Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Raoul76 on September 22, 2009, 09:17:08 PM
-
BOO!!!
(http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,457911,00.jpg)
Got your attention? No, this is not Harvey Winkelberg the accountant dressed as Superman. This is the man they called "Pope Paul VI."
One of the most spectral and nightmarish aspects of the Vatican II crisis is that it is a fact that Montini was Jєωιѕн -- a Jєωιѕн "Pope"!!! -- yet people seem to act as if this is no big deal, even the Jєωs. This is an extraordinary, landmark event, the first Jєωιѕн "Pope" probably since St. Peter, a homecoming if you will... Yet it's swept totally under the rug.
For all the talk of our "elder brothers in the faith" and the VII dialogue and chumminess with Jєωs, why do these same Jєωs almost never comment on Montini's Jєωιѕнness? Shouldn't they be celebrating it? Where are the parades? Where are the thousands of books? Where is the Steven Spielberg movie that wrings tears from its audience as it depicts the struggles and the ultimate triumph of the little Jєωιѕн kid who "overcame" his commie father to become the first of his race to be the Universal Pastor? Cue the John Williams strings and the passel of Oscars...
Or are the nefarious powers-that-be afraid that maybe, if more people knew what Montini was, that would blow the lid off their whole charade? Because while a true converted Jєω who became the successor of Peter WOULD be the greatest conversion story since St. Paul, the problem with Montini is that he never converted but worked against the Catholic faith apparently all the way to his death. When I say that I am not judging in the place of God, who may have effected a last-minute conversion. I am simply noting that Paul VI refused even to be buried in a manner befitting a Pope but chose for his sarcophagus a plain wooden coffin, like a vampire.
(http://pro.corbis.com/images/DL003015.jpg?size=67&uid=1B1EE04A-7677-4863-92F3-171A3D4D1987)
He might as well have been buried in sneakers and a T-shirt with a Rolling Stones logo on it for all the reverence he showed to his position. This downsizing of the "papacy" was consistent throughout his supposed reign -- he also refused the Papal Tiara.
People may be ready to tolerate or even love the Jєωs based on h0Ɩ0cαųst propaganda, but are they ready for a Judaizing Jєωιѕн "Pope"? That may be going too far for all but the most liberal of Catholics, so this was all kept very hush-hush. Hush-hush, but never hidden. That is the true evil genius of their plan. If they had tried to cover up Montini's Jєωιѕн origins, it would have been impossible. So instead they just kind of allow the information to leak, things move on as normal, and soon everyone forgets. Pure mind-control or "revelation of the method" as Michael Hoffman would have it.
Think about it. The Jєωιѕн-Freemasonic takeover of the Vatican has been accomplished out in the open, not behind the scenes. The Jєωs who helped take over the Vatican could have hid themselves behind a Robert Redford-like, handsome Gentile, as they often do in Hollywood ( though not much anymore ). Instead they put a Jєωιѕн-looking Jєω right in the Throne of Peter. It is an OPEN SECRET. Here the Jєωs are showing who truly invented the "Grosse Luge" or Big Lie concept of Adolf Hitler.
No surprise there is a Vatican II book of "theology" that takes this name. Please don't ask me if that's supposed to be Jesus on the cover, but I fear it is...
(http://religioncompass.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/the-open-secret.jpg)
Now added on top of all this we have a German as "Pope" who is an indefatigable, remorseless Judaizer. Contradiction? Well, some say Hitler was really a Rothschild... And here we get back to the "Big Lie."
The entire world is languishing under a religious form of the Stockholm Syndrome. They are calling their abuser and an anti-Christ their "Pope," a man who very possibly is leading them straight to hell forever. And when someone who has broken the abuse cycle tries to tell them, tries to scream -- they don't care. They want their anti-Christ false Church. It's like they're in a nightmare where they're in cement shoes, trying to run from an attacker but unable.
Oh, the wrath of God must be brewing. 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 Jєωs ( 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. Again I will scream: THESE ARE NOT POPES OR THE CHURCH HAS FAILED.
