“I saw also the relationship between two popes … I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city of Rome. The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness…
“I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps.”
…
“I see the Holy Father in great anguish. He lives in a palace other than before and he admits only a limited number of friends near him. I fear that the Holy Father will suffer many more trials before he dies.
“I see that the false Church of darkness is making progress and I see the dreadful influence it has on the people. The Holy Father and the Church are verily in so great a distress that one must implore God night and day…”
So what does the text of this particular vision actually say? I think it’s important to read the whole chapter. (There are no line breaks in the original text, but I’ve inserted some for readability. The emphasis has also been added):
MARY OF THE ROTUNDA AND THE CHAPEL OF THE PROTESTANT EMBASSY, AT ROME May 13, 1820
“Last night, from eleven to three, I had a most wonderful vision of two churches and two Popes and a variety of things, ancient and modern. I shall relate, as well as I can, all that I remember of it. My angel guardian came and told me that I must go to Rome and take two things to the Pope, but I cannot now recall what they were— perhaps it is the Will of God that I should forget them. I asked my angel how I could make so long a journey, sick as I was. But when I was told that I should make it without difficulty, I no longer objected. An odd-looking vehicle appeared before me, flat and slight, with only two wheels, the flooring red with white edges. I saw no horses. I was gently lifted and laid on it and, at the same instant, a snow-white, luminous child flew toward me and seated himself at my feet. He reminded me of the Patience child in green, so sweet, so lovely, and perfectly transparent. He was to be my companion, he was to console and take care of me. The wagon was so light and smooth that at first I was afraid of slipping off; but it began to move very gently of itself without horses, and I saw a shining human figure going on ahead.
The journey did not seem long, although we crossed countries, mountains, and great waters. I knew Rome the instant we reached it, and I was soon in the presence of the Pope. I know not now whether he was sleeping or praying, but I had to say two things to him, or give him two things, and I shall have to go to him once again to announce a third. Then I had a wonderful vision. Rome suddenly appeared as in the early ages, and I saw a Pope (Boniface IV) and an emperor whose name I knew not (Phocas). I could not find my way in the city, all was so different, even the sacred ceremonies; but yet I recognized them as Catholic. I saw a great round building like a cupola— it was a pagan temple full of beautiful idols. It had no windows, but in the dome was an opening with a contrivance for keeping out the rain. It seemed as if all the idols that ever existed were gathered together there in every conceivable posture. Many of them were very beautiful, and others exceedingly odd; there were even some of geese which received divine honor. In the center of the building stood a very high pyramid formed entirely of those images. I saw no idolatrous worship at the time of which I speak, although the idols were still carefully preserved. I saw messengers from Pope Boniface going to the emperor and petitioning for the temple to be changed into a Christian church. I heard the latter declaring distinctly that the Pope should allow the ancient statues to remain, though he might erect therein the Cross to which the highest honors should be paid. This proposal, as it seemed to me, was made not wickedly, but in good faith.
I saw the messengers return with the answer and Boniface reflecting as to how he might in some measure conform to the emperor’s will. While he was thus deliberating, I saw a good, pious priest in prayer before the crucifix. He wore a long white robe with a train, and an angel hovered by his side. Suddenly he arose, went straight to Boniface, and told him that he should by no means accede to the emperor’s proposal. Messengers were then dispatched to the emperor, who now consented to the temple’s being entirely cleared. Then I saw his people come and take numbers of the statues to the imperial city; but still many remained in Rome. Then I saw the consecration of the temple, at which ceremony the holy martyrs assisted with Mary at their head. The altar was not in the center of the building, but against the wall. I saw more than thirty wagon-loads of sacred relics brought into the church. Many of them were enclosed in the walls and others could be seen through round openings covered with something like glass.
When I had witnessed this vision even in the smallest details, I saw again the present Pope and the dark church of his time in Rome. It seemed to be a large, old house like a town hall with columns in front. I saw no altar in it, but only benches, and in the middle of it something like a pulpit. They had preaching and singing, but nothing else, and only very few attended it. And lo, a most singular sight! Each member of the congregation drew an idol from his breast, set it up before him, and prayed to it. It was as if each man drew forth his secret thoughts or passions under the appearance of a dark cloud which, once outside, took some definite form. They were precisely such figures as I had seen around the neck of the illicit bride in the Nuptial House, figures of men and animals. The god of one was short and broad with a crisp head and numerous, outstretched arms ready to seize and devour all in its reach; that of another was quite small with miserable, shrunken limbs; another had merely a block of wood upon which he gazed with rolling eyes; this one had a horrible animal; that one, a long pole. The most singular part of it was that the idols filled the place; the church, although the worshippers were so few, was crowded with idols. When the service was over, everyone’s god re-entered into his breast. The whole church was draped in black, and all that took place in it was shrouded in gloom.
Then I saw the connection between the two Popes and the two temples. I am sorry that I have forgotten the numbers, but I was shown how weak the one had been in adherents and human support, but how strong in courage to overturn so many gods (I knew the number) and to unite so many different forms of worship into one; and, on the contrary, how strong in numbers and yet how irresolute in action was the other since, in authorizing the erection of false temples, he had allowed the only true God, the only true religion to be lost among so many false gods and false religions.
It was also shown me that those pagans humbly adored gods other than themselves, and that they would have been willing to admit in all simplicity the only God, the Most Holy Trinity. Their worship was preferable to that of those who adore themselves in a thousand idols to the total exclusion of Our Lord. The picture was favorable to the early ages, for in them idolatry was on the decrease, while in our days it is just the contrary. I saw the fatal consequences of this counterfeit church; I saw it increase; I saw heretics of all kinds flocking to the city. 2 I saw the ever-increasing tepidity of the clergy, the circle of darkness ever widening.
And now the vision became more extended. I saw in all places Catholics oppressed, annoyed, restricted, and deprived of liberty, churches were closed, and great misery prevailed everywhere with war and bloodshed. I saw rude, ignorant people offering violent resistance, but this state of things lasted not long. Again I saw in vision St. Peter’s undermined according to a plan devised by the secret sect while, at the same time, it was damaged by storms; but it was delivered at the moment of greatest distress. Again I saw the Blessed Virgin extending her mantle over it.
In this last scene, I saw no longer the reigning Pope, but one of his successors, a mild, but very resolute man who knew how to attach his priests to himself and who drove far from him the bad. I saw all things renewed and a church which reached from earth to Heaven. I saw one of the twelve new apostles in the person of the young priest whom the unchaste bride wanted to marry. It was a very comprehensive vision and portrayed anew all that had been previously shown me regarding the Church’s destiny. On another occasion, I had a vision of the Vicar-General’s stanch resistance to secular power in behalf of the interests of the Church. The affair covered him with glory, 3 though upon some other points he was to blame. I was told that I should have to go again to the Pope; but when all this will take place I cannot say.”
