Martyrdom or suicide?

[james03]

The cat is pretty much out of the bag now.

Yeah, we agree on that, this is the hour of decision.

If things continue, then I'd throw in with some sort of conservative Orthodox sect, since no matter where I turned, I'd have divorce preached as allowable.  That would be a tough pill to swallow.  Or maybe join up with some obscure Trad sect that keeps with the Faith for 100's of years from now.  Then you have the problem of visibility.

Or you see the schism, or perhaps the SSPX continues, but we get the Great Reset and my last moments on Earth are characterized by a drunken rant in London standing next to Greg yelling, "Die you faggots, the end is nigh" right before the great flash of nuclear light.  Then with 1/3 of the population fried, the Trads band together and elect a new Pope.  I actually think something like this is coming.  When the US explodes due to the debt bomb, and China explodes due to their horrendous financial condition (they make the US look responsible), and of course Europe with its huge debt problem, I expect WWIII to break out.  We'll see.

[awkwardcustomer]

So come on, explain why Vatican II is not the revolt.

Well, for starters, we can't suppose the apocalyptic revolt to be the direct product of the vicar of Christ and the whole episcopal body of the Church. In other words, for Vatican II to be the revolt, the Church herself would have to be the instrumental means of Satan.

But can we suppose the apocalyptic revolt to be the direct result of the vicar of Christ having been taken out of the way?

And if Vatican II is the revolt, then it is those who have revolted who are the instrumental means of Satan.

Meanwhile, the Church remains quite herself.

[Vetus Ordo]

So come on, explain why Vatican II is not the revolt.

Well, for starters, we can't suppose the apocalyptic revolt to be the direct product of the vicar of Christ and the whole episcopal body of the Church. In other words, for Vatican II to be the revolt, the Church herself would have to be the instrumental means of Satan.

But can we suppose the apocalyptic revolt to be the direct result of the vicar of Christ having been taken out of the way?

And if Vatican II is the revolt, then it is those who have revolted who are the instrumental means of Satan.

Meanwhile, the Church remains quite herself.

If Vatican II is the revolt, then the institutional jurisdictional Church has disappeared from the face of the earth.

The vicar of Christ can't be taken out of the way. There must be a legitimate reigning pope until the end of times. A visible head of the Church shining in the darkness, identifiable to all who believe. And by pope, I don't mean Pope Michael in his mother's garage. I mean a legitimate bishop of Rome.

[Michael Wilson]

There doesn't have to be a Pope reigning every moment in time, there is a interregnum each time a Pope dies; there was once an interregnum of 3 years between elections. Also a theologian of the 19th C. Writing on the history of the Great Western Schism, stated that there was no reason that a future crisis could happen and the Church would be without a visible head for 40 years (I just can't remember who that was at this moment).

[Vetus Ordo]

There doesn't have to be a Pope reigning every moment in time, there is a interregnum each time a Pope dies; there was once an interregnum of 3 years between elections. Also a theologian of the 19th C. Writing on the history of the Great Western Schism, stated that there was no reason that a future crisis could happen and the Church would be without a visible head for 40 years (I just can't remember who that was at this moment).

I understand.

However, the circumstances are not the same. Even if we grant the point that there is a legal loophole in the absence of a defined time limit for an interregnum, we can easily discern that an interregnum cannot be prolonged for a huge amount of time, say decades, without violating the spirit of the law, the constitution of the Church. In other words, the Church is supposed to have a visible head.

But the major problem when equating the present situation with, for instance, the Great Western Schism is that during that Schism you did not have the whole episcopal body and a succession of popes, recognized by the whole Church, teaching heresy. Even if it was difficult to pinpoint which Pope was the valid one during those years, it was not a matter of faith and morals but of fact. There were rival claimants to the papacy, backed by different cardinals and kings, but all of them orthodox, at least on the surface. The head of the Church was there, either in Rome or Avignon, even if the confusion could not be solved right away. It was not a period without any visible head whatsoever, or with a pope hiding in the catacombs. During the Great Western Schism, only one line was valid. The Church did not suffer a 40 year interregnum. There was always a legitimate Pope.

Nowadays, however, there are no other claimants to the papacy except the liberals sitting in the Vatican.

What we've had since the Vatican II is completely unprecedented and cannot be solved by simple analogy with past events in history.

[awkwardcustomer]

If Vatican II is the revolt, then the institutional jurisdictional Church has disappeared from the face of the earth.

