About

This site will expose the Biblical False Prophet, “elected” on 13 March 2013 and known as “Pope” Francis, known as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina. Francis is an anti-pope with an apparent valid election, as happened during the Great Western Schism in the 14th century, which at some point had two anti-popes, that is three men claiming to be Pope. Only one is valid. You can learn some history of anti-popes at Catholic Encyclopedia.

For Catholics, this man is an anti-pope with the real pope still remaining Benedict XVI, who was invalidly forced to resign. So that Protestants understand, the papacy is not the problem but rather this impostor to the papacy – there is a great distinction between the two. The Catholic Church has had many anti-popes over her history, and this is the final one.

Expect this man to lead the Earth into a one-world pagan religion which ultimately will worship the Antichrist, who is Maitreya of Share International, and he goes under the name Raj Patel, using the humanist cover story of fixing world hunger.

Some last important points based on various queries: we are not SSPX nor are we sedevacantist. The Vatican II popes, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, are all valid and validly-elected popes.

89 responses to “About

  1. Jeff, get serious that’s a translation, we would have to see the original text but that hardly seals the case. I notice you ignore completely Paschal Robinson et al. which speaks for itself. Consult the scholars first not the copy n paste gang. or the copy n paste text found on the Internet. The touching of dogma is never subtle, it really could not be. But at least you know mdm has serious issues.

  2. Fred,

    I didn’t say that MDM has serious issues. I said that if she turns out to be a fraud, no big deal. You really do not read things very well. You like to hear what you want. That is a serious problem. You keep insisting that francis won’t touch dogma, but provide no valid reason. Just because it hasn’t happended before, doesn’t mean it cannot happen. By the way, stop acting like a cry baby when it comes to what francis has been saying in interviews. He is saying it, he is not being misquoted, and most interviews do not have a tape recording of them. That is silly. francis has never denied saying any of those things. He is a hater of tradition and that is a major problem! MDM is not the issue here. She is just a messenger. Don’t shoot the messenger!

  3. Oh, OK Jeff then I have to lump you in with people who believe the really nutty stuff in those messages. Sorry for giving you too much credit. Those who insist Pope France WILL touch dogma are the ones who have to provide a valid reason and PROOF. You are short on that one. I haven’t cried a single tear over any of this Jeff that’s for sure. And it honestly doesn’t matter what any pope says in an interview as the Magisterium does not come into play in those situations but you would have to know the catechism to understand that. Now that I understand you better I will include you in the people who believe these things taken straight from the messages of mdm: (Jesus on June 6, 2011) “The keys of Rome will now be handed back to God, the Almighty Father” That means Jeff, that Jesus promises of a Living, Permanent and Authoritative Magisterium (as Leo XIII taught in Satis cognitum) are null and void if that message is true. And of course it can’t be. Vatican I defined infallibly that there will be “perpetual successors” of St. Peter until the end of time. Vatican I in session IV stated this: “5.Therefore, ◦if anyone says that ◾it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
    ◾the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
    let him be anathema. ” Tell me just how we run out of popes against that infallible definition of an ecumenical council Jeff? No serious issues in mdm Jeff?
    How about this one Jeff: “(Jesus on Nov 21, 2010) “To My churches around the world hear My call. […] All paths lead to God” Doesn’t that sound like religious indifferentism? I know you attend the traditional liturgy see if your friends in the SSPX go for that one. I have yet to meet a member of the SSPX that supports mdm. In this one Jeff the messages of mdm are ranked as high as Holy Scripture itself: “(Jesus on March 18, 2011) “Respect this most Holy Scripture. Defend it.” Doesn’t the Catholic church teach that revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle? Yes, in fact Pope St. Pius X specifically condemned that proposition. And that private revelation is NEVER the equivalent of public revelation? In the following messages Mary, Jesus and God the Father contradict one another: “(Mary on Oct 12, 2011) “Never defend his most Holy Word for He does not wish you to do this.”
    15. (Jesus on Oct 13, 2011) ““I must inform you of the need to refrain from defending My Most Holy Word. […] I ask that you never defend Me as it is unnecessary.”
    16. (God the Father on Nov15, 2011) “[…] defend My Holy word so that mankind can be saved.” In this message the tyrant Gaddafi is given a strange new status: “(Jesus on Oct 20, 2011) “The death of My son Muammar Gaddafi…” Did you know that Jeff? Of course, there’s lots more but I think that’s enough for now.

