Did Pope Resign To Avoid Arrest, Seizure of Wealth

[olger]

Shortly after the conclave began, semi-naked feminist activists with the words "pope no more" written on their chests and backs staged a protest right next to St. Peter's Square, directly in front of the Vatican. They were tackled by police.

[Textus Receptus]

Well, I guess some of my assumptions were correct. Something BIG is a-brewing. New pope Jorge Mario Bergolio the first JESUIT pope ever elected. And I dont mean Jesuit controlled, he was and is a Jesuit!I read that 'Father' Pacwa a well known jesuit noted that Jesuits can not be popes due to their sworn oath of allegance to the General Jesuit. I think if the new pope still have the SJ as a credential on the end of his name, which he still does, he is still under that oath.

[olger]

Veddy interesting...

[Ted Oplinger]

And it appears he is choosing a name not found in the list of previous popes: Francis I

Blessings,

[John317]

Here's part of a news report about the new pope, whose name was Bergolio before it was changed to Pope Francis:

Quote:

Bergoglio twice invoked his right under Argentine law to refuse to appear in open court, and when he eventually did testify in 2010, his answers were evasive, human rights attorney Myriam Bregman said.

At least two cases directly involved Bergoglio. One examined the torture of two of his Jesuit priests — Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics — who were kidnapped in 1976 from the slums where they advocated liberation theology. Yorio accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over to the death squads by declining to tell the regime that he endorsed their work. Jalics refused to discuss it after moving into seclusion in a German monastery.

Both men were freed after Bergoglio took extraordinary, behind-the-scenes action to save them — including persuading dictator Jorge Videla's family priest to call in sick so that he could say Mass in the junta leader's home, where he privately appealed for mercy. His intervention likely saved their lives, but Bergoglio never shared the details until Rubin interviewed him for the 2010 biography.

Bergoglio — who ran Argentina's Jesuit order during the dictatorship — told Rubin that he regularly hid people on church property during the dictatorship, and once gave his identity papers to a man with similar features, enabling him to escape across the border. But all this was done in secret, at a time when church leaders publicly endorsed the junta and called on Catholics to restore their "love for country" despite the terror in the streets.

Rubin said failing to challenge the dictators was simply pragmatic at a time when so many people were getting killed, and attributed Bergoglio's later reluctance to share his side of the story as a reflection of his humility.

But Bregman said Bergoglio's own statements proved church officials knew from early on that the junta was torturing and killing its citizens, and yet publicly endorsed the dictators. "The dictatorship could not have operated this way without this key support," she said.

Bergoglio also was accused of turning his back on a family that lost five relatives to state terror, including a young woman who was 5-months' pregnant before she was kidnapped and killed in 1977. The De la Cuadra family appealed to the leader of the Jesuits in Rome, who urged Bergoglio to help them; Bergoglio then assigned a monsignor to the case. Months passed before the monsignor came back with a written note from a colonel: It revealed that the woman had given birth in captivity to a girl who was given to a family "too important" for the adoption to be reversed.

Despite this written evidence in a case he was personally involved with, Bergoglio testified in 2010 that he didn't know about any stolen babies until well after the dictatorship was over.

"Bergoglio has a very cowardly attitude when it comes to something so terrible as the theft of babies. He says he didn't know anything about it until 1985," said the baby's aunt, Estela de la Cuadra, whose mother Alicia co-founded the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in 1977 in hopes of identifying these babies. "He doesn't face this reality and it doesn't bother him. The question is how to save his name, save himself. But he can't keep these allegations from reaching the public. The people know how he is."

Source and the rest of the report:

http://news.yahoo.com/francis-first-pope-americas-193844474.html

[Bravus]

On this occasion, to my shock, I have not been proved wrong.

{waits for hch to happen by}

[Textus Receptus]

Well, I guess some of my assumptions were correct. Something BIG is a-brewing. New pope Jorge Mario Bergolio the first JESUIT pope ever elected. And I dont mean Jesuit controlled, he was and is a Jesuit!I read that 'Father' Pacwa a well known jesuit noted that Jesuits can not be popes due to their sworn oath of allegance to the General Jesuit. I think if the new pope still have the SJ as a credential on the end of his name, which he still does, he is still under that oath.

