In new letter, Benedict blames clergy abuse on sexual revolution, Vatican II theology
April 11, 2019
Vatican City — Retired Pope Benedict XVI has published a new letter blaming the continuing Catholic clergy abuse crisis on the sexual revolution, developments in theology following the Second Vatican Council, and modern society’s aversion to speaking about God.
The letter, one of a handful the ex-pontiff has shared publicly since his resignation in 2013, immediately drew criticism from theologians and Vatican watchers. They noted it does not address structural issues that abetted abuse cover-up, or Benedict’s own contested 24-year role as head of the Vatican’s powerful doctrinal office.
The former pope instead points the finger at a range of esoteric issues, from a supposed societal “mental collapse” brought on by the protests of 1968, to a claim that the sexual revolution declared pedophilia to be “allowed and appropriate,” and to “vehement backlashes” by theologians against a 1993 encyclical by Pope John Paul II.
“Among the freedoms that the Revolution of 1968 sought to fight for was … all-out sexual freedom, one which no longer conceded any norms,” Benedict says at the beginning of his text.
“The mental collapse was also linked to a propensity for violence,” the ex-pope continues, claiming: “That is why sex films were no longer allowed on airplanes because violence would break out among the small community of passengers.”
“At the same time, independently of this development, Catholic moral theology suffered a collapse that rendered the Church defenseless against these changes in society,” says Benedict. …
Benedict continues. “At individual points it becomes suddenly apparent that what is evil and destroys man has become a matter of course.”
“Why did pedophilia reach such proportions?” asks the ex-pope, answering: “Ultimately, the reason is the absence of God.” …
Julie Hanlon Rubio, a professor of social ethics at Santa Clara University’s Jesuit School of Theology who was written extensively on sexual morality, called the ex-pope’s analysis “deeply flawed.”
“The willingness to blame a permissive culture and progressive theology for a problem that is internal and structural is stunning,” said Rubio.
Brian Flanagan, an associate professor at Marymount University in Virginia whose most recent book focuses on the church’s need for continual purification, called Benedict’s text “embarrassing.”
“The idea that ecclesial abuse of children was a result of the 1960s, a supposed collapse of moral theology, and ‘conciliarity’ is an embarrassingly wrong explanation for the systemic abuse of children and its coverup,” wrote Flanagan. https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/new-letter-benedict-blames-clergy-abuse-sexual-revolution-vatican-ii-theology
April 11, 2019
Pope Emeritus Benedict has allowed the publication of a letter he addressed to bishops and cardinals who met in February to discuss the problem of child abuse. …
The Emeritus Pope’s argument is explosive. (The full text can be read here.) In summary, Benedict charges that a revolutionary spirit from the world entered the Church in the 1960s. Possessed by that spirit, arrogant theologians determined on creating “another Church” destroyed the traditional moral theology of the Faith, leading to a complete breakdown of moral discipline in the clergy and even a generalized spirit of blasphemy, which Benedict intimately and unforgettably connects with the phenomenon of child abuse. Along the way, he points out how, having abandoned a traditional understanding of the Catholic faith, bishops and cardinals felt no compulsion to protect the Faith itself, and allowed the rights of accused clergy to develop in such a way that they totally obliterated the prerogative of serving God and passing on the faith to the next generation. “The Church is dying in [people’s] souls,” he observes in a spirit that reads equally mordant and mournful. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/pope-emeritus-benedict-letter-child-abuse-catholic-church/
So, the emeritus pontiff is blaming worldly society and apparently his church’s Vatican II for the raping of children by the Roman Catholic clergy.
Various published reports have stated that the majority of priests have violated their vows of celibacy (see ‘Pope adviser urges rethink on Catholic celibacy’ Two-thirds of Catholic priests reportedly are NOT celibate and ‘Gay Priests, Secret Rules and the Abuse of Nuns: Some of the Vatican Controversies as Bishops Meet’).
The Apostle Paul warned:
9 Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake — the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites,
10 thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, New Jerusalem Bible–a Roman Catholic approved translation)
Note: Sodomites are homosexuals.
