Clicks1.2K
en.news
21

Viganò: A Defeat of Trump Would Trigger the Antichrist

President Trump’s mission in the national and international arena is "decisive," Archbishop Viganò said during an October 1 interview.

The Archbishop sees an "epochal confrontation that has been unfolding in recent months.” For him a defeat of Trump in the upcoming U.S. elections would mean that "the final kathèkon" [withholder] (2 Thess 2:6-7) would fall.

The kathèkon is, Viganò explains, the one who prevents the mystery of iniquity and the dictatorship of the New World Order from revealing themselves.

According to Viganò, the mystery of iniquity has won Francis over to its cause. A President Biden would not have an own identity but be a marionette manoeuvred by the elites, “We would find ourselves facing an Orwellian dictatorship.”

Picture: Donald Trump, #newsUadxbwmwzl

F M Shyanguya
The changing kathèkon, according to Archbishop Viganò

October 1:

What scenarios await the Catholics of the world if Trump should lose?

If Trump loses the presidential elections, the final kathèkon [withholder] will fail (2 Thess 2:6-7), that which prevents the “mystery of iniquity” from revealing itself, and the dictatorship of the New World Order, which has already won Bergoglio over to …More
The changing kathèkon, according to Archbishop Viganò

October 1:

What scenarios await the Catholics of the world if Trump should lose?

If Trump loses the presidential elections, the final kathèkon [withholder] will fail (2 Thess 2:6-7), that which prevents the “mystery of iniquity” from revealing itself, and the dictatorship of the New World Order, which has already won Bergoglio over to its cause, will have an ally in the new American President.
- Archbishop Viganò: President Trump Has a “Decisive Mission” in the Current “Epochal Confrontation” | 1P5

October 23:

According to Archbishop Viganò, the Catholic Church has always been the resister – the kathèkon – to the plans of the Anti-Christ. “And Sacred Scripture warns us,” he says, “that at the manifestation of the Antichrist, this obstacle – the kathèkon – will have ceased to exist.” When the Church – especially her pope – ceases to resist the Evil One, something will happen. “It seems quite evident to me,” add the archbishop, “that the end times are now approaching before our eyes, since the mystery of iniquity has spread throughout the world with the disappearance of the courageous opposition of the kathèkon.”
- Archbishop Viganò sees evidence ‘that the end times are now approaching before our eyes’ By Maike Hickson, October 23, 2020 | LifeSiteNews
F M Shyanguya
Leaving aside the fact that in a span of three weeks, his kathèkon has gone from being “Trump losing the election” to now being “has always been the Catholic Church”, according to Abp Viganò, the Church will cease to exist? Well, he forgot to tell that to Christ who knows everything and who promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church established on the Rock of …More
Leaving aside the fact that in a span of three weeks, his kathèkon has gone from being “Trump losing the election” to now being “has always been the Catholic Church”, according to Abp Viganò, the Church will cease to exist? Well, he forgot to tell that to Christ who knows everything and who promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church established on the Rock of Peter.

PS They have assured themselves of victory! What Chutzpah!
Ultraviolet
"There is also a tremendous difference between a pope's personal sin..." @Baptist John Can you quote the Catechism showing that difference? No. You just fabricated that "difference" out of thin air. There was nothing "personal" about the public excesses of the Medici Popes, either. A Pope leads by example.

Likewise, you never apply your standards of "blasphemy and pagan idolatry" evenly. Hypocr…More
"There is also a tremendous difference between a pope's personal sin..." @Baptist John Can you quote the Catechism showing that difference? No. You just fabricated that "difference" out of thin air. There was nothing "personal" about the public excesses of the Medici Popes, either. A Pope leads by example.

Likewise, you never apply your standards of "blasphemy and pagan idolatry" evenly. Hypocrites like you never do. Strange you don't label Saint John Paul II an "imposter pope" for praising Pachamama or his blessings with Pachamama's witches, or his "interfaith summit" at Assisi or reverently kissing the Quran. Strange you don't condemn Benedict XVI as an "imposter pope" for praying with Muslims.

