Is it possible that Cardinal Eijk, Socci and Dr. Mazza said that Francis may be Acting in the Spirit of the Antichrist? or "Are [we] not at the Time of the Antichrist"?
1. We are not at the time of the antichrist! Why? Precisely because with the Consecration and conversion of Russia, the world will experience "an era of peace," promised by Our Lady at Fatima.
2. Revelations and prophecies in Sacred Scripture are NOT always given chronologically, at least in a clear fashion. All one has to do is read the Commentary of St. Thomas on 2 Thess. 2. There St. Thomas divides the two events mentioned by St. Paul, the Mystery of Iniquity, i.e., the "revolt" or as it is sometimes translated the "falling away," and the coming of the antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition with a space of time between them--most likely the period of peace promised by Our Lady.
3. Benedict chooses his words very carefully, but HE DID NOT choose the future tense to say that "the See WILL be vacant." He used the subjunctive which has specific uses but basically it represents not a fact but an idea. It was not a mistake, nor was he hiding anything; he was testing the Cardinals for their knowledge of Latin! Although I give a technical explanation with the translation in my Treatise what Benedict ultimately says is that "a conclave is needing to be called PROVIDED the see is vacant. No one has shown where this is wrong--they can't because I very carefully document what I say. Hence IN NO WAY can it be said that Benedict was splitting the Petrine Office from the Roman See, PRECISELY AND ESPECIALLY SINCE HE WAS DETERMINED TO REMAIN IN THE VATICAN!!!
4. Benedict publicly stated that his renunciation was made freely and was valid. For any attempt to say that he made an error one HAS AN OBLIGATION TO SHOW EITHER THAT BENEDICT WAS STUPID OR THAT HE INTENDED TO LIE; or as the rage in some quarters has it, Benedict intentionally "pulled the wool over the eyes" of those dressed in sheep's clothing. But this must be proved as well!!!
5. Benedict demonstrated that it is the Pope, to whom St. Paul was referring, who was holding back the mystery of iniquity which was active from the time of St. Paul, so when Benedict “stepped aside," he did so “that he may be revealed in his time.” Benedict was in a way “taken out of the way,” but he did it in a way that preserved the Indefectibility of the Church, by remaining the true Pope whereby the enemy of the Church was only a figurehead," or if you will is an anti-Pope." The Church had been filled with apostates to the extent that NO POPE could expose of get rid of them, not even if he were regarded as a most saintly Pope. They had to be allowed to expose themselves.
Thanks for your comments. Regarding your two major points:
1. I do believe we have to accept Bergoglio as the presumptive pope, but at the same time be cognizant of errors. I don't believe my argument boils down to "take things at face value, until we know any different." I haven't sat by and simply watched. On my blog I've explored and discussed various theories which I would like an imperfect council to explore, including what Bergoglio's Jesuit vows meant for his ability to *accept* his election; whether Bergoglio is a heretic *before* the conclave, whether Bergoglio is a formal/material heretic as pope, and various potential UDG violations. For example, my articles on the "Influential italian gentleman", whose identity I hypothesize in the articles and wherein spell out the potential UDG violation. But, even while we pursue avenues of investigation, we must recognize the limits of the evidence to make or reach 'dogmatic' conclusions, such as "Benedict *is* still pope" as some do. There may yet be some theory to explain "Francis"...but I am convinced it will not be BiP for the reasons presented on my blog.
2. As to flies in the BiP ointment...there are many. Are there any in the anti-BiP argument? I don't believe so. I have long admitted that Benedict should have gone off into some remote monastery never to be seen nor heard from again. His style of dress, and address, etc., are certainly unfortunate. But, ultimately, they are all just ornaments of a resigned pope. He could dress like a cowboy...but it wouldn't make him one. Put lipstick on a pig..it's still a pig. He is an ex-pope, "former pope", in fact, by his own explicit admission. Even the title "emeritus" signifies he is NOT what he was, i.e., he is no longer "the pope". I have my theory as to why he chose these things, but it is speculative.
Now even if we admit, arguendo, things that Ganswein, or even Benedict said, *might* be construed in a BiP way, what BiP-ers fail to admit or see the possibility of, is that these statements can also be construed in a natural, simpler, and non-controversial way as well...a way that does not make Benedict a heretic, or someone who changed the nature of the papacy without first warning us it was possible(!) (e.g., see my points on Ganswein, and the BXVI's last audience in my rebuttal of Dr. Mazza's thesis).
Regards.
Steve - The Catholic Monitor [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/06/are-socci-and-mazza-saying-that-francis.html]
On May 7, 2018, Netherlands Cardinal
Willem Jacobus Eijk apparently implied that Francis may be acting in the
spirit of the Antichrist. Eijk said:
"Observing that the bishops and, above all, the Successor of Peter fail
to maintain and transmit faithfully and in unity the deposit of faith...
I cannot help but think of Article 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church:
'The Church's ultimate trial
Before Christ's second coming... will unveil the 'mystery of iniquity'
in the form of religious deception... apostasy from the truth.'"
