Skip to comments.RATZINGER APPEARS TO FULFILL MALACHY PROPHECY [De Gloria Olivae]
Posted on 04/19/2005 10:31:35 PM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
But Alex Chui's got you beat.
Here, we see an animal moving it's arm to eat, thusly proving that animals are merely living magnets.
Food is positively charged. The most negatively charged item is the acid of your stomach. The next most negative is the acid in your intestine. The next most negative stuff is your blood. Then finally, food is distributed to your flesh, which is the most positive.
This is inaccurate in several respects.
First of all, the Benedictines are not as a group called "Olivetans." The Olivetans were a branch of Benedictine reformers, striving for a more austere and ascetical monastic practice. Even at their peak centuries ago, they never more than a small minority within the Benedictine Order, and now they are much dwindled in number.
So that's a very slender connection to Olives.
Also, Benedict XVI is not, and never was, a member of the Benedictine Order. So the slender connection turns out to be no connection at all.
Secondly, Cardinal Ratzinger never endorsed the reported Medjugorge mystical phenomena, and says that supportive statements published hither and yon were "made up out of thin air."
You can read about that here:
That was interesting.
Hi Mrs. D!
How's the schooling going?
We are getting serious about our "Latin is Not so Tough" lessons here!
What do you think of all this Annalex?
Is this our version of the evangelical anticipation of all things apocalyptic?
But is he associated with that "Secret Opus Dei" society?
There is one indisputable fact: every single "prophet" who has predicted the end times has been wrong.
They don't have a good track record.
Oh, this is rich! When you see a man with a level head, it usually means he's been hit with a shovel. Speaking of "prophets" and "track records", here are a few excerpts your own recent greatest hits:
Posted by sinkspur to Thorin On Religion 04/17/2005 7:09:47 AM MDT · 59 of 102: Benelli had it "in the bag" in 1978, too, after the death of Paul VI, so much so that he started losing weight when Paul VI got sick so that he would look better in the Papal soutane. Ruini is, like Ratzinger, a Vatican bureaucrat, and Schonborn and Ouellet are in the reactionary camp of the college. The opposition to Ratzinger will come from the U.S., Latin America, and Africa. Your idea of abolishing bishops' conferences is precisely what these prelates fear from a Ratzinger papacy. If the Cardinals choose a 78 year old hardliner, look for the divisions in the Church to worsen. Ratzinger will have to fight fires internally, and his ability to reach out ecumenically will be neutered. Why on earth would the Cardinals select someone who wanted to retire two years ago?
Posted by sinkspur to narses On Religion 04/16/2005 4:31:39 PM MDT · 18 of 102 The Roman Press? LOL!! Ratzinger will never be Pope. He may very well broker the next Pope, however.
For a little change of pace, how about your comment at the end of a headline on a thread you posted:
Cardinals want new Pope to bridge Divides (Ratzinger ain't the one)
And the hits just keep on coming!
Posted by sinkspur to wagglebee On Religion 04/16/2005 2:51:42 PM MDT · 7 of 28 Ratzinger is from the Curia. One thing the Church does not need, after a pastoral Pope like JPII, is a retrenched bureaucrat.
Posted by sinkspur to onyx On Religion 04/14/2005 6:30:57 PM MDT · 6 of 86 Arinze's name has disappeared also, but I think that's because he's been in the Curia for 20 years and the cardinals are not going to elect a Curial cardinal. That includes Ratzinger.
Posted by sinkspur to pro610 On Religion 04/14/2005 6:24:20 PM MDT · 4 of 86 Despite the rumors, I don't think Ratzinger will be elected. He wanted to retire two years ago. There's no way he gets 77 votes, early or late.
Posted by sinkspur to seamole On Religion 04/14/2005 6:21:53 PM MDT · 16 of 33 There are no "palecon" cardinals. These men were all chosen by JPII, and Ratzinger is as conservative as they get. I don't see Ratzinger being elected. He wanted to retire two years ago from the CDF. One of his younger cohorts, like Scola, however, could very well be elected.
And who could ever forget my all-time favorite, the classic:
Posted by sinkspur to St.Chuck On Religion 04/13/2005 8:11:59 PM MDT · 54 of 135
Ratzinger himself will never be Pope, and a sufficient number of cardinals resent him so that anyone he openly campaigns for will not become Pope either.
Oh, Sinkinator, thank you so much for all the yuks! You are obviously a true Vatican insider, and we should all be thankful for your erudite and sage insights into all things Catholic. BTW, please take a look at the NBA playoff teams and let me know which team you think will NEVER be NBA champions. I have a friend who's going to Vegas, and I'd like to know where to put the bankroll.
Suffice it to say, having spent time in a Benedictine monastery does NOT make him a Benedictine!