Like every hypocrite, it isn't the act that bothers you. It's the person doing it. You feign a proper Catholic outrage at the act but your always-selective focus on the person, the same person, betrays you for a fraud.

Your hypocrisy in criticizing one Pope while ignoring his predecessors is as grotesque as Leo X's gilded boy. Speaking of which, you're up at three accounts now? Four? Three for certain and you deleted the old ones.

Why is that? Ashamed of those embarrassing lusts you kept revealing? Your sanctimonious new-found piety isn't going to change that. Maybe I've house-broken you enough that you'll do a better job of hiding what you are and that's fine by me. But we both know the truth.

Creep.

The best you can do is affect some faux-religious metaphor about trolls and dogs in the absence of sound theology and honestly applied standards. Name calling ain't gonna cut it. Of course you call yourself almost as many though much more kindly sounding ones, eh? Isn't that right, "Joseph a' Christian," "Be_Ye_Separate," "Baptist John"?

You fake. You can't pick one user name and stick with it. Even on this point, you're a fake.

I've never blocked anyone because I welcome discussion. You try to suppress it. I"ve never started a second/ third/ fourth account pretending to be someone else. Or deleted the earlier accounts out of shame. You have done both. Stack your craven twisted lusts, your obvious embarrassment at seeing them being exposed, your cowardice against my... what?

Ruthless accuracy? Uncompromising standards? Arrogance? Pride at being able to defend myself against the likes of you and that greasy maggot VRS?

The truth has always been on my side which is why you run from it. You've tried debating me and you've lost. Over and over and over again.

All you have is belief, a belief that crumbles before the truth. That puts you on an equal footing with the turbaned arab bowing before a black rock in the desert or some silly Hindu painting his face and grovelling before a blue-skinned, three headed abomination. They have the same belief as you do and it's every bit as false, every bit as hollow. Which of us is truly of the devil, eh?

You speak of blasphemy, Baptist John? Apply that that to @V.R.S. who uses a symbol of Christ as his avatar while regularly returning over and over again for new re-matches to salve his wounded pride.

Now let's address the latter's inevitable errors and deflections..

"Primo, there is also a tremendous difference between one's personal sin and the gossip that he committed one."

I've linked a source that specializes in historical documentaries. The point has been referenced elsewhere

What have you linked supporting your claim it's mere "gossip"? Nothing. All you've supplied is your big mouth, as usual.

"Then, there is a tremendous difference between the date when il Moro was born (1510) and the date when G. de Medici was ordained (1517) and became Clement VII (1523)."

If you're going to start counting your points in Latin, you pretentious little fraud, at least apply your academic affectations evenly. Or don't you know how? :D

The next point is not "then", it's Secundo.

Alessandro de Medici was not Giulio de' Medici so you discussing "il Moro is a diversion. Simply put, you're pointing to a "difference" that's irrelevant to the discussion here.

It has no bearing on Pope Clement VII's actions as Pope and I -did- mention the 1500s.

"Not to mention - there is also a difference between Negros and Moors."

"Not to mention" your next point should be "Tertio", you buffoon. You can't speak Latin and it shows.

While there is a very precise difference between a Negro and a Moor, unfortunately for you, that difference was routinely ignored by writers throughout history.

"If the term "Moor" seems familiar but confusing, there’s a reason: Though the term can be found throughout literature, art, and history books, it does not actually describe a specific ethnicity or race. Instead, the concept of Moors has been used to describe alternatively the reign of Muslims in Spain, Europeans of African descent, and others for centuries.

Derived from the Latin word "Maurus," the term was originally used to describe Berbers and other people from the ancient Roman province of Mauretania in what is now North Africa. Over time, it was increasingly applied to Muslims living in Europe. Beginning in the Renaissance, "Moor" and "blackamoor" were also used to describe any person with dark skin."


Moroever, you have shown no evidence of such difference being relevant here.

I'd like to say I just sheared you, Lambchop. But that would imply you're actually a lamb. You're not.