  4. Freddy,

    It didn’t take you long to reply to that one. This does show you how you assume to many things. I never said I was a member of the SSPX. Their Bishop did say that we now have a modernist as pope. francis is a hater of tradition, plain and simple. I do attend the liturgy that has been the liturgy for over 600 years in The Church, without one incidence of liturgical abuse, unlike the freemason created novus ordo liturgy. That doesn’t mean I belong to the SSPX now, does it? You are wrong again, Freddy. MDM is not the issue here, just the messenger. She is not telling people to leave The Church is she? She is not telling people to start their own religion, is she? If I were a gambling man, I wouldn’t place money on her either. francis has only assumed office for 6 months. It is very early. I am sitting back to see if anything comes of this.

  5. I actually never said you were a member of SSPX, so this just shows that you don’t read carefully. No liturgical abuse in 600 years? Actually, Pope Pius XII pointed out there were quite a few of them prior to Vatican II and going back further other popes have addressed the same issue. You really don’t know Church history do you? Let’s take a logic check Jeff. If the messages of mdm come from mdm then if there are issues in those messages that would make the so called “seer” the issue too? But of course she holds a privileged status as the only anonymous prophet in the history of private revelation. If you deny Pope Francis is the valid pope as mdm does, then you have already gone into schism. I refer your attention to Canon 751 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Yeah, you just sit back Jeff. Uh-huh. At least you are not able to defend any of the messages cited.

  6. Freddy,

    You do not know what you are talking about. I do not have to like or accept pope francis. Period! I accept the doctrinal teachings of The Church, so I am not in schism. Thank You very much!!

  7. Sorry but Church teaching of long ago tells us otherwise, like Unam Sanctam to name only one. The Church has always required a lot more than just “doctrinal teachings” Get a catechism, Jeff.

  8. Freddy,
    You will not change my mind about francis. He flat out lied when he said The Church obsess’s about abortion, contraception, and gay marriage. That was a lie and you know it. You know everything about Church history, canon laws, etc, unlike me, but can you see? Do you have eyes to see? Do you have ears to hear? I have never said that I know Church history or canon law. I am ignorant when it comes to that.

  9. It wasn’t a lie Jeff. This is what he actually said and I take it straight from the NY Times: ““It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.” This is no different than what Pope Benedict said in 2006. He too was criticized for not mentioning abortion, contraception, or same sex marriage in a speech. His response: ““Catholicism isn’t a collection of prohibitions; it’s a positive option.” Let’s not forget Pope Francis left the Vatican to address Italy’s March for Life where he said: ““keep the attention of everyone on the important issue of respect for human life from the moment of conception.” Catholicism is about transformation in Christ first and foremost. Take a look at a traditional catechism and you will see it teaches us about God first. The discussion of prohibitions starts much later. If you are ignorant of Church history and canon law then I suggest it’s time to take stock of things. And if so, why make bald statements that there was no liturgical abuse in 600 years? That’s kind of reckless don’t you think? Here’s a link to back up what I am saying: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359142/popes-news-carl-anderson

  10. Fred,
    It was a lie. No one except for a very few in The Church, are talking about these 3 critical issues. I mean no one, especially if you are in a novus ordo parish. At the very best, even if mdm is a fraud, this papacy is going to be a very weak one with the true faithful, traditional catholics, getting slammed by francis on every side.

    Good night.