The prophecy is misinterpreted as far as this pope is concerned. The mere fact that he chose the name of the Father of Western monasticism does not make him a Benedictine either.
I am fast getting exasperated with this stuff.
Pope Benedict XVI is known for going on retreats to Benedictine monastaries (so saith the Vatican watchers yesterday). Is that the connection? Maybe, maybe not. Everyone got hung up on the Benedictine angle, to the exclusion of all else. The more common usage of the olive is 'peace', asin, olive branch. The whole problem is that just about anything can be twisted to meet prophecy. And that assumes the prophecy isn't a fraud to begin with.
I agree with others that some of St. Malacy's prophesies need to be stretched to find a way to match it with that pope. Also, being just a few words to describe a pope could get a very broad interpretation.
But as it is, I still think Benedict XVI will be very good for the Church.
Here's a twist I came across yesterday:
5. We are suddenly transported some 2,500 years into the future, to the prophesied endtimes. We see another scroll, which the 'prophet' who had already been prophesying, eats so he can further prophecy about "many peoples, nations, languages and kings." Gloriae Olivae is that prophet.
6. We are introduced to the new 'Temple' in Jerusalem, which is only figuratively speaking. Yet the measurements are taken to see who is adhering to the truth of God, and who is not. Then, we see two lampstands, meaning 'Houses of God', one Jewish, one gentile Christian. With each lampstand, there stands one olive tree each, shedding its golden, or enlightenment into that 'House of God'. Gloriae Olivae, is that gentile Christian olive tree, sent by God as a prophet unto the nations, to bring enlightenment to that House in which he is pope.
7. Virtually all Bible scholars agree that the Two Witnesses in Jerusalem are Enoch and Elijah. They were the only two people in the Old Testament to be raptured into heaven alive. Some people think Moses is one of the Two Witnesses, but Moses died on earth, and his physical was merely hidden in secret place where Satan couldn't find it. No rapture involved. Of the two, Enoch was Jewish, whereas Elijah came from Tishba, which lay outside of Israel and Judea, thus making him a gentile. Therefore, Gloriae Olivae is the prophesied Elijah to come, and is one of the Two Witnesses to arrive in Jerusalem, after he leaves the soon-to-be destroyed city of Rome, the seat of the Antichrist antipope.
And it is Jerusalem, upon the Mount of Olives where His beloved Lord had once referred to him in prophecy 1,975 years earlier, that Gloriae Olivae will lay down both the sceptre and crown granted him as vicar of Christ's Church on earth, to await the One to Whom it truly belongs, Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and God Almighty. It is at that point that the forces of the Antichrist shall fire upon Gloriae Olivae and his faithful fellow followers of Jesus of Nazareth, making martyrs of them all.
Then they will take Gloriae Olivae's corpse and with Enoch the Jewish Witness, throw them into the streets of Jerusalem so the world can gaze upon their dead bodies. And, after three and a half days, God will say 'Come up here', and Enoch and Elijah will go up to Heaven. At that very hour, a severe earthquake will rock Jerusalem. It will be September 5, 2005 when the Gentile nations and peoples will be sanctified by the blood shed by Gloriae Olivae upon the Mount of Olives, as God required Jewish blood to be shed by His other Son Jesus the Messiah, and Olivae's true older brother. And the two sticks will become one.
The Parish of Medjugorje is comprised of five villages - Medjugorje, Bijakovici, Vionica, Miletina, Surmanci.
Surmanci gained its notoriety as a location of GOLUBINKA PIT, a stone throw from the "Apparition Hill".
I have no doubt that you have felt something in Medjugorje.
You should. The blood of the innocents was spilled there in the most bestial manner by the Croatian Nazis led by two RC priests.
Bishop Zanic of Mostar diocese was fully aware of the background of alleged Medjugorje apparition So were the other Bishops, so was The Vatican.
In 1941, Bishop Misic of Mostar informed Archbishop Stepinac of attrocities in his diocese, escpecially of Surmanci attrocity. Archbishop did nothing about it. Nor did Pius XII. Even worse, in 1952, Pius XII has elevated tepinac to the Cardinal and John Paul II beatified him in 1998. Now, we learn that Benedict XVI supports Medjugorje.
The spirit of Nazi crimes lives on.
With the facts imitating the fiction there is no need to read Malachy Martin's fiction.
May God have mercy on us sinners!
And it was allegedly St. Malachy of Ireland who prophesied that the Pope after John Paul II ("Labor of the sun") would be "Glory of the Olives."
Of possible interest to you ping.
False prophecies are 10,000 more common than true ones.
I think we're all justified in putting the so-called St. Malachi prophecies in the category of "forgery," and the one cited here ("we are suddenly transported 2500 years... etc.) in the category of delusion.