-
Yep.
-
Got your attention? No, this is not Harvey Winkelberg the accountant dressed as Superman. This is the man they called "Pope Paul VI...
Again I will scream: THESE ARE NOT POPES OR THE CHURCH HAS FAILED.
Heh! Just look at the nose! Is that a Catholic nose? Can a Jєω be pope?
-
One of the most spectral and nightmarish aspects of the Vatican II crisis is that it is a fact that Montini was Jєωιѕн -- a Jєωιѕн "Pope"!!! --
Geesh, cant have that--ooops, thats right, Peter was a Jєω.....guess that seat has be vacante for a lot longer than we thought!!
we can also ex-off Torquemeda, Mary, the other 11 APostales..stop me when this sinks in.........Edith Stein, Mary Magdalene.... :applause:
-
Got your attention? No, this is not Harvey Winkelberg the accountant dressed as Superman. This is the man they called "Pope Paul VI...
Again I will scream: THESE ARE NOT POPES OR THE CHURCH HAS FAILED.
Heh! Just look at the nose! Is that a Catholic nose? Can a Jєω be pope?
um, yeah....if he be a Catholic (like Peter :nunchaku:)
Italians tend to have big noses like many Jєωs, and....?
-
Yikes, found another Jєω.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cristo_crucificado.jpg
-
Got your attention? No, this is not Harvey Winkelberg the accountant dressed as Superman. This is the man they called "Pope Paul VI...
Again I will scream: THESE ARE NOT POPES OR THE CHURCH HAS FAILED.
Heh! Just look at the nose! Is that a Catholic nose? Can a Jєω be pope?
psycho ward
-
Got your attention? No, this is not Harvey Winkelberg the accountant dressed as Superman. This is the man they called "Pope Paul VI...
Again I will scream: THESE ARE NOT POPES OR THE CHURCH HAS FAILED.
Heh! Just look at the nose! Is that a Catholic nose? Can a Jєω be pope?
psycho ward
me thinks so.....in their honest digust of the post V2 churchmen, they may have gone over thta edge I always warn about......even if initial posts were in jest, poor taste....... :surprised:
Me thinks giving in to :really-mad2: :argue:
-
REAL Jєωs had faith in Christ to come. Todays 'Jєωs' deny that Christ has come, and yet they are the elder brothers in the Faith?
-
One of the most spectral and nightmarish aspects of the Vatican II crisis is that it is a fact that Montini was Jєωιѕн -- a Jєωιѕн "Pope"!!! --
Geesh, cant have that--ooops, thats right, Peter was a Jєω.....guess that seat has be vacante for a lot longer than we thought!!
we can also ex-off Torquemeda, Mary, the other 11 APostales..stop me when this sinks in.........Edith Stein, Mary Magdalene.... :applause:
Neither Torquemada nor St Luke were Judaics. My understanding is thay E Stien was a marrano.
-
One of the most spectral and nightmarish aspects of the Vatican II crisis is that it is a fact that Montini was Jєωιѕн -- a Jєωιѕн "Pope"!!! --
Geesh, cant have that--ooops, thats right, Peter was a Jєω.....guess that seat has be vacante for a lot longer than we thought!!
we can also ex-off Torquemeda, Mary, the other 11 APostales..stop me when this sinks in.........Edith Stein, Mary Magdalene.... :applause:
Edith Stein is a questionable convert. It is well attested to that she did indeed attend ѕуηαgσgυє even after he said conversion.
-
Belloc, did you read what I wrote? I mentioned St. Peter and said that Paul VI would have been the first Jєωιѕн Pope since St. Peter.
The whole point of the article is that no one seems to find it remarkable that a Jєω was Pope. Even the Jєωs themselves hardly seem to write about it. They will write millions of pages about the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" but where are the books about the Jєωιѕн boy who became Pope? No matter how politically correct you are, this is not an everyday occurrence, folks.
