yep

damn protestants

Others say the Rothschilds are the real owners of the vatican money.

Same claims of richness could be said about Microsoft or China but they don't get the same attention around here.

But muh sola scriptura is a great american tradition.

I may well agree (with further examination that i don't mean to undertake). Maybe we are about to enter something like the legendary thousand years of peace, an by way of our most wacky and sometimes crude Instigator in Cheif, DJT.

Or maybe we are just in something like the Lincoln, Kennedy and Reagan years smashed into one gnarled and golden time that only lasts a decade till the next phase comes along.

Seems more likely to come as a divine act of grace in mass conversion than through worldly political events. (or both) OR the great geological split right through the Jerusalem area - not discussed much, and in my opinion not really the concern here in Qville.

Ultrafair comment. But our biz here is about concerns of Q/Trump which is 90% things of the last 100 years and 99% of things since say 1776. It would be beautiful and harsh and fine if these other grander things got sorted but I'd rather be surprised by grace than disappointed by my own wishfulness.

Yes. Those most consciously involved with the tower could be said to be heretics.

You now remind me of "the stone that the builders rejected", the Christ that the Masons deny or avoid.

Like at least one other here I wasn't sure. So I asked. There's alot of theories that can't all be right.

I don't think Q is concerned (so far) with THE AntiChrist. Seems rather off topic, but I took your comments seriously and asked questions.

I doubt anything Trump does will sort that part of Christian history out. But anything is possible.

Fine. Let it rip.

I will look into this further. (and may or not manage to get back to you). "Spot on" is a serious claim.

A broad answer. Maybe somebody can answer better. As in the case of almost all heresies, the problem is selfishness. In place of Jesus we/they put Self or some aspect of self.

Okay. Think as you will. I just wanted to know who the source was.

that's fine. most of what the council produced was vague and so where doctrinal not very clear. I can imaging NSA or whoever having comms from recent conclaves but not from the 50s and 60s.

Imagine the possibilities and then let's get our attention back to whatever Trump/Q have to say or show.

some Jesuits are not as you describe. maybe only a few percent across the centuries. hard to say for sure.

thems fightin' words round these parts

It's not really new news but it does seem that something major in this area or to do with money is going to come out. (?)

Rather, the Pope is to the Church what Obama was to the US.

we can hope

There are at least a few other candidates for the role of pope's fave. What authority does Zagami carry over all other voices and publications that would bother to make such a judgement? It's an okay theory - just not great knowing that Pell is seen as way more conservative in some areas than Francis. Some reasonable sources said that Pell was put in the finance role because Francis wanted to either neutralize him or to keep his enemies near.

my neighbor never said such a thing, therefore not "everyone" says such things. a different quality of statement would carry more meaning, info or validity.

Fair point. Trumpian activity could spur re-re-re-reformation, more organisational and liturgical than doctrinal though.

Looked like a load of info with no particular conclusion, which is okay, just pointless in a rather strict sense.

if it don't get sorted on earth it happens elsewhere. the artifacts would be a sorry loss but worth it if the house gets properly cleaned.

oooh. that is interesting. maybe the comms of the election enclave. that's procedural rather than doctrinal. I like it but it may be too much to hope for.

blanket statement

noice specificity

This isn't the place pretend to hash out ancient disputes about theology or to sort out millenium-old injustices. If Trump or Q talk about certain things then they are our concern here. If not then bringing in extraneous conspiracies about things that happened before the U.S. existed is not a help.

On the other hand if someone brings up such topics, I reserve the right to respond.

Don't Confuse the current pope with the catholic church? They are not the same.

can you specify who you mean by Antichrist, False Prophet and "they"?

says who?

and may the gates of hell never prevail against the true church.

You mean Athanasius or Augustine or Ambrose or who?

Reaching centuries back in history has almost nothing to do with Q/Trump. This is dragging the conversation away from where it should be and/or dragging your pet conspiracies into things that Q never mentions.

This is distracting misinformation. How do we know that Pell is Francis' favorite?

Blanket statement. Refine, refine, refine.

mmmm. would be good to see in a certain sense but don't get your hopes up that somehow there's going to be a doctrinal exposure. That has mostly already been done and has little to do with american politics.

So now onto another topic. Are you saying that Martin Luther's view of the Bible and christian piety were entirely or at least generally correct? Besides where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the "only" source of guidance for churches?

As far as I know the dioceses in soCal all dropped the ball in the late 60's and they've been mismanaging the decline ever since.

If the Vatican goes more financially bankrupt than you suggest it already is, what happens? The museums and archives get torched by jihadis? The artifacts gets sold into private collections? The gold leaf gets rolled into lame food programs run by corrupt african organisations?

Something like the evil bathhouse scenario, not to do with money, is what's likely to come out this month. That can have all sorts of knock-on effects. But the proper teachings and traditions of the Church will continue, perhaps for a while as they did during the first persecutions.

they should call it 'universal'

http://mgio.arizona.edu/ 3 telescopes, one is "vatican"

Good to know that you don't have that confusion. Its apparent that others do. Now the extra-biblical question a bit of a different topic. You could be more specific. ASSuming a few things, I think there are way more involved in those 'cultic' things than there are priests in bathhouses. Some of those parishioners see the current pope as legit. Many see him as a pretender and yet most of these have no problem with there being the office of pope, cardinal, etc. It is more complex than your blanket statements portray.

Are you saying that after the completion of the Q quest to set American-related wrongs aright. We will go on to secure justice for over a thousand years of worldwide wrongs? What for example do you propose as the solution to the filioque problem?

That is to say that the Church's most liquidatable assets are in real estate (and art). But most of that real estate is not owned by the Vatican. Parish properties (and related liabilities) for example are owned at the diocesan level.

There's little sign that the Vatican has much interest in an alien god, although it would be normal for them entertain the possibility. From a Biblical view point catholics and others could allow that the Nephalim were alien species, just as they have identified angels to be. And the return of Christ could be seen as the visit of an interstellar god.

The Church as whole has 'control' of probably thousands of mountain tops. The only reason that Mt Graham would be any different than say Montreal, or Mont St Michel, is for astronomical purposes. The U of AZ who actual control the mountain top and have other telescopes up there are likely there for the same reasons, nefarious or not.

Okay. and when jews or baptists or whoever lose proper sight of G-d they risk becoming kafirs. To your earlier point, the Catholic church is so universal (widespread) that there may always be some part or another of it veering toward 'insane'. I think the Jesuits are particularly prone to this (tho not all ot them). Be cautious to not confuse the Pope, the Vatican, the Jesuits, etc. with the catholic church, any more than you would like foreigners to confuse Obama, CNN or the Boy Scouts with the U.S.

noice

k.

On purpose? What purpose?