It should be clear that many of those that have taken the vow of celibacy have not demonstrated that this leads them to be better spiritually.
The Bible shows that bishops and presbyters/elders were supposed to have a wife and children. This was partially to demonstrate they could handle a church as Paul wrote per the Roman Catholic approved Rheims New Testament:
1. FAITHFUL saying. If a man desire a Bishops office, he desireth a good work.
2. It behoveth therefore a Bishop to be irreprehensible, the husband of one wife,
sober, wise, comely, chaste, a man of hospitality, a teacher,
3. Not given to wine, no fighter, but modest, no quarreler, not covetous,
4. Well ruling his own house, chaving his children subject with all charity.
5. But if a man know not to rule his own house: how shall he have care of the Church of
God? (1 Timothy 3:1-5).
5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest reform the things that are
wanting, and shouldst ordain priests by cities, as I also appointed thee:
6. If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not in the
accusations of riot, or not obedient.
7. For a Bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not angry, nor
given to wine, no striker, nor covetous of filthy lucre (Titus 1:5-7).
Note that the term translated as priest in verse 4, presbyter, simply means elder. Also notice that the Bishop is also allowed to be married. In Eastern Orthodox circles, while their priests are allowed to be married, their bishops are not.
Clerical celibacy was NOT part of the original Christian faith.
Even the Apostle Peter had a wife (Matthew 8:14).
And sources like The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledge that from the beginning, celibacy was not a requirement for church leaders:
Turning now to the historical development of the present law of celibacy, we must necessarily begin with St. Paul’s direction (1 Timothy 3:2, 12, and Titus 1:6) that a bishop or a deacon should be “the husband of one wife”. These passages seem fatal to any contention that celibacy was made obligatory upon the clergy from the beginning (Thurston H. Transcribed by Christine J. Murray. Celibacy of the Clergy. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Celibacy became an ideal for the clergy in the East gradually, as it did in the West. In the fourth century we still find St. Gregory Nazianzen’s father, who was Bishop of Nanzianzos, living with his wife, without scandal. But very soon after that the present Eastern rule obtained. It is less strict than in the West. No one can marry after he has been ordained priest (Paphnutius at the first Council of Nicaea maintains this; the first Canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea in 314 or 325, and Can. Apost., xxvi. The Synod of Elvira about 300 had decreed absolute celibacy for all clerks in the West, Can. xxxiii, ib., pp. 238-239); priests already married may keep their wives (the same law applied to deacons and subdeacons: Can. vi of the Synod in Trullo, 692), but bishops must be celibate. As nearly all secular priests were married this meant that, as a general rule, bishops were chosen from the monasteries, and so these became, as they still are, the road through advancement may be attained (Fortesque A. Transcribed by Marie Jutras. Eastern Monasticism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Thus, the celibacy requirement for the Greco-Roman clergy did not occur until the fourth century–and many did not abide by it for centuries in various areas. Furthermore, a requirement for clerical celibacy contradicts the biblical teaching on this matter.
When the subject came up in the fourth century, a Greco-Roman bishop denounced it:
Paphnutius then was bishop of one of the cities in Upper Thebes: he was a man of such eminent piety, that extraordinary miraclas were done by him. In the time of the persecution he had been deprived of one of his eyes. The emperor honoured this man exceedingly, and often sent for him to the palace, and kissed the part where the eye had been torn out. So devout was the emperor Constantine. Having noticed this circumstance respecting Paphnutius, I shall explain. another thing which was wisely ordered in consequence of his advice, both for the good of the church and the honour of the clergy. It seemed fit to the bishops to introduce a new law into the church, that those who were in holy orders, I speak of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, should have no conjugal intercourse with the wives which they had married prior to their ordination. And when it was proposed to deliberate on this matter, Paphnutius having arisen in the midst of the assembly of bishops, earnestly entreated them not to impose so heavy a yoke on the ministers of religion: asserting that ” marriage is honourable among all, and the nuptial bed undefiled;” so that they ought not to injure the church by too stringent restrictions. ” For all men,” said he, ” cannot bear the practice of rigid continence ; neither perhaps would the chastity of each of their wives be preserved.” He termed the intercourse of a man with his lawful wife chastity. It would be sufficient, he thought, that such as had previously entered on their sacred calling should abjure matrimony, according to the ancient tradition of the church: but that none should be separated from her to whom, while yet unordained, he had been legally united…The whole assembly of the clergy assented to the reasoning of Paphnutius (Socrates Scholasticus. Book 1, Chapter XI. A History of the Church in Seven Books: From the Accession of Constantine, A.D. 305, to the 38th Year of Theodosius II, Including a Period of 140 Years. Published by S. Bagster, 1844. Original from Harvard University, pp. 53-54)
So as late as the early fourth century, the idea of required celibacy was opposed by most of the clergy.
