A Bishop Dressed in White?

A Bishop Dressed in White?

By Robert J. Siscoe POSTED: 2/25/13



(www.RemnantNewspaper.com) In the portion of the Third Secret revealed by the Vatican in the year 2000, there is a vision of the Holy Father passing “through a big city half in ruins”, who is then “killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions”. Earlier in the same vision, Sister Lucy also reports seeing one she identified as “a Bishop dressed in white”. Interestingly, she did not refer to the Bishop in white as the Holy Father, but only said “we had the impression that he was the Holy Father”.

Contrary to what was reported by the Vatican in 2000, the vision of the pope being killed quite obviously did not refer to the failed assassination attempt of John Paul II, who was not “killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him”, but instead survived being shot by a lone gunman. Neither did the failed assassination attempted on John Paul II see “other Bishops, Priests, men and some Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions”, being killed by the same “group of soldiers”. Clearly, the vision was referring to another event.

But the question that has puzzled many is why Sister Lucy used the term “Bishop dressed in white” in the first part of the vision, rather than the name “Holy Father”, who she later identified as being killed? Does this vision refer to two different men: one who is the Pope and another who is only dressed like a pope? Prophecies are usually unclear until they unfold, but recent events may shed a new light on this curious phrase used by Sister Lucy.

On February 11, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI stunned the world by announcing that he would abdicate his office as Pope effective on February 28, 2013. Due to this shocking news, the media was abuzz, not only with the reaction of Catholics, but also with many questions that the unexpected announcement raised. For example, an article from Reuters, dated February 13, reported that “Church officials are still so stunned by the move that the Vatican experts have yet to decide what his title will be and whether he will continue to wear the white of a pope, the red of a cardinal or the black of an ordinary priest”.

On February 20, one of these questions was answered by Fr. Georg Ratzinger, the brother of Pope Benedict XVI, who reported that the Pontiff will continue to wear white after his abdication takes effect. Two days later, on February 22, the Vatican answered the other question when it reported that Benedict XVI will retain his papal name: following his resignation, the former Pope will be referred to as His Holiness Benedict XVI, Bishop Emeritus of Rome.

On March 1st, not only will Benedict XVI be a former pope who has retained his papal name, but he will also be “a Bishop dressed in white”. Is the future “His Holiness Benedict XVI, Bishop Emeritus of Rome”, the bishop dressed in white that Sister Lucy was referring to? If so, is it he who is killed by the group of soldiers, as shown in the Vision? Or is the Vision perhaps referring to a future pope – the one Sister Lucy calls “the Holy Father” – who is reigning while Benedict XVI is still alive?

It is interesting to note that Pope St. Pius X had two visions that were similar to the Fatima Vision of Sister Lucy. In 1909, during an audience with members of the Franciscan Order, St. Pius X had a vision of a future pope fleeing Rome. He said:

“What I have seen is terrifying! Will I be the one, or will it be a successor? What is certain is that the Pope will leave Rome and, in leaving the Vatican, he will have to pass over the dead bodies of his priests!”

Just before he died Pope St. Pius X had another similar vision, in which he saw a future pope of the same name fleeing over the bodies of his brethren, before being killed himself.

“I have seen one of my successors, of the same name who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite, he will die a cruel death”.

In light of this vision, it will be very interesting if the next pope takes the name Pius XIII – “the same name” as Pius X. Time will tell how the events play out, but what appears certain is that we are progressing rapidly to the events foretold at Fatima. May we renew our courage and zeal for the Faith, always remembering the words of Our Lady of Fatima: In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph.

Get AQ Email Updates

15 comments on “A Bishop Dressed in White?

  1. St. Pius X and Benedict XVI already have the same name. There first name is Joseph.

  2. and our current pontiff is ‘quitting rome’ and will take refuge in a ‘hiding place’

    • David,
      Those are interesting points, but they seem a little, shall I say, inconclusive? Pope Benedict is not fleeing over the bodies of priests (or not yet, in any case) and Saint Pius X was speaking of a future pope of the same name, which would be “Pius” (at least at first glance). Of course, this is just the impression I get from the article.

      And this is a very interesting article. I have often wondered about Sr. Lucy’s choice of words: “a bishop dressed in white”? Current events may indeed provide the solution to the riddle.

      Pray much for Pope Benedict XVI in these final days of his reign, and for the Cardinals who will choose his successor.

  3. “In the end my Immaculate Heart will Triumph.”

    Consecration now Holy Father.

  4. The only “disclosure” regarding the third secret I personally bother with is Cardinal Ciappi’s: That the rot starts at the head. Ciappi was one of the few reliable men left in the entire Vatican after papas Roncalli and Montini allowed dissidents, queers and modernists to take over the levers of power and administration.

    Serious Catholics have been playing against marked cards and stacked decks for fifty years. Until a new marshall hits town, we’re all living in the wild frontier. I’d suggest including a revisit with Gary Cooper in “High Noon” as a meditation. We’ve already had enough of “Blazing Saddles” since 1963.