Schmoger, Very Rev. K. E.. Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich Volume 2 (with Supplemental Reading: A Brief Life of Christ) [Illustrated] (Kindle Locations 3740-3797). TAN Books. Kindle Edition.
On reopening the case, Paul VI finally made public the reasons for the 1928 reponatur: concerns about Emmerich’s chastity and the Brentano writings. The Pope declared that the first factor no longer applied, since studies had shown that the charges against Emmerich’s chastity were mere slanders. The only obstacle to be tackled now, according to the Pontiff, was Brentano’s writings. That any of the Roman authorities had ever had a problem with the writings came as a great shock to theological experts, since for over a century they had been recommended by an unending list of holy priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, even by the now St. John Neumann.[…]
In the reopened case, the Brentano writings are a moot point. Since Brentano wrote Emmerich’s visions down, and not Emmerich herself, they cannot technically be considered Emmerich’s writings. They therefore bear no positive or negative weight in the case. Critics of this decision must remember that the experts involved in the process are just that — well-experienced experts in the field of beatification and canonization affairs. They are following stringent and accepted rules. This should be realized before criticizing the behavior of the sacred congregation involved in the case. By excluding the writings, they were, however, by no means condemned. On the contrary, all the Brentano Emmerich works have been recently re-published in Germany. In excluding them from the official case, the experts are merely following a former decision made in 1916 during the positio super scriptis, which was reaffirmed by the Congregation of Rites on May 18, 1927.
From a comparative philological and literary view, the contention that Brentano “fabricated almost all” the Emmerich material is exaggerated and false. Editorial work there certainly was, but Brentano’s accounts agree with the basic picture of Emmerich found in the firsthand written accounts of Dr. Franz Wilhelm Wesener (Emmerich’s medical doctor) and author Luisa Hensel. Moreover, as the internationally renowned and critically reserved Germanist Dr. Anton Brieger states, the Emmerich visions recorded by Brentano have all the marks of a woman’s psychology and a feminine attention to detail. Additionally, Fr. Joseph Adam, the author of Emmerich’s new officialpositio accepted by the Roman authorities, has demonstrated that the former charges made by Fr. Winfried Humpfner (whose activities led to the 1928 reponatur), namely that Brentano was guilty of wholesale fabrication, were “rabid attacks” against a pious Catholic, and were furthermore “hard and pre-emptory.” Although recognizing at times their problematic nature and that they were adapted and edited, Adam nevertheless characterizes the Brentano Emmerich writings as exhibiting simultaneously “a deep piety and a solid ecclesiastical spirit.”
I mention this first to dispel the inevitable objections that Brentano “made up” the visions. (The criticism of historical errors is also addressed in the Wanderer article, so I recommend the full text to those who want to know more.)
Second, I bring this to your attention because it appears, based on the parentheticals in the above-cited vision, that it is Brentano who has worked out that the first pope in Sister Emmerich’s vision was Pope St. Boniface IV. For it was Boniface IV who, in the early 7th century, collaborated with the Byzantine emperor Phocas to Christianize that famous Roman temple devoted to a plethora of pagan gods (known as the Pantheon) by converting it into a Catholic church and renaming it Santa Maria ad Martyres. (If you want to have some fun with dates, Sister Emmerich’s vision of this event happened on the 1,211th anniversary of the consecration of the Church — both events occurring on May the 13th. This date is, of course, now most strongly associated with the first apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima.)
This means that the first of the “two popes” in Sister Emmerich’s famous vision is Pope St. Boniface IV, who brought about the conversion of the pagan temple used for idolatry to a Christian edifice intended for the worship of the True God.
His example, therefore, serves as the contrast against which the other pope can be evaluated; this latter pope who is unnamed and unrecognized, who presides over a Catholic church wherein idol worship (and self-worship) are practiced, thus reversing the accomplishments of Pope Boniface. Sister Emmerich speaks of this latter pope as “the present Pope and the dark church of his time in Rome.” One wonders about the use of the word “present,” since it is unlikely she was speaking of the servant of God, Pope Pius VII, who was the reigning pontiff at the time of her vision. (His cause for canonization was advanced, in fact, by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.)
One has the impression, reading her words, that these visions were such a regular occurrence for Sister Emmerich that the tenses she used could be misleading, inasmuch as she saw so many things outside of her present time. For example, she speaks of the “present pope”, but then lapses into the past tense when referring to the outcome of his failures: “I saw the fatal consequences of this counterfeit church; I saw it increase; I saw heretics of all kinds flocking to the city. I saw the ever-increasing tepidity of the clergy, the circle of darkness ever widening.”
It is my contention — and I’m open to correction on this — that Sister Emmerich’s vision of the false dark Church and the pope who oversaw it was a prophetic vision; whereas the actions of Pope St. Boniface IV was a vision of the past. The relationship, then, of “the two popes” was not a relationship between two contemporaries, but two historical bookends, as it were, held apart by centuries: the pope who Christianized the most notable symbol of the pagan world, and the pope who would subsequently paganize the Catholic Church, thus reversing his sainted predecessor’s gains.
In sum, I do not believe it can be argued that Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s vision of the two popes applies to the relationship between Pope Benedict and Pope Francis; this is a misreading based on missing context and wishful thinking.
Whether the pope who reigns over the false dark Church is Pope Francis, or some future successor, remains open to interpretation and debate — but one could, without great effort, make the case that these two sections of her prophetic vision apply rather startlingly to our present day, from the implications of uncritical ecumenism and interfaith gatherings to the celebration of the Protestant Reformation by Rome to the admission of communion to Lutherans to the nearly certain infiltration of the Church by Freemasons and Communists alike:
I was shown how weak the one had been in adherents and human support, but how strong in courage to overturn so many gods (I knew the number) and to unite so many different forms of worship into one; and, on the contrary, how strong in numbers and yet how irresolute in action was the other since, in authorizing the erection of false temples, he had allowed the only true God, the only true religion to be lost among so many false gods and false religions.
[…]
I saw in all places Catholics oppressed, annoyed, restricted, and deprived of liberty, churches were closed, and great misery prevailed everywhere with war and bloodshed. I saw rude, ignorant people offering violent resistance, but this state of things lasted not long. Again I saw in vision St. Peter’s undermined according to a plan devised by the secret sect while, at the same time, it was damaged by storms; but it was delivered at the moment of greatest distress. Again I saw the Blessed Virgin extending her mantle over it.
The interpretation of the vision have a past and future meaning rather reminds me of the book of Revelation which was both reflective of the fall of Rome and the second coming. It will be interesting to see how events unfold.
then there is this ancient Italian prophecy which states: “When the White Pope and the Black Pope shall die during the same night then there will dawn for the Christian nations the Great White Day. Woe unto the City of Philosophers, woe unto Lombardy for thy towers of joy shall be broken down; All the tyrants shall be put out of God’s Church, and there shall occur a general conversion to the faith of Christ under the Great Lion.”