Not to mention THEY had to do it on the 13th, Ratzinger resignes on the 11th and new pope is elected on the 13th. Boy, they sure do love those numbers for some reason - said in tongue and cheek.

[Paula]

Hey, I'm not to proud to say that the "supposed" possible "prophecies" didn't pan out. That's the great thing about them... either they are or they aren't. And you know it when you see it.

I agree with you Textus that the Jesuit bit (along with the actions during the Dictatorship), and his hard line stance, is all VERY troubling.

As for the 7 Kings Prophecy, I am not sure that has or has not been "disproved". We'll have to wait and see on that one.

[hch]

Originally Posted By: Paula

T is not DEAD, and is still the spiritual leader of the church. What if for some reason, a new pope is not elected?? What if they decide to keep Pietro the ROMAN as Secretary of State and acting HEAD of the VATICAN, and keep Benedict as a spiritual head???

Or what if they simply select Pietro to be the next Pope?

My study shows that the papacy was dead when the Judgment Hour began 22 October 1844 until 22 February 1928.

Then the deadly wound was healed (22 February 1929) and thus the dead papacy was alive 22 February when a living pope was leading the papacy. It remained in that living condition until 28 February 2013. But then things changed.

After 1 March 2013 there is one that is (Francis I) and one that was (Benedict XVI Emeritus [who is still alive] ) and one that is to come (Satan personating John-Paul II).

It is like a trinity of popes.

Like getting ready for the spirits of demons to deceive the world by their miracles.

[hch]

On this occasion, to my shock, I have not been proved wrong.

{waits for hch to happen by}

Bravus & Paula & all,

I put this on another thread but it fits here as well.

I had a real problem with the election of Pope Francis I until yesterday. As I was meditating and praying, the Holy Spirit gave me peace and understanding.

Remember how the Lord has led His people in the past (cf. LS 196.2).

In 1843 and 1844, Adventists got prophecy almost right when Jesus began His work in the Sanctuary in Heaven. But it was after they missed some of the details that they were blessed with understanding.

Remember by their fulfillment Daniel and Revelation will explain themselves (cf. 7BC 949.6).

Understanding the beast with the 7 heads (Revelation 17)

1) Wounded-(Pope Pius VI)- Healed - (Pius XI)= 1 head

2) Pope Pius XII

3) Pope John XXIII

4) Pope Paul VI

5) Pope John-Paul I (5 are fallen)

6) Pope John-Paul II (1 IS)

7) Pope Benedict XVI (comes for short space)

The 8th is now Francis I, but he is not of the 7 so he does not fit the prophecy as I think the prophecy is supposed to come to pass.

Prophecy was not wrong in 1843-44 and it is not wrong now (cf. 2 SM 102.2).

The students of Bible prophecy were wrong back then and now (SpTEd 236.2; DA 459.1).

Thus to correct our understanding to align with the prophecy as they did then, we must do now (2SP 371.1).

I studied the entire book of Revelation every day and sometimes several times a day, but could not put it together.

Then yesterday morning (3/15/13) while meditating on Pope Francis I, I asked the Lord, "If I am to study to show my self approved that I need not to be ashamed, I have studied Revelation and don't understand Pope Francis, so what else am I to study?"

The Holy Spirit answered: "Daniel."

I thought a moment. "I don't understand."

Remember Revelation is an explanation of Daniel. (The prophecies of Daniel and of John are to be understood. They interpret each other. {7BC 949.6} )

Hmmm Revelation 17 is explaining something in Daniel and it flows into " Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen" (18:2).

Daniel 5 talks about the fall of Babylon.

Cyrus (a type of Christ toppled it)

There were 2 kings ruling in Babylon when it fell

Three if you count Daniel who was made 3rd ruler moments before it fell.