That's why the Church takes such a dim view of these end-times enthusiasms. It is all too likely that people will see what they expect to see, what they've been told to see, or what others are purportedly seeing.
Ask any police detective.
Agree with you on the dates.
**>>Michael Brown is a bit on the conspiratorial side. Just look at the stuff he puts up.<<
I love reading SpiritDaily but I know to take it with a grain of salt. **
Exactly, but once it awhile it is worth throwing up a thread from there.
**Suffice it to say, having spent time in a Benedictine monastery does NOT make him a Benedictine! **
once in awhile
Interesting thread! I enjoyed the discussion about the Malachy prophecy. It would seem that at the very least, he was off about this Pope, unless some other connection can be made.
>>Now, we learn that Benedict XVI supports Medjugorje.<<
Please give me a reference that is not from Spirit Daily or a pro-Medjugorje site.
" Zanic had a second commission in 1986 which pronounced the visions false but never made its conclusions public. This belies the notion that Zanic would do anything to destroy Medjugorje (124). He behaves like an honest man who does not wish to upset anybody. If he has to say something he says it but he does not set out to discredit Medjugorje so enthusiastically that his integrity comes under question. The Vatican got the report and its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith commanded a third commission and created it without the request of Zanic or any other bishop in Yugoslavia. The Congregation gave out a decree that nothing must be done that implies that the apparitions are supernatural such as pilgrimages or anything (125). Zanic was informed by Cardinal Ratzinger that he believed the apparitions were inauthentic in 1988. Ratzinger never repudiated this statement so Zanic is telling the truth though many Medjugorians disbelieve him. A priest said that Ratzinger did say this (125, 127, 184). The Vatican bases its decisions on science and on compatibility with Catholic doctrine. It cannot have the prejudice attributed to the bishops. "
I did not know what Malachi prophecies were till yesterday, when somebody said that "Benedict" was a fulfilment of one. Turns out it's bogus.
I suppose it is just as good as Nostradamus and Bible Code for entertainment. Except I think we do live in the near-end times.
I find this prophecy business interesting. And I think the article should have stated the oft-repeated contentions that Pope John Paul II displayed the glory of the Sun - his funeral was on the day of an eclipse, he travelled across the earth - everywhere the sun shines, and the brightness of the sun shown thru his personality, his love for others, and his spirit.
I'm certainly not going to judge the validity of what's happening at Medugorje, but I think, and I may be mistaken, that one of the biggest complaints is that alchemy (objects are being turned into gold) is going on there, and that is seen by some as a sign of the Devil.
See post 13.
Before dismissing as "bogus" after one day's examination take a look at post 10. The incidence and correspondance between what was written and what actually was is remarkable and not to be compared simply to someone claiming prophecy fulfillment through a chosen name. The meaning of the current Pope's latin epigram is hidden and will not be fulfilled except during his Papacy. The taking of the name Benedict is only an allusion and in no way fulfills the prophecy. Also please note post 13.
I suspect the same the same claim would have been made regardless of who was elected.
Bishop Zanic has admitted that he is "marian". He has gone to Lourdes and one other apparition site (I believe). If he were an "evil" bishop, he would have everything to gain by promoting this site, think of the money he could take in, but no, he isn't doing that.
I have witnessed very bad fruits from Medjugorie first hand, the disobedience to the Bishop is at the top of the list, and I have also seen contradictions with the visionaries.
I absolutely do not believe in Medjugorie anymore. There are hundreds of approved apparitions, why risk believing in one that is not approved. Fatima and the Divine Mercy are enough for me.
Ratzinger does NOT support Medjugorie!
The Vatican has not recognized Medjugorje. However, the fact that 24 years after the Franciscans have pulled out the hoax and several years after being expelled from Mostar Diocese, RC Church does not advise the flock to avoid Medjugorje.
What is going on in Medjugorje is against the tenets of RC faith. And may I ask, who presided over >Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until several days ago? If you check Disciplinary documents, you will find Congregation addressed various issues, but not the issue of Medjugorje
Isn't it strange, having in mind that in 1998, Cardinal Ratzinger himself had denied his alleged support to Medjugorje.
"On April 19, 1998, the publisher of the Schwarzer Brief sent documentation on Medjugorje to Cardinal Ratzinger, including 14 quotes from various Medjugorje books by people like René Laurentin and Bishop Paulo Hnilica, in which the impression was given that the pope and Cardinal Ratzinger had repeatedly recognized the authenticity of the apparitions. In response Cardinal Ratzinger wrote on July 22, 1998: "Thank you for sending the Claus Peter Clausen's memo. He is well known to me as the publisher of the Schwatzer Brief. I can only say in response that the quotes endorsing Medjugorje which have been attributed to me and the Holy Father have been made up out of thin air." [frei erfunden sind] Ratzinger's testimony makes it clear that he discussed the issue with the pope.