This would also point to the book of revelation where Rome falls.
This new deluxe edition of the visions from Angelico Press is extremely beautiful, with the paintings by Tissot, the original maps, and lots of charts and tables. Highly recommended.
http://www.amazon.com/Visions-Anne-Catherine-Emmerich-Deluxe/dp/1597311464
Great points, Steve. I’m not sure if Blessed Anne foresaw what is happening in 2016, but it doesn’t take a visionary to see that we are dealing with something dreamlike, nightmarish, and monstrous.
Francis fits all too well as your bad bookend. In fact, look at Sandro Magister’s latest article about how Amoris Laetitia was ghostwritten by Art of Kissing bishop Fernandez, based on his writings 10 years ago, and already practiced by then cardinal Bergoglio. We will definitely see the masses flocking to the bad church, which should be no later than the 100th anniversary of Fatima, which also happens to the 500th anniversary of Luther’s rebellion, which is being commemorated by Francis himself. What a travesty and scandal, with the biggest travesty of how many think that is just great. Secondly, even if the vision does refer to a prior event, it is known in prophetic interpretation that a past event can be the model for a future event, or that there are multiple fulfillments.
Good observations! I read the Magister article too, and while I’ve been following this whole Fernández thing on various Spanish blogs, it was great to see it on a source translated into English. The man is a plague, but apparently, Francis’ hand-picked soulmate plague.
Francis’ Sheep’s Clothing is growing everthemore threadbare exposing his true nature. Thank You Jesus.
As far as I know it has been common knowledge for a long time that Fernandez was to be the primary composer of Pope Francis’ response to the synods. It must be common knowledge because I’ve been aware of it for perhaps a year. How is it now being reported as “news?”
In any event, it was the sure indicator of what was to come. Francis made him an archbishop two months after his election. Frankly, anything I’ve read of the gentleman, let alone some of photos of him give me the creeps.
See: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/05/family-synods-were-hugely-expensive.html
I find your interpretation quite interesting.
prophecies often have multiple fulfillments.
-the prophecies of Daniel about the evil king, can be interpreted as refering to Antiochus Epiphane, whom the Maccabees fought against. But it can also refer to an end-time political anti-christ.
– when Jesus himself talked about the future events (Matt. 24), a lot of his words can be see as having been fulfilled when Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70. But his words are also for our times, and for the end-times. (for example: “the gospel will be preached to all nations…”)
Very thoughtful essay with plenty to ponder. Thank you, Steve.
Thank you for this Steve. Wonderful! Strange that the last couple of days with Benedict in the news, I have thought back to these prophecies of hers regarding the RELATIONSHIP between ‘the two popes’. I’m not sure how else to interpret that particular vision of hers but that of Benedict and Francis, since she uses the word ‘relationship’. No other Pope in history has had a ‘relationship’ with another Pope in the human realm that I am aware of anyway. Having Benedict and Francis both living, one ‘contemplative’ and the other ‘active’ is the first time in the history of the Church that this has transpired. I cannot think of any other interpretation that could apply.
The news about Ganswein’s speech caused me to think of the same thing, but I got the feeling that I really needed to look into it further before I went ahead and published the usual quote.
So I’ll say again here: I am morally certain that the “relationship” in question is not between Francis and Benedict, it is between Pope St. Boniface IV and some unnamed, arguably apostate pope, who allows paganization of Catholicism.
They are related in a more technical sense of the word; they exist as opposites across time, across the ocean of years, from 609, when the Pantheon was consecrated, to that indeterminate point in the future when the idol worship she saw was allowed in Church.
It is not an interpersonal relationship, but one of types. The first pope turned a dark Church into light; the second takes the Church of light and transforms it into a false dark Church.
Francis may well meet the description of the latter, though not yet in every specific, but there’s a symbolic import to what she saw that may not be entirely literal in application.
The problem is found in the book “Catholic Prophecy, the Coming Chastisement” by Yves DuPont, which is probably where most people come across the passages from Sister Catherine Emmerich regarding the Church and the Mass.
The quoted material from her visions contained in that book is very misleading, particularly the section regarding the Mass.
It pieces together partial quotes from wildly varying parts of Father Schmoger’s two volumes using ellipses (sometimes almost a hundred pages apart) in order to advance the idea that the new Mass is invalid.
Yves DuPont, an early traditionalist, was not a friend of Vatican II.
I don’t know who is responsible for editing “Catholic Prophecy,” but the section dealing with Sister Catherine Emmerich’s visions found within its pages is quite misleading.
I think you pointed this out on Rorate a few years ago when they still allowed comments and I’m glad you did because it was the first I had heard of this selective editing, it’s important to know. I appreciate DuPont’s work and it’s stilll a good starting point for Catholic Prophecy. Interesting to note that right around the time Jorge Bergoglio became pope Tan apparently stopped publishing the book, new copies now go for $100 but of course it’s available free as a pdf online. The book contains some potentially politically incorrect statements about a certain religious/ethnic group that maybe Tan felt was too hot to keep publishing. It’s always been the same knock on Bl. Anna Catherine Emmerich’s writings She was a prophetess, she saw what she saw, even it offends some.
The new mass IS valid btw (assumming form, matter, intention, validly ordained priest) but never licit.
I remember you posted this on Rorate a few years ago before Rorate became tired of anyone expressing an opinion and shut down their com boxes. You need to go back and read the book again, it’s downloadable as a free PDF.
Here is the passage from DuPont’s book which I believe you are referring to:
From “Catholic Prophecy” page 116:
“It is not outside the scope of this book, however, to cite PROPHECIES
which have a bearing on the matter:
88. Anna-Katarina Emmerick (19th century). “I saw
again the new and odd-looking Church which they were
trying to build. There was nothing holy about it . . . People
were kneading bread in the crypt below . . . but it would
not rise, nor did they receive the body of Our Lord, but
only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of
their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the
Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their
communion. Then, my Guide [Jesus] said: ‘THIS IS BABEL.’
[The Mass in many languages].” (This prophecy was made
circa 1820 by Anna Katarina Emmerick, a stigmatized
Augustinian nun and is recorded in The Life of Anne Catherine
Emmerich by Rev. Carl E. Schmoeger, C.SS.R., first
published in English in 1870 and reprinted in 1968 by Maria
Regina Guild, Los Angeles, California.)
The first sentence uses the word “prophecies”. I don’t know how you think Dupont is saying multiple prophecies are one prophecy.
If I’m wrong, show me where in the book you are referring to.
Catholic Prophecy is a great primer for Catholic prophecy and If someone here is saying it’s misleading, please educate us so I can be more aware of where the potential error is.
I’ve read the book “Catholic Prophecy, the Coming Chastisement” many times, beginning either in the late 1970s or early 1980s.