Like the proverbial wolf, you hide behind the fleece of Agnus Dei.

What's underneath it is a petty, spiteful, vindictive little Franco-Pole appropriately mired in one of the most godless countries in Europe. How fitting you of all people should raise the subject of "Moors" since you spend your days cowering from their descendents.
.
V.R.S.
"Alessandro de Medici was not Giulio de' Medici so you discussing "il Moro is a diversion. Simply put, you're pointing to a "difference" that's irrelevant to the discussion here."
----
Incapability of the logical thinking here is terrifying. However, I'll explain: if il Moro was born in 1510 then even if we assume that the gossip on the GdM fatherhood is true: GdM was not a pope in 1510. …More
"Alessandro de Medici was not Giulio de' Medici so you discussing "il Moro is a diversion. Simply put, you're pointing to a "difference" that's irrelevant to the discussion here."
----
Incapability of the logical thinking here is terrifying. However, I'll explain: if il Moro was born in 1510 then even if we assume that the gossip on the GdM fatherhood is true: GdM was not a pope in 1510. Moreover: GdM was not even a priest in 1510. Then claims of the "source that specializes in historical documentaries" ("Clement took a black slave girl as a mistress. Their child, Allessandro, became the first black head of state...") and of VIs (drawing their historical knowledge from TV shows) who spam notoriously this site with their baloneys "(Witness Pope Clement VII taking a Negro slave girl for his mistress") are far too stupid to comment.
Ultraviolet
"Rabid Troll wrote,"that greasy maggot VRS?" and also "Name calling ain't gonna cut it." @ V.R.S. That is a contradiction." @Baptist John

Actually, it isn't. My name-calling happens in conjunction with factually disproving you and that greasy maggot V.R.S.

Your name-calling happens instead of factually disproving my claims much less factually supporting your own.

Simply put, you're incap…More
"Rabid Troll wrote,"that greasy maggot VRS?" and also "Name calling ain't gonna cut it." @ V.R.S. That is a contradiction." @Baptist John

Actually, it isn't. My name-calling happens in conjunction with factually disproving you and that greasy maggot V.R.S.

Your name-calling happens instead of factually disproving my claims much less factually supporting your own.

Simply put, you're incapable of doing anything except name-calling. Here's the difference, simplified

UV: name-calling WITH facts.
Baptist John: name-calling only.

Therefore, what I said is correct. "Name calling ain't gonna cut it."

Applied to you, the statement isn't a contradiction because name-calling is all you've got.

..assuming we ignore your hypocrisy. (double standards on name-calling, double-standards when criticizing papal behavior and so on).

"Joseph a' Christian" has double-standards a' plenty. ;-)

Are you citing the Catechism of The Catholic Church for support of your "tremendous difference"? Canon Law? Scripture? Anything at all? No. You did what you normally do. You invented a "tremendous" difference" and then got snotty when I called you out on it. .

Writing "troll" a few more times with some overblown "religious" hyperbole referencing demons and dogs and satan and whatever else passes for your silly notions of Catholic virtue-signalling won't fill the hole where all your facts should be.

Though I -do- enjoy seeing you pile on more name-calling of your own, all the while continuing your finger-wagging about (gasp!) name-calling. Again, you've proven my words true.

"Like every hypocrite, it isn't the act that bothers you. It's the person doing it."

...and when you do it, name-calling doesn't bother you at all. Hypocrite.

Now be a good little Pharisee, Joe-Joe... Throw some more abuse while complaining about abuse. Then finish your farce as you normally do with another of your pretend-pious prayers, all in the same comment.

Speaking of "contradictions," that one still escapes you and continues to brand you the worst sort of fraud. ;-)

"Incapability of the logical thinking here is terrifying." @V.R.S.


Protip: Your failed English is even more terrifying. :D Unfortunately for your "logical thinking", historians have already chronicled likely paternity of Alessandro de Medici.

