Taking his seat in the temple of God

triablogue ^ | December 10, 2014 | Steve Hayes

[RnMomof7]

Taking his seat in the temple of God

For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God…9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders (2 Thes 2:3-4,9). 

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God (WCF 25.6).

1) Traditionally, Protestants identified the papacy with the Antichrist. This post is not defending that identification. I think various individuals and institutions can exemplify the "spirit of the Antichrist" (1 Jn 4:3). 

My immediate point is not to discussion the traditional Protestant view of the papacy, but to discuss some allegations from Catholic sources–allegations which, ironically mirror the traditional Protestant identification.

In his homily given on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul on June 29, 1972, Pope Paul VI made a famous remark about the “smoke of Satan” entering into the temple of God. The full text of the homily was not reproduced in the Vatican collection of Paul VI’s teachings (Insegnamenti di Paulo VI Vol. X, 1972). Instead, a summary of the homily was given. Within the summary, however, there are some direct quotes from the Pontiff. Two of these are memorable for their references to Satan and the preternatural. 

The Holy Father asserts that he has the feeling that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God” (da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio (Insegnamenti [1972], 707). 

Later, he is quoted as saying: “We believe … that something preternatural has come into the world specifically to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent the Church from breaking out in a hymn of joy for having recovered in fullness the awareness of herself (Crediamo … in qualcosa di preternaturale venunto nel mondo proprio per turbare, per soffocare i frutti del Concilio Ecumenico, e per impedire che la Chiesa prorompesse nell’inno della gioia di aver riavuto in pienezza la coscienza di sé (Insegnamenti [1972], 708).
(notes and translations by R. Fastiggi) 

In his general audience of Nov. 15, 1972, Paul VI addressed in more detail the reality of the Devil. He stated that one of the greatest needs of the Church today is the defense against that evil we call the Devil. (Insegnamenti [1972], 1168-1173). 

http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2009/02/paul-vi-on-smoke-of-satan-june-29-1972.html

Taken in isolation, the first statement about "Satan's smoke" could be purely figurative. However, the subsequent reference to "something preternatural," as well as his general audience about the reality of the devil, suggests that his statement about "Satan's smoke" did have reference to Satanic activity. 

And what's the sphere of Satanic activity? He glosses that in terms of opposition to the Vatican II Council. That might also explain the reference to the "temple of God," since formal sessions of the Council took place in the native of St. Peter's Basilica.

Obviously, Paul VI isn't suggesting that Satan is the real power behind the papal throne. Nevertheless, this is an oddly self-incriminating statement for the pope to make about the headquarters of his own denomination.  

Are there men of the curia who are followers of satan? "Certainly there are priests and bishops. I stop at this level of ecclesiastical hierarchy - (Archbishop Milingo) said - because i am an archbishop, higher than this I cannot go." 

http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr54/cr54pg11.asp

Emmanuel Milingo became an embarrassment to the Vatican. I believe he was subsequently excommunicated and laicized. Due to the prevalence of witchcraft in Africa, he was a strong proponent of exorcism or "deliverance ministry." 

One can certainly question his credibility. However, I'm not the one who made him an archbishop of the Roman Catholic church. To the extent that he's a quack, that reflects poorly on the discernment of the Magisterium, which elevated him to its own ranks. 

Next, let's consider some statements by the late Martin Malachi. He had an impressive resume: 

He received doctorates from the universities of Louvain and Oxford and from Hebrew University in Jerusalem…he became Professor of Palaeontology and Semitic Languages at the prestigious Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and was a theological adviser to Cardinal Augustin Bea, the head of the Vatican's Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-malachi-martin-1110905.html

Among other things, he said: 

A. Windswept House is a novel. But it is 85 percent based on actual fact, and most of the personages appearing in it are real even though I have given them fictional names. 

Q. Your book [Windswept House] begins with a vivid description of a sacrilegious "Black Mass" held in 1963 in Charleston, South Carolina. Did this really happen? 