The quote above, found in “Catholic Prophecy,” is patched together from Father Schmoger’s two volume set entitled “The Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich.”
It is concocted from vastly different portions of the book as if it were one continuous quote, but that is not the truth.
Here is how the quote is patched together:
“I saw again the new and odd-looking Church which they were
trying to build. There was nothing holy about it . . . ”
(THOSE WORDS ARE TAKEN FROM VOLUME 2, PAGE 283, PARAGRAPH 2, OF FATHER SCHMOGER’S BOOK).
“People were kneading bread in the crypt below . . . but it would
not rise,”
(THOSE WORDS ARE TAKEN FROM PAGE 283, PARAGRAPH 1).
Nor did they receive the body of Our Lord, but
only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of
their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the
Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their
communion.
(THOSE WORDS ARE TAKEN FROM PAGE 85, PARAGRAPH 1, ALMOST 200 PAGES EARLIER).
Then, my Guide [Jesus] said: ‘THIS IS BABEL.’
[The Mass in many languages].”
(THE FIRST PORTION IS TAKEN FROM PAGE 132, PARAGRAPH 1. The phrase “the Mass in many languages” is found nowhere at all in Father Schmoger’s books.)
The portion beginning with “nor did they receive the Body of Our Lord” does not refer to the Catholic Church in Anne Catherine Emmerich’s prophecies; she is referring to Protestant churches.
The full quote is: “I saw several churches or, rather, meeting houses surmounted by weather cocks, THE CONGREGATIONS DISUNITED FROM THE CHURCH, running here and there like beggars hurrying to places where bread is distributed, having no connection with either the Church Triumphant or the Church Suffering. They were not in a regularly founded, living Church, one with the Church Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant, NOR DID THEY RECEIVE THE BODY OF THE LORD, BUT ONLY BREAD. THOSE WHO WERE IN ERROR THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN AND WHO PIOUSLY AND ARDENTLY LONGED FOR THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST WERE SPIRITUALLY CONSOLED, BUT NOT BY THEIR COMMUNION.”
You see how misleading the quote in DuPont’s book is?
The partial quote was used to apply to the Mass, but it actually refers to Protestants.
The reference to “this is Babel” has nothing whatsoever to do with the Mass; Sister Emmerich was speaking in that section about the situation in the country of Spain.
Page 131, the last portion, references Portugal. Then the following appears: “This country was pretty tranquil compared with that of Saint Ignatius, which I now entered and found in frightful misery. Darkness lay over the whole land where reposes the treasure of the saint’s graces and merits.”
She talks a little bit about being in “the central point,” which I assume is Madrid, then states the following: “I saw unheard of abominations over the land, AND MY GUIDE SAID TO ME, THIS IS BABEL. I saw throughout the whole country a chain of secret societies with influences at work like those of Babel.”
It wasn’t a reference to the Mass at all.
Any Catholic with even a cursory knowledge of the Church would know that Our Lord would never consider the Mass in many languages to be “Babel,” as the Church has ALWAYS had the Mass in many languages.
As you can see, the quote is a complete fabrication. It is taken from Father Schmoger’s book, volume 2, begins with a portion of page 283, then proceeds to an earlier portion of page 283, then patches a part of page 85 into the quote, and ends with a portion of page 132.
Thank you. No matter our personal beliefs about matters in the Church, piecing together quotes like this merely to prove a point is clearly dishonest.
These are good clarifications.
You see how misleading the quote in DuPont’s book is?
I do, excellent response, I was wrong, thank you for the fraternal correction.
One question I do have, the mass in the Latin rite was always, everywhere in Latin no? I mean not the homily but the Latin rite mass was always in Latin?
Latin and Greek.
In the earliest years of the Church, there was more Greek in the Roman liturgy than just the Kyrie, but Latin, being the vernacular language of Rome, naturally took over most of the Roman Mass.
Prophecy is difficult and not always crystal clear. It would behoove me (and all) to read the book in its entirety. Thanks again, very fascinating!
I’m almost finished reading a kindle version of the Complete Visions – I’ve just read about Jesus’ descent into limbo after the crucifixion. Sister Emmerich is shown various visions of purgatory and hell, and this line jumped out at me: “In the center was an abyss of darkness. Lucifer was cast into it, chained, and thick black vapour mounted up around him. This took place by Divine Decree. I heard that Lucifer (if I do not mistake) will be freed again for awhile fifty or sixty years before the year 2000AD.”
Anyway, if you haven’t read it, I would heartily recommend it – it really is full of extraordinary details about the events of those times, and yet it never comes across as made up, as she frequently forgets names and places, and is in a lot of pain as she recounts much of it. The section on the Passion is almost unbearable to read when you witness up close what Jesus went through.
Steve, thank you for this and all your writings. I find great comfort in them and the commenters here.
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/anne/passion.shtml
The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ is another book of her visions. That was one of the sources used in making The Passion of the Christ.
Readers might also be interested that according to Sister Emmerich, when Jesus was taken down from the cross, he was wrapped in a winding sheet, and then the larger shroud enveloped the inner sheet. The image (that we know from the Shroud of Turin) appeared miraculously at that point. “The picture was not a mere impression formed by bleeding wounds, for the whole body had been tightly wrapped in spices and numerous linen bands. It was a miraculous picture, a witness to the creative Godhead in the body of Jesus”.
How about this Emmerich prophecy:
October 1, 1820
The Church is in great danger. We must pray so that the Pope may not leave Rome; countless evils would result if he did. They are now demanding something from him. The Protestant doctrine and that of the schismatic Greeks are to spread everywhere. I now see that in this place (Rome) the (Catholic) Church is being so cleverly undermined, that there hardly remain a hundred or so priests who have not been deceived. They all work for destruction, even the clergy. A great devastation is now near at hand.”
“In those days Faith will fall very low and it will be preserved in some places only.”
Francis commemorating Luther and his ism, telling Protestant Tony Palmer that he was his “brother bishop”, telling a Lutheran woman to use her own conscience to receive Catholic Holy Communion, etc etc etc. Benedict has left Rome, so to speak, in practice although not literally. The “Church is being so cleverly undermined” “even [by] the clergy”. How many people are noticing the problems? Hardly any one.
“A great devastation is now near at hand” – for sure.
Steve, thanks for the post,but, I am going to disagree with you on this one. Catherine Emmerich’s prophecies took place in the 1820’s. She would not be prophecying about something in the past. That is silly. The two popes are benedict and bergoglio. their can be no other. her prophecies are about future events, not past events that have already ocurred.
Jeff, Bl. Anne Catherine’s visions are filled with scenes from the past, especially the life of Christ. This instance is no different. She was shown a pope of the past, and a pope of the future, who exist in contrast to each other because of particular actions they undertake.