(National Catholic Register, "Cardinal Eijk: Pope Francis Needed to Give
Clarity on Intercommunion," May 7, 2017)
Moreover, Dr. Ed Mazza in his argument that Pope Benedict
XVI relinquished the power of the Bishop of
Rome while remaining the pope (the Successor of Peter) is mirroring and
quoting Antonio Socci's "opposition to the advance of the Antichrist"
thesis.
Mazz quotes a July 27, 2017 article of attorney Chris Ferrara in which the lawyer quotes Socci.
He appears to be saying Benedict
XVI by relinquishing the power of the Bishop of
Rome while remaining the pope may have brought about the biblical
prophecy involving the Greek word "Katechon" from St. Paul's 2
Thessalonians 2:7 that means the restrainer who holds back the spirit of
the Antichrist has stopped restraining. Mazza read the article as
follows:
"The always insightful and often surprising Antonio Socci has just published a piece
(translation mine) concerning a little-known but immensely explosive
essay by the Italian philosopher Massimo Cacciari, given one month after
Benedict XVI’s mysterious renunciation of 'the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter… in such a way, that… the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant…'”
Alluding to the title of the book Attack on Ratzinger, written
three years before Benedict’s “resignation,” Socci suggests that the
attack on Benedict XVI, the “rejected rock” (of Peter), which culminated
in his abdication, is part of “the final attack on the Catholic Church
by the antichristian powers and ideologies of this world.”
"Cacciari, Socci continues, calls the Church over which Benedict presided the Kathécon,
a Greek word which appears in Saint Paul’s Second Letter to the
Thessalonians, meaning the great sign of opposition to the advance of
the Antichrist, which has the power to 'put the brakes' on that advance.
Cacciari maintains that Pope Benedict renounced the 'ministry of the
Bishop of Rome' because he was convinced that 'he could no longer
succeed in containing the powers of Antichrist within the Catholic Church.
As Saint Augustine said, antichrists are in each of us. This is a key
to the decision by Ratzinger, if we want to view it in all its
seriousness. His decision is of one piece with the crisis of politics,
of the power that brakes [the advance of Antichrist].'”
"Socci concludes that with Benedict’s renunciation, it would appear that 'the Church as Kathécon,
that is, as the power that arrests [the Antichrist’s advance], was
totally dissolved. Giving the impression of being recruited as a draft
horse for the chariot of the Antichrist’s power.' This situation, says
Socci:
'signals that we live in a ‘grandiose,’ that is, apocalyptic, time.'"
((Taylor Marshall Show, "Is Pope Benedict XVI still (but Francis is
Bishop of Rome?) Mazza Thesis Revisited," starting at 1;29:29 and "Socci Drops Another Payload, "by Christopher A. Ferrara, July 26, 2017: http://motheofgod.com/threads/bxvi-could-no-longer-contain-the-antichrist.11007/)
Furthermore, on the last page of his book "The Secret of Benedict XV," Socci's "careful analysis" of the lack of
Benedict XVI's "resignation... validity" brings him to the conclusion
that we must:
"United to Pope Benedict."
In Twitter on July 26, Socci wrote:
"Bergoglio... is dismantling the Catholic Church."
The world renowned Fatima expert Socci at the end of the book revealed
that a little known "document" quotes Fatima Seer Jacinta Marto
"speaking about":
"[T]he 'end of the world' if people 'do not do penance and change their lives.'"
(The Secret of Benedict XVI, Page 152)
Are Cardinal Eijk, Socci and Mazza saying that Francis may be acting in the spirit of the Antichrist?
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as
well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of the Jesus
and the Immaculate Heart of the Mary.
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.
1. Your argument seems to boil down to, "take things at face value, until we know any different.". Yet how will we ever know any different, unless we stop taking things at face value? In marriage cases before a tribunal, there is a presumption of validity; sacraments are, so to speak, innocent until proven guilty. The same does not hold true for offices. As Mr. Martinez has explained carefully on this blog, "a doubtful Pope is no Pope.". If we know there are reasons to believe UDG has been violated (NN notwithstanding), then intellectual honesty obliges us to consider Bergoglio a cardinal only, until competent ecclesial authority says otherwise.
2. Your comments about Ratzinger not returning to the private sphere strike me the same way Dr. Mazza's "Supreme Pontiff" distinctions strike you--as "much ado about nothing.". If all Joseph Ratzinger meant was that he never gets to live in personal obscurity any more, this wouldn't account for the oft-rehashed anomalies of wearing white, residing in the Vatican, etc. In fact your interpretation is counterfactual, inasmuch as BXVI is now a far more "private" person--cut off from interviewers, friends, ability to move about freely--than he would have been had he returned to his former way of life as other resigned popes have done and as you say is all he ever meant to do. If the BiP position has some flies in its ointment, the "Pope Emeritus" problem remains one in yours.
Please continue commenting here and elsewhere, as well as posting important information on your own blog. For my part I strongly disagree with the ad hominem remarks directed towards you by Brother Bugnolo. Still, I believe your own analysis stops short in several ways, and I for one would like to hear how you wrestle with this issue all the way through.