To say some of our sanctified speculations have been confirmed given the election of Pope Francis I is an understatement.
Pope Benedict XVI’s February 11, 2013 announcement—as forecast in our book Petrus Romanus—was unprecedented because the last pope to resign was Gregory XII in 1415, nearly six hundred years ago. We did not venture this hypothesis uninformed. In his book, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times, when asked if he thought it appropriate for a pope to retire, Pope Benedict XVI responded, “If a pope clearly realizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has a right and, under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign.”[i] Thus, based on a conflation of prophecy and current events we went out on a limb, taking a risky position on pages 57–58 of this volume by asserting that Benedict XVI would step down for reasons related to health concerns. Indeed, it came to pass and many former skeptics picked up Petrus Romanus in earnest.
As the reader may be aware, we correlated Pope Benedict’s predisposition to retire with the work of the Jesuit scholar, René Thibaut, who predicted over 60 years ago that the door would be opened for the arrival of the final pope on Malachy’s list in 2012. Of course, the year 2012 came and went with seemingly no fulfillment. Consequently, we were a little disappointed when it seemed like Thibaut was mistaken. All the same, Thibaut’s code-breaking work is a relatively small portion of our book’s content, so we never felt our work was made irrelevant. As it turns out, however, Thiabut was far more correct—astoundingly so—than anyone would ever imagine until February 2013! According to the New York Times:
That the resignation [by Benedict XVI] was long in the planning was confirmed by Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor of the Vatican newspaper,L’Osservatore Romano, who wrote on Monday that the pope’s decision “was taken many months ago,” after his trip to Mexico and Cuba in March 2012, “and kept with a reserve that no one could violate.”[ii]
In other words, Pope Benedict officially and secretly resigned right when Thibaut—and we—speculated he would in 2012, and then his February 11, 2013 public affirmation was quickly punctuated by a dramatic lightning bolt striking St. Peter’s basilica.[iii] Whether one agrees with his theology or not, credit must be given where it is due. Thibaut accurately predicted this changing of the guard over sixty years prior. Pope Benedict’s South American tour was ongoing as the first edition of our book went to print and it is now evident that he decided to step down simultaneous with its release exactly when the Belgian Jesuit said he would—sixty years prior. This is also evidenced by the fact that renovations to a property hosting Benedict’s retirement home ensued in 2012 as well.[iv] Thus, with two living Pontificus Maximi, we have entered into terra incognitaas far as the modern papacy is concerned. This brings us to the new pope.
According to the prophecy of St. Malachy, Peter the Roman has arrived. Pope Francis, formerly known as Jorge Mario Bergoglio the son of Italian immigrants to Argentina, has assumed the 112th position on Malachy’s famous list. While shallow skeptics were quick to point out that “his name is not Peter,” their complaint betrays ignorance of the way the Malachy prophecy works.
Regardless, Horn said he’s always maintained that it doesn’t take someone whose Christian name is Peter to fulfill the prophecy. “In fact, if any Italian is elected, that would be a fairly transparent fulfillment,” he said. Moreover, he argued, “in a very general sense, every pope could be regarded as ‘Peter the Roman,’ and in that sense, this could be the last one.”[v]
Real scholars who studied the Malachy prophecy down through time unanimously came to a similar conclusion—that the title Petrus Romanus (“Peter the Roman”) was symbolic and not indicative of a birth name any more than Gloria Olivae (the 111th line in the prophecy of the popes, the one for Pope Benedict XVI) was Cardinal Ratzinger’s given name before he became Pope Benedict XVI, naming himself after the founder of the Benedictine Order, of which the Olivetans are one branch in order to fulfill his place in the prophecy. Over sixty years ago, Thibaut similarly rejected the possibility of a pope literally named Peter and wrote that the name symbolized the totality of the papacy:
We therefore reject the Roman appointed Peter as the impossible Peter II. There is only one Peter, the first of the Roman pontiffs, and he is seen in his many successors. He still to serve is the final as in the first persecution. We believe Petrus Romanus represents all the Roman Pontiffs from St. Peter to the recipient Gloria Olivae.[vi]
In Thibaut’s reckoning, the meaning of "Petrus" is that all the ambitions and pretensions of the papal dynasty are now encompassed in one man, Pope Francis. This was our position as well, but we were more than a little astounded recently whenthe Archpriest of St. Peter's Basilica, Cardinal Angelo Comastri acknowledged how Petrus Romanus is incarnate in Pope Francis. In discussing details of the new Pope’s April 1, 2013 visit to St. Peter’s tomb in the necropolis under the basilica, Comastri said:
We then made a second stop before the funerary stele of a man called Istatilio. He was certainly Christian: on his grave is the monogram [chi-rho] of Christ. On the stele is inscribed: ‘He was at peace with everyone and never caused strife.’ The Pope, after reading the phrase, looked at us and said, ‘That is a beautiful program of life.’ Climbing back up the stairs and having reached the Clementine Chapel, Pope Francis became absorbed in prayer and repeated with a loud voice the three professions of Peter: “Lord, You are the Christ, Son of the Living God”; “Lord, to whom do we go? You have the words of eternal life”; “Lord, You know all things! You know that I love you!” At that moment, we had the distinct impression that the life of Peter rose out of centuries past and became present and living in the current Successor of the Apostle Peter.[http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=17490]
In addition to this incredible fulfillment of the Malachy prophecy, many scholars of various schools of thought see Bible prophecy in general near its climax. In fact, events in Israel also fell in place just as the first edition of the book Petrus Romanusforecast a year prior. In chapter 16, “The Burdensome Stone,” we wrote about an obscure, under-the-table deal concerning the Hall of the Last Supper on Mount Zion, and it seems that deal has been consummated. Reporter Shlomo Cesana broke the story in the Israel Hayom newsletter on January 30, 2013:
A historical agreement has been signed between Israel and the Vatican, ending a 20 year dispute. Israel has granted the pope an official seat in the room where the Last Supper is believed to have taken place, on Mount Zion in Jerusalem.[vii]
Even though it is being ignored by the mainstream media, this is momentous because end-time prophecy plays out in Jerusalem and now, for the first time since the reformation of Israel in 1948, the Roman Pontiff has an official seat on Mount Zion. Watch for Pope Francis to visit Israel more than once and pay attention to the details. Accordingly, Hal Lindsey agrees with us that exegesis of Revelation 13:11–18 implies the final pope is likely the false prophet:
The Apostle John in the Book of the Revelation describes very plainly how the leader of the world religious system (based in Rome) will pave the way for the rise of the man who will be the Antichrist. Unfortunately for that churchman, the Antichrist and the False Prophet will later turn on him and destroy the religious system and the city.[viii]
Another interesting and possibly noteworthy aspect of the Final Pope is the timing of his arrival. While we don’t normally put a lot of stock in numerology, mystics do and the great biblical scholar and Anglican theologian, Ethelbert W. Bullinger, wrote an exhaustive treatise in the nineteenth century which has yielded some interesting connections to the new pontiff. The numbers surrounding Pope Francis’ election keep coming upthirteen. White smoke at 7:06 p.m.: 7 + 6 = 13; he is 76 years old: 7 + 6 = 13; he was elected on the calendar date 3/13/13, which sports two thirteens of its own; 3/13/2013 also yields 3 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 0 + 1 + 3 = 13; he was announced at precisely 8:13 p.m. Vatican time, or, in military and European time 20:13, making for an astounding 3/13/2013 at 20:13. According to Bullinger:
As to the significance of thirteen, all are aware that it has come down to us as a number of ill-omen. Many superstitions cluster around it, and various explanations are current concerning them.
Unfortunately, those who go backwards to find a reason seldom go back far enough. The popular explanations do not, so far as we are aware, go further back than the Apostles. But we must go back to the first occurrence of the numberthirteen in order to discover the key to its significance. It occurs first in Genesis 14:4, where we read “Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and the thirteenth year they REBELLED.”
Hence every occurrence of the numberthirteen, and likewise of every multiple of it, stamps that with which it stands in connection withrebellion, apostasy, defection, corruption,disintegration, revolution, or some kindred idea.[ix]
This ill omen suggests the apostasy prophesied by Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:3) and the many Revelation judgments along with the “many tribulations” and destruction of Rome predicted by the Malachy prophecy. Bullinger goes on to cite these remarkably suggestive numerical concurrences:
θηρίον (theerion), beast = 247 (13x19)
“He had two horns” = 1521 (132x9)
“And he had two horns like a lamb” = 2704 (132x16)
Revelation 13:11, The whole verse = 6318 (13x486)[x]
“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon” (Revelation 13:11). Indeed this second beast—the false prophet—is predicted to be viewed “like a lamb” and the accolades afforded the new pontiff on 3/13/2013 at 20:13 support that notion. As Protestants, we feel well within our rights to assert all claimants to Pontifex Maximus Vicar of Christ as false prophets.[xi] Please do not be fooled by the media’s unwitting accolades concerning Pope Francis’ feigned humility, this man believes he is literally Christ on Earth, or he would not accept the title of Vicar of Christ. All the same, if the predictions of St. Malachy are truly at their fruition, then the second beast, the one from the Earth called the “false prophet” (Revelation 16:13; 19:20; 20:10) may well be Pope Francis in the role of Petrus Romanus who, unwittingly or not, will lead the world to worship the dragon. Interestingly, his namesake St. Francis of Assisi would agree.
The Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio has chosen Francis as his papal name, a first in tribute to Francis of Assisi. It is noteworthy that St. Francis of Assisi’s long Italian name is Francesco di Pietro di Bernardone, a title that can accurately be viewed as “Peter the Roman” from the final line in the Prophecy of the Popes. Since the phrase that supplanted the birth name Giovanni is Francesco di Pietro, and that by sainthood, it is safe to say that by choosing Francis of Assisi’s name, he in effect chose Francesco di Pietro, and he is unlikely to prefer truncation of the Pietro element since Catholicism esteems Peter (Petrus) as the rock of the church and spuriously maintains he was the first pope. Rome was an empire and a city so Bergoglio’s Italian ancestry arguably meets the Roman aspect in a similar way. Accordingly, many argue that Bergoglio has fulfilled the Peter the Roman title with his choice of papal name.
As the 2013 conclave concluded, Bergoglio said he chose the original papal name Francis after St. Francis of Assisi when Cardinal Claudio Hummes exhorted him to “remember the poor.”[xii] The reader might recall that our book Petrus Romanusconnected the friar Assisi with Petrus Romanus over a year ago now, quoting an apocalyptic prediction he made soon after St. Malachy’s prophecy concerning a Final Pope:
At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death… Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it…for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.[xiii]
Was there something non-canonic about the election of Pope Francis? For starters, Pope Benedict XVI’s retirement makes for an unprecedented situation. When a pope is elected, the Church expects that he will remain in office until his death. Before now, only five popes unambiguously resigned with historical certainty, all between the tenth and fifteenth centuries. Arguably, that makes Bergoglio’s election suspect but, apparently, not a violation of canon law. In 1294, Celestine V issued a decree declaring it permissible for a pope to resign, and then resigned himself after only five months as pope. He lived a few more years as a hermit and then as a prisoner of his tyrannical successor, Boniface VIII. Because his decree was never repealed, canon law experts allow that a pope can resign, albeit it is discouraged. Others have objected that the fifteen-day rule between the vacancy of the office and the start of the conclave was circumvented in order to speed up the process. This was done by Pope Benedict’s final decree but the urgency to seat his successor seems suspicious. While Pope Francis represents many firsts, overall, the most interesting aspect is his status as the first ever Jesuit pope.
The sitting pontiff’s background has great prophetic significance as the Jesuit order was formed to specifically combat the Protestant reformation and assert papal supremacy over the entire world. According to a historian, “The Jesuits were the soldiers of the pope: they knew no law but the will of their general, no mode of worship but the pope’s dictate no church but themselves.”[xiv] Because of this, the Jesuit order was suppressed and disbanded for its pernicious skullduggery by Pope Clement XIV in 1773, and by the mid-eighteenth century, the Jesuits had earned a bad reputation in Europe for political maneuvering and economic exploitation bar-none. The order was reinstated in the early nineteenth century with the mission to conquer by scholarship and infiltration of the education system. Interestingly, Pope Benedict XVI addressed the Jesuit order in 2008, encouraging them to reinvigorate the fourth vow. He said, “For this very reason I have invited you and also invite you today to reflect in order to rediscover the fullest meaning of your characteristic ‘fourth vow’ of obedience to the Successor of Peter.”[xv]
Church historians record that the fourth vow of obedience is one of “absolute subservience to the pope; to do whatever he enjoined, and go on any service he wished, and into any quarter of the globe.”[xvi] A few ex-Jesuit whistle-blowers have called this a blood oath involving pagan rites which were laid bare in the suppressed document, “Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction,” which was once recorded in records of the US Congress, but was suspiciously expunged. According to this document, they are indoctrinated into the principle of Iustum, Necar, Reges, Impious, meaning, “It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers.”[xvii] The Jesuit modernists of today prefer more subtle methods like infiltrating the education system and promoting biblical higher criticism that undermines biblical authority.
Protestants and Catholics have written about a clandestine war that has been playing out for some time behind the scenes between the papacy and the Jesuit order. We will speculate in the next entry what this could mean between Pope Francis Romanus . . . and the coming of an alien savior.
Raidersnewsupdate.com
No comments:
Post a Comment