The Exile that Wasn't

Pope Emeritus Benedict pleasantly sits by as Pope Francis addresses the populace.  Together, the two popes consecrated Vatican City to the protection of St. Michael the Archangel on July 5, 2013.  Photo Source: The Catholic World Report

A recurrent prophecy of Maria Divine Mercy's concerns the supposed exile which Benedict was to have undergone upon being "forced out" of the Vatican (see messages from June 6, 2011; July 16, 2012; and May 26, 2012). Last year, we were exhorted to "pray for Pope Benedict XVI who [was] in danger of being exiled from Rome" (March 20, 2012). Others were to "oust him from the Sea of Peter using devious means" (May 26, 2012) and Pope Benedict would be "forced to leave the Vatican" (June 6, 2011 and July 16, 2012). Following this departure, Benedict was to have at some point entered into a "place of exile" (March 29, 2013).

Maria Divine Mercy refers to Benedict as the "last true pope", the "innocent, beloved last Pope on Earth, Benedict XVI" (February 19, 2013). It doesn't make sense then, that this "innocent" should lie to the world by saying that it was for reasons of health that he was resigning. Whom are we to take at his or her word: Pope Benedict or Maria Divine Mercy? Because if we are to take Maria Divine Mercy at her word, Benedict was "forced out", "he, who was maliciously and deliberately plotted against" (February 19, 2013 and March 13, 2013) by others "behind closed doors in the Holy See" (May 26, 2012, see also February 12, 2012).

Benedict described his internal process of discernment over resigning on February 27, 2013, when he told the crowds who attended his final General Audience at St. Peter's Square: “In these last months I have felt my energies declining, and I have asked God insistently in prayer to grant me his light and to help me make the right decision, not for my own good, but for the good of the Church. I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty, but with profound interior serenity. Loving the Church means also having the courage to make difficult, painful decisions, always looking to the good of the Church and not of oneself."

Benedict thoughtfully prayed over and discerned the matter, looking to no one but God's guidance in making the right decision; he was not "plotted against" and "forced out" by others.

One who is desperate enough to align Maria Divine Mercy's prophecies with reality may go so far as to say that Benedict was "forced out" by his own health problems.  But the messages make it clear that Benedict was to have been plotted against by others and nefariously forced out of the Vatican by them.  Again, if we were to take Benedict at his word, as we should, the reasons that Maria Divine Mercy provides are not those for which he resigned.

UPDATE [2-25-14]: Benedict himself recently wrote in a letter, "There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry...The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd."  (See here.)

Upon concluding his papacy on February 28, 2013, Benedict left for Castel Gandolfo where he began his retirement, living there for a couple of months until May 2.  He then returned to the Vatican where he lives now in the Mater Ecclesiae Monastery.  So, if we were to interpret his "exile" as having immediately started upon his having been "forced out" of Vatican, then this apparent "exile" did not last too long.  As a matter of fact, it makes much more sense to say that he took a short vacation before returning to his permanent residence at the Vatican.  In addition, there was no consistent contact with others while Benedict stayed there so as to "guide God's children from his place of exile" (March 29, 2013, see also February 19, 2013). It also wouldn't make sense for Pope Francis to go visit, pray, and exchange gifts with him if he were in "exile" at Castel Gandolfo:

Since it doesn't make sense to consider Castel Gandolfo as Benedict's "place of exile" (March 29, 2013), could it be then that the monastery in the Vatican itself is this so-called "place of exile"?

Though Benedict has seldom entered the public eye since retiring, it would again be a stretch to try and justify the monastery as a place of exile.  Pope Francis is said to regularly visit Benedict (see here).  In addition, the two popes recently made a public appearance together to consecrate Vatican City to the protection of St. Michael the Archangel:

[On a side note, from the perspective of the messages of Maria Divine Mercy, it would also seem odd that Pope Francis, often referred to as the "False Prophet" (see, for example, January 21, 2012; April 12,2012; May 26, 2012; July 10, 2012; February 17, 2013; February 18, 2013), would commend himself and the Church to St. Michael the Archangel.  According to Maria Divine Mercy, "Masonic forces" within the Vatican, of whom Pope Francis is a part (see February 17, 2013), have "proclaimed a series of lies including the refusal to acknowledge the power of St. Michael the Archangel" (May 7, 2012).  Why would Pope Francis then consecrate Vatican City to St. Michael if he were one to refuse to acknowledge his power?]

