Author Topic: Dimonds - JPII was the antichrist (Read 2095 times)

Matto · « **on:** July 04, 2016, 08:05:44 PM »

The Dimonds have a new video once again promoting their idea that John Paul II was the antichrist. I don't agree with them, but I thought the video was interesting.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/VVf31G3q-RM[/youtube]

Prayerful · « **Reply #1 on:** July 04, 2016, 08:08:51 PM »

JP2 with his friendly attitude to pagans (culminating in the first Assisi meeting, 'arch-conservative' BXVI held the second), Lutherans and other heretics, his notion notion of salvation for all, might be suggestive of something. I'll check the video out.

snowball · « **Reply #2 on:** July 04, 2016, 09:31:30 PM »

Matto, I would recommend Sensus Fidelium instead.
Great video here, called "End Times According to
Robert Bellarmine"

Matto · « **Reply #3 on:** July 04, 2016, 10:09:53 PM »

Quote from: snowball

Matto, I would recommend Sensus Fidelium instead.
Great video here, called "End Times According to
Robert Bellarmine"

I watched your video. It is interesting. It reminds me of the most recent interview on the website Athanasius Contra Mundum (Ryan Grant's website) in which Robert Sungenis is interviewed about the Apocalypse. In your video it is stated that St. Robert Bellarmine said that it is heresy to deny that Enoch and Elias will come down from heaven to preach against the antichrist. In the interview I am thinking of, Sungenis states that he does not believe Enoch and Elias will come again, so according to Robert Bellarmine's words, Sungenis is a heretic.

Here is a link to the interview of Sungenis.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** July 05, 2016, 12:09:07 AM »

Are they insane?

JP2 was most certainly not THE Antichrist. Did JP2 persecute the Church? where were Elias and Henoch? And did JP2 try to ascend into heaven before he was struck down by God? Did he sit in the temple showing himself as God? Did he work signs and wonders by the power of the devil?
And he was Pope for a lot longer than 3 1/2 years.

And since JP2 is gone now, I suppose the world already ended and we just missed it?

:roll-laugh2:

Apparently the Dimond brothers, besides being schismatic scuмbags, are also wild-eyed madmen.

Amakusa · « **Reply #5 on:** July 05, 2016, 01:19:17 AM »

Wojtyla is described in the secret of la Salette as the forerunner of Antichrist, and not as Antichrist himself. The Secret of la Salette states that Antichrist was born during the reign of Wojtyla, and the latter may be is biological father.

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #6 on:** July 05, 2016, 01:54:18 AM »

Quote from: Amakusa

Wojtyla is described in the secret of la Salette as the forerunner of Antichrist, and not as Antichrist himself. The Secret of la Salette states that Antichrist was born during the reign of Wojtyla, and the latter may be is biological father.

You also believe Paul VI is still alive or some other moon ****. Therefore, I would take what you say with a large grain of salt.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** July 05, 2016, 07:05:23 AM »

There are certainly some interesting parallels (especially when compared to the high priests in Maccabees), but JP2 doesn't fit all the details traditionally held regarding the Antichrist and Catholic eschatology.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #8 on:** July 05, 2016, 08:50:59 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

And since JP2 is gone now, I suppose the world already ended and we just missed it?

:roll-laugh2:

:roll-laugh1:

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #9 on:** July 05, 2016, 09:47:09 AM »

LOL, I'm forced to admit that I find the Dimond's analysis more credible than the reality that JPII is now Pope St. John Paul the Great.

I do believe the Dimond's hit the nail on the head with the Video "Alert: Revelation 18:2 Just Happened":

Amakusa · « **Reply #10 on:** July 05, 2016, 02:02:25 PM »

Quote

You also believe Paul VI is still alive or some other moon ****. Therefore, I would take what you say with a large grain of salt.

It is the Church herself who teaches that Pope Paul VI is still alive, since he is the last pope peacefully accepted by the whole Church and crowned with a tiara.

