88 REASONS Why The Rapture Will Be In 1988 {End Times}

scribd.com ^ | 1988 | Edgar C Whisenat

[Dartoid]

And your purpose is what exactly. It is not meant to bring the body together. You are doing the work of your father Satan

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Yep!
Glad you see his evil intentions with the trolling.

He is constantly pinging me and others to his garbage posts as well.

Best to ignore the child. Eventually somebody will ping a mod.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Amen bro.

This dude is beyond help - sad & pathetic!

[Fido969]

I think you should give the author a little more credit.

He wrote a very detailed book, and described occurrences in history, Biblical prophesy, numerology, astronomy and sociology.

He really got everything right, except for one thing.

[boatbums]

What is your motive for dredging up decades old musings from obviously false prophets? Mockery isn't a very attractive characteristic - more like trollish behavior. I'd think you would be more concerned with why “faithful” Catholics like Joe Biden think they can get Catholics and Evangelicals to vote for him just like they have voted for Democrats in the past.

[boatbums]

BINGO!

[Cronos]

What is your motive for reading and commenting on this post?

Shouldn’t you be more concerned with your own belief system? I notice you are quite often on threads about different religions - so why not be more concerned with your own?

[daniel1212]

Cronos constantly posts these threads to cause dissension and bickering among Christians. It is one thing to try to educate and win people over to Christ. But it seems clear to me that Cronos intention is solely to ridicule and instigate

Actually it is a desperate attempt, likely as part some behind-the-scenes strategy btwn some other RC propagandist here, to justify his own fractured church by attacking "Protestantism" which is not even logical. For unless one is defending Protestantism - which includes Unitarianism, Scientology, Swedenborgism, Mormononism, etc. - then the only ones being attacked are those who adhere to the beliefs being attacked, unless SS is being attacked, but then the greater basic unity among those corespondent to their esteem of Scripture must be compared to unity under its RC alternative. For while the Catholic is compelled to defend Catholicism, yet beyond a veneer of unity it exists in sects with a pope who is variously attacked by conservatives who hold different positions regarding him, and loved by liberals whom Rome manifestly considers to be members in life and in death.

For while Catholics defend and promote the papal office and magisterium as the solution to division, many Catholics on FR attack him such as calling him

"Bergoglio the Heretic;""this madman Francis" who "preaches and authors heresy;" being a "material and formal heretic;" this fraud of a pope; “an apostate,” who is "not a Catholic;" "The Impopester;" and that "The Ecumenical Mass of Bergoglio is straight out of Hell;" "...for which our poor, beleaguered pontiff is nothing more than the ultimate poster boy."

Thus at one time the Religion Moderator warned

Being as you and many other Catholic posters have proclaimed that the Pope is not Catholic, we will remove the Catholic Caucus label because this thread is about a non-Catholic. and , "If it is the general consensus here at the FR Religion Forum that the Pope is NOT a Catholic, then yes posts about him will not qualify for the Catholic caucus label. That fits with the guidelines."

And rather than settling differences under the magisterium then as one poster wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” - Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)

And as a FReeper puts it,

I doubt that anything much will come of the latest efforts to confront the Pope because so-called traditional Catholics have split themselves into almost as many sects as Protestants have. There are:

1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner

(NOTE: Church Militant may have changed its position recently to be more directly in opposition to the Pope but I haven't kept track.)

A web site popular among “RadTrad” RCs who reject Vatican Two is https://novusordowatch.org and which sums up the situation by saying,

In response to the phenomenon of the Vatican II revolution, there are three essential lines of thought that have been proposed as “solutions” to understanding the situation. This is not now the place or time to critique or justify any of them. For now, we want to just describe them: (1) despite appearances, nothing has really substantially changed, and any interpretation of Vatican II that arrives at the conclusion that there has been a substantial change must be incorrect; (2) we must oppose (resist) these substantial changes and stick to the traditional, age-old teaching instead and ignore the Vatican II novelties while recognizing, however, that the authorities in the Vatican are legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities — we just cannot agree with them on these points; (3) because it is impossible for the Catholic Church to change substantially, and because Vatican II constitutes such an impossible substantial change, it is necessary to conclude that the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority; that is to say, the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors, who have implemented and expanded this new religion that has its roots in the council. In fact, the entire religion that now occupies the Vatican and the official structures of the Catholic Church throughout the world is false — it is not the Catholic religion at all, and its putative authorities are not Catholics but heretical usurpers.