At any rate, it would be extremely difficult to see Pope Benedict's current monastic residence as a place of exile.  Granted, he lives in a monastery; yet, it is not in keeping with living in a monastery to make too many public appearances, if any at all.  And, it must be kept in mind that such a life was one to which Pope Benedict aspired before he was Pope, when, while functioning as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he submitted his resignation three times to Pope John Paul II.  (Then Cardinal Ratzinger first submitted his resignation to Pope John Paul II in 1991; what may be an "exile" in Maria Divine Mercy's world is a reprieve sought after for over 20 years in Benedict's.)  In addition, as referenced above, Pope Francis often visits Benedict and receives the former pope's counsel.  And, finally, as is seen in the collaborative consecration of Vatican City to St. Michael, Francis still works together with Benedict.

Pope Francis just published his First encyclical, Lumen Fidei, which was almost entirely written by Benedict, as Pope Francis attests in paragraph no. 7 of the document, stating that Benedict "had almost completed the first draft of an encyclical on faith".  Prior to Benedict's announcement of his resignation, it had been reported by the Vatican last November that Benedict had for some time been working on the document; some were asking upon Pope Benedict's resignation what would become of the then unfinished encyclical. For Francis to uphold and publish Benedict's writing with his own papal authority attests to an interwoven collaboration between the two popes.

In a sense, Pope Benedict may indeed still be guiding the faithful, especially as the faith of the Church is illumined by his words present in Francis' encyclical, but it cannot be further from the truth to say that he is doing so from a "place of exile".  Furthermore, it would seem odd that the "False Prophet" Francis would be cooperating so closely with the "last true pope".  In such a case, the "False Prophet" would be curiously disseminating the "last true pope's" teaching, and at the authoritative level of an encyclical, no less.  Rather, they are working together so closely, that each pope's contribution has thus far come together to form a united act of guiding God's children.

UPDATE [9-28-13]:

And, here is a video with images of Pope Emeritus Benedict having a Mass and visit with former students of his on September 1, 2013, which even continues to be an annual tradition for him.  This could have easily been an event that the Vatican quietly prevented had Benedict actually been in "exile".

UPDATE [2-22-14]:

Benedict participated in the consistory of cardinals which took place today.

 

 

To keep things in perspective, about a year and a half ago, Maria Divine Mercy "prophesied" about Benedict: "Very soon he will be forced to flee the Vatican."  (July 16, 2012)  It appears the opposite is true: they keep inviting him back!

 

[UPDATE 4-27-14]: Here is Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI at the canonizations of Sts. John XXIII and John Paul II.  It would seem odd that a pope in "exile" would be included in such a celebratory event.

 

 

 

[UPDATE 8-20-14]: Here is a link to an article reporting how Pope Francis visits with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI before all international trips.

A Response to Kelly Bowring

So, here is a link to an article which appeared on a website, catholicmom.com:

http://catholicmom.com/2013/07/09/the-great-battle-has-begun/

The article details an exchange with Dr. Kelly Bowring, who defends Maria Divine Mercy as he responds to points posed to him by Cheryl Dickow.  Bowring claims that it is not heresy to claim as Maria Divine Mercy does that Pope Francis is not the pope.  He also does not accurately represent Maria Divine Mercy's promotion of an idea condemned by the Church called millenarianism.

