Open Letter to The Dimond Brothers

[TNT]

Greatest. Post. Ever.

TNT,

Where does it say that there will be a time with no Pope…or is that just how you are interpreting Supreme Deception?

Perhaps the Supreme Deception could be where there is a Pope but practically no one follows him because they are doing whatever they want?
Thanks

Dict:
**deceive **
to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid.

Supreme
highest in degree or quality

Supreme Deception
RE:

the Supreme Deception could be where there is a Pope but practically no one follows him because they are doing whatever they want?

This would not come close to a deception, supreme or otherwise.
It would be a conscious decision to disregard another person’s path.
No. A Supreme Deception has to cover nearly all in believing they are in fact doing or believing the right thing by their conscience and their religious teachers, when it is actually the wrong thing. It’s not about doing the wrong thing because they do not want to do the right thing.

This is not close to a definition of near universal deception. As well, read the CCC as to what the nature of the Supreme Deception is…the nature of it points to an ecclesiastical or religious teaching. Such would come *from *an accepted authority. That’s why they get deceived in the first place…unqualified acceptance of an authority.

 

[TNT]

The Pope is secretly kidnapped by aliens and Elvis Presely is put in his place. The Cathecism is replaced by rolling Stone magazine and millions of catholics perish when they protest this.

I beleive this is foretold in Paragraph 666 in the Cathecism

It’s embarrassing to watch someone regress into grade school mentality.

 

[estesbob]

It’s embarrassing to watch someone regress into grade school mentality.

What is sad is that you dont realize this is exactly how your posts come across.

 

[TNT]

iHave you read the enitre thread? It has been answered and refuted numerous times. it simply does not say what he says it does. What is even more specious is he tells us we cant trust the cathecism but uses it to bolster his position

**Post# of this “refutation” please. **
Otherwise:
NADA, 0, none.

In fact NO ONE has addressed the meaning or alternate interpretation of those CCC Par’s…no one. Silly casual remarks notwithstanding.

If someone wants to go line by line on them, I would welcome it. But my constant requests to do so are only answered by liberal flamethrowing or kindergarten ridicule.
If this is the best the VAT II apologists can do, no wonder the place is in moral collapse.

 

[estesbob]

**Post# of this “refutation” please. **
Otherwise:
NADA, 0, none.

In fact NO ONE has addressed the meaning or alternate interpretation of those CCC Par’s…no one. Silly casual remarks notwithstanding.

place is in moral collapse.

In thought we werent supposed trust the cathecism?

At any rate there is no need to gothrough line by line-it says what is says not shat you say is says.

 

[latinmass]

**Post# of this “refutation” please. **
Otherwise:
NADA, 0, none.

In fact NO ONE has addressed the meaning or alternate interpretation of those CCC Par’s…no one. Silly casual remarks notwithstanding.

If someone wants to go line by line on them, I would welcome it. But my constant requests to do so are only answered by liberal flamethrowing or kindergarten ridicule.
If this is the best the VAT II apologists can do, no wonder the place is in moral collapse.

Can anyone answer this post? #63

 

[SemperFidelis]

Can anyone answer this post? #63

Yes. The Catechism is not infallible. Show me an infallible source that says there will be no Pope at the end times, or a time of apostasy where there will be possibly a hundred-years without a Pope. Read some traditional responses to sedevacantism:

sspx.org/articles_index.htm#sedevacantism

 

[Sure]

**Post# of this “refutation” please. **
Otherwise:
NADA, 0, none.

In fact NO ONE has addressed the meaning or alternate interpretation of those CCC Par’s…no one. Silly casual remarks notwithstanding.

If someone wants to go line by line on them, I would welcome it. But my constant requests to do so are only answered by liberal flamethrowing or kindergarten ridicule.
If this is the best the VAT II apologists can do, no wonder the place is in moral collapse.

In light of everything that is happening in our culture is this really so far-fetched:

1. An anti-Catholic “humanist” world government bans the practice of the Faith and persecutes Catholics. Millions apostasize in order to save their own lives

I’ll be happy to go through the paragraphs with you. Which paragraph numbers are you talking about?

 

[Daisiegirl]

To estesbob ~ what do you think the Blessed Mother meant as Our Lady of LaSalette. when she said the Church would be in eclipse and Rome would become the seat of the Antichrist?

TNT’s explanations are very easy to follow and not ridiculous at all… what other interpretations could one walk away with?