The first line of thought described above is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “conservative Catholic”, “orthodox Catholic”, “Novus Ordo”, “conservative Novus Ordo”, or “indult”. Prominent organizations and individuals which can be said to promote or be associated with this position would include Catholic Answers, EWTN, Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, Franciscan University of Steubenville, National Catholic Register, The Wanderer, Latin Mass Magazine, Church Militant, Vericast, Fr. Kenneth Baker, Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Michael Voris, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, Steve Kellmeyer, Dave Armstrong, Mark Shea, and many others.

The second line of thought described above is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “traditionalist”, “traditional”, “resistance”, “recognize-and-resist” (“R&R”), or “SSPX”. Proponents of this position include the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Fatima Network, Tradition In Action, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, TradCatKnight, Bp. Bernard Fellay, Bp. Richard Williamson, Rev. Paul Kramer, Rev. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari, Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Louie Verrecchio, John Salza, Robert Siscoe, Eric Gajewski, and many more. Here at Novus Ordo Watch we like to refer to this position as “recognize-and-resist”, “neo-traditionalist”, “pseudo-traditionalist”, or “semi-traditionalist”.

The third line of thought is the one we espouse at Novus Ordo Watch, and it is a theological position known as “Sedevacantism”, from the Latin sede vacante, “the chair being empty”, referring to the Chair of St. Peter that is occupied by the Pope — when there is a legitimate Pope reigning. Sedevacantism is by far the least popular position, the “black sheep” no one wants to be “tainted” with. Besides Novus Ordo Watch, other groups or individuals who promote or share this position include True Restoration, the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), Istituto Mater Boni Consilii, Sodalitium, Daily Catholic, The Four Marks newspaper, Bp. Geert Stuyver, Bp. Donald Sanborn, Bp. Mark Pivarunas, Bp. Clarence Kelly, Fr. Anthony Cekada, Fr. Michael Oswalt, Fr. William Jenkins, John Daly, Thomas Droleskey, Stephen Heiner, John Lane, Michael Cain, Mario Derksen, Griff Ruby, Steve Speray, and others.

As for the term “Novus Ordo”, in its most general application it simply refers to the new, pseudo-Catholic religion of Vatican II described above.... To be clear: We adhere fully to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church from her founding in 33 A.D. by the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ through the death of the last known Pope, Pius XII, on October 9, 1958. We are Roman Catholics. - https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/

Then we have a more charitable description:

It is certainly possible to discern three tribes within American Catholicism. However, using the Jewish terminology is confusing. “Orthodox,” “Conservative,” and “Reform” do not translate well into American Catholicism. Clearer titles for the three tribes might be “Traditionalist” which correlates with the Jewish “Orthodox.” “Magisterial” because “conservative” Catholics adhere to papal teachings and the magisterium, while “Progressive” reflects the “Reformed” group in Judaism....

Broadly speaking, “Traditionalists” adhere to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Baltimore Catechism, and Church teachings from before the Second Vatican Council...

“Magisterial” Catholics put loyalty to the authority of the pope and magisterial teaching first and foremost. They are happy with the principles of the Second Vatican Council, but want to “Reform the Reform.” They want to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass with solemnity, reverence, and fine music. ..They uphold traditional Catholic teaching in faith and morals, but wish to communicate and live these truths in an up-to-date and relevant way...

The “Progressives” are vitally interested in peace and justice issues. They’re enthusiastic about serving the marginalized and working for institutional change. They are likely to embrace freer forms of worship, dabble in alternative spiritualities, and be eager to make the Catholic faith relevant and practical. Progressives believe the Church should adapt to the modern age... Maguire sums up their attitude pretty well: Progressives “don’t need the Vatican. Their conscience is their Vatican.” - Is Catholicism about to break into three? Crux Catholic Media Inc. ^ | Oct 6, 2015 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3778496/posts

Thus we have articles here such as,

Is Catholicism about to break into three?