  11. They don’t have to be talked about that much as Pope Benedict also pointed out. See my previous post. I don’t think Francis has “slammed” anyone really. His official acts so far are very few.

  12. Well Fred, how about these for starters:
    FIRST: Francis Attack on Franciscans of the Immaculate
    Analysis of Francis Attack on Franciscans of the Immaculate, which supports the Traditional Mass (Extraordinary Form).
    For the video http://biblicalfalseprophet.com/2013/12/17/analysis-of-francis-attack-on-franciscans-of-the-immaculate/
    Some additional information from Eponymous Flower
    See these photos from a German site: http://etnunc.blogspot.de/2013/12/der-kapuziner-und-der-papst.html These photos suggest a powerful connection between a rather jovial Capuchin Father Volpi as he appears with the Holy Father after striking a deal to initiate the process against the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Could this be the children of Godspell’s last hurrah, or is it just another in a continuance of steps in the Anschluss against Catholicism by its supposed guardians?

    The decisions have been made:
    The new emerging order of the Franciscans of the Immaculate , an order according to the heart of Pope Benedict XVI, is being crushed..
    We must be aware that this is the decision of the Pope Francis.
    He makes it clear once again what he thinks of the 2000 year old tradition of the Church, especially of the traditional theology and liturgy.

    SECOND: Cardinal Burke Booted for Abortion blind homosexual practicing pervert Donald Wuerl!
    Cardinal Donald Wuerl was well known on the streets in his previous Pittsburgh Diocese before being made Archbishop of Washington DC, as an active practicing homosexual. This information comes from a priest I know personally and who knew him personally in his previous diocese and who suffer immensely under him and his exposure of Wuerl went all the way to the Vatican that in trial fully exonerated the priest. Why he was given his present high position in the Vatican should be by now no mystery. The “who am I to Judge” Francis is in full control.
    But here’s another witness:
    From Mike Ference at the Pittsburgh Independent Examiner:
    Wuerl: The Lavender Don is at it again
    Donald Wuerl’s personal battle over the legalization of same-sex marriage in Washington D.C. is nothing more than a classic example of the pot calling the kettle lavender. According to an article in the Washington Post, Wuerl sent a letter to 300 local Catholic priests, reminding them that the Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage – as if they already didn’t know. Wuerl unleashed a barrage of staged media conferences and interviews, in order to reinforce the church’s stand on the topic. Perhaps a more suitable messenger is needed.
    For those who are either in denial or have been asleep for the past 50 years, Donald Wuerl, like so many other Catholic clerics, is an alleged homosexual. Was he celibate as a cleric? This writer would be willing to bet the farm and my first-born that Wuerl was about as celibate as the growing number of rabbits that invade my vegetable garden every new season. Was he a predator of certain young men as was alleged to be the case with protégé John Cardinal Wright? Maybe not, and definitely not as a pedophile of young children. But, I’d wager my other two kids that Wuerl was fond of at least a handful of candidates in every new crop of seminarians who entered the St. Paul’s Seminary where Wuerl served as rector – especially the ones who chose not to honor any vow of celibacy.
    The same-sex marriage battle is one that Donald Wuerl is destined to loose. Wuerl can manipulate politicians, judges, law enforcement, and even the Signatura, (Vatican’s version of the US Supreme Court) but taking on the gay community, while essentially turning one’s back on his own kind, is a battle waiting for a white flag to be raised. Is it not? This could and should be Wuerl the Red Hat Wannabee’s last hurrah.
    While being known as Donna Wuerl by the Pittsburgh gay community, administrators at a prominent Pittsburgh hospital openly discussed in a private venue Wuerl’s homosexuality, pointing out the inherent need to cover it up. This revelation only suggests, very strongly, that Wuerl must have been practicing the gay lifestyle while he was bishop of Pittsburgh. That revelation is based on a highly credible source.
    Will members of the Pittsburgh gay community join their brothers and sisters inside the DC beltway, in order to further the already outed ecclesiastic? Will this slippery soap opera produce a clean ending or will Wuerl continue to swing on each side of the fence?