Why aren't people celebrating? A converted Jєω becoming Pope SHOULD be the most remarkable conversion story imaginable, yet instead Paul VI's Jєωιѕн heritage is hushed up. Why? BECAUSE HE DIDN'T CONVERT! His father was a communist and so was he. Before becoming "Pope" he had sold out the Catholic bishops in China to the communists, and unlike the bishops who initiated the Donatist crisis by selling out their flock under pressure, he never repented.
Later, when he became "Pope," he Judaized the Church with cunning sophistication. He learned the Catholic religion as well as any theologian so he could undermine it from within. Jєωs are very industrious and disciplined people with a frighteningly intense work ethic. St. Paul practically built the Catholic Church with his tireless energy; and Paul VI practically destroyed it. Many others were involved of course, in both cases, but you get my drift.
Some say Wojtyla was Jєωιѕн also because his mother's name of Kaczorowski could have been a Polish elongation of the original KATZ.
http://www.metronews.co.uk/news/s/600346_the_pope_was_Jєωιѕн_says_historian
As a half-Pole I resent very much that we have never had a Pope until now and then he turns out to be an anti-Christ. So it pleases me greatly that he was in reality most likely a Jєω.
Most prophets say THE Anti-Christ will be a Jєω and now we have had two of them as Pope. But the Man of Sin is only one man... Very confusing.
-
Got your attention? No, this is not Harvey Winkelberg the accountant dressed as Superman. This is the man they called "Pope Paul VI...
Again I will scream: THESE ARE NOT POPES OR THE CHURCH HAS FAILED.
Heh! Just look at the nose! Is that a Catholic nose? Can a Jєω be pope?
Italians(mostly from the north) and some Slavs tend to have noses like Jєωs. My Grandmother and father, both have "Jєωιѕн" noses, yet neither have an ounce of Jєωιѕн blood in them.
-
Actually, some say Pope Pius X was half-Polish. Malachi Martin is one of those who have alluded to this, alas, because he is never good for credibility.
But that Pius X's father was Polish was also suggested by a history teacher named Trincia. The story is repeated as fact on the Daily Catholic:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Sep/sep05tra.htm
From pictures, he does indeed have the eternally youthful, round-eyed look of the Poles. He does not look like many Italians I have encountered.
As far as the nose issue goes -- I used to have a beaky nose but had a nose job when I was 19 ( which has caused me much regret since becoming Catholic ). It was Slavic as Caraffa mentions. Are you Polish, Caraffa?
-
Are you Polish, Caraffa?
Very little. Perhaps around 5%.
-
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.
-
Paul VI looked like a Freemason to me. Masons, like liberals and modernists, have this certain look to them usually. He didn't look overly Jєωιѕн, but I don't doubt for a second that he was a Jєω as well. Paul VI was clearly an anti-pope. I do not currently hold any of the other Vatican II Popes as anti-popes, but Paul VI I am certain of.
-
He also wore the Jєωιѕн high priest breastplate, the ephod.
Some say the freemasons were first started by Jєωs 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'm a Jєωιѕн convert, just letting everyone know that they exist.
-
I think I was labeled as some kind of conspiracy theorist when I asserted that not only was Paul VI a Jєω, it is also DOcuмENTED WELL that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and a Freemason.
:scratchchin:
-
Oh, and my previous post wasnt an affirmation that Paul VI was a Jєωιѕн convert.
He wasn't the pope, period. And most certainly wasn't Catholic.
-
He wasn't the pope, period. And most certainly wasn't Catholic.
Not that a Freemason can be Catholic anyway.
-
I think I was labeled as some kind of conspiracy theorist when I asserted that not only was Paul VI a Jєω, 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 Jєω. I'm still looking into him being gαy, but it would not surprise me.
-
I think I was labeled as some kind of conspiracy theorist when I asserted that not only was Paul VI a Jєω, 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 Jєω. 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.
-
Well, yeah. It appears Paul VI was gαy. Thanks for posting that, PFT.
-
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 Jєωs ( 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?
-
I was re-reading my post and realized I spelled "shows" as "shoes"!!