Citation [18]
en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_sexually_active_popes

George L. Williams, Papal Genealogy: The Families And Descendants Of The Popes, page 74: "Clement now made Alessandro de Medici "his illegitimate son by a slave" into the first duke of Florence" , McFarland & Company, 1998, ISBN 0-7864-2071-5

en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_sexually_active_popes

Your claim that this is mere "gossip" is again disproven in a direct cited quotation from a specialist work on the subject.

"(drawing their historical knowledge from TV shows)"

Is Mr. Williams' book a "TV show"? No? That's a pity. So your claim about where I draw my historical knowledge is, again, incorrect.

So not only did Giulio di Giuliano de' Medici aka Pope Clement VII have a bastard, he later appointed his bastard as Duke of Florence

en.wikipedia.org/…o_de'_Medici,_Duke_of_Florence

If you're trying to defend Baptist John's position on "private sin", you've picked the wrong Pope. ;-) I've noticed you're not defending his "difference" using Canon Law or the Catechism as I asked of him.

Why is that? Why are you both so silent on that point? Hmmm? Well? Perhaps even you recognize it's entirely untenable.

I'm certain Baptist John does, though I doubt he cares very much. He's good at inventing "differences" where none exist and just as inept when it comes to showing the Church supports his beliefs.

Beliefs... that's all Joe-Joe has. He doesn't have facts and the Church certainly doesn't support his silly beliefs.

If you haven't noticed, even Baptist John already abandoned defending his original claim. Instead he's settled for whining about "name calling" while repeatedly doing so himself.

"who spam notoriously this site with their baloneys"

Since your "gossip" claim has been corrected on every point let's work your grammar.

Baloney needs a singular in your sentence. Also, the adverb "notoriously" goes before the verb "spam".

You should learn a language before you try insulting a native-speaker in it.

But first: Get your history straight.

Dummy. :D

It's true, there's some debate on the subject of Alessandro's parentage (as there often is for bastards) but even then, Alessandro de Medici is consistently identified by a number historians as mixed-race, something amply supported by many portraits of the man- corroborating my original claim about the ethnicity of his mother.. (note the citations [31] and [32] under "Paternity of Alessandro de' Medici"

After all, Il Moro was not Il Bianco.

With your "baloneys" I prefer wheat bread, one slice of iceberg lettuce and Gulden's mustard.

"are far too stupid to comment."

I'm always pleased when your failed English matches your failed history. Your attempts at insult end up as the most charming self-incriminations. ;-)

Your "logical thinking" fails against a direct quote by a published author on papal genealogy. And that's now, at least the third source cited on this subject.

Citations from you? Still at zero. Just more of your Vindictive Reprehensible Stupidity. eh, VRS? ;-)

Perhaps your "logical thinking" is good enough for squabbling with other Polish-speaking idiots. It won't do against Americans and our fondness for citations.. Back to Pole-Land with you. Unless you'd like me to continue carving you up.

If so, at least supply the necessary condiments.

Mint-sauce is the classic accompaniment, but I prefer a small dish of gremolata when I'm dining on Franco-Polish Lambchop. Especially when the flesh is seared and well-roasted. :D
Baptist John
There is also a tremendous difference between a pope's personal sin, and imposter pope Francis leading people in blasphemy and pagan idolatry. Francis' lying about the life giving Faith, this is the abomination of desolation.
@V.R.S. Don't bother debating the Devil's ranting trolls, it's just a dog foaming at the mouth, while trying to lure as many Catholics as possible, to furiously run in …More
There is also a tremendous difference between a pope's personal sin, and imposter pope Francis leading people in blasphemy and pagan idolatry. Francis' lying about the life giving Faith, this is the abomination of desolation.
@V.R.S. Don't bother debating the Devil's ranting trolls, it's just a dog foaming at the mouth, while trying to lure as many Catholics as possible, to furiously run in circles, chasing it's mangy tail. It knows it's time is short.
Thanks be to Almighty God.
V.R.S.
Primo, there is also a tremendous difference between one's personal sin and the gossip that he committed one. Then, there is a tremendous difference between the date when il Moro was born (1510) and the date when G. de Medici was ordained (1517) and became Clement VII (1523). But VIs do not care.
PS Not to mention - there is also a difference between Negros and Moors.
Baptist John
Rabid Troll wrote,"that greasy maggot VRS?" and also "Name calling ain't gonna cut it." @V.R.S. That is a contradiction.
Christ strengthen your faithful, through Francis' led Apostasy.
V.R.S.
@Baptist John
Oh yes. Such hypocrisy is quite amusing.
Ultraviolet
Yes, let's ask the rhetorical question @Baptist John is parrotting down below with such feigned outrage. If he wishes to equate piety in proportion to centuries past, then he has much to explain from the 1500s. Witness Pope Clement VII taking a Negro slave girl for his mistress and Pope Leo X delighting in young naked boys leaping from cakes, ultimately the Pope accidentally killed one by …More
Yes, let's ask the rhetorical question @Baptist John is parrotting down below with such feigned outrage. If he wishes to equate piety in proportion to centuries past, then he has much to explain from the 1500s. Witness Pope Clement VII taking a Negro slave girl for his mistress and Pope Leo X delighting in young naked boys leaping from cakes, ultimately the Pope accidentally killed one by having the youth gilded.