The Dimond brothers draw a parallel with the Maccabean crisis, but firstly my friend Éric Faure who is a medievist had made this comparison long before them in his book "Le Pape Martyr de la fin des temps" (1999), and secondly the Maccabean situation does not fit sedevacantism, but instead Paul VI's survival, in many regards.

-During the Maccabean crisis, there were four unlawful high priests, just like there has been four antipopes nowadays, since Pope Paul VI is the last pope accepted by the whole Church.

-During this crisis, there was a legitimate high priest in exile, Onias III, just like in the present situation.

-During this crisis, Simon the treasurer of the Temple was a member of the Satanic sect of Bilga, undermined the ѕуηαgσgυє and spread lies about the true High Priest, betraying him just as Cardinal Villot betrayed Pope Paul VI and was a member of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Simon was like a second high priest (of Satan, however), just like Cardinal Villot, who held the second rank in the Vatican.

-Judas Maccabeus saw the true High Priest Onias III in a vision when he vanquished his enemies, as a symbol of the Jєωιѕн victory. In the same way, the Catholics will see Pope Paul VI come back to Rome, but believe me, it will not be a mere symbol...

I could make many more comparisons between the two situations... The Dimond brothers takes an example which does not favor sedevacantism at all.

For those who speak French, you can read a detailed comparison here: http://media.wix.com/ugd/a02570_dcae18cbe7b04dc8a93c3693d0c70dd7.pdf

And those who do not speak French can use an automatic translator, though it is far from being perfect.

Catholictrue · « **Reply #11 on:** July 05, 2016, 04:33:14 PM »

Matthew wrote: >>> the Dimond brothers, besides being schismatic scuмbags, are also wild-eyed madmen. >>>

Matthew, your comments are a reflection of your ignorance, recklessness, and hypocrisy. First, you say the Dimond brothers are ‘schismatic scuмbags’. You are wrong. But I was wondering: would you call someone like Fr. Chazal, who openly states that he rejects communion with the hierarchy and ‘pope’ he considers Catholic (which is the precise definition of schism) a ‘schismatic’?

Matthew 7:2- “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.”

I also noticed that when the Dimonds were sued some years ago in a civil lawsuit (not a criminal claim) you declared that they were ‘Busted’. Such a description clearly implies that they were guilty of something, and even of criminal violations. The civil lawsuit was later dismissed in victory for the Dimonds. Did you ever retract your false accusation, in which you declared them to have been ‘BUSTED’?

Also, did you even watch the video on which you commented? I doubt it. If so, then you prove my claim that you are ignorant. Your ignorance of the video’s content and their position is manifested by your assertion that John Paul II did not sit in the Temple of God shewing himself to be God. Actually, he did. That is covered in their material. Further, have you even carefully studied, examined and spent time with the main texts that are commonly attributed to Antichrist (2 Thess. 2, Apoc. 13, Apoc. 17, and the epistles of John concerning the doctrine of Antichrist)? I doubt it. Are you even familiar with the distinctions between the beast, the heads of the beast, etc., and how those distinctions might be important to ideas that people commonly toss around about what they think the Antichrist will or will not do and be? I doubt it. On the other hand, MHFM’s video carefully examines the text of 2 Thess. 2:3-4 – and their other videos cover the apocalyptic texts – and shows how John Paul II fulfilled it. The evidence is overwhelming. Speculations and preconceived notions people have about what they think the Antichrist will be are irrelevant. What counts is what’s in divine revelation. It’s also amazing how the Antichrist is going to deceive multitudes, yet so many people think that he's going to come in a way that everyone expects and will easily identify.

Is it your view that the current crisis is just some regular crisis and not the Great Apostasy? Is that plausible? No. If this crisis is the Great Apostasy, as it obviously is, then the deception of the Whore of Babylon, the Antichrist, etc. must all be present. That brings me to LAST TRADHICAN’S comment.