Here is a response of mine to Bowring's points:

It is indeed heresy to teach that the pope is not the pope.  The First Vatican Council taught in its dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ, Pastor Aeternus:

"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."  (Chapter III, Paragraph 5)

Furthermore, Bowring dances around what Maria Divine Mercy actually says about millenarianism.  The entry on Maria Divine Mercy's website for May 28, 2012 states: "Know that the 1,000 years referred to in the book of Revelation means just that."  Apparently oblivious to the book of Revelation's use of metaphorical language, Maria Divine Mercy continues: "If it was meant to be something different then it would have given a different time."  As if the book of Revelation in its complex imagery would not present something as something else with an apparently paradoxical meaning; tell that the the lion who is a lamb (Rev. 5:5,6), and to the robes which are white upon being washed in red blood (Rev. 7:14).  And, then, conveniently unclear about the contents of the referred to "beliefs", Maria Divine Mercy states: "My Church, the Catholic Church, has not declared their beliefs because they have not done this yet."  This is false; the Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 676 states: "The Church has rejected even modified forms of the falsification of the kingdom to come known as millenarianism".  Bowring correctly writes: "But, in the Book of Revelation (20:1), it does speak of an end-time thousand year period of peace. This period of “a thousand years” is symbolic, biblical language for a long period, but not necessarily a literal thousand year period of time."  However, Bowring then misrepresents what Maria Divine Mercy says about the subject when he continues: "The messages of MDM concur as much and thus on this point remain in good standing."

The messages of MDM do not concur as much and thus do not remain in good standing.  Maria Divine Mercy presents "the 1,000 years referred to in the book of Revelation" as meaning "just that", stating that, "if it was meant to be something different then it would have given a different time".  And, her message from March 22, 2012 states: "So many chose to ignore the truth contained in the Holy Bible.  How can you deny, for example, the existence of the 1,000 years of the New Heaven and Earth?"

Maria Divine Mercy presents the 1,000 years as being an actual 1,000-year time period, not a metaphorical one.  She thus promotes millenarianism, which idea has been condemned by the Church, as evidenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph no. 676, cited above.

Maria Divine Mercy  has often applied the label "False Prophet" to Pope Francis (see messages from January 21, 2012; April 12, 2012; May 26, 2012; July 10, 2012; February 17, 2013; and February 18, 2013; among other instances) but she has made, and continues to make, false prophecies herself.  Nothing came of her prophecy about the supposed "sacrilege" that the pope was to have committed during Holy Week (message from March 14, 2013); her prophecy about the "pompous splendor" with which Benedict's successor was to sit on the Throne of Peter (February 18, 2013) does not correspond to the consistent simplicity and poverty of Pope Francis; and the prophecies about how Benedict was to have been in danger of being exiled from Rome (March 20, 2012), and, once being exiled, was still to have guided Jesus' true followers from his "place of exile" (March 29, 2013, see also February 19, 2013 and March 13, 2013) are so far from reality that one wonders whether whether anyone really believes such things in all seriousness.  A continuously updated post which may be found HERE outlines many of the instances in which Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has made public appearances while supposedly being in exile.

Francis regularly receives counsel from Benedict himself (see article here), and when they have made their rare public appearances together, they do so as a united front (as when they recently together consecrated the Vatican to the protection of St. Michael the Archangel).  One week ago, Pope Francis published his first encyclical, Lumen Fidei, the text of which is almost entirely written by Benedict, as Francis himself attests in paragraph no. 7 of the document.  One wonders how exactly a supposed "false prophet" would make so widely known the "true pope's", Benedict's writings.  Are we inexplicably seeing a false prophet disseminate a true pope's teachings, or could it be that the present pope and the former pope are working together harmoniously?

A Particular Insult

One of the more specific prophecies of Maria Divine Mercy concerns a foretold insult against Jesus' Holy Name which Pope Francis would have commited during Holy Week:

"There is to be a particular insult, which will be inflicted upon My Holy Name, in an effort to desecrate Me, during Holy Week.  This wicked gesture, during Holy Week, will be seen by those who keep their eyes open and this will be one of the signs by which you will know that the imposter [sic], who sits on the throne in My Church on earth, does not come from Me."  (March 14, 2013, bold print in original)

Throughout the messages of Maria Divine Mercy, Pope Francis has received his fair share of labeling with such terms as "imposter", though no label is applied to him more, as the successor of Pope Benedict XVI, than that of being the "False Prophet" (see, for example, January 21, 2012; April 12,2012; May 26, 2012; July 10, 2012; February 17, 2013; February 18, 2013).