The book “Life of the Blessed Virgin” is wonderful reading at Christmastime. To read the details of how Joseph was hiding among caves where he grew up and then he escape into Eygpt and the three kings and how much respect they had, it’s very touching and emotional to read at that time of year.
One cannot always be concrete in interpretation of authentic visions. Intellectual musings and cerebral discussions do not give the full significance of what is meant in them, and such exercises can even obfuscate meaning. Genuine discernment is the fruit of humble prayer, and God unfolds meaning in His own time and His own way. The crisis in the Church has never been as it is now. No one can say that Emmerich’s visions are not about present day circumstances. If her visions came from God, they transcend what she knew and what she thought. Let God unfold the meaning in His own time and way.
Personal Thoughts
How this whole thing
is explained in light of Church History, Law, and Church Practice, and God’s Will, etc., I of course dare not presume to have the slightest clue. In hindsight, the new title within the Church “Pope Emeritus” should have been a dead giveaway. Instinctively I have always felt that the Pope Emeritus continued to be connected in someway to the papacy. Way back in 2014 in this post Why the Catholic Church is true: the Books of Maccabees [https://thewarourtime.com/2014/03/20/why-the-catholic-church-is-true-the-books-of-maccabees/] on my blog I wrote,
purposefully coded. And for the intentions prayers at the end of the Rosary, my family and I started praying:
The State being a very recent addition, after my family and I met the first Lady of the State of Hawai’i Mrs. Dawn Amano-Ige [http://governor.hawaii.gov/meet-the-first-lady/], a very humble, down to earth, and a very classy lady who was very gracious and we promised to pray for her husband/the State.
*
The identity of the ho katechon [cf. Antichrist – Catholic Encyclopedia > A > Antichrist], the one who was preventing the occurrence of the main event has always been a puzzle to me, but very recently I have been thinking it might have been Pope Benedict XVI until he was taken out of the way.
*
Looking to see how this all plays out but my main worry and concern is that perhaps with this revelation now, the innovators would want to make it appear that Pope Francis’ acts have the blessing of the “contemplative member” of the expanded ministry of the papacy.
*
Cf. Online: The Life And Revelations Of Anne Catherine Emmerich Complete [https://archive.org/details/TheLifeAndRevelationsOfAnneCatherineEmmerichComplete]
Wow! Blessed Virgin Mary declared Herself as Our Lady of the Rosary whe she appeared in Fatima, but Her first Apparition occurred in the Feast of the Dedication of Roman Pantheon as Shrine of Our Lady of Martyrs.
If Pope St. Boniface IV is the Pope mentioned as the comparison of the Pope of Faux-Church…, (I leave you to continue this sentences)
What is the context for the “concession from the clergy” quote?
It’s a different vision altogether, and not so clear:
April 12, 1820—“ I have had another vision on the great tribulation everywhere reigning. It seemed as if something were exacted of the clergy, something that could not be granted. I saw many aged priests, some of them Franciscans, and one, in particular, a very old man, weeping bitterly and mingling their tears with those of others younger than themselves. I saw others, tepid souls, willingly acceding to conditions hurtful to religion. The old faithful in their distress submitted to the interdict and closed their churches. Numbers of their parishioners joined them; and so, two parties were formed, a good and a bad one.”
As the supporters of the “new lights,” the Illuminati, especially hated the devotion of the Rosary, the value of this popular form of prayer was shown Sister Emmerich in a very significant vision. “I saw Mary’s Rosary with all its mysteries. A pious hermit had thus honored the Mother of God, weaving in his childlike faith a garland of leaves and flowers for her; and as he understood their signification, his garlands were always profoundly symbolical. He begged the Blessed Virgin to obtain for him some favor from her Son, whereupon she gave him the Rosary.” Then Sister Emmerich described this Rosary; but after the vision was over, neither she nor the Pilgrim could clearly repeat what had been seen and heard. It seems that the Rosary was surrounded by three rows of different colored notched leaves, on which were represented in transparent figures all the mysteries of the Church from both the Old and the New Testament. In the center of the Rosary stood Mary with the Child surrounded by angels and virgins, hand in hand, their colors and attributes expressive of the various mysteries. Sister Emmerich described each bead, beginning with the coral cross on which is said the Creed. The cross grew out of a fruit like the apple of the forbidden tree; it was carved, it had certain determinate colors, and it was full of little nails. On it was the figure of a youth, in his hand a vine which sprang from the cross, and sitting on the vine were other figures eating the grapes. The beads were joined by colored, spiral rays, like roots, each possessing some natural and mystical signification. Every Our Father was enclosed in a wreath of leaves from whose center sprang a flower in which was portrayed one of Mary’s joys or sorrows. The Hail Marys were stars of precious stones on which were cut scenes from the lives of the patriarchs and Mary’s ancestors relating to the Incarnation and Redemption. Thus does the Rosary comprehend Heaven and earth, God and nature and history and the restoration of all things through the Redeemer born of Mary. Every figure and color in its essential signification was employed for the perfecting of this divine masterpiece. This Rosary, though inexpressibly profound in signification was described by the invalid with deep feeling and childlike simplicity. With trembling joy she went from leaf to leaf, from figure to figure, describing all with the eager and joyous readiness of a lively child. “This is the Rosary,” she said, “that the Mother of God gave to man as the devotion dearest to her; but few have said it in this way! Mary also showed it to St. Dominic; but in course of time, it became, from neglect and disuse, so soiled and sullied with dust that she covered it with her veil as with a cloud, through which, however, it still glimmers. Only by special grace, by great piety and simplicity can it now be understood. It is veiled and far away— only practice and meditation can bring it near!”
Schmoger, Very Rev. K. E.. Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich Volume 2 (with Supplemental Reading: A Brief Life of Christ) [Illustrated] (Kindle Locations 4446-4471). TAN Books. Kindle Edition.
Thanks Steve for the interesting input as we try to assess the meaning of Pope Francis papacy. Whether this brings us confusion or insight I am not sure. All I know is that what is going on now is not good.
In no way the title “Holy Father” can be applied to Francis “the Humble”. I don’t think Francis is suffering on the contrary he is having fun in introducing his progressive agenda.
Laudetur Iesus Christus!
Et Maria Immaculata!
http://www.conchiglia.net/
http://www.conchiglia.us/IT_index.html
http://www.conchiglia.us/UK/UK_index.html
http://www.conchiglia.us/Conchiglia/15.310_TU_E_LUI_UNITI_PER_DIRE_BENTORNATO_MIO_SIGNORE_13.05.15.pdf
http://www.conchiglia.us/C_DOCUMENTI/Sacerdoti_Vescovi_Cardinali_e_Conchiglia.pdf
RILEVANTE :
[…] E siccome i vertici Cattolici in Vaticano
e i vertici ebraici che sono dentro al Vaticano…
conoscono bene la Mia Parola che dono oggi attraverso di te
e conoscono ancora più bene…
ciò che hanno omesso… modificato e tagliato riguardo alle Sacre Scritture…
ora che per Volere di Dio e « sotto la guida di Dio » sei libera di agire…
sono letteralmente terrorizzati per quello che potresti dire e fare.