Papacy is Spiritual Babylon

Christ is coming to topple it

There are now 2 popes in Babylon (Benedict XVI Emeritus & Francis I) as it is ready to fall

There will be 3 when Satan appears as John-Paul II (one of the 7 is the 8th) moments before Christ Returns

Revelation 17-18 are explaining what led up to Revelation 16.

"And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon [sATAN PERSONATING JOHN-PAUL II], and out of the mouth of the beast [POPE FRANCIS I], and out of the mouth of the false prophet [bENEDICT XVI]. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth [AMERICAN PRESIDENT] and of the whole world [REMAINING HEADS OF STATE], to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty" (16:13-14)

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" (I Corinthians 13:9-10)

Consider Revelation 17:10 "And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space."

What is continue?

Strong lists several meanings.

Note:

"1c1) to remain as one, not to become another or different"

"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must remain as one, not to become another or different FOR a short space."

1) Wounded-(Pope Pius VI)- Healed - (Pius XI)= 1 head

2) Pope Pius XII

3) Pope John XXIII

4) Pope Paul VI

5) Pope John-Paul I (5 are fallen)

6) Pope John-Paul II (1 IS)

7) Pope Benedict XVI (is to remain as one, not to become another or different for short space)

8) Pope Francis I (Benedict XVI & Satan as John-Paul II)=8th

"And the beast that was [sATAN PERSONATING JOHN-PAUL II], and is not [bENEDICT XVI EMERITUS], AND he [FRANCIS I] ARE the eighth, and ARE of the seven, and goeth into perdition" (Revelation 17:11).

It's a counterfeit (false) trinity.

I have changed my understanding now that Daniel and Revelation are explaining themselves with the aide of the Holy Spirit. Please give my your feedback. But study to show yourselves approved of God lest you be hasty to think that I'm crying wolf.

(In that parable, there was a wolf and the frustrated villagers finally saw it.)

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Paula

T is not DEAD, and is still the spiritual leader of the church. What if for some reason, a new pope is not elected?? What if they decide to keep Pietro the ROMAN as Secretary of State and acting HEAD of the VATICAN, and keep Benedict as a spiritual head???

Or what if they simply select Pietro to be the next Pope?

[hch]

...

My study shows that the papacy was dead when the Judgment Hour began 22 October 1844 until 22 February 1928.

Then the deadly wound was healed (22 February 1929) and thus the dead papacy was alive 22 February when a living pope was leading the papacy. It remained in that living condition until 28 February 2013. But then things changed.

After 1 March 2013 there is one that is (Francis I) and one that was (Benedict XVI Emeritus [who is still alive] ) and one that is to come (Satan personating John-Paul II).

It is like a trinity of popes.

Like getting ready for the spirits of demons to deceive the world by their miracles.

[hch]

Well, I guess some of my assumptions were correct. Something BIG is a-brewing. New pope Jorge Mario Bergolio the first JESUIT pope ever elected. And I dont mean Jesuit controlled, he was and is a Jesuit!I read that 'Father' Pacwa a well known jesuit noted that Jesuits can not be popes due to their sworn oath of allegance to the General Jesuit. I think if the new pope still have the SJ as a credential on the end of his name, which he still does, he is still under that oath.

It is not often that three popes meet together in a group and then succeed one another.

Three men that became popes conversing together

Three popes together again

[Gordon1]

The apparent conflict (or consonance) of oaths is an intriguing question.

Could be a prophecy fulfilled.

[fccool]

Based on their own site, this 'international tribunal' consists of one Canadian:

http://itccs.org/tribunal-members/

In context of this thread is not important. What's important is... Pope is bad :)

[BobRyan]

As it turns out "details matter" -

Quote:

(Reuters) - Pope Benedict's decision to live in the Vatican after he resigns will provide him with security and privacy. It will also offer legal protection from any attempt to prosecute him in connection with sexual abuse cases around the world, Church sources and legal experts say.