So, upon the day following Pope Francis' election, this prophecy appeared that foretold a "particular insult which will by inflicted upon [Jesus'] Holy Name" by which we "will know that the imposter [sic] who sits on the throne in [the Lord's] Church on earth, does not come from" Him.  And, we are given specific timing as to when this "wicked gesture" was to be committed: during Holy Week, no less.

What would this "wicked gesture" have been?  It sounds foreboding; such language hearkens that surrounding the "desolating sacrilege" of Matthew 24:15.  What may immediately come to mind is that Pope Francis washed the feet of non-Christians and women on during the Mandatum ceremony on Holy Thursday, which actions drew comment from many quarters: comment commending the Pope for his pastoral sensitivity, along with comment indicating that the Pope's actions stepped beyond the letter of the liturgical law concerning the foot-washing ceremony.  However, the message from Holy Thursday - March 28, 2013 - indicated that this "particular insult" had not quite yet happened, though was rather "very near":  "The time for the abomination is very near.  The time for choosing between My Way, or that of the false prophet, is almost upon you.  Watch now, as the Truth will be twisted by the imposter [sic]."

Looking back on Holy Week, it is difficult to find something Pope Francis did which may have qualified as the foretold "particular insult" against Jesus' Holy Name.  His most widely reported act that week was the foot-washing of the women and non-Christians, yet, as just indicated, we know that, according the messages themselves, as of Holy Thursday the action had not yet taken place. The Celebration of the Lord's Passion on Good Friday and the Easter Vigil and Easter Sunday Masses all seemed to transpire without any occurrence which may been identified as the "abomination".  One would then wonder whether the "abomination" would have been specified by the messages themselves. There are three messages from Good Friday which we may analyze to this effect.

The first message from Good Friday is pregnant with foreboding sounding language describing circumstances which were to have commenced that very day:

"My dearly beloved daughter, today My Church on earth will be Crucified.

Today marks the beginning of the changes, which will be rapid and which will change the face of the Catholic Church in the world.
...
Watch now, as all I have told you will come to light.  I defy, those amongst you, to deny the awful truth when you are forced to swallow a lie.
...
As you now witness the Crucifixion of my Church on earth, I will call you to proclaim the Truth of God.
...
There will be those amongst you who will betray Me today."  (March 29, 2013, bold print in original)

With this first message from Good Friday we are given word of some considerably grave circumstances: "the beginning of the changes", "the Crucifixion of the Catholic Church", a betrayal, complete with the exhortation to "Watch now, as all I have told you will come to light".  Despite the heavy language with which these circumstances are presented, however, we are no closer to identifying any "particular insult" or "wicked gesture" which Pope Francis would have just then committed that Holy Week.

The Second message on Good Friday also speaks of the "Crucifixion of the Catholic Church":

"My dearly beloved daughter, history will be made today.  As My Passion is being commemorate it will, in truth, represent the Crucifixion of the Catholic Church.
...
The Crucifixion of My Mystical Body - My Church on Earth - commences today, the beginning of the final persecution, as the Masonic plan to defile My House, will now become clear to all who know the Truth.

History will now repeat itself, but the Truth will not be denied."  And so forth.  (March 29, 2013, Second Message for Good Friday).

Here again, we are presented in foreboding language circumstances of grave consequence: "the Crucifixion of the Catholic Church" and "the beginning of the final persecution". It's enough to make one, perhaps conveniently, forget all about the foretold "abomination" which Pope was supposed to have committed that Holy Week.  But, alas, whether these grave circumstances and the pope's "wicked gesture" are one and the same thing is not specified by the messages.  And, if they are implied to have meant to be the same thing, what Pope Francis exactly did that day to commit some betrayal or even the "Crucifixion of the Catholic Church" is also not identified.