The fruits of a supposed celibate priesthood have not been good.
It is not just because of the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960s.
Thousands and thousands have been sexually abused by Roman Catholic clerics.
That being said, I have seen reports from ‘fringe’ Catholic sites that claimed that Benedict was still pope while he was alive. Here is some reports related to that:
Is Benedict XVI the REAL pope? 4 factors fueling Vatican conspiracy theories
Benedict used incorrect Latin in his formal resignation letter, so it is invalid; alternately, they say, the cardinals in the March 2013 conclave that elected Francis violated certain procedures, so his election is null and void. …
“Juridically there is only one pope. A ‘pope emeritus’ cannot exist,” Manuel Jesus Arroba, a professor of canon law at the Pontifical Lateran University, warned in the days after Benedict announced the innovation. …
When Benedict retired, he said he would remain “hidden to the world,” living in seclusion in a monastery inside the Vatican walls. But Francis has encouraged Benedict to come out once in a while, and the former pope has not only taken part in some public events but also made his views known in letters and other communications.
No surprise, not all of his views seem to be in sync with those of Francis, which raises alarms among some, and hopes among others. https://religionnews.com/2014/11/26/benedict-xvi-real-pope-4-factors-fueling-vatican-conspiracy-theories/
Was Pope Benedict XVI Forced to Resign?
October 20, 2017
Almost five years since his momentous resignation from the papacy on February 11, 2013 for health reasons, the undeniable fact is that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI remains in the peak of health and in full control of his faculties. He has also chosen to remain in the Vatican. He has also chosen to retain the title of “pope”, as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
In his last general assembly on February 27, 2013, 2 weeks after announcing his intent to resign, Benedict XVI said that the petrine ministry is “always” and “forever”:
He who assumes the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and totally to everyone, to the whole Church. His life is, so to speak, totally deprived of the private sphere. […] The “always” is also a “forever”—there is no returning to private life. My decision to forgo the exercise of active ministry, does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences and so on. I do not abandon the cross, but remain in a new way near to the Crucified Lord.
And we have to ask: Why did Benedict XVI resign in the first place, if the petrine ministry “is forever”? Was his resignation out of his own full volition and will? Was it valid in the first place?
New revelations have come to light which give us more information on the circumstances surrounding Benedict’s mysterious resignation.
Leaked Emails Show Political Plot to Oust Benedict
A group of Catholic leaders cite new evidence uncovered in emails released by WikiLeaks that the conservative Pope Benedict did not actually resign on his own initiative, but was pushed out of the Vatican by a coup that the group of researchers are calling the “Catholic Spring.”
The group of Catholic leaders includes Christopher A. Ferrara, President of The American Catholic Lawyers Association, Michael J. Matt, Editor of The Remnant, David L. Sonnier, LTC US ARMY (Retired), Chris Jackson of Catholics4Trump.com, and Elizabeth Yore, Founder of YoreChildren.
