Posted on 07/24/2023 9:33:31 AM PDT by ebb tide
Above: Benedict XVI’s personal secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein kisses the former pope’s closed coffin during a private ceremony in St. Peter’s Basilica on Jan. 4, 2023. Vatican Media.
Last week a number of interesting commentaries appeared from unexpected quarters. Two in particular noted the speed with which His Holiness seems to be practically skipping down the merry ole #SchismaticWay with the most recent appointments, especially Tucho “Heal me with your Mouth” Fernández and Slim Jim “Bridge to Hell” Martin.
These two commentaries both made mention of the infamous Greek term katechon, referring to II Thessonians in which the Blessed Apostle speaks of the coming reign of Antichrist and the katechon, the “restrainer” who holds him back.
The first to use the term was Sandro Magister in his analysis:
The death of his predecessor Benedict XVI, at the end of 2022, was for Pope Francis like the passing of the “katéchon,” of the restraint that held him back from fully revealing himself.
“Revealed himself” is another reference to II Thessalonians where the katechon is restraining the revealing of the Antichrist.
The consistory appointments Magister says, are consistent with the bent of His Holiness on promoting his progressive agenda, and snubbing all his enemies.
But the most striking appointment is not that of the Argentine Victor Manuel Fernández (in the photo) as cardinal, seen as a matter of course, but the previous assignment to him of the post of prefect of the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith.
Here in fact Francis has done what he would never have dared to do while Joseph Ratzinger was alive. That is, the appointment in the key role that belonged to the great German theologian and later pope of a figure who is his complete opposite.
Meanwhile Peter Seewald, biographer of Pope Benedict had this to say to kath.net as posted on Rorate:
Seewald: [T]he latest developments point to a real breach of the dam. And in view of the dramatic decline of Christianity in Europe, this could turn into a flood that destroys what has still held out.
kath.net: A strong word.
Seewald: The latest news from the Vatican reminded me of an essay by Georgio Agamben that has become famous. In his text on the “Mystery of Evil,” the most discussed philosopher of our time brings Benedict XVI into play. As a young theologian, Ratzinger once distinguished between a church of the wicked and a church of the righteous in an interpretation of Augustine. From the beginning, he said, the Church has been inextricably mixed. It is both the Church of Christ and the Church of the Antichrist. However, according to Agamben, there is also the idea of the katechon…
kath.net: I beg your pardon?
Seewald: With regard to the 2nd letter of the apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, this means the principle of stopping. A term that is also interpreted as “hindrance”, for something or for someone who stops the end of time. Benedict XVI had been something of a “restrainer,” Agamben said. Against this background, his demission inevitably evoked a separation of the “beautiful” from the “black” Church, that span in which the wheat is separated from the chaff. A steep thesis. But the pope emeritus apparently saw it similarly. He had to stay on, he answered my question as to why he could not die. As a memorial to the authentic message of Jesus, as a light on the mountain. “In the end, Christ will be victorious,” he added [emphasis added].
So according to Seewald, Pope Benedict as Emeritus saw himself as some sort of katechon holding some flood of evil back, which is implying the Antichrist by the very use of the term.
What does all this mean? Fear not, brethren. Let’s not forget how the story ends: the katechon is removed, paving the way for the Antichrist. But this wicked one is he whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming (II Thess. ii. 8). Satan’s reign is revealed in the Antichrist in order that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity (v. 11). Yet the Lord Jesus Himself comes in the end to destroy Him.
This is the glorious story of the End Times, which God has only revealed to us in order to give us hope in times like ours.
Before any of our critics accuse us of being crazy, let;s just quote the 675th paragraph of the New Catechism:
Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers … in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth … a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.
We can see this type of thing is already happening in spades under Francis. Is this the end times? Read on.
First, I want to underscore the importance of this dogma for Catholics of all times. Most importantly, God has revealed some of the mysterium iniquitatis Himself in the New Testament, particularly in the book of the Apocalypse. The exegetical tradition of the Church sees this book as a threefold prophecy: it prophesies to the early Church about what they were going through at that time (the famous “Number of the Beast” for example, is a code for Caesar Nero), but it also prophesies the whole history of the Church (the destruction of Babylon can represent every unfaithful city punished by God after apostasy) and finally also, the end times.
Thus I encourage all readers in our time to meditate upon this woefully neglected book of prophecy, for the Holy Spirit has breathed His words into it for our own benefit, that we may have the consolation of the Scriptures (Rom. xv. 4) in our times. Use some good Catholic commentary (like Taylor Marshall or the Ignatius Hahn/Mitch Study Bible) and dive in.
The second aspect of the importance of this dogma comes from the words of Our Lord: when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith upon the earth? (Lk. xviii. 8). As the New Catechism states above, the time of the Antichrist “will shake the faith of many believers.” So if we are not currently in the end times here, it is certain that it will get worse. If your faith is struggling now, what will do you in the time of the Antichrist? Or if our time truly is the beginning of the end, what will you do when the Son of Man comes and you have lost your faith?
If the Roman dogmas of the Papacy are true, then undoubtedly the Antichrst will target the Papacy somehow, and it will be in a way to shake the faith of believers. So if we are fortified in the Scriptures, none of us should be surprised if Benedict truly is the katechon which was restraining the Antichrist.
