The Grand Inquisitor

Nobody tried to say a word as they carried him out in jest,

Except, of course, the little neighbor boy who carried him to rest,

And he just walked along alone with his guilt so well concealed,

And muttered underneath his breath: “Nothing is revealed.”

— Bob Dylan, “The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest”

At 5:50 p.m. on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, wisps of white smoke rose from the chimney above the Sistine Chapel announcing the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as the 265^th Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. An hour later, as the great bell at St. Peter’s Basilica tolled, the new Pope introduced himself to his flock as Benedict XVI.

These events confirmed some aspects of my interpretation of the prophecies of St. Malachy and Nostradamus, but contradicted others. On the positive side, there was the confusion caused by what appeared to be white smoke from the Sistine Chapel chimney during the first day of the Conclave, consistent with my reading of Nostradamus (Century VI, Quatrain 25). Even more strikingly, there was Cardinal Ratzinger’s choice of the name Benedict, after the founder of Europe’s original monastic order known as the Benedictines or “Olivetans”. Hence, the name Benedict XVI is an unequivocal reference to Malachy’s motto “The Glory of the Olive Tree”. And so, my interpretation was correct in foreseeing that the candidate elected by this Conclave would fill the role of the “Olive Tree” Pontiff.

On the negative side of the ledger, I was off base in identifying Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger as “The Glory of the Olive Tree”. My scenario of a deadlocked Conclave during which the election of an Italian Cardinal would be nullified also did not pan out. Interestingly, it appears that there was a deadlock between the conservative and progressive factions until the Conclave’s Tuesday afternoon session, when the progressive candidate Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini apparently “threw in the towel” and endorsed Cardinal Ratzinger. What induced him to do this is something about which we can only speculate at this juncture, but there are some inferences we can draw from the circumstances. We’ll examine those as we proceed in this essay.

But the most important question facing us now is this: Is Benedict XVI a Pope or an Antipope? My earlier analysis was based on the assumption that there would be some procedural irregularity which would taint the election of the “Olive Tree” candidate and stigmatize him as an Antipope. This clearly would have been the case if Cardinal Martini had been elected and his election had been nullified. I have intentionally waited several days after the announcement of Cardinal Ratzinger’s election to pick up on any rumors that such a thing might have occurred, especially in light of the puzzling white smoke on the first day of the Conclave. Based on the available information, however, there’s no indication that Martini ever polled anything close to the two-thirds needed for election. It does appear likely, however, that he controlled enough votes to deny Ratzinger a two-thirds majority.

According to the Italian press, the prospect of a drawn-out Conclave “scared off” the progressives and led Martini to send his votes to Ratzinger on Tuesday afternoon. Although Martini had shown considerable courage in rallying the progressive opposition to Ratzinger, he appears to have lost is nerve on the eve of the Conclave. In an interview just before the Conclave opened, a priest who had spent time with Martini described him as visibly distressed. A fair inference is that the Vatican hierarchy was pressuring him not to provoke a prolonged deadlock which would reveal the deep divisions within the Church. Whether there was intimidation that went beyond this is something we have no way of knowing at his point.

Be that as it may, the fact that the Vatican hierarchy felt compelled to pressure Martini to withdraw his opposition to Ratzinger in order to manufacture a two-thirds majority tells us something important. Recall that for the past 800 years Conclaves have operated under the rule that required a two-thirds vote to elect a Pontiff. In 1996 John Paul II approved an amendment to the Apostolic Constitution which provided an option to switch to a simple majority of the electors if no candidate attained a two-thirds vote after 27 ballots. Under the traditional rule, a minority of Cardinals could block a candidate they found objectionable and force the election of a compromise candidate. This was the basis of the well-known axiom that the candidate who goes into the Conclave as the apparent Pope comes out of it still a Cardinal.

In fact, the traditional two-thirds rule is essential to the notion that the choice of a Pontiff is to be guided by the Holy Spirit. It creates an opening in which politically powerful contenders can neutralize one another and a “dark horse” candidate can emerge, as Albino Cardinal Luciani did in 1978 when he was elected as Pope John Paul I. Cardinal Luciani’s election left the Cardinals – and, indeed, the whole world – sensing the hand of the Holy Spirit in the selection of the “smiling Pope”. The modification of the traditional rule enacted in 1996 effectively removes this element, effectively extracts the Holy Spirit from the process. As demonstrated by the recently concluded Conclave, the papal election has now degenerated into a contest of raw political power, indistinguishable from an election of a secular leader.

The desperation of the Vatican hierarchy to compel a two-thirds ballot for Ratzinger was a tacit acknowledgment of the questionable legitimacy of a Pope elected under the new majority voting option. Regardless of their maneuvering, however, Ratzinger’s election remains tainted in this regard, since the new rules imposed on the opposition the unappealing prospect of a prolonged Conclave ending with the inevitable election of their nemesis anyway. If the traditional rule – and the indispensable role of the Holy Spirit – had been respected, there is every reason to believe that Ratzinger would have fallen short, and a compromise candidate, such as Cardinal Lustiger, would have emerged.

True to the messages conveyed to the visionaries of La Salette and Fatima, the reign of the Pope characterized by Malachy’s motto “The Eclipse of the Sun” has been followed by the election of an Antipope by whom the true Church is eclipsed. I had anticipated the election of an essentially good man – Cardinal Lustiger – who would be forced into the role of Antipope by forces greater than himself. I proved wrong, because I was too optimistic, too hopeful. The actual reality that has played out is far more malevolent than what I had anticipated. Cardinal Ratzinger has willfully chosen to make himself “The Glory of the Olive Tree”. He has signaled this by his choice of the name Benedict. His evident desire to play out the apocalyptic scenario of St. Malachy’s prophecy was also revealed in his decision to hold the funeral of John Paul II on April 8^th, the date of solar eclipse.

One must assume that Antipope Benedict XVI fully understands the consequences of his choices, which makes them all the more frightening. If Malachy’s prophecy is fulfilled, then Benedict’s self-ordained short reign will be followed by that of the final Pope, “Peter the Roman”, who will usher in the Messianic Kingdom. But before we get to that point, Revelation Chapter 13 tells us that Peter’s predecessor will align himself with a secular Antichrist. It follows that, by consciously taking on the role of the “Olive Tree” Antipope, Ratzinger is also consciously choosing to make himself the clerical accomplice of the Beast.

It is a role for which Antipope Benedict has been well prepared by his life history. As a youth, he put himself at the service of Adolph Hitler and became part of the Nazi genocide apparatus. Others in his position remained true to their faith and went to Dachau rather than promote the aims of this most execrable form of human filth. But not Ratzinger, who was pleased to get a discount on his seminary school tuition for joining the Hitler Youth. When German students joined the worldwide student uprising against war and injustice in 1968, Ratzinger vehemently denounced them, proving himself more faithful to his patrons in the privileged elite than to the example of Jesus Christ. He was aptly chosen by the John Paul II to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and relished the role of Grand Inquisitor in extinguishing free thought and dissent within the Church. In his position as Grand Inquisitor, Ratzinger also formulated the papal encyclical castigating all non-Catholic spiritual paths as fundamentally flawed.

The list goes on and on: the “infallible” ban on female ordination, the cover-up of rampant pedophilia in the priesthood, the rationalization of persecution against homosexuals. While Ratzinger plays lip service to the social justice teachings of the Second Vatican Council, he has consistently supported the most regressive and reactionary forces in secular society. This became painfully apparent during the 2004 U.S. elections, when Cardinal Ratzinger encouraged American clergy to deny Communion to Catholic politicians who support a woman’s right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. He has made himself totally complicit in the cynical exploitation of the “right-to-life” issue by right-wing politicians to promote their greed-driven agenda. Small wonder that the neo-fascist Opus Dei sect is thrilled by the prospect of a Ratzinger papacy.

While one can understand the sycophants of the corporate State and media downplaying this litany of shame, what is truly incomprehensible is the attitude of some who claim to be devotees of Our Lady of Fatima. Have they forgotten so quickly that this is same Cardinal Ratzinger who penned the commentary on the Third Secret which reduced it to a minor “personal revelation” with no consequences at all for the future of the Church and mankind as a whole? The same Ratzinger who hid and continues to hide the actual text of Our Lady’s explanation of the Third Secret and pretends that the vision disclosed in 2000 comprises the entire Fatima prophecy? The same Ratzinger who would have us believe that Fatima’s image of a Pope being assassinated by soldiers amidst mass carnage is equivalent to the wounding of John Paul II by a lone assassin in 1981?

The fact is that Ratzinger had to suppress the Third Secret of Fatima because it is about him, about an Anitpope who will hand over his Church to a False Christ.

For my part, I apologize to my readers for lacking the imagination to comprehend the magnitude of the crisis of which the prophecies speak. Perhaps my Catholic upbringing made it difficult for me to anticipate that a Pontiff – even an Antipope – could be so vile as to willingly join forces with mankind’s Enemy. And so I fashioned a scenario in which a flawed but well-intentioned Antipope would become the reluctant tool of the Beast. I particularly owe Cardinal Lustiger and his friends an apology for casting him in the role of the “Olive Tree” Antipope. Fortunately for him, his potential fate in that direction has been now been preempted by a man who actually aspires to play that role. Several of my readers who disagreed with my identification of Cardinal Lustiger as “The Glory of the Olive Tree” have pointed out that he might also fit the description “Peter the Roman”, since he would be the first Jewish Pontiff since the Apostle Peter. While history has now proven my interpretation to be mistaken, it may yet prove that of my readers to be correct.

At any rate, I would like you all to know that I am unabashed by my failings. As those of you who have read my work know, I believe that error is the road to Truth. The important thing is that we not be afraid to put our ideas “out there” because they may prove less than 100% right. Let the Ratzinger fans adhere to the position that Truth is arrived at by stifling the free expression of ideas. We, on the other hand, hold that genuine, sincerely formulated ideas (not to be confused with expressions of venom and hate) are always worth airing, no matter how flawed those ideas may prove to be.

It’s also important that we not “throw out the baby with the bathwater”. The prophetic scenario outlined in my writings still holds, despite the fact that Ratzinger rather than Lustiger plays the part of Antipope. Ratzinger, the proponent of a crude moral absolutism, will embrace the role of false prophet for a Universal Church based on crude moral absolutism. We can already see a convergence on this new religion from the vantages points of the various “fundamentalisms” within Christianity, Islam and Judaism. It will not be long before Catholics are faced with the choice of following their presumed shepherd into this metaphysical abyss or cutting themselves loose of him and selecting a genuine disciple of Jesus Christ to lead them – the man whom St. Malachy calls “Peter the Roman”.