Last January 20, 2017, the group wrote and published a letter to U.S. President Donald Trump, formally requesting him to to launch an official investigation
Call for Investigation
In their letter to President Trump, the group of Catholics leaders write: “After this e-mail discussion, which was never intended to be made public, we find that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated under highly unusual circumstances and was replaced by a pope whose apparent mission is to provide a spiritual component to the radical ideological agenda of the international left. The Pontificate of Pope Francis has subsequently called into question its own legitimacy on a multitude of occasions.” …
Two Popes in the End Times
In a message dated April 12, 2012, Jesus said that His Second Coming will happen very soon, and that Benedict XVI was the last true pope on earth:
My beloved Pope Benedict XVI is the last true pope on this Earth…I must warn you that many new self-proclaimed prophets will now emerge, who will contradict My Holy Word given to you, the end time true prophet…They, My daughter, are being sent to prepare God’s children to accept the next pope, who comes after My beloved Vicar, Pope Benedict. This pope may be elected by members within the Catholic Church, but he will be the false prophet. His electors are wolves in sheep’s clothing and are members of the secret Masonic and evil group led by Satan. This is how Satan will try to destroy My Church.
We recall here the remarkably accurate prophecy of the popes by St. Malachy.
(Simeon, Paul. Was Pope Benedict XVI Forced to Resign? Veritas Vincit, October 20, 2017. https://veritas-vincit-international.org/2017/10/20/was-pope-benedict-xvi-forced-to-resign/ accessed 03/13/18)
So, some believe that Francis may not be the legitimate successor of Benedict. Various roman Catholics have had issues with Vatican II and Benedict’s writing on the sex scandals indicates that he may have had them as well.
Perhaps I should also add that despite various ones who tried to tell me over a decade ago that Pope Benedict XVI was the final Antichrist, in my book, 2012 and the Rise of the Secret Sect, published back in 2009, I wrote:
I also want to make it clear that I do not believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the final prophesied Antichrist … (Thiel B. 2012 and the Rise of the Secret Sect. Nazarene Books, 2009, p. 198)
And his death has shown that writing to be correct.
What most articles about his death have missed is that as Cardinal Ratzigner, he re-wrote the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That was the first new version in centuries.
Joseph Ratzinger was opposed the millennial kingdom of God.
In the twentieth century, some Roman Catholics apparently were concerned so much about the millennial teaching that the Vatican decided to act against it.
Why?
Well after Adolf Hitler’s “third reich,” which was supposed to be a millennial rule, was losing WWII, the Vatican decided to officially distance itself from millennial teachings. Notice the following:
Millenium {sic}: Since the Holy Office decreed (July 21, 1944) that it cannot safely be taught that Christ at His Second Coming will reign visibly with only some of His saints (risen from the dead) for a period of time before the final and universal judgment, a spiritual millennium is seen in Apoc. 20:4-6. St. John gives a spiritual recapitulation of the activity of Satan, and the spiritual reign of the saints with Christ in heaven and in His Church on earth. When Christianity triumphed over the Beast (in its sixth head, the pagan Roman empire) Satan was chained. With the re-appearance of the Beast in the anti-Christian world empire (the seventh head), he will be unchained, and muster all his forces against the Church until the peak of the persecution under Antichrist. Meanwhile, the church enjoyed its milleniun {sic} with Christ enthroned among the nations. (LeFrois, Bernard J. Eschatological Interpretation of the Apocalypse. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. XIII, pp. 17-20; Cited in Culleton RG. The Reign of Antichrist, 1951. Reprint TAN Books, Rockford (IL), 1974, p. 9).
Notice that the above suggests that Satan has been gone a thousand years. Does any thinking person believe that Satan was ever bound and away from the earth for 1,000 years after Revelation (which Greco-Roman Catholics often refer to as the Apocalypse) was written? This has never happened literally or spiritually–though it will in the millennium (see also The Day of Atonement–Its Christian Significance). Nor have I seen any credible Greco-Roman Catholic writer attempt to explain when planet Earth ever had one thousand years without being influenced by Satan.
Why might the Vatican have issued an anti-millennial decree in 1944?