[…]
Gesù a Conchiglia – 21 marzo 2016
http://www.conchiglia.net/C/Conchiglia_2016-02__VERITA_BEN_XVI.pdf
http://www.conchiglia.us/LATINO/LATINO_index.html
Maranathà
Looking that (conchiglia) up, I found this:
The Seven Archangels http://www.conchiglia.net/ – gloria.tv
Which seems to a bit problematic.
Is there any chance of explanation in English?
http://www.conchiglia.us/UK/UK_index.html
No comment is necessary regard to facts that are unequivocal and that burn satan and who serve him:
http://www.conchiglia.us/Conchiglia/15.310_UK_TU_E_LUI_UNITI_PER_DIRE_BENTORNATO_MIO_SIGNORE_13.05.15.pdf
Maranathà
Again I saw in vision St. Peter’s undermined according to a plan devised by the secret sect while, at the same time, it was damaged by storms; but it was delivered at the moment of greatest distress. Again I saw the Blessed Virgin extending her mantle over it.
The mention of “the secret sect” might very well refer to Freemasonry, which was referred to repeatedly by popes as the “secret sect.”
Very interesting article. Nowadays it is common to read and hear about the orthodox (in the broad sense of the word, not referring to our eastern brethren) vs. the modernist Church. Such sides, however, are not easy to identify. What is usually identified as “conservative” in conservative circles is sometimes not that orthodox, and what is considered “liberal” in conservative circles is sometimes (very few, but very definite times) actually much older that the “conservative” view on the subject. In my experience, most of the catholic groups usually considered “conservative” are reputed as such due to their resolute clinging to a XIXth and early XXth century state of affairs (usually the kind that insist on the formation of a solid catholic burgeoisie in order to regain power and influence); while some (only some) opinions or groups that are labeled as liberal by those same “conservative” groups are actually repeating what was said much earlier in the history of the Church. What if the “conservative”, usury-defending and very rich clergy are the real wolves? Such a defense of human ideologies, usury and the need for material wealth and influence is actually very, very modernist. On the other hand, what if the guys that insist on the need of poverty and rejection of the worldly (such as influence and other burgeois ideas), are the true messengers of the Christ? This passage from Catherine of Emmerich could actually be describing Pope Francis:
“In this last scene, I saw no longer the reigning Pope, but one of his successors, a mild, but very resolute man who knew how to attach his priests to himself and who drove far from him the bad. I saw all things renewed and a church which reached from earth to Heaven.”
I don’t know if Eye of the Tiber is accepting submissions, but it wouldn’t hurt to ask.
Not quite sure what that meant. All I’m saying is, if the aim is to go traditional, let us go the full way. And from that side of the river, many things we currently consider “conservative” will cease to look that way. Of course, I write from a different country, a different culture. From here, most of what is considered “conservative” in America is actually quite new and smells modernist. But please do not misunderstand me, I’m not judging or anything like that. What I mean is that dividing the board into orthodox and liberals, may actually be a gross simplification of the real struggle that our Church is suffering. Many of the characters usually labeled “orthodox” and many of the characters usually labeled “liberal” will eventually turn out to have belonged to the other side after all.
You raise a very important point, Senor Fernandez, but I’d go a little further. I would question whether it’s enough to speculate that conservatives may be “the real wolves.” In the politico-economic sphere, Marxism arose as a challenge to the prevailing capitalist paradigm of its time. The various implementations of Marxist states have demonstrated that, while the Marxist critique of capitalism may have contained much validity, its remedies have turned out to be far worse than the disease, arguably because they approached a largely material evil on an even more material basis, i.e., the wholesale rejection of religion.
I would argue that an analogous situation exists within the Church. While a good deal of the orthodox (in your sense) position may have a certain basis in the desire to retain the material power and influence it enjoyed in the 1950s and before (see the Zippy Catholic blog for much information re the Church’s relaxation on the sin of usury), much of the modernist philosophy has its roots, not in a genuine early Christian “preferential option for the poor,” but in a politically revolutionary stance, fueled largely by a resentment and envy which can scarcely be characterized as Christian, using concern for the poor as a mask.
There are plenty of wolves to go around on both sides, but I would say that the far greater danger nowadays lies in the resurgence of modernism under Pope Francis (who, pace your reading of Bl. Catherine, I would scarcely characterize as “mild!”).
Very interesting, brother in the faith. And I certainly agree with you on all you say about marxism, an evil ideology, straight from the fangs of the devil, and one that has made us latin americans suffer much in the past (our own family too, from incarceration to torture). However, I believe capitalism is just as evil, and though less violent, perhaps even more perverse, due to its long-term consequences. Providing worldly pleasure and wealth, it has corrupted our clergy and laity, relaxed morality, weakened faith, destroyed family values, imposed democracy and has spread relativism. Communism produces martyrs among the faithful, capitalism produces heretics. Two horns of the same goat, but perhaps capitalism worse. We can compare them by their fruits: former communist Europe with western Europe; Christianity in the first is slowly rebuilding itself, but is disappearing in the second. You see, brother in the faith, communism shoots christians, capitalism corrupts them. I believe the second is much worse on the long term.
Both are evil, it is the Old Regime the social order we catholics built, and that which we are called to rebuild. Capitalism struck it first, and capitalism is one of the evil doctrines condemned by St. Pious X in his condemnation of modernism. A capitalist Church is also a modernist one, a liberal one, though many of its evil ministers pose as “conservatives” by attacking the also evil marxist side. This is what I mean when I say the “conservative” side is rarely so, brother in the faith. Let us look for those who attack both horns with tenacity, and we will have found the true followers of the Christ, who was in His time attacked by both the “conservative” (pharisee) faction and the “liberal” (saducee) faction. Such is the salt of the earth, the rest is worldly ideology.
Regarding Pope Francis, have you noticed, brother in the faith, how he receives fire from both sides?
“Pope” Francis is certainliy not the “mild”. This is quite clear for everybody who can read.
He is in reality the false prophet and does what the freemasons, the gnostic, wants him to do: that means to destroy the Church, the sacraments and everything else like the Christian Europe. He is a foe of Europe, no doubt.
He invites anti-christians to Europe and now he has blood on his hands. He bears responsibility for the attacks/assassinations in Paris, Nov.13th. 2015, and equally for those in Brussels about two months ago. He could/would be charged for that if not the governments in Western Europe and the medias were on his side; criminals like him.
Brother in the faith, no doubt you are a zealous man. But I believe you may be misinterpreting some facts. Have you not seen also the wave of conversions and confessions that Pope Francis has unleashed? I have, in my country. Some things he says and does are certainly mysterious, but then, are we supposed to understand everything? Has the Holy Spirit ever been crystal-clear to absolutely everyone?