  5. As far as “fleeing over the dead bodies of priests and bishops” is concerned, let’s not forget that “dead” might mean spiritually dead, leaving a much wider interpretation to the prophecies than is usually expressed. In any case current actions by the Bishop of Rome leave a lot to be desired to say the least.

  6. Who knows the truth about the Third Secret of Fatima?

  7. Who knows? Benedict XVI knows well the full third secret, and the Garabandal miracle date. Thus a timely departure?

  8. One of the arrows hit Cardinal Keith O’Brien of Scotland this week,
    as the Bishop in White heads to Castel Gandolfo. The hierarchy (Rome) is in disarray and ruins.
    In the media’s mind the Pope has fallen (abdicated) in disgrace.

    One of these NBC, MSNBC, or New York Times reporters so anxious to get a story with controversy and scandal from the Pope should ask Benedict what happened to the piece of paper from Sister Lucia that began: “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.” For some reason the Vatican didn’t release that when they tried to explain the Third Secret of Fatima. It doesn’t matter how many times the Opus Deists or modernist apologists try to explain away the Third Secret as referring to John Paul II being shot by Mehmet Ali Agca in St. Peter’s Square on May 13, 1981. The Vatican didn’t release any note from Sister Lucia with the words “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.” And Pope Benedict has never explained why or what happened to the original.

    “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…”
    With the conclave coming up they should ask Cardinal Dolan, Bertone, George,
    and Wuerl what happened to Sister Lucia’s handwritten account of “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.”

  9. David,

    How do you know that Pope Benedict knows the date of Garabandal? If true, I think that is interesting. Where did you hear that?

  10. Isn’t it true that modern military such as the US Marines use crossbows in covert operations? Deadly and even quieter than a silenced rifle.

    “Russian Sunrise” gives that as a possible explanation, in any case.

    Then again, it could be metaphorical, as some are saying. The attacks of the mass media could be described as arrows shot at the Holy Father. The only problem with this explanation is that no one has died as a direct cause of slander and detraction in a news story. At least, not yet, to my knowledge.

    Quote: “. . . he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him”
    Source: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

  11. Gents, sorry. The local ordinaries responsible for investigating the wild claims from Garbled-bunk-all have consistently found NO supernaturality there. It’s a hoax, like SO many others, most espcially Medjugoogoo, Inc.

  12. Umm , sorry grumpy/granpa trad. I thought the church was reserving judgement on this one. Perhaps you know better.
    Pax Vob…. I probably are out of line on this one , since running off the cuff with the post. I have not revisited Garabandal info for quite some years. I remember quite clearly Conchita would reveal to the world a miracle would take place 8 days after her warning.
    And a quick google has confirmed that.
    I also remember she wrote down the date and passed it onto the pope. Surely this info would have been passed onto future popes?

  13. Thanks David.

    GPM, I suspect you are right. I used to lean towards accepting Garagandal, partly because a certain Bishop had positive things to say about it. But after I looked into it further, and after hearing this same Bishop praise The Poem of the Man God, I am now leaning in the other direction. I’m still not sure what to make of it. But if it is true, I could see the Warning happening subito.

  14. Gents, one the world’s most profitable industries is spiritual flapdoodle-ism. That is why the Church has ALWAYS condemned chasing after alleged messages from the Great Beyond until the local ordinary has confirmed it to be worthy of pious acceptance. And then it has to go through Vatican evaluation, as well.

    Garbled-bunk-all, Medjugoogoo, Bayside, that screaming/weeping/arm-flapping woman even Mother Angelica had on her live show years ago, Fr. Gobbi, etc. have been prime examples. I am not saying that the people involved were TRYING to run a scam ( except at Medjugoogoo ). They usually just let their imaginations run wild and there are plenty of suckers around to give ’em a boost, and $$$$.

    Even Akita, totally a Nervous Ordeal gig starring a statue from a previously debunked “apparition”, still has tons of folks glomming onto it. And in that case, I understand the local bishop fell for it, too.

    There are plenty of vetted, well-documented visits from Our Lord, St. Joseph, the Blessed Virgin and other Saints to study and reflect upon. Most important, in my own understanding, are the Sacred Heart private revelations, Lourdes, Fatima. If anyone is looking for more, he’s looking for trouble. La Sallete, which I hold to be a genuine visit, also needs to be carefully taken only according to the earliest record provided by the little girl. She had some real mental problems later in life and wrote a highly controversial “secret” explanation of her experience decades after it occured. At Lourdes, Bernadette was totally consistent right up to her death and lived a life of unsurpassed sanctity and meekness, by contrast.

    On all these matters, please take the block of time it requires to study St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, along with pertinent remarks from the other Doctors of the Church. Apparition and prophecy enthusiasm are mine fields.

Leave a Reply