"His continued presence in the Vatican is necessary, otherwise he might be defenseless. He wouldn't have his immunity, his prerogatives, his security, if he is anywhere else," said one Vatican official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"It is absolutely necessary" that he stays in the Vatican, said the source, adding that Benedict should have a "dignified existence" in his remaining years.

Vatican sources said officials had three main considerations in deciding that Benedict should live in a convent in the Vatican after he resigns on February 28.

Vatican police, who already know the pope and his habits, will be able to guarantee his privacy and security and not have to entrust it to a foreign police force, which would be necessary if he moved to another country.

"I see a big problem if he would go anywhere else. I'm thinking in terms of his personal security, his safety. We don't have a secret service that can devote huge resources (like they do) to ex-presidents," the official said.

...

The Vatican has consistently said that a pope cannot be held accountable for cases of abuse committed by others because priests are employees of individual dioceses around the world and not direct employees of the Vatican. It says the head of the church cannot be compared to the CEO of a company.

Victims groups have said Benedict, particularly in his previous job at the head of the Vatican's doctrinal department, turned a blind eye to the overall policies of local Churches, which moved abusers from parish to parish instead of defrocking them and handing them over to authorities.

The Vatican has denied this. The pope has apologized for abuse in the Church, has met with abuse victims on many of his trips, and ordered a major investigation into abuse in Ireland.

But groups representing some of the victims say the Pope will leave office with a stain on his legacy because he was in positions of power in the Vatican for more than three decades, first as a cardinal and then as pope, and should have done more.

The scandals began years before the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope in 2005 but the issue has overshadowed his papacy from the beginning, as more and more cases came to light in dioceses across the world.

As recently as last month, the former archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, was stripped by his successor of all public and administrative duties after a thousands of pages of files detailing abuse in the 1980s were made public.

[Planey]

What's important is... Pope is bad

And why would that be, eh?

Graeme

[ClubV12]

Not the Pope, he just represents the visible head of a SYSTEM (Catholicism) that prophecy says will once again rise in power and be a very serious problem for mankind.

1928, deadly wound healed? Nope! The deadly wound stopped the Roman power from being able to command and enforce worship on pain of imprisonment or death. Until THAT kind of power is restored, the deadly wound is still there. 1928 did not provide the Roman power with any civil law ability to command anyone to worship, therefore, nothing has changed in that regard from 1798.

[Textus Receptus]

Not the Pope, he just represents the visible head of a SYSTEM (Catholicism) that prophecy says will once again rise in power and be a very serious problem for mankind.

1928, deadly wound healed? Nope! The deadly wound stopped the Roman power from being able to command and enforce worship on pain of imprisonment or death. Until THAT kind of power is restored, the deadly wound is still there. 1928 did not provide the Roman power with any civil law ability to command anyone to worship, therefore, nothing has changed in that regard from 1798.

I beg to differ. The wound was healed in 1929 with the Lateran Cordant which again established the Vatican as a nation-state (Beast) by recieving its papal lands back. It is illogical to believe that the Papacy has no authorative power until the onset of the tribulation.

What you are neglecting to calculate in your analysis is that the Roman Empire already has the capacity to issue imprisonment and or a death decree visvis the Jesuits, which latently control almost every government in the world. Inaction does not translate into being powerless. Moreover, the prophesy only states that the wound was healed, meaning the beast (governemnt) was restored.

Either it's a beast (government) or not. It's an absolute not contingent on power. Granted, the papacy will need a tremndous power to fulfill the rest of the prophesy but for the reasons already mentioned this is not should not be taken into account.

[ClubV12]

Pffftttt, the Roman system doesn't have a small fraction of the power it once claimed. A world power, with civil authority to put people to death.

Until world wide power is once again attained, it's a red herring of speculation. But hey, thats just my opinion. I understand completely that 1928 is an Adventist sacred cow. :)

[Textus Receptus]

Pffftttt, the Roman system doesn't have a small fraction of the power it once claimed. A world power, with civil authority to put people to death.

Until world wide power is once again attained, it's a red herring of speculation. But hey, thats just my opinion. I understand completely that 1928 is an Adventist sacred cow.