 

[SemperFidelis]

To estesbob ~ what do you think the Blessed Mother meant as Our Lady of LaSalette. when she said the Church would be in eclipse and Rome would become the seat of the Antichrist?

TNT’s explanations are very easy to follow and not ridiculous at all… what other interpretations could one walk away with?

I must admit, that I don’t know too much about the apparitions of Our Lady of LaSalette, but this is what I got of the message at:

ourladyoflasalette.org/home.php?message

THE MESSAGE

~ “If my people will not submit, I shall be forced to let fall the arm of my Son. It is so strong, so heavy, that I can no longer withhold it. For how long a time do I suffer for you! If I would not have my Son abandon you, I am compelled to pray to him without ceasing; and as to you, you take not heed of it.”

~“However much you pray, however much you do, you will never recompense the pains I have taken for you. Six days I have given you to labor, the seventh I had kept for myself; and they will not give it to me. It is this which makes the arm of my Son so heavy.”

~“Those who drive the carts cannot swear without introducing the name of my Son. These are the two things which makes the arm of my Son so heavy.”

~“Ah, my children, you must be sure to say [your prayers] well morning and evening. When you cannot do better, say at least an Our Father and a Hail Mary. When you have time, say more.”

~“There are none who go to Mass except a few aged women. The rest work on Sunday all summer; then in the winter, when they know not what to do, they go to Mass only to mock at religion.”
“During Lent, they go to the meat-market like dogs.”

And over at New Advent, there seems to be some speculation regarding the secrets of Our Lady of LaSalette:

newadvent.org/cathen/09008b.htm

So far, I haven’t read anything that talks about Rome occupying the seat of the anti-Christ. If you got this idea from one of the messages above, you are surely reaching.

 

[Daisiegirl]

this is only a ssmmmaaaaaaall portion of what She said to the two children…

I have a llittle booklet titled, “Apparition of the Blessed Virgin on the Mountain of LaSalette, the 19th of September, 1846.” It is published by the Shepherdess of LaSalette with Imprimatur by Mgr. Bishop of Lecce.

Here is a verbatim of some of the things She said:

Page 12 ~ In the year 1864, Lucifer together with a large number of demons will be unloosed from hell; they will put an end to faith little by litte, even in those dedicated to God. They will blind them in such a way, that, unless they are blesed with a special grace, these people will take on the spirit of these angels of hell; several religious institutions will lose all faith and will lose many souls." “There will be churches built to serve these spirits” “Churches will be locked up and desecrated. Priests and religious orders will be hunted down, and made to die a cruel death. Several will abandon the faith and a great number of priests and members of religious orders will break away from the true religion; among these people there will even be bishops.”

Page 18 ~ “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”

Page 9 ~ The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay."

Page 10 ~ “The priests, ministers of my Son, the priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honours and pleasures, the priests have become cesspools of impurity. Yes, the priests are asking vengeance, and vengeance is hanging over their heads. Woe to the priests and to those dedicated to God who by their unfaithfulness and their wicked lives are crucifying my Son again!” “… there is no one left to beg mercy and forgiveness for the people. There are no more generous souls, there is no one left worthy of offering the stainless sacrifice to the Eternal for the sake of the world. God will strike in an unprecendeted way.”

Page 17 ~ “It will be during this time that the Antichrist will be born of a Hebrew nun, a false virgin who will communicate with the old serpent, the master of impurity, his father will be B.”

Kinda all goes along with what TNT is trying to make sense of…

 

[Victory5]

TNT–ID LOVE TO TAlK TO YOU ON THE PHONE—IT WOULD BE A FUN CONVERSATION—MUCH EASIER THEN POSTING HERE----LET ME KNOW----ANYWAY I really find it incredible that you can come to the conclusion about the ccc’s “mass deception” to be the current sedevacantist position. It simply isnt there. Also if this is the case(that there is no election possible) this would contradict Vatican I’s teaching that “Peter will have successors in perpetuity.” For example if there is, let’s say 50 years til the end of the world, that would mean that there werent successors in perpetuity because for the last 50 years there could have been no Pope.(because no election is possible) Mary is a perpetual virgin. This means that she was/is a virgin til the day she was assumed into heaven. If she wasnt a virgin for the last 5 years of her life then she couldnt be called a perpetual virgin. An election of a Pope must always be possible for Vatican I’s teaching to make sense. Notice I said an election possible (a clear way to know) not that the see has to always be occupied. It is the clear teaching of Vatican I.