So, Prefect of Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith and Holy Father himself were aware of fake endorsements circulating through the Church. And what was the result?
For example, in January 2001 San Francisco Faith have published reader responses to Marketing Medjugorje article, addressing the noxios effects of the myth.
Here is one:
"While the Church has made no final pronouncement on Medjugorje, many of its most prominent members have made positive statements regarding it. Cardinal Ratzinger, in 1991, called Medjugorje "a place of prayer and faith...." In 1996, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, spokesman for the Holy See said, "You cannot say people cannot go (to Medjugorje) until it has been proven false. This has not been said so people can go if they want." According to the booklet, Mother Teresa, on April 8, 1992, wrote to Denis Nolan stating that, "We are all praying one Hail Mary before the Holy Mass to Our Lady of Medjugorje...." Theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar stated that "Everything concerning Medjugorje is authentic from the Catholic point of view." Perhaps until the official Church pronouncement is made regarding the authenticity of the apparition, we can take comfort in the statements made by one who has added his voice to the millions of pilgrims, including thousands of priests and bishops who have supported Medjugorje: Pope John Paul II. The pope has met with some of the visionaries; in March 1984, he stated that Medjugorje was "...the fulfillment and continuation of Fatima." He told Father Jozo Zovko, the holy priest who defended the visionaries in the early days of the apparitions, "Tell Medjugorje I am with you. Protect Medjugorje!"
Other letters were in similar tone. It is interesting.
RC Church is not a debating club, but some people dare accuse Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II of supporting Medjugorje, even THREE YEARS after THE PREFECT of CDF (i.e. Vatican chief enforcer) denied it and dismissed it as "frei erfunden sind".
Prefect of CDF has the power to eradicate tendencies, activities and behaviour alien to to RC doctrine. Ask Leonardo Boff. He was forced OUT of the RC Church. NOTHING HAPPENED TO THE ORIGINATORS, PLANNERS AND SCHEMERS OF MEDJUGORJE who fooled and bilked millions of Roman Catholic faithful.
I believe that this is conclusive enough.
I refer you to post 10 and with special emphasis to post 13. Statistically speaking, the chance that the John Paul I & II lives and Papacies could acheive such a multi-leveled state of residual specificity with their corresponding latin dictums while falling consecutively within the framework of a "bogus" private prophecy moves into the exponential arena.
There seems to me like there may be a connection in mindset between the dismissal of revelation, by Christians, and the dismissal, by atheists or otherwise, of faith. As post 13 states, the prophecies are in fact private and are therefore neither eschatological nor part of the Catholic deposit of faith. Keep all of these things in mind.
Catholics preach a different Gospel than the one taught in the Sciptures. Sad.
All I meant to say was that the link between Glory of the Olives and Benedict is weak or non-existent, while the link between St. Benedict as the scourge of demons and Cardinal Ratzinger is self-evident. I'll study the posts you point out when I have time.
I would not dismiss a private revelation as bogus just because its vision has, sort of, a low resolution. But I would keep in mind that the resolution is low and not make definitive pronouncements such as Benedict XVI being the last Pope, based on such shaky grounds.
>>Catholics preach a different Gospel than the one taught in the Sciptures. Sad.<<
>> Prefect of CDF has the power to eradicate tendencies, activities and behaviour alien to to RC doctrine. Ask Leonardo Boff. He was forced OUT of the RC Church. NOTHING HAPPENED TO THE ORIGINATORS, PLANNERS AND SCHEMERS OF MEDJUGORJE who fooled and bilked millions of Roman Catholic faithful.
I believe that this is conclusive enough.<<
I think you are looking for something that isn't there.
Particularly since the one we preach - Jesus was born of Mary, suffered under Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried, and arose again on the third day and ascended into heaven where he sits at the right hand of the Father, from where he is coming again to judge the living and the dead is the gospel we read in the scriptures.
This so-called Malachy Prophecy is not only NOT Catholic doctrine, it is not even private revelation: it's, as far as textual investigation can tell, a forgery.
St. Malachi died in the year 1148. The so-called prophecy was "discovered" in 1595. Significantly, the "prophecies" from the intervening 447 years (1148-1595) were a pretty good match (as they would be, if they were written after the fact!!) and the "prophecies" dealing with popes after 1595 are ludicrously vague, very much like the prophecies in fortune cookies.
They can all be nicely interpreted ex post facto, of course.
But the Church's attitude is that it's not private revelation, it's a forgery.
But the Church's attitude is that it's not private revelation, it's a forgery.
Amen to that.