It's not speculation, it's prophesy. Simply plug in the definitions already provided in Daniel and Revelation and omit your biases and Voila! 1929 Lateran Concordant = Beast aka Government. It's clear civics 101 that a government does not necessarly have to equate power.

However, if you wish to inject power into the grand scheme of things, lets review the scripture: And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. Rev 13:3

The operative words are "as it were wounded", other translations state, looked like it had sustained a mortal wound" ISV. This would imply that it only APPEARED to have suffered a mortal wound. The Roman Empire thusly was not dead but in transition. How or why this is had actually transpired only God knows this. Yet, if we take the approach that that the French Revolution was orchestrated by Secret Socities most notably the Freemasons under the direction of the Jesuits, then we can certainly hypothesize that it was for a reason to favor the Roman Empire at the end. It is no secret that the Jesuits and the Papacy have been at odds but of course one can only speculate. Now, again, this is speculation and therefore can not be proven - ergo my reasoning for only adhereing to what has thusly been revealed by scripture when defining prophesy.

[ClubV12]

I'm not worried about the Pope or the President. I'm worried about my God fearing, good people neighbors who go to Church every Sunday. I'm worried about ALL those folks that are SO focused on how Obama is ruining this country and it's time "we did something about it", "lets take this country back"! THOSE are the folks I'M watching! And many of them are or will be Seventh-day Adventist turn coats traitors! THOSE are the folks who will start the "movement" that will end up restoring the Roman religo/political power base and lead to the healing of the wound!

By forcing this country to pass a National Sunday law, which will be followed by a world wide Sunday law, which will be followed by a completely healed wound of the Roman power (Rev 13:3). Until that happens, it continues to bleed.

Not the Pope, not the President, not the party. Your neighbor, HE/SHE is the real threat! The daughters of the beast, the image of the beast.

I don't pay any attention to the illuminati, free masons, the mob or the boogey man. Conspiracy theories are a waste of time and energy.

[Guest]

I beg to differ. The wound was healed in 1929 with the Lateran Cordant which again established the Vatican as a nation-state (Beast) by recieving its papal lands back. It is illogical to believe that the Papacy has no authorative power until the onset of the tribulation.

What you are neglecting to calculate in your analysis is that the Roman Empire already has the capacity to issue imprisonment and or a death decree visvis the Jesuits, which latently control almost every government in the world. Inaction does not translate into being powerless. Moreover, the prophesy only states that the wound was healed, meaning the beast (governemnt) was restored.

Either it's a beast (government) or not. It's an absolute not contingent on power. Granted, the papacy will need a tremndous power to fulfill the rest of the prophesy but for the reasons already mentioned this is not should not be taken into account.

I think you're right Textus.

[ClubV12]

Have you guys read Great Controversy?

It's a terrific book and the author discusses just when the deadly would is healed. Sadly, she doesn't mention 1928.

What DOES she say happens WHEN that wound is healed? Clue: It wasn't having a tea party with politicians in '29.

“All assumptions and pre-conceived opinions are to be thoroughly tested by the standard of truth.” 1888 46.2

[Textus Receptus]

Have you guys read Great Controversy?

It's a terrific book and the author discusses just when the deadly would is healed. Sadly, she doesn't mention 1928.

What DOES she say happens WHEN that wound is healed? Clue: It wasn't having a tea party with politicians in '29.

“All assumptions and pre-conceived opinions are to be thoroughly tested by the standard of truth.” 1888 46.2

I am not sure if you are attempting to be sarcastic. However, you are correct, Sister White never mentioned that the wound was healed in 1928, due to the fact that she was/is asleep awaiting her redeemer's return 13 years prior.

Be that as it may, I am curious as to why you continue to site 1928. Will you please expound on this? I am not sure I understand the teaparty reference either.

I am afraid you are mischaracterizing the SDA position that 1929 was the year that the deadly wound was healed. A year of 1928 renders your argument moot since SDA theology dictates a 1929 position.