I know more and infinitely better things about her from Scripture and the authoritative Tradition of the Church than from nonessential apparitions. The Church leaves me the freedom to accept or reject them as I see fit, and so while I pray the fatima prayer at the end of my decades, I don't see any need to spend my time worrying about whether the third secret is fully revealed or if Russia is really consecrated.

I'm a simple man of simple faith. All these highfalutin visions and apparitions are a bit much for a simple man like me. The only vision I'm concerned about is being granted the Beatific Vision when I die, and then I may see my Queen Mother. Till then, I know her most especially in Scripture and the Liturgy.

(Meme is purple bold)