The third message from Good Friday offers a slightly higher degree of specificity.  Again, a sort of betrayal is mentioned, as in the first message from that day, yet there is the further indication that this betrayal would have had something to do with kissing:

"My dearly beloved daughter when Judas Isacariot betrayed Me, he held My Head and kissed me on the cheek.  When those who lead My Church say they love Me, and then betray Me, you will see, clearly, their kiss of betrayal.

Not at My Feet will they fall.  It will not be My Feet they kiss, but those of My servants, My followers, My sinners."  (March 29, 2013, bold print in original)

*          *          *

Before analyzing what kissing may or may not had to with the said betrayal or even "particular insult", it is noteworthy to point out here that the distinction made between the Feet of Jesus and those of His servants, followers, or sinners, does not align with Jesus' biblical teaching on his presence within others.  He stated, "He who receives you receives me" (Matthew 10:40), and, most especially, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, so you do unto me" (Matthew 25:40).  One would think that by kissing the feet of Jesus' servants, followers, and even His sinners, that one is kissing the feet of Jesus Himself.  The idea that what we do to others, we do to Jesus Himself is a core theme within the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46), and the distinction made within the third message of Maria Divine Mercy's from Good Friday between the feet of Jesus and the feet of others, does not align with this scriptural truth.

*          *          *

Continuing with this message's focus on kissing the Feet of Jesus vs. those of his servants, followers, or sinners, one would wonder - since at that point Pope Francis' foot-washing ceremony the from day prior had become international news - whether the kissing mentioned entailed an allusion to the fact that Pope Francis kissed the feet of the youth upon washing them on Holy Thursday, as seen here:

Pope Francis customarily kissed the feet of those whose feet he washed on Holy Thursday, as seen in this photo from when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires and washed the feet of mothers and their babies on a prior Holy Thursday:

Kissing the feet of those whose feet he washed is also something Pope John Paul II did:

So, in what may this betrayal by kissing have to do with the "abomination" which, as of the preceding day, was "very near"?  The third message from Good Friday continues:

"Showing concern for the needs of fellow human beings is admirable.  But when you promote the physical well-being of the needs of man over their spiritual needs, it is not I, Jesus Christ, you follow.

Humanism is not Christianity.  To be Christian means surrendering all to Me, abandoning yourself in full humility at My Feet.  It means allowing Me to guide you.  It means obedience to My Laws and doing all that you can to show the example of My Love for all.  Today I was betrayed."  (March 29, 2013, bold print in original)

Following the words "Today I was betrayed", we are given no further mention of the "betrayal", and the language indicating what this betrayal may or may not have had to do with the impending "abomination" is no more specific.  After having previously received clear foretelling by the messages of Maria Divine Mercy of a "particular insult", "wicked gesture", and an "abomination", the language on Good Friday about there having been some betrayal - and what exactly it had to do with kissing - becomes much more vague.

Overall, following the third message on Good Friday which spoke of the betrayal and kissing, despite our having been assured on Holy Thursday that this abomination was "very near", there has no longer been any mention of the "particular insult" in the messages of Maria Divine Mercy. Furthermore, if one were to attempt to link the abomination with the kissing of feet, betrayal, or Crucifixion of the Catholic mentioned on Good Friday, such connection-making may only go so far since the messages do not necessarily present the abomination and betrayal or kissing of feet on Good Friday as the same thing.  For all the explicit, clear prophecy which had earlier preceded, foretelling a "particular insult" which was to take place on Holy Week, we are left with indication of an abomination which is not all too particular.

By themselves, the messages of Maria Divine Mercy do not deliver on indicating what this "particular insult" was: "This wicked gesture, during Holy Week, [which would have been] seen by those who keep their eyes open."  Following the ominous-sounding occurrences mentioned on Good Friday, Holy Week drew to a close with no further mention or indication as to what this "particular insult" was.  Unless can search out some "wicked gesture" performed by Pope Francis during Holy Week, this is one prophecy which, for all its earlier definitive language, fell flat.

But, hold on!  Someone has done just that: searched out something done by Pope Francis which may qualify as some sacrilege committed on Holy Week, and, here's a video which has been produced about it.