Archbishop Viganò: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’ Pope Says he Prays U.S.-Led Schism Can Be Thwarted

The SSPX's Relationship with Francis: Is it Traditional? post #6

Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?

The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope...If Francis is a true Pope …

Meanwhile Catholics overall testify to far less unified in polled core beliefs than those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, which Catholics attack as a basis for unity. And if one church, Catholicism is an unholy amalgamation of liberals and conservatives, and of conflicting interpretations of what valid church teaching is and means, being essentially like evangelicals they condemn, in that both ascertain the validity of church teaching based upon past church teaching, except for us it is the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, while for them it is their selective choices of past historical RC teaching. Yet which includes such broad requirements of submission to public papal teaching that only those who reject modern popes seem to accept, such as, 'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

Thus Catholics are not to essentially operate as evangelicals in ascertaining just what is valid church teaching based upon their judgment of what that constitutes and means, but are to submit to the judgment of their "living magisterium" which interprets past teaching, regardless of how contradictory that may seem to either Scripture or past RC teaching, including her heretical Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Roman Catholic church there is no salvation).

I doubt that anything much will come of the latest efforts to confront the Pope because so-called traditional Catholics have split themselves into almost as many sects as Protestants have. There are:

[daniel1212]

Yet his homepage states the following. He is the perfect definition of a fraud and hypocrite.

I do not see that as it currently reads. However, Cronos states that "I don't believe He [God] intends us to be at enmity with each other over things we may only be able to nibble at the corners of... If it draws us away to opposing corners in anger at brethren in Christ, it's not so good," then he states, "presently no screen name satan saysI/my minions can deceive" though the link is not to the correct post and leaves out the context, making it almost seem (considering who is quoting this) as if the poster "presently no screen name" is saying "I/my minions can deceive."

And of-course, he also cites Elsie saying Elsie: So much for the healiung power of Jesus.. But which was a snide remark in response to "Pope Benedict to Resign for Health Reasons."

Of more import is what he states which testifies against Catholics (and liberals) being in Christ, stating,

Justification is how we make that redemption our own. Salvation only occurs after we die and are judged. To differentiate between being saved and attain full salvation is to confused salvation with redemption and justification.

Yet Scripture clearly teaches that one can known that they presently possess eternal life, (1 Jn. 5:13) being made "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6) on Christ's account, living effectual Abrahamic-type faith being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:5) and made to spiritually positionally sit with Him in Heaven (Eph. 2:6) as souls washed, sanctified and justified (1 Co. 6:11) and having access into the holy of holies in Heaven thru the sinless shed blood of Christ. (Heb. 10:19) And that if they die in faith (which Scripture warns against damnably departing from: Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 6:1-8; 10:26-39) then wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers after this life then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)

Contrary to this, the use of the term "full salvation" is to be understood in the light of his erroneous Catholic belief that justification is based upon sanctification, meaning the soul actually becomes good enough to be with God thru the act itself (ex opere operato)of baptism, by which charity is infused into the souls and thus it id held that the newly baptized would go to Heaven directly if they immediately died after baptism. Yet since the unholy sinful nature is all too alive, then since it soon manifests itself then (unless the die having obtained freedom from any attachment to sin) and atoned for all their post-baptismal sins, then in RC teaching they must face "purifying punishments in RC (nor EO) Purgatory until they accomplish the needed atone for sins and become good enough in character to actually enter Heaven to be with God/Christ.

For sure practical holiness is necessary for salvation in the same sense that faith which effects obedience is, meaning that (as Luther himself taught) it is effectual faith which is counted for righteousness, "things that accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9,10) which vindicates/justifies one as being a believer, (1 Thessalonians 1:3-10) versus dead faith, (James 2:17)

However, it is not because we are good enough to be with God either in this life or thru mythical purgatory, for again, wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers after this life then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) 

And rather than Purgatory conforming souls to Christ to inherit the kingdom of God, the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being made like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ And which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure!) due to the manner of material one built the church with. But which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)  (Note also that the tradition-based Eastern Orthodox reject RC Purgatory, among some other substantial RC distinctives  )

But Cronos has already been shown this and more in refutation of the Catholic idol church.