I suspect that it may have been then, because by that time, Herbert W. Armstrong (a Church of God leader) was proclaiming Christ’sGospel of the Kingdom of God enough on radio throughout North America that the Roman Catholic leaders decided to more officially distance themselves from that belief. Also, at that time, it was fairly clear that Adolph Hitler was not going to bring in a thousand year German-dominated reign, as he had indicated he would. One or both of those facts may have been factors in the timing of the Vatican’s announcement.
And while this view seemed to soften in the mid 1960s, the Vatican has gotten tougher on this is in more recent history. Joseph Ratzinger was a major factor in that.
The Roman Catholic Church, in spite of the fact that it admits that many of its claimed early saints taught the millennium, now strongly condemns this belief. Notice something that Joseph Ratzinger approved for puboication:
676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism. (Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 194).
It should be noted that the millennial teaching appears to be the only doctrine associated with Antichrist that is condemned in the current official Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is the first new one in hundreds of years). The one that has the imprimatur of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who has been called Pope Emeritus and was Pope Benedict XVI.
Notice something else that Joseph Ratzinger wrote in a paper titled The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure prior to becoming pope:
“…both Chiliasm [the teaching of the Millennium] and Montanism were declared heretical and were excluded from the universal church; for they both denied this vision [the “Christ is the end of the ages” vision] and awaited still another period of more definitive salvation to follow after the age of Christ” (as cited in Birch, pp. 515-516; note the comments within [] were from the Roman Catholic writer Birch).
This is an odd statement for several reasons. It was the leaders in Asia Minor who stood for the Millennium and were the first to oppose Montanism–whom the Roman Catholics originally tolerated (please see the article Location of the Early Church)–hence the belief in one is NOT necessarily related to the other.
The other reason this condemnation is odd, is that even though Origen was opposed to the millennium Origen also taught that there was definitive salvation after what then Cardinal Ratzinger calls “the age of Christ” (please see the article Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism). Yet pontiff emeritus Benedict XVI has publicly praised Origin as a “true teacher” (for documentation, see What is the Appropriate Form of Biblical Interpretation?).
It appears to me that the millennial view is being so definitely condemned now, because we are getting so close to that time when the Church of Rome is expected to compromise more and the Pope has prepared his followers to do that. It seems like the final revised Roman Church intends to warn against following any (like the actual two witnesses) who will be teaching the original millennial doctrine. Of course, there still are Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholics who accept the biblical teaching on the millennium–but they are becoming more and more of a minority within their church.
Why else would certain of the Roman Catholics beginning in the 20th century take so many public stands against the millennial teaching?
I believe that there are basically two reasons.
The first is that as we get closer to the end of the Church age, Greco-Roman Catholic private prophecies indicate that an apparently small religion that denies the Greco-Roman Catholic view of the Godhead will rise up and cause them problems. Notice three such “prophecies” below:
Ven. Sor Marianne de Jesus Torres (17th Century)…Our Lady told Sister Marianne:…”But this knowledge will only become known to the general public in the 20th. Century. “During this epoch the Church will find itself attacked by waves by the secret sect…” (Birch, p. 326).
Jane Le Royer (d. 1798) Sister of the Nativity…”When the time of the reign of Antichrist is near, a false religion will appear which be opposed to the unity of God and His Church. This will cause the greatest schism the world has ever known. The nearer the time of the end, the more darkness of Satan will spread on Earth, the greater will be the number of children of corruption, and the number of Just will correspondingly diminish (Culligan, pp.127,128).
Nun Anne Catherine Emmerich (about 1820): “I heard that Lucifer (if I don’t mistake) will be freed again for awhile fifty or sixty years before the year 2000 A.D. I have forgotten many of the other dates were told (Emmerich AC. The Life of Lord Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations. Schmoger edition, Vol. IV. Nihil Obstat: D. Jaegher, 14 Februari 1914. Imprimatur: A.C. De Schrevel, Brugis, 14 Februari 1914. Reprint TAN Books, Rockford (IL), 2004: pp. 353-354).