However, this is not certain. It is difficult to determine if we are facing the beginning of the end, but we know that at many times in history the Saints have believed such things to be happening in their times. During the horror of the first two pornocracies of the Papacy, or during other times of “papal craziness” (like the Great Western Schism), it certainly appeared as if the Antichrist had taken over the Vatican.
And what did the Saints do? They fought for the Faith and died handing it down to us.
What is certain, however, is that the time of the Antichrist will be the worst crisis of faith yet – the final crisis – and everyone’s faith will be shaken.
Fear not, brethren, but fight the good fight of faith (I Tim. vi. 12).
If your faith is wavering, get off the internet and pray. Read the Scripture as I said. Join our fasting sodality (there’s a fast coming up for the Assumption!).
If your faith is strong, go on the internet and complain on Twitter.
Wait, actually don’t do that.
Go on the internet and perform the spiritual works of mercy: encourage the doubtful, instruct the ignorant.
But before you spend any time on the internet, form a chapter of our lay sodality at your parish to offer reparation to Our Eucharistic Lord. Get involved in your local parish.
And for the sake of the Sacred Heart, enthrone His Majesty in your domestic church right away.
Give thanks to God that He has counted you worthy to live in such a time as this, a glorious time to be a Catholic! Our great grand children will ask about this time, and what we did during this crisis. Let us set an example to future generations now.
T. S. Flanders
Editor
Vigil of Santiago
And by the company he rejects:
Benedict XVI’s Former Secretary Is Already in His New Residence, but Has Ministerial Limitations
As the Archdiocese announced on Monday, Dr Gänswein will not take up an office in the Archdiocesan Ordinariate or a fixed and permanent post in the Archdiocese.
Ping
Pope Francis was predicted to be the last Pope by the controversial Malachy Prophecy. The last Pope allegedly witnesses the destruction of Rome.
How could Pope Benedict restrain him? Plus, Pope Benedict made Pope Francis pope, and went against Church tradition to do so.
You might meant your post in this context, but Benedict didn’t and can’t choose his successor. Popes are chosen by the College of Cardinals. Of course, the outgoing Pope could have let his preference be known which might have swayed some Cardinals. I’m not sure, though, why fairly conservative Benedict would have been pushing for liberal Bergoglio (sp?).
I am not saying he went around the college of Cardinals, I am saying he went against Church tradition and abandoned the Church. Without him, we would not have Pope Francis.
By the way, Bergoglio did not have a reputation as a liberal at all. Quite the opposite. He was know for having been beaten up in the Jesuits by fellow leftist Jesuits. He had the reputation of a conservative who somehow survived.
If anything, BXVI and Bergoglio would seem to be, at most, akin to respective “types” or precursors of the true katcheon and Antichrist. Helpful to allow believers to deepen their knowledge and understanding of Holy Scripture.
Benedict so-called resignation was improperly only partial and thus apparently invalid.
So many decades of thinking and learning and this is what he does?
Before he became pope, Jorge Bergoglio was seen as anything but liberal.
In 1992, his Jesuit superiors, kicked him out of Jesuit housing because of his orthodoxy, his opposition to liberation theology, and his general continued tension with other Jesuits who considered him too conservative. His being made a bishop in 1992, was basically rescuing him from being under the thumb of Jesuit superiors who didn't like him.
From that point in 1992, until he became pope, he was completely estranged from the Jesuits. He didn't talk to them or visit them, and he was considered persona non grata
He was always considered very much part of the John Paul II Church.
Based on what? No pope is supposed to abandon the Church like Benedict did, but I don't see anywhere that makes it "invalid."
Benedict attempted to give up only the Petrine ministry (ministerium) or, in other words, what Pope DOES.
In doing so he made no mention of what he was doing or intended to do with respect to the Petrine office (munus), a.k.a., who or what the Pope IS.
By failing to recognize or properly take into account this Munus-Ministerium distinction, Benedict rendered his so-called resignation invalid. In other words, he remained Pope until his death.
I did not realize Bergoglio was not considered liberal. Thanks for setting me straight.
Do you think, as some do, that the liberals had something in Benedict and blackmailed him?
The Horror! A Buenos Aires journalist describes Bergoglio
Pope Francis’s Communist Mentor
Pope Francis has shown he’s not afraid of women with power
Talking to Javier Cámara y Sebastián Pfaffen, authors of the book That Francis, the pontiff acknowledged it was Ballestrino who introduced him to books from the Communist Party.
At her request, Bergoglio even hid some of them for her during the military coup that took down Isabelita. Had he been found with them, he would have been killed by the regime.
When the pope went to Paraguay in 2015, he met with Ballestrino’s two daughters, Ana María y Mabel Careaga. Talking about their meeting with the pontiff, they said they had been surprised, because Francis allegedly told them: “Your mother taught me to think.”
How about laying off Pope Benedict for awhile, Nick and instead focus on the elephant in the Church.
It was Pope John Paul II who appointed Bergoglio a bishop in 1992 and later made him the Archbishop of Buenos Aries in 1998.
It was also JP II who elevated Bergoglio to the college of cardinals in 2001.
Finally, the majority of cardinals who voted in the conclave that supposedly “elected” Bergoglio were appointed by JP II.
So why the contempt for Benedict and not JP II?
If Benedict’s resignation was invalid, then +Francis isn’t the Pope.
Letter signed by more than 1,500 accuses Pope Francis of the 'canonical delict of heresy'
True enough!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.