Thursday, May 24, 2018

On the Prophecy (if genuine) of Holzhauser

Found this on a site inimical to Catholic prophecy - but citing it in a way which could seem correct:

Hollzhauser (died 1658): "When everything has been ruined by war; when Catholics are hard pressed by traitorous coreligionists and heretics; when the Church and her servants are denied their rights, the monarchies have been abolished and their rulers murdered ... then the hand of Almighty God will work a marvelous change, something apparently impossible according to human understanding.

“There will rise a valiant monarch anointed by God. He will be a Catholic, a descendant of Louis IX, (yet) a descendant of an ancient imperial German family, born in exile. ..."

Found this on Wikipedia:

Louis IV (German: Ludwig; 1 April 1282 – 11 October 1347), called the Bavarian, of the house of Wittelsbach, was King of the Romans from 1314, King of Italy from 1327, and Holy Roman Emperor from 1328.

In Holzhauser's time, the Wittelsbachs had not been Emperors for centuries, so, they can be considered as a precisely "ancient" imperial German family.

Now, why the focus on Louis IV?

His wife was Margaret II Hainaut /I of Holland, whose mother was Joan of Valois, whose father Charles of Valois was son of Philip III of France who was himself son and successor of King Saint Louis IX.

Since Holzhauser was born in the See of Augsburg, later attached to ... Bavaria ... in 1806, back then an independent unit of administration, with a Bishop under the Emperor, but close enough to Bavaria, since he was bookish as a child, it cannot be ruled out that he knew that the Wittelsbachs were both ancient Imperial and ... Royal French. He died after the execution of Charles I, and he had foreseen it in a vision presented in 1646 to the Emperor and the Bavarian Elector (that work of personal prophecy could be what is cited above, unless it was his comment on the Apocalypse), but the English Civil War had been going on since 1642 then. However, it is at least good (and ultimately accurate) analysis that the monarchies were going to be abolished and the kings were going to be murdered : Charles I, Gustave III, Louis XVI, Louis II of Bavaria (disputed, some claiming the official Prussian explanation of his accidentally killing himself by confusion leading to drowning, I'm not buying that), and Nicolas II of Russia, five or at least four monarchs murdered, or wait, there was a Czar before Nicolas II too, Alexander of Yugoslavia, a conspiracy theorist could claim his son Peter II was killed by doctors (but attempting a liver transplant was in a way making himself a kind of killer too), and his brother's death by suicide is a but suspicious too (if he had been a suicide, would the Orthodox allow him burial in Church?) while the assassination of Mihailo Obrenović III in 1868 is not any more dubious than that of Alexander ... there is another question whether all monarchies have been really abolished. I am not so much talking of monarchs retaining a ceremonial role as of growing influence of them.

I can't say Holzhauser has so far been proven wrong yet./HGL

No comments: