the white bishop
Mark Mallet says that the restrainer may have been lifted.
before the “lawless one” or Antichrist is unrestrained, a period of lawlessness would come, a rebellion… a revolution. The old Douay-Rheims Bible has an insightful footnote on this.
This revolt [apostasy], or falling off, is generally understood, by the ancient fathers, of a revolt from the Roman empire, which was first to be destroyed, before the coming of Antichrist. It may, perhaps, be understood also of a revolt of many nations from the Catholic Church which has, in part, happened already, by the means of Mahomet, Luther, etc. and it may be supposed, will be more general in the days of the Antichrist. —footnote on 2 Thess 2:3, Douay-Rheims Holy Bible, Baronius Press Limited, 2003; p. 235
Here, we see two elements of the restrainer holding back the Antichrist: a political aspect, the “Roman empire”; and a spiritual aspect, the “Catholic Church”, embodied by the papacy. Indeed, the Roman Empire after its conversion to Christianity was deeply entwined with Catholicism as the Gospel transformed the European landscape
and beyond. Hence, St. John Newman explained:
Now this restraining power [is] generally admitted to be the Roman empire… I do not grant that the Roman empire is gone. Far from it: the Roman empire remains even to this day… And as the horns, or kingdoms, still exist, as a matter of fact, consequently we have not yet seen the end of the Roman empire. —Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890), The Times of Antichrist, Sermon 1
But now, with The Coming Collapse of America (who is arguably the “mother” of this empire—see Mystery Babylon) and the Barque of Peter now in a veritable Great Shipwreck, the “restrainer” has almost fully been removed. In a recent message to the ecclesiastically approved Brazilian seer, Luz de Maria, St. Michael the Archangel says:
People of God, pray: the events will not delay, the mystery of iniquity will appear in the absence of the Katechon. —November 4th, 2020, countdowntothekingdom.com
Katechon—the Greek word for “restrainer.” If that is the case, then the second part of St. Paul’s warning should also be in view:
so the Trumpettes see his removal as the removal of the restrainer of the NWO in the political realm. (and given the lies and gaslighting by the MSM about him, it does make one wonder if there is some truth about that worry).
But isn't the real restrainer the Church?
Uh, then why did Pope Francis and the US Catholic bishops just congratulate Joe Biden, lauding him as a "catholic" president when he is pro abortion (and given his association with pro euthanasia Dr Emmanual, it's just a matter of time for this too: and don't thing the Supreme court will stop them).
And then there is the farcical McCarrick report (blaming it on Vigano, as if the bureaucrats didn't cover up his deeds to previous popes (JP2 was convinced his accusers were wrong, but one wonders who gave him this information, at a time when the Vatican big shots were trying to get him to resign and opposing many of his actions).
and now the Pope is saying nice things about the gay lifestyle (rewrite the bible so as not to hurt feelings) so one does wonder. First re align the Vatican pro life institute and fill it with dissenters. Then make green ecology a major project for Catholics, then align with fake ecuminism and pretend it was the same as the "parallel" ecuminism of jP2 (i.e. the first ignores the difference, JP2 said we have differences but we will respect each other and cooperate in mutual problems) Then add a "footnote" to allow divorced folks to receive communion (i.e. no sin here, folks just move along), then the Pachimama adoration... and then no push back on the world wide shut down of woship services, to try to get alternative worship (no, not via internet: that is a pale imitation of worship for Catholics because it doesn't let you receive the Eucharist).
Sounds like Akita is coming true: That bishops will oppose bishops and priests will oppose priests.
The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests.
The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops.
I won't even get into the sillier prophecies that Trumpieboy was the last restraint on the NWO... whoops. one of those prophecies was by Vigano but never mind.
My dear American people, Please understand that what you do on Tuesday affects the rest of the world. There was a time that that there were two things standing in the way of globalist Marxist hegemony. The Catholic Church and the United States of America. Under the Marxist Jorge Mario Bergoglio, there is now only one thing. Do your duty to your history and for the rest of us.The real problem of the pandemic? The churches are closed, and unlike the past when people could sneak out to mass rocks in the fields, the bishops haven't started outdoor masses. Why? Afraid of being called out? Ah, but the "peaceful protesters) (LOL) get away with it all the time.
Celestine V had been a monk renowned for his piety and asceticism, who founded a strict branch of the Benedictines. A divided College of Cardinals elected him in July 1294 after having failed for over two years to elect one of their own. The new pope accepted his election reluctantly, and soon concluded that he was unfit and unwilling to continue to serve as pope. Some sources say Celestine's decision to resign was his alone, while others say Cardinal Benedetto Gaetani, the future Boniface VIII, goaded and tricked him into resigning. All agree that Boniface drafted the papal constitution authorizing a pope's resignation. Boniface was elected pope immediately afterward, in December 1294. Celestine tried to return to a hermit's life, but he died as Boniface's prisoner in 1296. Celestine was canonized in 1313...
Both Boniface and Celestine make appearances in Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy. Dante places Boniface in the eighth circle of Hell, reserved for those guilty of simony...
Celestine V is believed to be the coward beside the gate of Hell who made "the great refusal" by abdicating the papacy and paving the way for Boniface's election as pope.
well, anyway, Benedict is frail and in isolation, meaning his keepers are censoring what he reads and writes: For example, when he coauthored a book with Cardinal Robert Sarah on the priesthood, he was pressured to remove his name from the authorship... yet was he pressured or someone did it for him?
Which brings in mind another prophecy: The Third Secret of Fatima. Where a "bishop" dressed in white was seen leaving Rome over the bodies of dead clergy, and then he too was shot.
John Paul II assumed it was his assaination that fulfilled the prophecy, but I wonder. Sister Lucy said "bishop in white", not "the pope"... and of course the "dead" clergy could mean spiritually dead, in an allegory.
Finally, we all know that according to St Malachy's prophecy, this is the last Pope.
And Pastor David Wilkerson's The Vision (1977) forsaw the churches would accept sexual sin and heresy, and that liberal clergy in Protestant and Catholic churches would unite in a one world order church, so that Catholics and others would be required to "come out from her" to keep the faith in common with others, and that the remnant would be persecuted.
Sigh.
Don't ask me: I am retired and not allowed into church, and in isolation spiritually, so prone to believe these things.
But I'm enough of a scientist to realize that it might just be paranoia, not prophecy... except that there are a lot of coincidences here, aren't they?
-------------------
just for reference: EWTN's Raymond Arroyo's interview with Cardinal Vigano, copied from Vox Cantoris.
Raymond Arroyo: Here to respond to the report, we’re pleased to be joined by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who joins us via phone. Your Excellency, thank you for being here. The report claims you did not come forward. That’s the quote to present evidence for this Vatican inquiry. Were you asked to provide information for this McCarrick report? Did anyone reach out to you?
Archbishop Viganò: I am surprised to discover that a report in which I am mentioned 306 times accuses me of not having presented myself to testify in this Vatican inquiry of Theodore McCarrick. But according to the norm of the canon law, the calling of witnesses is the responsibility of the one who is in charge of the process.
Raymond Arroyo: So, Archbishop, they never reached out to you then to ask you to contribute to the report, to interview you?
Archbishop Viganò: Yes, it is completely incomprehensible and anomalous that it was not considered opportune to call upon me to testify, but even more disturbing that this deliberate omission was then used against me. Let it not be said to me that I have made myself untouchable, because the secretary of state has my personal email address, which is still alive and never has been changed.
Furthermore, it is also significant to me that James Grein — the only victim of McCarrick’s sexual molestation who had the courage to denounce him publicly — does not appear in the report and that there is no trace of his testimony, in which he would also have reported the trip he made with McCarrick to St. Gallen at the end of the 1950s.
Raymond Arroyo: Hmm, interesting.
Archbishop Viganò: From public statements of James Grein, it is clear that the beginning of McCarrick’s climb — he was then a young, newly ordained priest — coincided with that visit to Switzerland, to a monastery that was later the site of the meeting of the conspirator of the so-called “Saint Gallen Mafia.” And according to the declaration deceased Cardinal Godfried Danneels, that group of prelates decided to support the election of Bergoglio, both after the death of John Paul II as well as during the conclave that followed the controversial resignation of Benedict XVI.
Then Cardinal McCarrick admitted to having supported the election of Cardinal Bergoglio at the beginning of the general congregations prior to the conclave that had been held a few months earlier.
I wonder what sort of reliability a judicial body can have that had such an obvious conflict of interest due to its past relationship with the accused.
How can [Pope] Bergoglio, and the Secretariat of State that depends on him, pretend to appear impartial when McCarrick went to the Vatican with an abnormal frequency? When, in June 2013, he was tasked with making that diplomatic trip to China? And how can one not think that their repeated attempts to cover up and denial of their responsibility, are the cause of the systematic effort to discredit me as a witness in order not to bring to light their complicity in circumstances that exist between them and the guys themselves?
Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, the Pope, according to the report, maintains that you did not inform him of McCarrick's activities or restrictions on McCarrick in June of 2013. The Pope was certain that you as nuncio “never told him that McCarrick had committed crimes against any person, whether adult or minor, or described McCarrick as a serial predator.” Your response?
Archbishop Viganò: This statement is absolutely false. First of all, it was Bergoglio himself, on June 23, 2013, who explicitly asked me my opinion of McCarrick. As I testify in my 2018 memoir, I answer him with complete frankness: “Holy Father, I don't know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops, there is a dossier this thick about him. The corrupt generation of seminarians and priest and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.”
The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time and he immediately change the subject. But then, what was the purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not, of course. It should be noted that I had learned from McCarrick himself that Bergoglio had received him four days before my audience on the 23rd of June and that Bergoglio had authorized him to go to China.
What was then the point of asking me for an opinion when Bergoglio already had McCarrick in the highest esteem? And in May 2014, I learned from The Washington Times of a tweet made by McCarrick to the Central African Republic on behalf of the Department of State.
Beginning in 2008, Benedict XVI had ordered the American cardinal to retire to a private life, not to celebrate or attend public events. For this reason, I asked, I wrote to Cardinal Parolin, if the sanction against McCarrick was still to be considered valid? That I had received no response whatsoever.
Raymond Arroyo: And Your Excellency, you saw the report says there’s no documentation of this. They don’t have documentation, so therefore they dispute it. You would say what to that?
Archbishop Viganò: Yes, I didn’t… I was not able to go all along the 400 pages in all the documents, but, you know, it’s interesting that they didn’t produce, in order to cover up also Cardinal Parolin, who didn’t answer to me. And from the report, I learned that McCarrick’s continued assignment and travels abroad were considered — this is stated in the report — they were considered by Archbishop Wuerl (Cardinal Wuerl) and even by Nuncio Sambi “as a sufficient form of removal” between quotation. That amazes me.
So the report continues, and I quote: “the indications were not ‘sanctions;’ they were not imposed by Pope Benedict XVI; McCarrick was never forbidden to celebrate Mass in public; McCarrick was not prohibited from giving lectures; Cardinal Re did not impose on McCarrick ‘the obligation’ of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance; and McCarrick remained free to conduct activities, including travel, with the permission of the Holy See, including the Nuncio,” as they stated. So, it means that despite the cardinal’s reprehensible conduct the Holy See did not consider it appropriate to take disciplinary measure against McCarrick, which confirms my demonstration of the corruption of the Curia.
Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, the report goes to great pains to paint you as somehow lax in investigating the claims of Priest 3 in 2012. Now the Vatican says you brought the concerns of this priest, who claimed he was abused by McCarrick, you brought those concerns to the Holy See, to Cardinal Ouellette, who instructed you to investigate them, but then he claims he never heard back from you. Did you avoid placing yourself, as the report says, “in a position to ascertain the credibility of Priest 3?” They said you never contacted the priest, the vicar general of Metuchen or the bishop as instructed. Your reaction?
Archbishop Viganò: It is obvious what my role was in bringing McCarrick’s scandal to light. And that I have always taken steps to report any information that came into my possession to the Holy See. I recall that we are talking about 2012, when I had just been appointed nuncio to the United States.
In the report I am accused, as you’ve said, of not having followed up on the request for information regarding the accusation made by Priest 3 — do not mention his name. This is absolutely false. It is the writers of the report themselves who provide the evidence of the deception they had concocted in order to strike and discredit me. In fact, in another place of the same report, it says that on June 13, 2013, I wrote to Cardinal Ouellette, sending him both the letter that Bishop Bootkoski had written to me as well as the letters he sent to Priest 3. I informed him that the civil case of Priest 3 had been dismissed without the possibility of appeal. And Bishop Bootkoski, of Metuchen, characterized the accusations of Priest 3 as false and slanderous.
I would like to emphasize one aspect in particular: Those who accuse me of not having sent a written communication to Bishop Bootkoski, the ordinary of the Priest 3 and bishop of Metuchen, know very well that this depends on the precise direction of the Secretariat of State.
They know equally well, as the report confirms, that there was a telephone communication between Bishop Bootkoski and me, about which I in turn informed Cardinal Wuerl.
It should not be forgotten that in those years there were lawyers who were not content to bring dioceses to judgment for crimes committed by priests, but who wanted to demonstrate that the Holy See itself — like the headquarters of a multinational company — held the ultimate responsibility for giving compensation to victims of molestation. The lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, who probably has worked very hard for this report.
Raymond Arroyo: This is fascinating and we’ll have to… I wish we had more time to explore this, but I do recall reading that reference that you make to the communication with Cardinal Wuerl, but I didn’t connect the two, and I imagine most people reading the report wouldn’t either. But that makes sense. There is a footnote, Your Excellency, that repeats your testimony, where you maintain in 2006 and 2008 you asked your superiors “to intervene as soon as possible by removing the cardinal's hat and reducing McCarrick to the lay state” in the full memorandum that they published. They claim you added, “if the allegations are true and proven.” Now, the report attempts to use this to undermine your testimony as some are maintaining. Your response to that? Does this in any way undermine your testimony that you qualified the penalty by saying, “if the accusations are proven true?”
Archbishop Viganò: Well, the accusation that were brought to my attention, and previously to my predecessors, they proved that there was a number of seminarians that were well known that had denounced the abuses of Cardinal McCarrick. So for that, when I wrote in my report for 2006 and 2008 to my superior, the secretary of state, I have no doubt, no doubt that there was the case to proceed immediately after, of course, a due procedure, that was a corresponding to the authority of the Pope himself to take very strong, exemplary measures against Cardinal McCarrick. In fact, what I suggested in 2006 and 2008 has been accomplished. Ten years later, or more, 11 years later. So that was proof that my judgment was absolutely correct on the situation.
Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, before I let you go, I’d like your reflections on the report placing the lion’s share of the blame for McCarrick’s rise in the Church at the feet of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. And when you read the report, as I did, it’s clear that there was a network of bishops here that remain unnamed who protected McCarrick, either through patronage or personal contacts — or perhaps they were fellow travelers, but this network seems to be firmly in place.
Archbishop Viganò: Yes, I mean, the intentions of the ones who drafted the report are clear: to pass off responsibility for the promotion of McCarrick to his predecessors. One of whom is deceased and canonized (John Paul II) and the other is so old and weak (Benedict XVI). The former cannot defend himself from the grave.
The disturbing thing is that, within the report itself, obviously put together by many hands, there are numerous contradictions. Enough to make the argument the report has little credibility. I wonder then who convinced John Paul II and then Benedict XVI not to take into account the serious accusations against McCarrick? Who had an interest in getting McCarrick promoted so that they could gain an advantage in terms of power and money? Someone probably made John Paul II believe that the accusations against McCarrick were fabricated following the model of the skeleton operation that communist Poland had already carried out against good bishops and priests who oppose the regime.
In the case of John Paul II, the main party interested in the promotion of McCarrick was definitely Cardinal Sodano. He was secretary of state until September 2006. All information came to him. In November 2000, he already had received information from Nuncio Montalvo for this report of the accusation of grave abuse committed by McCarrick. Let us not forget that in this period, the scandal of Father Maciel broke out, which Sodano sought to cover up by falsifying a statement of Benedict XVI.
I was present to that in which it was said that the pope considered the case closed. Benedict XVI called a plenary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Arinze, who was a member of that congregation at that time, succeeded in having Maciel condemned despite the opposition of the secretary of state. And after that, the name of Cardinal Sodano also appears in connection to a scandalous real estate speculation in the United States.
With regard to Benedict XVI, they want to have very direct access to the Pope where the secretary of state, Bertone, and the substitute Sandri were able to control and filter information about McCarrick and exert pressure on the Holy Father.
Regarding the situation of Pope Benedict, the report speaks for itself. The one — and it is stated in the report — the one who presented the question directly, of McCarrick, directly to Pope Benedict XVI, was Cardinal Bertone. Who, contrary to what I have repeatedly proposed — namely, that the very grave and detailed accusations against McCarrick required an exemplary canonical process leading to his removal from the cardinal college and his reduction to the lay state — led Pope Benedict to decide that no canonical process should be undertaken, nor should any canonical sanctions be proscribed, but that instead, and I quote, “a simple appeal to McCarrick’s conscience and ecclesial spirit” would be made.
And here yet another flagrant contradiction appears evident. How is it possible to reconcile a simple appeal to conscience with a form of instruction that was given both to the Nuncio Sambi and to me, according to which McCarrick could not reside in the seminary where he was living, could not participate in public activities, could not travel and had to lead a retired life of prayer and penance?
Raymond Arroyo: Mm-hmm.
Archbishop Viganò: The corruption at the highest level of the Vatican is so evident that it may want to consider the report as an unworthy attempt to make Bergoglio appear absolutely alien to the manipulation of the Curia — indeed, as a sort of implacable persecutor of the corrupt, while the evidence of the facts demonstrated the opposite.
Yes, I would like to also to note that the fact of blaming John Paul II for the appointment of McCarrick, despite the negative opinion of the Congregation for Bishops and its Prefect Cardinal Re, could be applied also to Jorge Bergoglio himself. About whom the Superior General of the Jesuits expressed strong reservatiosn. If Wojtyla made a mistake with McCarrick, and for this reason is considered implicitly responsible for the scandals that occurred, what happened? What prevented this judgment from also being extended to the promotion of Bergoglio as Bishop of Buenos Aires and then as a cardinal?
Let us remember that in the consistory of 2001 — and this is something really very suspicious — in addition to McCarrick and Bergoglio, other leading members of the Saint Gallen Mafia received the red hat.
Raymond Arroyo: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, we thank you for being here tonight and for your insights into this report, which are quite unique, and you had a front row seat to so much of what we’re seeing unfold. I thank you for being here. I hope you’ll come back again.
Archbishop Viganò: Thank you very much, Raymond. I’m very pleased to be part of your program. Thank you.
and note about how he protected a pro abortion John Kerry from Catholic criticism the same way that the UCCB and pope are protecting Biden:“Team Ted.”
You may be familiar with this term, if you are a longtime follower (several decades, perhaps) of the hellish soap opera surrounding the life and career of fallen cardinal Theodore “Uncle Ted” McCarrick.
But if you followed the McCarrick story in the mainstream press, this is not a term that you would know — for logical reasons. The same is true if you read media reports about the Vatican’s long-awaited investigation of the sins and crimes of McCarrick (click here for a .pdf file of the 450-page report).
“Team Ted,” you see, was a nickname give to a circle of journalists who depended on McCarrick as one of their prime doors into life in the American Catholic church and Vatican affairs, in general. Especially during his heady years as the archbishop of Washington, D.C., McCarrick was the unappointed voice of the U.S. Catholic establishment.
One of the key themes in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) is that this journalistic “Team Ted” concept could also be used in an ecclesiastical context. According to McCarrick, he was a team captain, bridge-builder and kingmaker among his brother bishops, archbishops and cardinals. That leads to some big unanswered questions that loom over the Vatican report and the press coverage it has received, so far.
But first, let’s back up to 2004 and a fawning profile of McCarrick that ran in The Washingtonian under this dramatic double-decker headline:
The Man In The Red Hat
With a Controversial Catholic in the Presidential Race, the Cardinal Is Seen by Many as the Vatican's Man in Washington – and He May Play a Big Role in the Selection of the Next Pope
The controversial Catholic, of course, was Sen. John Kerry and, behind the scenes, McCarrick worked to protect the candidate’s Catholic bona fides from attacks by conservative Catholics. The issue, as always, was whether this pro-abortion-rights champion could continue to receive Holy Communion. That’s a long, complicated story that may — soon — be relevant once again with President-elect Joe Biden heading into the White House.
and then there is this:
FIrst, who were the Catholic leaders in New York City-Newark, N.J., who promoted him as a priest and then as a bishop as he climbed the ladder of Catholic success? Whose team did McCarrick join in order to make his ascent? Who continued to support him as he lied his way into a cardinal’s vestments?
Second, who were the episcopal members of this other “Team Ted” once he reached power? Who worked closely with him and helped protect him, as rumors spread about his private affairs — past and present — with teen-aged boys, seminarians and priests? Who did McCarrick, acting as a proud kingmaker, help promote into the Catholic hierarchy?
read the whole article.
Labels: bioethics, church, culture of death
posted by Nancy Reyes at
11:43 AM
|
0 comments
PHILIPPINE BISHOPS BLOGS