    Also: Donald Wuerl Played Both Sides of the Fence – and Lost

    By Mike Ference
    Examiner
    July 20, 2009

    http://www.examiner.com/x-12613-Pittsburgh-Independent-Examiner~y2009m7d20-Donald-Wuerl -played-both-sides-of-the-fence–and-lost
    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2009/07_08/2009_07_20_Ference_DonaldWuerl.htm

  13. AND ONE MORE THING FRED: Benedict is still Pope! HERE’S THE PROOF:
    The resignation of Benedict XVI was invalid. The schism of the Church approaches
    The resignation of Benedict XVI was invalid. The schism of the Church approaches. [original en español]
    3 Sep 2013 | J. Alberto Villasana / English trans. links anon.
    https://twitter.com/AlbertVillasana/
    http://www.ultimostiempos.org/
    FROM: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=c4711499b95fe944f1fb548a7d202087&topic=4700.msg89143#msg89143
    Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation to the Church on Monday February 11, 2013. That day he read a Declaratio which became effective, at his wish, on February 28 at 8:00 pm. However, he made the decision to resign a month and a half in advance. Before Christmas of 2012, due to the dossier that was delivered to him on Dec. 17, he concluded that it was better to step aside for the good of the Church. His brother, Father George Ratzinger, and other prelates close to the Pope were witnesses to that decision, as stated by Lluis Cardinal Martinez Sistach of Barcelona.

    The dossier that led him to resign was prepared by the commission of three cardinals he appointed to investigate the source of the leak of confidential documents known as “Vatileaks”.

    But it is logical that the documents published in the book «Sua Santità» written by Gianluigi Nuzzi did not worry the Pope as much as a specific one filtered directly to the newspaper «Il Fatto Quotidiano», and that is the one Dario Cardinal Castrillon personally gave him, translated into German, which refers to knowledge that the cardinal of Palermo, Paolo Romeo, had of a plot to assassinate the Pope.
    [ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099276/The-Pope-victim-assassination-plot-year-claims-senior-Vatican-cardinal.html

    The dossier that the cardinals Herranz, Tomko and De Giorgi handed to Benedict XVI [ http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/for-record-la-repubblicas-summary-of.html ], with the investigation into the plot to assassinate him, led the Pope to imagine the earthquake that his death would have caused the Church, unleashing a hellish struggle for influence and shady maneuvers ahead of the succession resulting from internal antagonisms of the curia. Not for fear of death, but for possible harm to the Church, did the Pope decide that it was best to resign to remove threats and advance a peaceful succession.

    In a report which the Jesuit priest Arnaldo Zenteno produced, published on April 9, 2013 [ http://grupobasesfys.blogspot.mx/2013/04/el-presbitero-arnaldo-zenteno-nos.html ], it states the following in section 3): “In the lunch meeting with Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo, it was entrusted to Pope Francis that one of the causes that influenced his resignation were the threats he received and for fear of being poisoned, as the decision to kill him was already made, so that Benedict XVI, in a move to neutralize the attempt on his life, made public his resignation with which disarmed the attempt to kill him.”

    In this sense, while it is true that the Pope “freely” declared to resign, the fact is that to a greater or lesser extent he was forced by the pressure of an attack, so his freedom, according to the canonical doctrine, was conditioned in radice.

    While the Pope made the decision to resign in accordance with the powers given to him under the Code of Canon Law, he made it under the duress of moral violence, which, according to No. 125 of the same Code, invalidates the final decision at the root and renders the act invalid [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PE.HTM]. It is like one who freely chooses to marry, but if there is hidden stress, fear or deception, the marriage is void for fault, although a clearly “free” commitment has been expressed publicly.