The vicar of Christ can't be taken out of the way. There must be a legitimate reigning pope until the end of times. A visible head of the Church shining in the darkness, identifiable to all who believe. And by pope, I don't mean Pope Michael in his mother's garage. I mean a legitimate bishop of Rome.

What if we're at the end of times?

Why would the Son of Perdition make his appearance at a time when the Church strong and flourishing in the world? Surely a massive attack on the Church from within made possible by taking the Vicar of Christ out of the way would first have to be planned and executed in order for his agents to prepare a way for him.  It makes sense that the Church would have to be reduced to her present state.

Is the end of times a process or an event?

[awkwardcustomer]

What we've had since the Vatican II is completely unprecedented and cannot be solved by simple analogy with past events in history.

That's right.  And it can only be solved by thinking outside the current box.

[awkwardcustomer]

edit

[Vetus Ordo]

What if we're at the end of times?

What if we aren't?

You can't stake your whole faith on a mere interpretation of present events.

Why would the Son of Perdition make his appearance at a time when the Church strong and flourishing in the world? Surely a massive attack on the Church from within made possible by taking the Vicar of Christ out of the way would first have to be planned and executed in order for his agents to prepare a way for him. It makes sense that the Church would have to be reduced to her present state.

It makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

Is the end of times a process or an event?

It's a process that culminates in an eschatological event: the Parousia.

[awkwardcustomer]

It makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

The Church hasn't defected, that's the whole point.  Instead the Church has suffered a revolt instigated by a bunch of public heretics pretending to be popes. 

And the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church hasn't gone bonkers.  The Ordinary Magisterium has also been taken over by a bunch of public heretics.

Once sound Catholics realise this, they will stop trying to second-guess them.

[Vetus Ordo]

It makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

The Church hasn't defected, that's the whole point.  Instead the Church has suffered a revolt instigated by a bunch of public heretics pretending to be popes. 

And the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church hasn't gone bonkers.  The Ordinary Magisterium has also been taken over by a bunch of public heretics.

Once sound Catholics realise this, they will stop trying to second-guess them.

Where is that Church you're speaking of?

[awkwardcustomer]

It makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

The Church hasn't defected, that's the whole point.  Instead the Church has suffered a revolt instigated by a bunch of public heretics pretending to be popes. 

And the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church hasn't gone bonkers.  The Ordinary Magisterium has also been taken over by a bunch of public heretics.

Once sound Catholics realise this, they will stop trying to second-guess them.

Where is that Church you're speaking of?

There's a remnant left and the sacraments are still flowing.  Apart from that, I've no idea.  But your question doesn't really take account of the truly unprecedented times we are living in.

Instead, ask yourself this.  Where would you expect the Church to be in the days prior to the appearance of the Man of Sin?  Then look around and tell me that the current situation isn't ideal for him. 

[awkwardcustomer]

When the US explodes due to the debt bomb, and China explodes due to their horrendous financial condition (they make the US look responsible), and of course Europe with its huge debt problem, I expect WWIII to break out.  We'll see.

Let's hope James isn't right.  It would be the perfect time.

[james03]

It makes no sense for the Church herself to defect, even in the end times. The Church can be attacked, heavily reduced in numbers, infiltrated by masons, etc., but cannot defect as such. Popes and Ecumenical Councils can't teach heresy even if the Antichrist is running the show. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church can't go bonkers and have every sound Catholic second-guess what they teach. Unless, of course, we ditch all traditional catechisms.

This is a straw man argument.  Fr. Kramer (not the modern one) wrote his book about the Apocalypse circa 1930.  He discusses various interpretations which were ancient, including the Church "fleeing into the wilderness" and hiding out.  That the anti-Christ, or his prophet would be a pope claimant who would rule the institutional organization.

I'm not debating whether Fr. Kramer was correct in his interpretation or not.  I'm pointing out that it is A tradition that the papacy would fall and that the Church would become obscure, sort of like the SSPX.  Kramer wrote this back when if you suggested the upcoming Vee Poo you would have been thought of as insane, and he didn't invent this interpretation, but discusses the various debates among the Fathers and does settle on one interpretation as being the best.  For example, he accurately predicted the rise of Islam due to the mention of the river Euphrates.

If we aren't in the end times, I'd be surprised.  I can't imagine it getting even worse, and the persecution of Catholics (social medium banning, etc...) has only just barely begun.

[james03]

Let's hope James isn't right.  It would be the perfect time.

Young man, it is generally a bad idea to doubt your elders.