-
'.... He's a Pope!... He's not a Pope!... who the heck cares?'
Are U kidding us??
-
This is the first time I have ever heard of someone calling themselves a Catholic who doesn't seem to care who the true Pope is.
Raoul has many things correct but is at least under suspicion for the blasphemous posting of a photoshopped pic portraying Pius XII(XIII) invoking the devil.
-
s2srea, Raoul actually posted this about Paul VI being a Jєω 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?
-
'.... He's a Pope!... He's not a Pope!... who the heck cares?'
Are U kidding us??
No I'm not kidding. Read it in context... If you don't get the message, let me know and I will clarify for you.
-
Spiritus... as my response to Roscoe indicated, I wasn't trying to say I don't care who is pope and who isn't. Actually, after reading much of what you write, I find us on the same page on the majority of issues- I don't know if you've caught this. My point was was that its pointless to endlessly debate the subject and that it gets old when there are some who tirelessly try to point out the faults of those popes who have done wrong and find details about them, that in my opinion, do not add any context. Would finding out if Paul VI was a sodomite change his office of pope? C'mon now....
-
Yes, I'm aware that you and I seem to agree on many topics. My point was mainly finding out if he was a Freemason, and there appears to be strong evidence out there that he was. A Freemason cannot be Pope. Now, like you I don't like to get caught up in the whole "Pope or anti-pope" debate, but Paul VI's Papacy is one that is subject to much controversy.
-
Spiritus... as my response to Roscoe indicated, I wasn't trying to say I don't care who is pope and who isn't. Actually, after reading much of what you write, I find us on the same page on the majority of issues- I don't know if you've caught this. My point was was that its pointless to endlessly debate the subject and that it gets old when there are some who tirelessly try to point out the faults of those popes who have done wrong and find details about them, that in my opinion, do not add any context. Would finding out if Paul VI was a sodomite change his office of pope? C'mon now....
I believe it is being alleged that there can be such a blasphemy as a sodomite pope.
-
Spiritus... as my response to Roscoe indicated, I wasn't trying to say I don't care who is pope and who isn't. Actually, after reading much of what you write, I find us on the same page on the majority of issues- I don't know if you've caught this. My point was was that its pointless to endlessly debate the subject and that it gets old when there are some who tirelessly try to point out the faults of those popes who have done wrong and find details about them, that in my opinion, do not add any context. Would finding out if Paul VI was a sodomite change his office of pope? C'mon now....
I believe it is being alleged that there can be such a blasphemy as a sodomite pope.
Roscoe- what does that profit you at this point? The man is dead. God has made judgment on him. What do you gain from trying to figure it out?
-
Unless I am mistaken, it is being alleged that there can be such a thing as True Pope who is a sodomite-- Blasphemous.
-
Unless I am mistaken, it is being alleged that there can be such a thing as True Pope who is a sodomite-- Blasphemous.
Actually, unless I[/i] am mistaken, where is it written the pope would be free from sin, including the prideful sin of sodomy? Do you think there are no popes in the history of our church who have sinned? Roscoe- you make your pope a God. As I've said before, one of the prerequisites for election of someone to the papacy is that they must be human, and as humans, we all sin. What would actually be blasphemous would be someone who elevated the papacy to equality with Christ himself. Please, let us not justify the protestants thoughts on how we view the pope.
-
If a true pope can be a fornicator, which has happened, so can a true pope be a sodomite. A true pope CAN be the greatest private sinner upon the entire planet, perhaps in all of history. The one has nothing, in se, to do with the other.
-
Thank you for the clarification GV
-
Roscoe is a dogmatic sedevacantist. What's so funny is that he doesn't even think there's such thing as a sedevacantist! One of many reasons I have him on ignore.
:jester:
-
It is blasphemy to assert that a True Pope can be a sodomite.
-
Perhaps the idea is blasphemous according to the Gospel of roscoe, but, in the real world, anything is possible. Sodomy, even were it public knowledge, is not something that makes a man lose his membership in Holy Church, nor any office he might hold therein.