    It must be recognized that while the Church has always considered a sacred law that the election of the Pope is ad vitam, it is good that canon law considers the possibility of resignation for extremely serious cases, such as exile, persecution or other grave cause. In this sense, the waiver provided for in Canon 332 of the CDC http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM is like an emergency exit, and it is convenient to have, so much so that it helped Benedict XVI to flee from the threat hanging over his person and the Church, even though he was aware—especially with the heroic example of his predecessor—that the papal election is ad vitam and is not negotiable, nor may its terms be negotiable.

    There is a further element to the pressure to claim that Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid, and it is evidence that in the decree read by Pope there was not any legitimate resignation due to an error in the Latin.

    In the Declaratio of the “resignation” of Pope Benedict XVI, as it was officially released by the Vatican and published in L’Osservatore Romano, there is a very obvious solecism, i.e., a syntactic error, which consists in putting the elements of a sentence in the wrong way.

    At the core of the resignation it reads: “Declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commissum renuntiare” (“I declare to renounce the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, which has been entrusted to me by the hands of the cardinals on April 19, 2005.”) This sentence is totally unintelligible, containing a grammatical error, as commissum, which depends on ministerio, is the object of the verb renuntiare, so it should be in dative, according to him, that is, it should say commisso [while the copy on the website of the Holy See uses commisso; the copy on news.va retains the error; furthermore, in this video recording Benedict clearly pronounces the erroneous Latin.]

    Now, in canon law, all legal writing containing a fault of Latin is null. Already Pope St. Gregory VII (cf. Registrum 1.33) declared null a privilege accorded to a monastery by his predecessor Alexander II, “due to corruption in the Latin”.

    Another example: in the decretal epistle Ad audientiam of Pope Lucius III, found in the body of canon law (cf. Decretal Epistles of Gregory IX, In Rescriptis, c. XI) it states that “false Latinity annuls a papal rescript.” In this decree, the Pope prohibited giving credit to any papal document “if it contains a clear fault of construction.” The gloss (in the official text published by order of Pope Gregory XIII in 1582) explains why a papal decree “must not contain any fault”, and why any Latin error constitutes such a presumption of invalidity “that no evidence to the contrary can be admitted”. While some modern canonists believe that the 1917 and 1983 codes automatically repealed all previous rules, the care that the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Pontifical Texts continues to place on the matter casts doubt on this view.

    Claiming that a decree is null does not necessarily mean it is a false document. But an error, if one discloses it, can be overt or surreptitious, i.e., Pope Benedict XVI could have written carelessly, or hiding a real hidden message (the resignation having been made under pressure). The first is rather unlikely, as presumably such an important text was revised by the Pope not once but several times.

    In conclusion, it does not seem that the Latin error committed by Benedict XVI has been one of laziness, but rather an intentional purpose, in which he would be speaking to us not only of the absolute nullity of the pontifical decree, which is a fact, but also of the pressure by which it was motivated, as well as the back door that Pope Benedict would leave open.

    The truth is that, as of March 13, 2013, the prophecies that speak of “Two Popes in Rome” began to be fulfilled, one existing officially emeritus and one acting. Never in the history of the Church has there been this situation, predicted by saints and mystics, and it is very difficult for it to happen again.

    The trouble is that, according to the prophecies and private revelations, when there are two popes in Rome (they can be the present ones or two others in the future) there will be a schism in the Church, a division caused by an illegitimate pope’s heresy and the reaction of the true Vicar of Christ, who will raise his voice to denounce the apostasy. At that time, there will be a sudden invasion of Russia into Europe, coinciding with the War of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 38), which consists of the attack of Russia and Arab countries against Israel. Then, the legitimate pope will be persecuted and will have to flee Rome for refuge, while the antipope will rule the Church supporting the false peace, the sacrilegious unification of religions. That false peace will be the religious support of the world government of the antichrist. The antipope will betray the faith by accepting the coalition of all creeds and renouncing the Catholic identity.