 

[TNT]

In light of everything that is happening in our culture is this really so far-fetched:
3. An anti-Catholic “humanist” world government bans the practice of the Faith and persecutes Catholics. Millions apostasize in order to save their own lives

It’s not that it is far-fetched. It’s that this isn’t a deception. It’s an outright coercion. See the difference? We are looking for a Supreme Deception.

I’ll be happy to go through the paragraphs with you. Which paragraph numbers are you talking about?

675,677 I’ve plastered those numbers from beginning to end on this thread. Tell me you were just kiddin.

IF you decide on this, start another Thread. This one is full of distractions.

 

[estesbob]

To estesbob ~ what do you think the Blessed Mother meant as Our Lady of LaSalette. when she said the Church would be in eclipse and Rome would become the seat of the Antichrist?

TNT’s explanations are very easy to follow and not ridiculous at all… what other interpretations could one walk away with?

Could you perhaps point us out to where she said this? Also TNT claims that the people who wrote the Cathecism cryptically telling us there would be a great deception were part of the great decption themleves How can that be?

 

[TNT]

TNT–ID LOVE TO TAlK TO YOU ON THE PHONE—IT WOULD BE A FUN CONVERSATION—MUCH EASIER THEN POSTING HERE----LET ME KNOW—…

I’ll see if I can borrow someone’s phone.

 

[SemperFidelis]

this is only a ssmmmaaaaaaall portion of what She said to the two children…

I have a llittle booklet titled, “Apparition of the Blessed Virgin on the Mountain of LaSalette, the 19th of September, 1846.” It is published by the Shepherdess of LaSalette with Imprimatur by Mgr. Bishop of Lecce.

Here is a verbatim of some of the things She said:

Page 12 ~ In the year 1864, Lucifer together with a large number of demons will be unloosed from hell; they will put an end to faith little by litte, even in those dedicated to God. They will blind them in such a way, that, unless they are blesed with a special grace, these people will take on the spirit of these angels of hell; several religious institutions will lose all faith and will lose many souls." “There will be churches built to serve these spirits” “Churches will be locked up and desecrated. Priests and religious orders will be hunted down, and made to die a cruel death. Several will abandon the faith and a great number of priests and members of religious orders will break away from the true religion; among these people there will even be bishops.”

Page 18 ~ “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”

Page 9 ~ The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay."

Page 10 ~ “The priests, ministers of my Son, the priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honours and pleasures, the priests have become cesspools of impurity. Yes, the priests are asking vengeance, and vengeance is hanging over their heads. Woe to the priests and to those dedicated to God who by their unfaithfulness and their wicked lives are crucifying my Son again!” “… there is no one left to beg mercy and forgiveness for the people. There are no more generous souls, there is no one left worthy of offering the stainless sacrifice to the Eternal for the sake of the world. God will strike in an unprecendeted way.”

Page 17 ~ “It will be during this time that the Antichrist will be born of a Hebrew nun, a false virgin who will communicate with the old serpent, the master of impurity, his father will be B.”

Kinda all goes along with what TNT is trying to make sense of…

You failed to answer my claims that much of what the children said has been speculated as false by the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917, speculation that includes apparantely several Popes. Here’s a quote regarding the two secrets:

“It is unknown what impressions these mysterious revelations made on the pope, for on this point there were two versions diametrically opposed to each other. Maximin’s secret is not known, for it was never published. Mélanie’s was inserted in its entirety in a brochure which she herself had printed in 1879 at Lecce, Italy, (the one which you referenced above) with the approval of the bishop of that town. A lively controversy followed as to whether the secret published in 1879 was identical with that communicated to Pius IX in 1851, or if in its second form it was not merely a work of the imagination. The latter was the opinion of wise and prudent persons, who were persuaded that a distinction must be made between the two Mélanies, between the innocent and simple voyante of 1846 and the visionary of 1879, whose mind had been disturbed by reading apocalyptic books and the lives of illuminati. As Rome uttered no decision the strife was prolonged between the disputants. Most of the defenders of the text of 1879 suffered censure from their bishops.” (Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917)

 

[cam100]

A Supreme Deception has to cover nearly all in believing they are in fact doing or believing the right thing by their conscience and their religious teachers, when it is actually the wrong thing. It’s not about doing the wrong thing because they do not want to do the right thing.