Such things are complicated, brother in the faith, and I myself do not presume to understand them fully. Please restrain yourself when speaking about the Pope with anger. You not only doubt the promise of the Christ that He would never let His Church alone, you commit mortal sin by speaking in such a way. Numbers 12, 5-10. Leprosy… the sign of mortal sin and excommunication, expulsion from the hebrew camp, prefiguration of the Church. Read the passage, brother in the faith, and tell me sincerely if my reading is wrong. Peace be with you.
There is no chance that I’ll be able to read the full texts, so I’ll put this out as a question. The following jumped out as something immanent:
A priest cannot accept (or “grant”) an illicit directive even if it’s from Rome, right? If Rome demands admission to sacriligious communion, that fits the vision’s description of Revelation’s tribulation. Doesn’t it?
I’m out of my depths among quite a few amazingly well informed here – I don’t know of any history of pontifically commanded sacrilege – maybe sacrilege has been demanded before?
I’m grateful for any information.
That is certainly a good candidate. There could be other similar things coming from the apostates, such as the “value” in sodomite unions and their blessing. I think we will have several to choose from in the next 1.5 years.
There could be even worse things, how about a merging with or submission to “the religion of peace” for Europe?..Don’t laugh, he was meeting with their leader last week
Yes I have heard of “chrislam”. Even some Protestants have noticed this
I like that everyone is into prophecy now. I discovered prophecy around 2000 about the time I woke up and started taking my faith by increasing degrees more seriously. The last 15 years I have poured over every document and book I could find because the subject is truly engrossing to me and I have a limitless appetite. As Catholics we have the priests and the prophets, we know the future (within reason of course and depending on man’s cooperation with grace) and no other religion can claim this. The Orthodox for example, all they have is “the elder Paissos” whom holy though he may have been, was still a schismatic and heretic.
These days it’s a lot easier to study prophecy because many of the old documents are available free online, it’s just a matter of finding them. An example is a nice little resource I stumbled on to lately written by a Catholic priest in 1870: http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/Library/The%20Christian%20Trumpet.pdf
I went on a long pilgrimage to western Europe to see various sites of different prophecies. I certainly take Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich seriously though I will tell you the leading guy in Cahtolic eschatology or lets say the most well known guy who wrote “the book” on prophecy (not Yves DuPont) discards her prophecies entirely. He says this because her case for sainthood was stalled when it was determined that part of her writings were (allegedly, potentially) altered or perhaps fabricated.
This author will follow everything scrupulously down to the letter of canon law regarding Church approved apparitions I like this author’s work, I just think we have to set some of the rules aside in light of the leaders of the Church we’ve been dealing with.
So if part of the La Salette message was placed on the index in 1966 (coincidentally by the same people who denied the mandate of our Lady in 1960) by an unknown notary at the Vatican, the entire apparition is false or untrustworthy and not to be considered. The problem with that is corruption in the Vatican and Church Hierarchy in the last 60 years is often exactly what these suppressed or “indexed” prophecies were describing. La Salette for example spoke of two “worm ridden popes”, hmmm, wonder why that ended up on the Index?
The tired/false knock on Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s writings is that she speaks badly about a certain religious group of people and a couple of other things such as when she saw Japan and found the people physically ugly. So, hey, lets cast some 1970’s vatican 2, happy clappy, tambourine doubt on her character and writings and just throw them all out. The foxes are in charge of the henhouse (witness last week’s supposed statement by Pope Benedict) but Bl. Anna among many others reaches across time to help us. As Saint Thomas Aquinas said, “prophecy is not for announcing new doctrines but for guiding the affairs of men”
“They want to take from the shepherd his own pasture grounds! They want to fill his place with one who will hand all over to the enemy!”– Then she shook her hand indignantly, crying out: “O ye German cheats! Wait a while! You will not succeed! The Shepherd stands on a rock! O ye priests! You stir not, ye sleep, and the sheepfold is everywhere on fire! You do nothing! O how you will bewail this some day! If you had said only one Our Father! The whole night have I seen the enemies of the Lord Jesus drag Him around and maltreat him upon Calvary! I see so many traitors! They cannot bear to hear said: ‘Things are going badly!’–All is well with them if only they can shine before the world!”
Hmm, wonder what/whom she could have been describing in this vision?
Dear @Rodrigo Fernández: you are right describing me as “zealous” and herewith I take this sentence back: “He could/would be charged for that if not the governments in Western Europe and the medias were on his side; criminals like him.”
I can assure you that I have great respect for pope Francis` personality.
But look, when he`s inviting, more than once, muslims to come in millions by number to Europe, then, in my thinking, there are some questions about his Official understanding both as pope of the roman-catholic Church and as head of Vatican State. When Italian authorities permit him to go to the isle of Lampedusa to see and speak to this muslim people, has he the right to invite
them through the worldwide reporting media to come to Italy and Europe in such numbers? To me
and not alone to me he broke not just italian but international law (not to mention many other things). Thats for sure. Who one might ask he thinks he is!? He has no right to do that, neither as head of the Vatican State- being a member of the United Nations- nor as head of the Church.
He was and still is being opposed for that by a great number of European bishops and cardinals especially from eastern Europe- and by many governments. “Pope” Francis invited “good and bad/evil” as he himself was saying.
Steve Skojec,
Your Analysis ist totally convincing. Thanks btw. for this important clarifiction. It ist obvious that one of the two Popes in Anna Katharinas Vision Boniface IV.
And it is esepcially important to point that out in the sense of Your own article https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/out-of-the-rabbit-hole/ Many thanks also für this MAGNIFICENT, SO IMPORTANT article! – It has now been translated into German and is duscussed also on German Blogs – and seen as an so important eye-opener (or helper to eye-open), e.g. here: https://traditionundglauben.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/steve-skojec-raus-aus-dem-kaninchenloch
So what link is there between Your analysis here re Anna Katharnia and Your rabbit-hole-articel?
Well, it is the destruction of the fairy-tale of Bergoglio the bad vs. Benedict-Ratzinger (and JoPaII-Wojtyla et al.) the good.
That is really only a fairy tale — but to escape this tale, this story, to unmask it you have to swallow the RED – BITTER – PIL (as You worte in said article).
One example of the still ongoing trial & attempt to see Ratzinger as the good guy against Bergoglio the bad and to white-wash /exculpate) Ratzinger from only the doubt of not beeing orthodox was this articel of “Pio Pace” on Rorate: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/05/exclusive-op-ed-pio-pace-on-latest.html
The author there detects, that the speech of Gänswein (re the “two Popes” were “strange” and “Theologically, this makes no sense whatsoever!” [out of a traditional Catholic perspective] – and “Pio Pace” even really ingeniously made a – brilliant – comparison:
“Just as there are two liturgical forms in a single Roman Rite, there would be two Pontifical members within a single papal position. Each person may choose the liturgical form or Pontifical member that is adequate to one’s own sensibility…
But instead of drawing the right – and only possible – conclusion from that “strange theological non-sense” – instead of swallowing this – bitter – RED PILL — he prefers to put in some blue (or other coloured) pill, concluding:
“Theologically, this makes no sense whatsoever! One is forced, therefore, to find a “political” meaning.”
