New blog on the kid : So, Catholicism is Demographic - But is the Catholic Demography Always Catholic? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : On Marcel Lefebvre and "Traditionalist Dissent" · Responding to "Critics of Pope Francis, What’s your End-Game?"
I'll give you a clue. Up to the end of the Old Covenant, the Catholic Demographic was known as Judah - Judaea and Galilaea. Our most famous schismatics back then were the Samarians, geographically in between.
Then there came a day when Jewish demographics were not Catholic - or I should say pre-Catholic - any more. All the difference between the old people who had admired Christ in the Temple and their sons who boosted the attempts of one Saulus from Tharsis (a city where there were Jews since the time of Josaphat, I think) to eradicate the Church before it had a chance to show itself permanently Catholic.
I'll give you another clue. In England and Sweden, in 1500, the demographic was Catholic : totally in Sweden, and with an insignificant Lollard minority in England. In 1600, the main demographic in England and Sweden was a Protestant one (different sects : Swedish Lutherans, at least back then, while admiring Luther, had little love for Zwingli or Bucer; while Anglicans were hardly die-hard fans of Melanchthon). Had England and Sweden changed ethnicity? No, it was the same demographic. It was a demographic which had apostasised like the Jewish one a millennium and a half earlier.
So, belonging to a demographic which used to be right with God can at times give a false sense of security.
This is the precise reason why, these days, some Catholics claim, this is what "Vatican II" (not always the councel itself, and sometimes even things that came before 1958) is doing to the overall Catholic demographic. I am one of these, and consider "Pope Francis" is not Pope, since not Catholic. I do consider Pope Michael is the Pope, despite some questions on the canonicity side. If I am wrong, let's hope God will set me right, I do not pretend to be the Pope and he did not say he was until he had been to his satisfaction elected.
Those question marks on the canonicity side are far from equal to "Catholics" as openly flaunting Council of Trent or St Thomas Aquinas as certain Pharisees were flaunting the Torah, back at the end of the previous covenant. Ours will not end except when eternal glory itself replaces it, but it will so be replaced or rather fulfilled and some people are showing signs we may be drawing near such a date.
Another sign is, Jews are turning to Jesus, like Samaritans did (John 4):
Jewish Johnathan Ben-David forgave his killer and you would not believe why!!!
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | 25.VII.2017
I found this list of signs, given in an analysis referring to Edward Connor:
From the Eschatological Discourse and from other pertinent passages in Scripture, theologians have deduced six signs that must precede the end of the world:
1. Universal preaching of the Gospel.
2. Conversion of the Jews.
3. Return of Henoch and Elias [Enoch and Elijah].
4. A great apostasy.
5. The reign of the Antichrist.
6. Extraordinary disturbances in nature...
I had seen a list of seven, not quite that order, where Antichrist is mentioned twice, as a ruler and as a persecutor, and I recall seeing it in the place in St Thomas' Supplement where the fifteen signs given in St Jerome are rejected. I looked up Q LXXII A 1 and only found that latter enumeration rejected:
The signs mentioned by Jerome are not asserted by him; he merely says that he found them written in the annals of the Hebrews: and, indeed, they contain very little likelihood.
So, someone is trying to convince me of "Mandela effect" or it is really there? Either way, conversion of the Jews is a sign.
And considering the huge demographic that is Catholic, it is hard to imagine Antichrist ruling without some support from it, without it having to some degree apostasised. In majority, obviously not totality.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Thursday in Pentecost Octave