He actually had a Jєωιѕн burial and was not just 'laid in a casket like a vampire'.

I was watching another vid from another thread and came across this video about Paul VI satanic Jєωιѕн infiltrator by the brothers.

He also wore the Jєωιѕн high priest breastplate, the ephod.

Some say the freemasons were first started by Jews but it may be a conspiracy that got started because of all the Old Testament references in masonry.
http://www.Jєωιѕнencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=361&letter=F

I think I was labeled as some kind of conspiracy theorist when I asserted that not only was Paul VI a Jew, it is also DOcuмENTED WELL that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and a Freemason.

 :scratchchin:

He wasn't the pope, period. And most certainly wasn't Catholic.

Not that a Freemason can be Catholic anyway.

Quote from: parentsfortruth

I think I was labeled as some kind of conspiracy theorist when I asserted that not only was Paul VI a Jew, it is also DOcuмENTED WELL that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and a Freemason.

 :scratchchin:

That's something that shouldn't surprise you when you have people like Stevus and Vandaler here! I agree with you that Paul VI was a mason and was also apparently a Jew. I'm still looking into him being gαy, but it would not surprise me.

From Father Villa (who has no reason to lie.):

       During the course of the proceedings of the XXXV Assembly of the Italian Bishops Cardinal Ruini, announced the decision to introduce the “cause of beatification” of Paul VI before the Pope and the Bishops. On May 13, 1992, Card. Ruini, president of the CEI and the Vicar of the Pope for Rome, issued an edict which, among other things, reads: «We invite all individual believers to communicate directly or submit to the diocesan tribunal of the Vicariate of Rome any “news” from which we can argue to some extent against the reputation of sanctity of the said “Servant of God”.»

        But Father Villa wanted to see things more clearly. So on May 25, 1992, he telephoned Secretary of State, Msgr. Nicolino Sarale, the faithful friend and collaborator of “Chiesa viva,” asking about this decision of Card. Ruini to open the “beatification” of Paul VI. Well, Msgr. Sarale told Father Villa that this decision was a “forced coup” by Card. Ruini, because most of the Italian Bishops would have never wanted it!

         The “cause of beatification” continued to proceed until the year 1997. Father Villa was aware of the fact that Card. Pietro Palazzini had sent a letter to the Postulator for the “cause of beatification” of Paul VI that contained three names of the last ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lovers of Paul VI. Cardinal Pietro Palazzini was an authority in this field, because the Cardinal held two binders of docuмents that demonstrated, unequivocally, the impure and unnatural vice of Paul VI. (Emphasis of the Author, not me by the way.)

(Then he talks about the Paul VI beatified? book that was sent out to 5,000 Italian prelates and the results of that were:)

         The result of the book was clear to everyone: it had blocked the “beatification cause” of Paul VI. No one was able to refute the volume, that is, the avalanche of “facts,” “quotations,” “docuмents” and “pictures” shown in the book, which did justice to a Pope who had committed perjury, by putting into place, during his pontificate, just the opposite of what he, himself, had promised to accomplish with a solemn oath on the day of his coronation.

I couldn't care any less than I already do what Vandeler and Stevus think at this point. They don't care what the truth is.

Its getting very peculiar here. There seems to be more and more eccentric comments from some, but in particular Raoul recently- as if he's more and more prone to para-prophecy and visions. I'm still fairly new here, having been around only a few months. However, I cant get past the fact that these posts are eccentric and are so laden with nothing of spiritual value about them.

Where is the benefit to trying to figure out all of the sins of Paul VI? How does it help you that he was gαy or Jєωιѕн? Did you get some sort of spiritual fulfillment? Closer to Jesus Christ or his Blessed Mother? Did your faith somehow become stronger? Does this make you a better Roman Catholic? It seems like its a competition amongst sede's to see who can come up with the most 'smack' on their anti-popes- and he who does so is revered and gets extra thumbs up. Those like Hobble and GV I respect and don't seem to play into this too much. I am not against SVism or anyone who shares in that opinion- but its a bit dangerous in 'saying' its not dogmatic, and then acting as such... ie

Raoul:"How can we claim innocence or ignorance when we are so apathetic, so deadened, so zombified that we don't even find it remarkable that two Jews ( there is much evidence that Wojtyla was Jєωιѕн also ) sat in the Throne of Peter in a row, both of whom were execrable heretics of the first degree?  We can find this out with one quick Internet search."

Am I not innocent if I choose only to remain faithful to the Church and not do a google search (as if google shoes only things which are True and Catholic) to learn as much smack about Popes as possible? Sounds dogmatic enough to me. I guess Christ is going to ask me during my judgement why I didn't do enough googling on Paul VI and JPII huh...?

Now, to the question of wether he, JPII and BXVI are heretics, I believe so. But it seems the SV's here can not stop at this, and I can not figure out why. Why? Why is it imperative to point out all his faults and sins and not be able to just recognize what is Catholic and what is not and keep true to the Faith and Church? What benefit do you gain? The air is thick here, and it seems as if every post possible comes down to this same debate- He's Pope! He's NOT Pope! Who the heck cares?! Its not bad to debate such things, but I don't think there has been much mind changing here... Stevus and Raoul aren't skipping down yellow brick road and holding hands yet are they??

How does trying to figure out wether popes are anti-popes and all of their sins, especially the unnatural ones help one be a good Catholic, Love Christ and His Church, ask for help from His Beautiful Mother, and pray we can all share in the Beatific Vision?  

'.... He's a Pope!... He's not a Pope!... who the heck cares?'

Are U kidding us??

s2srea, Raoul actually posted this about Paul VI being a Jew back in 2009 before he was even banned. His posts have become far less eccentric and more reasonable since he came back. Do I agree with everything he posts? No. But he has become a much more reasonable person. And as far as what roscoe keeps bringing up about Raoul posting that photoshopped pic of Pius XII, I'd imagine Raoul has repented for that by now considering he specifically stated on another thread a month or two ago that he now believes Pius XXIII was a valid Pope. He still has some problems with Pius XXIII but atleast accepts him as a valid Pontiff now.

Getting back to the original subject, I don't think Paul VI was of the Jєωιѕн religion considering he was a Freemason (unless he was into the Kabbalah, a Jєωιѕн form of masonry). But he appeared to have ties to the Jєωιѕн race, no doubt. And I believe Paul VI was one of the thousands of Freemasons, gαys, and Communists who infiltrated the Catholic Church. I read in the book "Horn of the Unicorn" (a book that details the life of Archbishop LeFebvre) that Paul VI was an enemy of LeFebvre before the Second Vatican Council was even called for. Now that certainly raises a red flag.

As for me, I definitely care who is and is not Pope. I don't go around like some (not all but some) of the sedes and obsess over who is and is not a valid Pope, but I do care. Afterall, the Church declared about 30 anti-popes before Vatican II came along, so there can be anti-popes. And you have to be careful not to accept "Popes" who are definitely false such as "Pope" Michael and "Pope" Augustine. BTW s2srea, you think Benedict is a heretic?