Stack the "tango Mass" (and technically "Bergoglio" wasn't even Pope yet) against Papal excesses such as those, you simpering fool. Shall we discuss the Medici and Borgia cardinals as well? Hoooo boy... :P

This is why I have such contempt for the people shocked at Pope Francis. They're ignorant of Church history and, worse, they insist on displaying their ignorance in the most obnoxious manner possible.
V.R.S.
"Witness Pope Clement VII taking a Negro slave girl for his mistress"
---
Witness another portion of daily baloney based on the pbs show promotional text.
Ultraviolet
Zero evidence shown to the contrary. Well done, Lambchop.
V.R.S.
A terrifying vision: masked Americans in their churches waiting for an Orwellian dictatorship to come.
Ultraviolet
Unlike the masked French who, in many locations, simply aren't allowed in their churches at all and are already living their Orwellian dictatorship here and now.
F M Shyanguya
Scapular
NOAHIDE LAW Pope Francis’s role in establishing Noahide Law israelinewslive.org/…en-and-jana-chat-noahide-laws/
Ultraviolet
"Francis has been against the Law of our Holy Lord Jesus, for a long time. He worshipped with pagans..." So did Saint JP II and Benedict XVI. Have you forgotten @Baptist John? Or simply choosing not to mention it because it doesn't fit your selective-outrage against Francis?
comfort ye
Well, but, the subject and mover of Vigano's fears and ours at the present is Francis.
Ultraviolet
A better choice of possessive would be "mine" instead of "ours". You certainly don't speak for me and I haven't nominated you my spokesman. To the best of my knowledge no one else has, either.. I trust that God has not and will not abandon His Church any more than He ever did with previous bad Popes.
F M Shyanguya
Abp Viganò, a Churchman who places his hope in man, misdirects.

My take: to datechon/ho katechon, now we know what was restraining the Antichrist
Baptist John
"the mystery of iniquity has won Francis over to its cause." said Vigano
Francis has been against the Law of our Holy Lord Jesus, for a long time. He worshipped with pagans, even when he was a bishop in Argentina.
He also was head of the infamous, "Tango Mass."
"Ask yourself whether one Argentinian prostitute, even only one of them, of one hundred years ago and with a minimum, a mere trace of …More
"the mystery of iniquity has won Francis over to its cause." said Vigano
Francis has been against the Law of our Holy Lord Jesus, for a long time. He worshipped with pagans, even when he was a bishop in Argentina.
He also was head of the infamous, "Tango Mass."
"Ask yourself whether one Argentinian prostitute, even only one of them, of one hundred years ago and with a minimum, a mere trace of fear of The Lord would have condoned a Post-communion Tango at Mass; just in front of the altar; two and a half meter from the Crucifix; practically in the shadow of a statue of Christ; not only in church, but in the very sanctuary." from Mundabor's Blog
mundabor.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/francis-tango-mass/