I believe that the Philadelphia-portion of the Church of God is the secret sect that is being discussed above and that we have affected the Roman Catholics in waves, starting with Herbert W. Armstrong–who put out the Plain Truth magazine for between 50-60 years before 2000 A.D. And thus, I suspect that it is Herbert W. Armstrong that the demons (I believe that demons influenced many Greco-Roman Catholic private prophecies) had Nun Emmerich see as Lucifer or more likely, being under Lucifer’s influence as Herbert Armstrong’s widely proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom of God message was the one that seems to best fit the precise timing of that prophecy.
The second reason I believe that the Philadelphia-portion of the Church of God is being discussed is that it can only be an anti-trinitarian group that Jane Le Royer could be referring to as the “trinity” is considered by Roman Catholics to represent the unity of God. It should be understood that although we in the CCOG accept “the unity of God” (deification) that early writers like Ignatius of the early 2nd century referred to (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, Chapter 9), The Catholic Encyclopedia asserts the trinity is the “unity of God” (Lebreton J. The Logos; Joyce G. The Blessed Trinity). One of the reasons, the original catholics who were called Paulicians by the Romans were persecuted was because they denied the trinitarian “unity of God” (Gibbon E. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 4. BF French, 1830, pp. 5,28,29). This looks to be a reason some may cite for future persecution. It should also be pointed out that in the 21st century, the World Council of Churches still does not allow non-trinitarian churches to be members. Warnings against doctrinal and ecumenical compromise, see also found in the free online book: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church.
The third reason is that I believe that Satan knows that eventually the true remnant of the Philadelphia portion of the Church of God will have successfully preached the gospel of the kingdom, which the Roman Catholic Church now condemns, with two coming rather large waves (Matthew 24:14; Revelation 11:3-7) to be followed by a final “wave.”
Notice that Jesus said that the gospel of the kingdom would be preached to the world immediately before the end would come:
14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come (Matthew 24:14).
Satan, who is familiar with scripture (Matthew 4:6), must know this–so our more successful preaching would be the next major “wave”. Now just before it is time to flee to a place in the wilderness (Matthew 24:20-21), this preaching abolut the millennial kingdom apparently will trigger the persecution in Daniel 11:32-35 and Revelation 12:13-15 (some Greco-Roman Catholic prophecies also seem to show that the Greco-Roman Catholic leaders will persecute those not of their fold just before and during the Great Tribulation, which appears to include those who successfully proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom as a witness).
One “wave” could be that the Continuing Church of God has already had its free online booklet The Gospel of the Kingdom of God translated into hundreds of languages–links to the various languages can be found at https://www.ccog.org. And during the time of the “short work” (cf. Romans 9:28; see also Preparing for the ‘Short Work’ and The Famine of the Word), multiple millions, if not billions, will have the ability to learn about the good news of the kingdom of God–leading to the fulfillment of Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:14.
The two-horned beast along with the ten-horned beast will promote ‘human cooperation’ as the real way to peace as opposed to believing the God of the Bible that lasting peace will not come until Jesus returns to usher in the millennial Kingdom of God. One or both will make false declarations of peace (cf. Daniel 11:21; 1 Thessalonians 5:3) and support a peace deal that will bring temporal peace, but that will be broken (Daniel 9:27; see also The ‘Peace Deal’ of Daniel 9:27).
A major “wave” warned about would seem to be the two witnesses (Revelation 11:3-12) and their supporters (please see the article Who Are The Two Witnesses?).
Other private Greco-Roman Catholic “prophecies” indicate that when their Great Monarch reigns (who is also discussed in the article Who is the King of the North?) there will be prophets (probably The Two Witnesses) who essentially will preach that Jesus is coming to establish His kingdom–but the Greco-Roman Catholic prophecies erroneously indicate that the prophets who do so will be false prophets.