LAST TRADHICAN WROTE: >>> I'm forced to admit that I find the Dimond's analysis more credible than the reality that JPII is now Pope St. John Paul the Great. I do believe the Dimond's hit the nail on the head with the Video "Alert: Revelation 18:2 Just Happened": >>>

Tradhican, if you think they ‘hit the nail on the head’ about Revelation 18:2 having just happened, as the evidence indicates, then the deception of the Antichrist must also be present, for Scripture connects the end-times beast, and the head of the beast who is wounded and then has his image honored (the Antichrist), with the end-times Whore. You can’t separate the deception of one from the deception of the other. You can't have it both ways, as so many attempt to do. In other words, it’s not consistent to claim that we are in the Great Apostasy and the Conciliar Church is the Whore of Babylon but that the deception of the Antichrist is nowhere to be found.

Arvinger · « **Reply #12 on:** July 05, 2016, 04:51:41 PM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

Also, did you even watch the video on which you commented? I doubt it. If so, then you prove my claim that you are ignorant. Your ignorance of the video’s content and their position is manifested by your assertion that John Paul II did not sit in the Temple of God shewing himself to be God. Actually, he did. That is covered in their material. Further, have you even carefully studied, examined and spent time with the main texts that are commonly attributed to Antichrist (2 Thess. 2, Apoc. 13, Apoc. 17, and the epistles of John concerning the doctrine of Antichrist)? I doubt it. Are you even familiar with the distinctions between the beast, the heads of the beast, etc., and how those distinctions might be important to ideas that people commonly toss around about what they think the Antichrist will or will not do and be? I doubt it. On the other hand, MHFM’s video carefully examines the text of 2 Thess. 2:3-4 – and their other videos cover the apocalyptic texts – and shows how John Paul II fulfilled it. The evidence is overwhelming. Speculations and preconceived notions people have about what they think the Antichrist will be are irrelevant. What counts is what’s in divine revelation. It’s also amazing how the Antichrist is going to deceive multitudes, yet so many people think that he's going to come in a way that everyone expects and will easily identify.

That is the problem I have with Dimonds' interpretations of the Book of Revelation. While the interpretations itself are not impossible, and some even seem to be plausible at face-value, the Dimonds increasingly treat them almost as dogmatic facts. Whether we are in the last days or not is not an article of faith, no one's conscience is bound by any eschatological interpretations. In their early videos Dimonds acknowledge that, but now they attack Salza and Siscoe for not believing that we are living in the last days. No one is obliged to believe that and every Catholic is perfectly free to reject Dimonds' eschatological interpretations. I am not saying they are necesarily wrong (as I wrote, some of them are quite convincing), I am saying that they are not binding on anyone and remain within the realm of private interpretations. You can of course put forward arguments to support these interpretations and try to convince us, but you can't attack anyone for not believing them.

Personally I am not convinced that John Paul II was THE Antichrist - as Ladislaus said, there are too many details traditionally held in Catholic theology about the Antichrist which don't fit John Paul II at all. For example, the reign of Antichrist will be relatively short, while John Paul II's pontificate (anti-pontificate?) was one of the longest in Church history. Furthermore, the Antichrist should be a leader with political and military power which John Paul II did not have.

Croixalist · « **Reply #13 on:** July 05, 2016, 04:53:01 PM »

If their Antipope JPII was the Antichrist, what in the world is Francis? Their first mistake was allowing the Antichrist to die peacefully, before the false prophet's (B16) ministry, and with Christ's return and the Final Judgement nowhere in sight. Then to top it all off, we had to be informed years after the fact by a fringe group of cult members. They had their shot and they blew it big time, it's over.

One of my other favorite examples of their Satanic inspirations: Christ didn't really mean that the good thief would go to Heaven that same day (as is traditional teaching), but that every English Bible that's ever been printed misplaced the comma (or colon). So the meaning of the passage is now completely changed! What a hellbound bunch of liars and pretenders.

Croixalist · « **Reply #14 on:** July 05, 2016, 04:57:03 PM »

The Dimond's have a knack for attracting some of the strangest ideas out there.

Quote from: Amakusa

It is the Church herself who teaches that Pope Paul VI is still alive, since he is the last pope peacefully accepted by the whole Church and crowned with a tiara.

A 119-year old Montini? One more pin for the shadow box!