    St. Francis of Assisi says: “There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause great schism”. And Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Augustinian religious, states: “I saw a strong opposition between the two popes, and I saw how dire will be the consequences of the false church (…) This will cause the greatest schism ever seen in the world”. [http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/10/explosive-revelation-benedict-xvi.html — a foretaste, perhaps?]

    The Blessed Virgin said explicitly at La Salette: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_La_Salette

    And there are many other private revelations and announcements of Church hierarchs:

    Says Fr. Paul Kramer, “The antipope and his apostate collaborators will be, as Sister Lucia said, supporters of the devil, those who work for evil without being afraid of anything.”

    Pope St. Pius X announced: “I had a terrible vision: I do not know if it will be me or one of my successors, but I saw a Pope from Rome fleeing amongst the corpses of his brothers. He will take refuge in disguise somewhere and after a short time he will die a cruel death.”

    Juan de Rocapartida: “Approaching the End Times, the Pope and his cardinals will have to flee from Rome in tragic consequences to a place where they will not be recognized, and the Pope will suffer a cruel death in exile.”

    Nicholas of Flüe: “The Pope with his cardinals will have to flee from Rome in a calamitous situation to a place where they will be unknown. The Pope will die in an atrocious manner during his exile. The sufferings of the Church will be greater than any previous moment in history.”

    Ven. Bartholomew Holzhauser, founder of the secular clergy societies in the eighteenth century: “God will permit a great evil against His Church: they will come bursting in suddenly and unexpectedly while bishops and priests are asleep. They shall enter into Italy and devastate Rome, burn churches and destroy everything.”

    The revelation received by Mother Elena Aiello, famed stigmatic who was often consulted by Pope Pius XII: “Italy will be shaken by a great revolution (…) Russia will prevail over the nations, and especially over Italy, and will raise the red flag over the dome of St. Peter.”

    The words of John of Vitiguero: “When the world is disturbed, the Pope will change residence.”

    Elena Leonardi, spiritually guided by Padre Pio: “The Vatican will be invaded by communist revolutionaries. They will betray the Pope. Italy will suffer a major revolt and will be cleansed by a great revolution. Russia will march on Rome and the Pope will be severely endangered”.

    Enzo Alocci: “The Pope will disappear temporarily and this will occur when there is a revolution in Italy.”

    Blessed Anna Maria Taigi: “Religion will be persecuted and priests massacred. The Holy Father will be forced to leave Rome.”

    The mystic Maria Steiner: “The holy Church will be persecuted, Rome will be without a shepherd.”

    The revelations of Garabandal: “The Pope will not be able to be in Rome, he will be persecuted and will have to hide.”

    To Fr. Stefano Gobbi, mystic and founder of the Marian Movement of Priests, Our Lady confided: “The Masonic forces have entered the Church in a disguised and hidden form, and they have established their headquarters in the same place where the Vicar of my Son Jesus lives and works. It is being done as is contained in the third part of my message, which has not yet been revealed, but it has already become clear by the same events that you are living.”

    Pope Paul VI: “The smoke of Satan has entered through the cracks of the Church” (Homily of June 29, 1972).

    According to St. Paul, the antichrist will manifest himself just after the Pope to be cast aside, “But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene. And then the lawless one will be revealed.” (2 Thessalonians 2: 6-8).

    Canon Roca, the excommunicated Illuminist who collaborated on the infiltration against the Church, wrote: “In its present form the papacy will disappear, the new social order will be implemented from Rome but independently from Rome, without Rome, in spite of Rome, against Rome. And this new church, which might not be able to retain anything of Scholastic doctrine and the original form of the former Church, will nevertheless receive consecration and canonical jurisdiction from Rome.”
    The new church will support the unification of religions and the false peace, fulfilling what was said by Jesus Christ in the sense that even the elect could be deceived.

    Karol Cardinal Wojtyla was very clear when he declared, before the Eucharistic Congress in Pennsylvania, in 1977: “We are facing the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever had. We are in the final contest between the Church and the anti-Church, the Gospel and the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence and is a challenge that the whole Church has to accept.”