The final “wave” will apparently be when Jesus comes and establishes His kingdom on the earth as a variety of private Greco-Roman Catholic prophecies specifically warn about one to come at the end who will say He is Jesus, will keep the Sabbath, will be opposed to idols, and essentially eliminate their version of Catholicism (e.g. Dionysius in Prophecy for Today by Edward Connor, 4th ed. TAN Books, Rockford (IL) 1984, p.85).
Because of this, I believe that Satan moved the Roman Catholics in the late 20th century to indicate that the millennial teaching is the major doctrine of Antichrist. (For more information, see also the article Do Greco-Roman Catholic Prophecies About Antichrist Warn Against Jesus?).
It should also be understood that various Greco-Roman Catholic writings urge/suggest that their followers vigorously persecute those that they believe will be associated with the final Antichrist. Those who stand by the truth on the biblical doctrine on the millennium will be subject to intense persecution–and that time may not be too many years away. (See also Persecutions by Church and State). Joseph Ratzunger has helped to set the stage for this!
Anyway, from a Roman Catholic prophecy perspective, if the current Pope Francis is not counted as a pontiff in the old Malachy list (see The Malachy Prophecies and “Peter the Roman”) as Benedict XVI was alive for the past nearly ten years of his pontificate, the one who comes after Francis may be the antipope of certain Greco-Roman Catholic prophecies.
The one who becomes pontiff after Francis will either be the final antichrist or at least further set the stage for him to arrive. By the way, I believe that the final Antichrist will be a type of ‘antipope’ that will betray the Church of the City of Seven Hills, consistent with the warnings of Revelation 17.
Some items of related interest may include:
Was Celibacy Required for Early Bishops or Presbyters? Some religions suggest this, but what does the Bible teach? What was the practice of the early church?
The Gospel of the Kingdom of God This free online pdf booklet has answers many questions people have about the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and explains why it is the solution to the issues the world is facing. Here are links to four related sermons: The Fantastic Gospel of the Kingdom of God!, The World’s False Gospel, The Gospel of the Kingdom: From the New and Old Testaments, and The Kingdom of God is the Solution.
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Did the original “catholic church” have doctrines held by the Continuing Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term “catholic church” to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy, Early Heresies and Heretics, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more, Saturday or Sunday?, The Godhead, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List, Holy Mother Church and Heresies, and Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language: Creencias de la iglesia Católica original.
Did The Early Church Teach Millenarianism? Was the millennium (sometimes called chiliasm) taught by early Christians? Who condemned it? Will Jesus literally reign for 1000 years on the earth? Is this time near? Three related sermons are available Let’s Talk About the Earthly Millennium, Millennial Utopia, and The Millennium.
Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity? Most act like this is so, but is it? Here is an old, by somewhat related, article in the Spanish language LA DOCTRINA DE LA TRINIDAD. Two related sermons are available: Trinity: Fundamental to Christianity or Something Else? and The Godhead and the Trinity. A brief video is also available: Three trinitarian scriptures?
The Great Monarch: Biblical and Greco-Roman Catholic Prophecies Is the ‘Great Monarch’ of Greco-Roman Catholic prophecies endorsed or condemned by the Bible? Two sermons of related interest are also available: Great Monarch: Messiah or False Christ? and Great Monarch in 50+ Beast Prophecies.
Persecutions by Church and State This article documents some that have occurred against those associated with the COGs and some prophesied to occur. Will those with the cross be the persecutors or the persecuted–this article has the shocking answer. There are also two video sermons you can watch: Cancel Culture and Christian Persecution and The Coming Persecution of the Church. Here is information in the Spanish language: Persecuciones de la Iglesia y el Estado.
Does God Have a 6,000 Year Plan? What Year Does the 6,000 Years End? Was a 6000 year time allowed for humans to rule followed by a literal thousand year reign of Christ on Earth taught by the early Christians? Does God have 7,000 year plan? What year may the six thousand years of human rule end? When will Jesus return? 2031 or ? There is also a video titled 6000 Years: When will God’s Kingdom Come? Here is a link to the article in Spanish: ¿Tiene Dios un plan de 6,000 años?
1:16:37 
