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.