Although this would be an example of type of deception, I don’t think it could qualify as what is referred to as THE supreme religious deception. The reason is that your example really describes a situation in which the followers of the deception would NOT be guilty of sin. In your example, the “deceived” are trying to do the right thing, as you explain. They are trying to follow the man who, by nearly all accounts, is the vicar of Christ. Now, Catholics in the past have mistakenly followed antipopes, and have not been condemned by the Church for their mistaken idenfication of the man who is the vicar of Christ.

The description of supreme deception seems to imply a great injury to the faith, and the loss of many souls. It would seem that this would have to accomplished by a deliberate turning away from the papacy and the church, not a case of mistaken identity. The Catechism seems to describe a turning toward oneself. It seems to illustrate something more akin to the attitude of many Catholics today who hold themselves, instead of the pope, as the head of their religion. For example, many Catholics think they can follow their own rules on birth control, divorce, pre-marital sex, and Sunday obligation. This type of behavior seems more in line with the description of the Supreme Deception, which speaks of “a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh”.

You asked me earlier to provide a better interpretation of the “supreme deception”, since I rejected yours. I don’t claim to know the future, but I see problems with your interepetation, so I can still reject that even if I don’t have a perfect interpretation myself. I don’t have to have the answer to know that another proposal has problems. However, I’ve provided one suggestion in this post.

 

[stmaria]

TNT claims that the people who wrote the Cathecism cryptically telling us there would be a great deception were part of the great decption themleves How can that be?

\

Perhaps it was put there by the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

I am not a sedevacantist yet I fully agree with TNT but with a twist. I beleive that all of the Popes are valid. The chair of Peter is not vacant. I can also accept that we are in the beginning of a supreme deception.All that TNT sited is true. Falling Mass attendence, fewer vocations, lack of belief in the Real Presence,many Catholics living in adultery, many receiving communion while in mortal sin, a New Mass, liturgical abuse etc.

Isn’t it possible that these two paragraphs of the Catechism were inspired by the Holy Spirit? It is in there for a reason.

 

[MilesXpisti]

TNT–ID LOVE TO TAlK TO YOU ON THE PHONE—IT WOULD BE A FUN CONVERSATION—MUCH EASIER THEN POSTING HERE----LET ME KNOW----ANYWAY I really find it incredible that you can come to the conclusion about the ccc’s “mass deception” to be the current sedevacantist position. It simply isnt there. Also if this is the case(that there is no election possible) this would contradict Vatican I’s teaching that “Peter will have successors in perpetuity.” For example if there is, let’s say 50 years til the end of the world, that would mean that there werent successors in perpetuity because for the last 50 years there could have been no Pope.(because no election is possible) Mary is a perpetual virgin. This means that she was/is a virgin til the day she was assumed into heaven. If she wasnt a virgin for the last 5 years of her life then she couldnt be called a perpetual virgin. An election of a Pope must always be possible for Vatican I’s teaching to make sense. Notice I said an election possible (a clear way to know) not that the see has to always be occupied. It is the clear teaching of Vatican I.

Actually, it isn’t, sir. You’re quoting Chapter 2 of Pastor Aeternus completely out of context. The entire point of that chapter does not address the perpetuity of succession (that is to say timely election of the Roman Pontiff), but that the successors of Peter are perpetually endowed with his primacy over the Universal Church. The anathema of that canon reads:

If, then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Essentially the point of the canon is the refutation of some Orthodox heretics that Peter was endowed with universal primacy by virtue of his association with Christ and that when he died, his See (Rome) devolved into a See having no special juridical or ecclesiastical authority, adopting the heretical notion of “primus inter pares.”

How do we know that this is the interpretation of that canon? By the second clause in it, which states “or that the Roman Pontiff is [denied to be] the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy”.

The essential breakdown of the canon is that if anyone believes that the See of Peter did not retain the primacy after his death, or that the Primacy is held by another See/Prelate (such as Constantinople as the Orthodox seem to hold), they are anathema.

How do I know this is the correct interpretation?

Per the document itself, the Chapter 2 subtitle:

On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs.

The Catholic Encyclopedia concurs:

The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution “Pastor Aeternus”:

I’m sorry, but you’ll have to find another argument from infallible doctrine to argue from, but I don’t believe you’ll find one.

 

[Daisiegirl]

Estesbob ~ go to my post numbered #29 on this thread