A. Yes it did. And the participation by telephone of some high officials of the church in the Vatican is also a fact. The young female who was forced to be a part of this satanic ritual is very much alive and, happily, has been able to marry and lead a normal life. She supplied details about the event. 

Q. In addition to the "Cardinal from Century City," you depict numerous other cardinals and bishops in a very bad light. Are these characterizations based on fact? 

A. Yes, among the cardinals and the hierarchy there are satanists, homosexuals, anti-papists, and cooperators in the drive for world rule. 

The Catholic Church in Crisis,” The New American, June 9, 1997. 

http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?action=printpage;topic=2940508.0 

Indeed Paul [Pope Paul VI] had alluded somberly to ‘the smoke of Satan which has entered the Sanctuary’. . . an enthronement ceremony by Satanists in the Vatican. Besides, the incidence of Satanic pedophilia—rites and practices— was already documented among certain bishops and priests as widely dispersed as Turin, in Italy, and South Carolina, in the United States. The cultic acts of Satanic pedophilia are considered by professionals to be the culmination of the Fallen Archangel’s rites. The Keys of This Blood.

This requires some sifting. With reference to the Black Mass in South Carolina, I believe he's alluding to an allegation concerning Bishop Russell and Joseph Bernardin. There is some partial, independent corroboration of this incident:

Among the hundreds of clerical sex abusers is one Msgr. Frederick J. Hopwood, a priest of the Diocese of Charleston, S.C., whose early career was closely linked to Bernardin's; and when Hopwood's sex abuse victims pressed damages against the Diocese of Charleston, attorneys for the Archdiocese of Chicago, during Bernardin's tenure, worked out the terms of settlement.

In March, 1994, six months before a former Cincinnati seminarian named Steven Cook publicly accused Bernardin of sexual abuse, newspapers in South Carolina reported that nine men had come forward to accuse Hopwood of sexual abuse in cases dating back to the 1950s.

On March 21st, 1994, Hopwood pleaded guilty to one charge of sex abuse, performed on a minor while Hopwood was rector of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist sometime in 1970-1971, in a plea agreement that put him in a therapy program instead of jail.

About the same time that Hopwood was making the news in Charleston, The Wanderer received an anonymous "fact sheet" (subsequently investigated and substantiated) that drew connections between Bernardin and Hopwood.

Both men, who were roommates at the Charleston seminary, were ordained by the late Bishop John J. Russell of Charleston (1950-1958), later bishop of Richmond; Hopwood in 1951, Bernardin in 1952. Bishop Russell was himself accused of sexual abuse.

Immediately upon Hopwood's Ordination, Russell appointed him chancellor of the diocese, a post at which he served for a few years, with Bernardin coming on as assistant chancellor in 1953, and replacing Hopwood as chancellor in 1954.

For much of the time until Bernardin was named in 1966 as an auxiliary bishop of Atlanta under his mentor, Archbishop Paul J. Hallinan, who had been bishop of Charleston from 1958-1962, Bernardin and Hopwood resided together at the cathedral rectory.

What made the Hopwood pedophilia case of more than just passing interest was the involvement of attorneys from Mayer, Brown, and Platt, the Archdiocese of Chicago's law firm, which brokered the settlement for some of Hopwood's victims.

According to an attorney familiar with the cases against Hopwood, "he was not your ordinary pedophile. He did hundreds and hundreds of boys, and I can't imagine Bernardin not being aware of it, since they lived together for such a long time.”

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/1998_06_18_Likoudis_EpiscopalScandal.htm

The allegation of a satanic enthronement ceremony at the Vatican occurs in both his nonfiction book (The Keys of This Blood) and his historical novel (Windswept House). As a Vatican insider, who worked there from about 1958 until 1965, he might well be in position to know about Satanists at the Vatican conducting blasphemous ceremonies. 

However, I have reservations about the details of Malachi's allegation:

i) The allegation about the South Carolinian incident seems to trade on the craze of recovered memories involving ritual satanic abuse and/or sexual abuse. So I find that suspect. 

ii) Sodomy and heterosexual rape are hardly interchangeable. But perhaps the motivation wouldn't be so much sexual as sacrilegious.

iii) There's the question of relative chronology. Were these in fact simultaneous events, or does his synchronization reflect artistic license in writing a historical novel? 

Finally:

In a book of memoirs released in February, the noted Italian exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth affirmed that "Yes, also in the Vatican there are members of Satanic sects." When asked if members of the clergy are involved or if this is within the lay community, he responded, "There are priests, monsignors and also cardinals!" 

The book, "Father Amorth. Memoirs of an Exorcist. My life fighting against Satan." was written by Marco Tosatti, who compiled it from interviews with the priest. 

Fr. Amorth was asked by Tosatti how he knows Vatican clergy are involved. He answered, "I know from those who have been able to relate it to me because they had a way of knowing directly." 

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/spanish_exorcist_addresses_claims_of_satanic_influence_in_vatican/

As the long-time (but now retired) Chief Exorcist of Rome, I'd expect Amorth to have extensive inside information about clerical satanism, both inside the Vatican and in the city of Rome, where many priests live and work. By that I mean, if it exists, he ought to know better than anyone. 

2) Whether or not we credit these specific allegations, we might assess their antecedent likelihood. If Satanists had access to venerable Christian shrines, it would not be surprising if they practice their rites there. The very point of the Black Mass is to defile sacred space. 

3) In addition, this concretely illustrates how something analogous to 2 Thes 2 could happen in modern times. The point is not whether a Catholic shrine is, in fact, the "temple of God," but to play on the symbolism, to offend traditional reverence, to use that as a foil to defile everything it represents–in the eyes of "the faithful." It could be the Vatican, Mount Athos, Santa Katarina, Canterbury cathedral, the Temple Mount, the Church of the Nativity, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Hallgrímskirkja, &c. 

[MHGinTN]

If you read old German, look for the paper which Alexander cited to Ice. But this is beginning to look like searching for escape clauses ...

[redleghunter]

Worth the read:

http://www.drbentownsend.com/Documents/Doct-EphraemSyrianMessage.pdf

Best I can find of a source document, although would rather read it on a site like CCEL.

As Dr. Ice stated the document does not prove the pre-trib rapture. But it does put to rest all the nonesense about Darby and some mystic making up the pre-trib rapture. The sources clearly doubt Ephraem wrote the homily, but do state that it gives an insight into the thoughts of some during the Byzantine era. So there’s that.

[MHGinTN]

Thanks for the link. Will go there now.

[MHGinTN]

An interesting read indeed! It is reflective of the times in which the Syrian lived.

[MHGinTN]

Thanks again for the link. There are more at the Ice linked site http://www.pre-trib.org . Some of the materials are astonishing in their predictive quality.

[sasportas]

There were two Ephraem's, the true one, Ephraem the Syrian, his writings clearly showing no hint of any pretrib belief, and a "Pseudo" Ephraem, writing hundreds of years later, writing falsely under the name of the "true" Ephraem, plagarizing the "true" Ephraem. Pseudonyomous, in other words.

The writings of this "Pseudo-Ephraem" are a stark contrast to what the true Ephraem wrote. The true Ephraem was very coherent and scholarly, false Ephraem just the opposite, utterly incoherent. If ever there was a unreliable document from ancient history, it is this one by false Ephraem. Modern Pretribs prove themselves as unscrupulous as false Ephraem by using such an unscrupulous plagarizer for their alleged "proof."

Trying to mimic the true Ephraem, this plagarizer is all over the board. In one place in his document he says things that "sound" to a modern pretrib ears as if he was pretrib, which modern pretribs pounce on to use as "proof," but, when you read on, you find him saying things which no pretrib would ever say.

This is what Bob Gundry, professor at Westmont College, Calif., says of the two Ephraems:

“In Pseudo-Ephraem’s sermon, Christians lie buried during the tribulation. They are raised from the dead, meet the Lord after the tribulation, so that their ‘meeting of the Lord Christ’ in the first supposedly pretrib passage, can hardly refer to a pretrib meeting without contradicting a good deal else in the sermon. Since Pseudo-Ephraem draws from true Ephraem, a look at true Ephraem offers guidelines for understanding Pseudo-Ephraem’s sermon. The guidelines turn out to be post – rather than pretrib.”

Gundry then proceeds to provide proof from the true Ephraem’s works, that the true Ephraem believed the same as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc., virtually the same belief (singular 2nd coming, post-trib rapture) as every individual who wrote in those ancient times.

[MHGinTN]

well, at least I see where you get your condescension from.

[sasportas]

Here in America, for as long as I can remember, it has been pretribism in the cat bird seat. Those of us who are post-tribs, treated like something that fell off a turnip truck. There has been missionaries who’s support has been withdrawn, forced out of missionary work, because they went against the overbearing pretribism overlords of their denomination.

Now, what is it you are saying about condescension?

[sasportas]

To make more sense out of my statement:

There has been post-trib missionaries who’s support has been withdrawn, forced out of missionary work, because their belief went against the overbearing beliefs of the pretrib overlords of their denomination.

[MHGinTN]

You jumped into this discussion by my invitation/ping to you. We aren't interested in the chips on your shoulders. The essay I linked to states clearly: "It is not at all unreasonable to expect that a prolific and prominent figure such as Ephraem would have writings ascribed to him. While there is little support for Ephraem as the author of the Sermon on the End of the World, Caspari and Alexander have demonstrated that Pseudo-Ephraem was "heavily influenced by the genuine works of Ephraem."

The first time you tried your condescension on me was with the little essay I posted regarding the Rapture. Your plea then was that no such event was ever even discussed until Darby in the 1830s. Sorry, that was shown false EVEN by this Pseudo-Ephraem sermon. Whether you wish to hold to a post trib rapture or not is your prerogative. I'm not going to even acknowledge the chips on your shoulders. I will discuss the items in the sermon more properly attributed to 'Pseudo-Ephraem' (since the earliest manuscript the German writer found dated to the late 500s, IIRC).

[sasportas]

Using the plagarist false Ephraem for proof of pretrib before Darby, per Prof. Gundry shows in his writings, is as false as pretrib itself.

Amongst a mountain of historic proof in the ECF, pretribs dismiss with the back of their hand, meanwhile turning to this incoherent “false” Ephraem character, as if he is the last word on the historic proof before Darby issue. Incredible, I tell you. Why not look to the true Ephraem instead of false Ephraem? Dishonest scholarship, in my view.

Bottom line: using false Ephraem for “proof” - instead of the ECF and the “true” Ephraem - is grasping at straws.

Chips on your shoulders, eh? Well, that is it as far as I’m concerned. This is my last to you. Find you somebody else to insult. Bye.

[MHGinTN]

*grins* See ya

[sasportas]

I should read what I type before I post it. Like this statement, which I make more sensible:

Using the plagarist false Ephraem for proof of pretrib before Darby, as Prof. Gundry has shown in his writings, is as false as pretrib itself.

[MHGinTN]

On an aside, have you perhaps read the text of Justin Maryr's trial? It has an interesting presumption:

The Prefect Rusticus says: Approach and sacrifice, all of you, to the gods. Justin says: No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety. The Prefect Rusticus says: If you do not obey, you will be tortured without mercy. Justin replies: That is our desire, to be tortured for Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and so to be saved, for that will give us salvation and firm confidence at the more terrible universal tribunal of Our Lord and Saviour.