[daniel1212]

You mean like Charles Walmesley, OSB (best known by the pseudonyms Signor Pastorino or Pastorini; 13 January 1722 – 25 November 1797) was the Roman Catholic Titular Bishop of Rama and Vicar Apostolic of the Western District of England.

Walmesley is most famous for his General History of the Christian Church from her birth to her Final Triumphant States in Heaven chiefly deduced from the Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle, by Signor Pastorini (a pseudonym). This was first published in 1771 and went through ten editions in Great Britain and five more were produced in America. Translations of the work also appeared in Latin, French, German, and Italian, and were also reprinted. The book prophesied the end of Protestantism and particularly the destruction by God of the Anglican churches by 1825. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Walmesley; emp. mine)

Although this was followed by the Act of Catholic Emancipation in 1829 that involved reducing and removing many of the restrictions on Roman Catholics introduced by the Act of Uniformity, the Test Acts and the penal laws, that hardly constituted the end of Protestantism and particularly the destruction by God of the Anglican churches.

[daniel1212]

What is your motive for reading and commenting on this post? Shouldn’t you be more concerned with your own belief system? I notice you are quite often on threads about different religions - so why not be more concerned with your own?

"why not be more concerned with your own?" Are you talking to yourself? Ah, but I can see why being concerned with your own would instigate you to attack conservatives without her, and in that context the reproof by boatbums is warranted.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I look forward to the imminent return of Christ!

I may or may not still be on earth, but I’m ready.

No man knows the date.

1 Thessalonians 4:17-18

“Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

“Therefore comfort one another with these words.”

1 Thessalonians 45:9-11

“For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him.

“Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing.”

Even so, come Lord Jesus!

[HarleyD]

Discussing eschatology are like noses. Everyone has one and they all smell.

I am reminded of the following exchange among the people and the Pharisees:

John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” 41 Others were saying, “This is the Christ.” Still others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? 42 Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” 43 So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him. 44 Some of them wanted to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him.

45 The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, “Why did you not bring Him?” 46 The officers answered, “Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks.” 47 The Pharisees then answered them, “You have not also been led astray, have you? 48 No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he? 49 But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed.” 50 Nicodemus (he who came to Him before, being one of them) said to them, 51 “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” 52 They answered him, “You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.” 53 Everyone went to his home.

There are a number of misconceptions in the text that people held about foretold prophecy. First, they could even agree on what they were arguing about (Is Jesus the coming Prophet (Elijah) or is He the Messiah?). Second, they tried to fit the situation with their knowledge while not having a clear understanding of scripture (Christ isn't going to come from Galiee-see Matt 4:14-16). Third, their bias colored their reasoning to a point that they denigrated Nicodemus (There were some who Pharisees who believe Jesus was the Christ). Finally, they distorted scripture to fit their own goals (Both Nahum and Jonah were prophets who came from Galilee).

At the end of the day, everyone went home.

[bramps]

Cronos constantly posts these threads to cause dissension and bickering among Christians. It is one thing to try to educate and win people over to Christ. But it seems clear to me that Cronos intention is solely to ridicule and instigate. Yet previously on his homepage, he stated the following (which he only recently deleted from his homepage after recognizing what a fraud and hypocrite it revealed him to be):

Previously from Cronos homepage:
It is intellectually stimulating to discuss these things God has allowed us to know about, but I don’t believe He intends us to be at enmity with each other over things we may only be able to nibble at the corners of. If it helps us to further our knowledge and appreciation of God and ourselves within His plan, that’s good. If it draws us away to opposing corners in anger at brethren in Christ, it’s not so good.

[Elsie]

Hey!

I've GOT that book!

[Elsie]

—Joseph Smith (founder—Mormon Church): 1891.

HMMMmmm...

[Elsie]

Never. Give. A. Date.

Or a time; for we really can't;.

Right Mark??

In the Philippines; they are 12 hours ahead of us. It was Sunday there while it was still Saturday here in Indiana.

Two different days on the Earth at any instance, and MORE than 24 different times zones as well.

[Elsie]

...he also cites Elsie …

Dang!

I'm famous!!

[Elsie]

I look forward to the imminent return of Christ!

While I am seeing the eventual exit of ELSIE!

[metmom]

Exactly.

Thanks for posting what the rest of us know.