    If Benedict XVI’s resignation was null by fault, the Conclave was invalid because there never was a sede vacante. That fact poses a pressing question: will not Benedict XVI remain the Vicar of Christ in the eyes of God? Will it not be Benedict XVI who has to flee from Rome in the midst of persecution? These are questions that will be resolved over time.

    In 1917 it was revealed to three shepherd children in Fatima, Portugal, the revelation that had Pope St. Pius X a few years before, only in an even more precise form: “We saw a bishop dressed in white, we had a feeling it was the Holy Father, flee a city in ruins trembling with halting step.” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

    The version of Fatima even further points that it could be of the Pope who resigned, Benedict XVI, and would explain the phrase “We saw a bishop dressed in white, we had a feeling it was the Holy Father.” If it had been evident that it was the reigning pope, they would have said so in an undeniable way. Instead, they saw a “bishop dressed in white”. They never could have imagined the theme of “resignation”, so only had “a feeling”.

    The second element is even more precise and revealing: they saw him fleeing “trembling with halting step,” which may be due to his advanced age.

    And a third element is also revealing: of the same bishop in white that earlier they see fleeing Rome, they affirm later, at the time he is killed on a hill, that this was the “Holy Father”.

    Following the flight of the legitimate pope, the antipope will remain in Rome leading the “new church”, supporting the apostate union of religions. This is the “abomination of desolation”, foretold since ancient times by the prophet Daniel, established in the holy place.

    In the words of Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, personal theologian to Pope John Paul II: “The Third Secret refers to the loss of faith in the Church, i.e., the apostasy which will emerge from the top of the Church.”

    Only two things are certain at this point: for the first time in history there are two Popes in Rome, and Benedict XVI is more present than ever. Suffice it to recall some of his last words while still in the Seat of Peter: “You will be close to me, even if I am hidden from the world.” — Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman clergy, February 14, 2013

    More secondhand info, which, if true, advances the Canon 125 thesis:

    http://themoynihanletters.com/from-the-desk-of/letter-42-alpha-and-omega

    “Regarding the decision to step down, I have the feeling,” she continued, “that Benedict finally realized that, in the Curia there were simply too many who needed to be changed. The secret report of the three cardinals revealed a series of things that did not work. The report recognized that there are many in the Curia who are very good, but also a good-sized group with… various problems.

    “The Pope found himself in a dramatic situation when he found that they had put someone in his own house who stole his documents. This was disconcerting. Some Germans went to visit him, and the Pope said to them, ‘Think about it, he was giving me my medicine, too.’

    “In other words, he felt there might even have been a threat to his own life…

    “Then, on a number of occasions, he was asked to approve appointments and transfers which he was not certain about. This troubled him deeply. “Then, he meditated, and prayed. And he made his plan. And what did he do? In a single blow, they are all gone, the heads of every office in the entire Curia. Now a younger man will be able to come in and, over the coming years, completely reform the Roman Curia. He couldn’t have been more brilliant.”

    If Villasana’s analysis is correct, many of Ratzinger/Benedict’s words and actions take on extra significance. Here are three:
    • His silent prayer to God during the conclave: “Please don’t do this to me.” Taking the Third Secret of Fatima into account—the text of which he read in its entirety—perhaps he himself considered the possibility that the pope to follow JPII (himself!) would be the pope of the third secret, and not JPII?
    • From the above link: “In his interview with Peter Seewald, when Seewald asked him whether he was at the end or the beginning of his pontificate, he replied, ‘Both.’” [!!!] Could he himself know?
    • His reference to the ascent to Mount Tabor and the Transfiguration in many of his final public statements; what came after the Transfiguration? The Resurrection…by way of the Passion, of course.
    WOW!! So Pray for Benedict! He could declare the final Marian dogma, Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate! And perhaps, with a little help from Heaven with communications, yet consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary with the true remnant bishops of the world!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s