At first glance, one may say that this is not necessarily a "wicked gesture" to be seen by "those who keep their eyes open", but rather by those who by some chance have access to this obscure video of a portion of the Celebration of the Lord's Passion on Good Friday.

I am not yet able to verify whether the makers of this video have anything to do with Maria Divine Mercy.  However, now all that language form the third message of Good Friday about kissing the feet of Jesus' servants, followers, and sinners, appears to start falling into place.  So, if we are to momentarily ignore the contradiction that this distinction between Jesus' Feet and those of others has with the scriptural truth presented by the parable of the sheep and the goats, then we can see how this video clearly contrasts Pope Francis' not having kissed the feet of the crucifix on Good Friday, with his having kissed the feet of the youth upon washing their feet on Holy Thursday.  But in order for this contrast to have weight, it must first be proven that the act of veneration Pope Francis performed with the crucifix by touching his forehead to it, and indeed not having kissed it, actually means anything.  Though we may be used to seeing people kiss the feet of crucifixes as an act of veneration, is there anything indeed wrong in the first place with Pope Francis' not having kissed it?

The rubrics for the Celebration of the Lord's Passion don't specifically call only for kissing.  They state: "The Priest, clergy, and faithful approach to venerate the cross as if in procession.  They make a simple genuflection or perform some other appropriate sign of reverence according to the local custom, for example, kissing the Cross."  (Missale Romanum, Rubrics for Good Friday, 18)

Since Pope Francis performed some other act of veneration which would be allowed by the rubrics, it cannot be stated that the pope performed some sort of betrayal by not kissing the feet of the crucifix.

It is worth noting here that in Maria Divine Mercy's third message from Good Friday, the discussion about kissing begins by mentioning how Judas betrayed Jesus by kissing Him, not by not kissing Him: "My dearly beloved daughter when Judas Isacariot betrayed Me, he held My Head and kissed me on the cheek."  According to this message, we were to see some "kiss of betrayal"; we were not supposed to see no kissing at all: "When those who lead My Church say they love Me, and then betray Me, you will see, clearly, their kiss of betrayal."  So, on that note, the connection of this third message from Good Friday with what Pope Francis' act of veneration becomes even further implausible.

It being the case that there was nothing wrong with Pope Francis did in performing some other act of adoration besides kissing, the implication that he should for some reason have kissed the crucifix becomes arbitrary, and so too does the contrast between Pope Francis' not having kissed the crucifix after having kissed the feet of the youth the day prior.

Perhaps Pope Francis' act of veneration would possibly be reason for pause for someone who is used to only seeing kissing as an act of veneration.  From the subjective perspective of this person who may not know that some other act of veneration is allowed, another act of veneration like touching one's forehead to the crucifix may appear as a sort of slight to Jesus.  Even in such a case, Pope Francis' actions would be a far cry from a "particular insult" or "wicked gesture".  For his actions to qualify as wicked, there would have to be something objectively evil about them.  Since the act of veneration he did perform would be allowed by the rubrics, there was nothing objectively evil about it.  Perhaps he was sick and was in actuality performing an objectively good act of charity by not spreading his germs to a crucifix which would be kissed by others.  We don't know if he was sick; what we do know is that what he did can not be qualified as any "particular insult" or "wicked gesture".

And, in addition to there not having been anything wrong with the act of veneration Pope Francis performed, he later prostrated himself before the crucifix during the same service:

So, again, since we cannot read anything evil into what Pope Francis did in performing some other act of veneration besides kissing the crucifix on Good Friday, we are left without any real insult being inflicted upon the Jesus' Holy Name, let alone a particular one.

Nothing came of the "prophecy" of Maria Divine Mercy's regarding the "particular insult", "wicked gesture", or "abomination" which was supposed to have taken place during Holy Week.

Maria Divine Mercy should not be so ready to apply the term "false prophet" to others.

Welcome!

With this blog we plan to critically analyze the messages of Maria Divine Mercy, especially with regard to how the content of the messages align with Scripture and the teachings of the Church.