Voilá, and this “political” meaning reads: the good Gänswein & Ratzinger are subtly critzising Bergoglio here, even more, are quesioning and weakening his Papacy and are (reluctantly, subtly) pushing Ratzinger in position to be the TRUE Pope (vs. Bergoglio the bad and false).
But there ist only one Problem with this “political Interpretation”:
it ist TOTALLY – TOTALLY! – unfunded by the text of the Ratzinger-speech as well as the context.
For contrary: One has only to read the text of this speech (with a true openess – open to swallow even bitter (red) pills), but to swallow the OBVIOUS) and there you find CLEARLY, UNABMIGUOUSLY, that Ratzinger purposely and theologically-planed wanted to ALTER, to TRANSFORM the “Petrine Office´” or rather “ministry” PROFOUNDLY and LASTINGLY” so that “From February 11th 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before.
This sentence is one of the key-sentences of the whole text:
…not the same as before,,,has profoundly and lastingly transformed
So no way to Interpret is as a subtel critique and antagonism Ratzinger vs. Bergoglio — but as willfully TRANSFORMATION – so destruction – of the OLD PAPAL OFFICE, of the OLD CHURCH — transforming it into NewChurch of the NewAdvent.
Time to take teh RED PILL, indeed.
[Sorry, new try with corrected formatting of my comment. Sorry, for the false fromatting. And I am new here and I also apologize for my not so perfect English – I am German]
Steve Skojec,
Your Analysis ist totally convincing. Thanks btw. for this important clarification. It ist obvious that one of the two Popes in Anna Katharinas Vision is Boniface IV.
And it is esepcially important to point that out in the sense of Your own article https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/out-of-the-rabbit-hole/ Many thanks also for this MAGNIFICENT, SO IMPORTANT article! – It has now been translated into German and is discussed also on German Blogs – and seen as an so important eye-opener (or helper to eye-open), e.g. here: https://traditionundglauben.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/steve-skojec-raus-aus-dem-kaninchenloch
So what link is there between Your analysis here re Anna Katharnia and Your rabbit-hole-articel?
Well, it is the destruction of the fairy-tale of Bergoglio the bad vs. Benedict-Ratzinger (and JoPaII-Wojtyla et al.) the good.
That is really only a fairy tale — but to escape this tale, this story, to unmask it, you have to swallow the RED – BITTER – PILL (as You worte in said article).
One example of the still ongoing trial & attempt to see Ratzinger as the good guy against Bergoglio the bad and to white-wash /exculpate) Ratzinger from only the doubt of not beeing orthodox was this articel of “Pio Pace” on Rorate: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/05/exclusive-op-ed-pio-pace-on-latest.html
The author there detects, that the speech of Gänswein re the “two Popes” were “strange” and “Theologically, this makes no sense whatsoever!” [from/out of a traditional Catholic perspective] – and “Pio Pace” even really ingeniously made a – brilliant – comparison:
“Just as there are two liturgical forms in a single Roman Rite, there would be two Pontifical members within a single papal position. Each person may choose the liturgical form or Pontifical member that is adequate to one’s own sensibility…
But instead of drawing the right – and only possible – conclusion from that “strange theological non-sense” – instead of swallowing this – bitter – RED PILL — he prefers to put in some blue (or other coloured) pill, concluding:
“Theologically, this makes no sense whatsoever! One is forced, therefore, to find a “political” meaning.”
Voilá, and this “political” meaning reads: the good Gänswein & Ratzinger are subtly critzising Bergoglio here, even more, are quesioning and weakening his Papacy and are (reluctantly, subtly) pushing Ratzinger in Position to be the TRUE Pope (vs. Bergoglio the bad and false).
But there ist only one Problem with this “political Interpretation”:
It is TOTALLY – TOTALLY – unfunded by the text of the speech as well as the context.
Logically he must have concluded: Theologically, this makes no sense whatsoever! One is forced, therefore, to conculde that Gänswein and Ratzinger are clear-cut modernists, NewChurchists, so also “bad guys”. The RED PILL.
But no, the “political” – blue-pill – reading: Benedigt-Ratzinger and Gänswein make a subtle critique re Bergoglio, indicate, that Ratziner is the REAL and GOOD Pope, Bergoglio the FALSE, BAD.
But You have only to open Your eyes an READ.
Gänswein writes expressely, that Ratzinger WANTED – so PURPOSELY, DELIBERATELY and THEOLOGICALLY PLANED – to ALTER, to “TRANSFORM” the “PETRINE Office” (or rather: “Ministry”) “PROFOUNDLY and LASTINGLY, so that
“From February 11th 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before.”
Read it carefully:
“not the same as before…Benedict has profoundly and lastingly transformed”
There is ABSOLUTLY no possibility to Interpret this as subtle critique re Bergoglio or claiming to be the true Pope beside the bad Bergoglio.
ABSOLUTELY NOT. No way.
There ist no ambiguity: Ratziger wanted to TRANSFORM – so destroy – the OLD CONCEPT of PAPACY, the OLD CHURCH – into the NewChurch of the NewAdvent — no less than Gänswein and Bergoglio.
There is no dichotomy but rather a TRIO, working for the same goal.
Time to swallow the RED PILL, indeed.
St. Vincent Ferrer O.P:
«Sixth. It is true of faith that the pope has full authority over all. As Christ said to Peter: and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.(Mt. XVI, 19). If there were two popes at once one would have more power than the other, or not? If one did not have more power than the other, neither would be pope because the pope has authority over all, as stated above. If the lower had it he would not be pope. So the Lord promised speaking by Ezekiel: I will save my flock, and will never be prey to the nations; I will raise up for her only one pastor, who will shepherd them (Ez. XXXIV, 28 and 31). For all these reasons it is clear that it is wrong to believe that the two chosen in question are true popes. Therefore, erring very seriously who, in an effort to obtain graces and dispensations, or achieve any kind of privileges, go to each other, revering like real popes. For being true that both cannot be popes one of them is an apostate and anti-pope. It is clear that those in their pleas revere both as such; they can not escape to the penalties and curses prescribed at the canon of the Decree begins in the name of the Lord …(J. Gratianus, Decretum (Concordantia discordantium canonum) 1, dist. 23, e. 1 : 44 In nomine Domini”). And no one can be excused in this ignorance, as will be seen in what follows.» http://fundacionsanvicenteferrer.blogspot.com/2013/01/tratado-del-cisma-moderno-2.html