Look, mate, while doing what sodomites do is revolting, it does not make one incapable of holding an ecclesiastical office. You are talking nonsense, amigo. Let it go :)
-
Acc to Pope Paul IV, if a Pope were discovered to be a heretic, he would lose his office. Sodomy is heretical-- add it up.
-
Acc to Pope Paul IV, if a Pope were discovered to be a heretic, he would lose his office. Sodomy is heretical-- add it up.
Roscoe, I'm sorry but your definition of sodomy being 'heretical' is wrong. How old are you?
-
Blasphemer
-
Acc to Pope Paul IV, if a Pope were discovered to be a heretic, he would lose his office. Sodomy is heretical-- add it up.
LOL! To what degree is fornication or adultery against the faith?
Why not say sodomy = apostasy?
You have provided NOTHING to support your assertion, roscoe. Deliver something substantial and credible or cut the nonsense.
-
I think I'm beginning to realize why so many ignores... :tinfoil:
-
We know he was a freemason from the words of Padre Pio himself. That's all we really need.
-
We know he was a freemason from the words of Padre Pio himself. That's all we really need.
PFT- interested... can you cite Padre Pio?
-
Common sense says that a True Pope Cannot be a sodomite. Pls provide evidence of a True Pope who has been guilty of this.
-
Common sense says that a True Pope Cannot be a sodomite. Pls provide evidence of a True Pope who has been guilty of this.
You still haven't answered how old you are...
-
Common sense says that a True Pope Cannot be a sodomite.
So, you have NOTHING to back up your claim? Well, why not shut up?
Pls provide evidence of a True Pope who has been guilty of this.
That is not how it works, roscoe! LOL! We are just discussing the mere possibility and the burden of proof is entirely upon you.
-
Don't worry GV- I doubt anyone takes his position as an SVer serious sir
-
http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Chi___don_Villa_OK_en.pdf
Page 6:
"In the second half of 1963, Father Villa had his second meeting with Padre Pio.
As soon as he saw him, Padre Pio said: «I have been waiting for you for a long time!» Padre Pio complained about the slowness with which Father Luigi had been proceeding with his assignment.
At the end of the encounter, Padre Pio embraced Father Villa and said: «Courage, courage, courage! for the Church is already invaded by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ,» adding: «Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ has already reached the Pope’s slippers.» (Paul VI!)"
-
Thanks!
-
Yeah I don't just make stuff up. If I'm making some kind of statement, I have backup for it. And when I don't, I qualify it as an opinion.
-
Blasphemer
Interesting coming from a man who claims he had the Wounds of Christ for five years yet refused to post his alleged pictures and labelled those who criticized him as "Jansenist hypocrites".
-
Common sense says that a True Pope Cannot be a sodomite. Pls provide evidence of a True Pope who has been guilty of this.
You still haven't answered how old you are...
Roscoe said a few months back that he is 60. But I think he might be about 40 or so. I doubt he's 60.
-
Common sense says that a True Pope Cannot be a sodomite. Pls provide evidence of a True Pope who has been guilty of this.
You still haven't answered how old you are...
Roscoe said a few months back that he is 60. But I think he might be about 40 or so. I doubt he's 60.
Wow- I was thinking more like 15 or 16... But thats interesting.
-
Smoking pot at the age of 15 or 16? I hope not. But in this crazy time you never know, do you?
-
Got your attention? No, this is not Harvey Winkelberg the accountant dressed as Superman. This is the man they called "Pope Paul VI...
Again I will scream: THESE ARE NOT POPES OR THE CHURCH HAS FAILED.
Heh! Just look at the nose! Is that a Catholic nose? Can a Jєω be pope?
psycho ward
Please tell me you're joking.
-
It is blasphemy to assert that a True Pope can be a sodomite.
And a heretic cant be a true Pope. Hasn't been one of those in awhile.
-
Is this for real? I am a strict sedevacantist. But Paul VI a Jєω? He may have been the destroyer of the Mass he may have been a sodomite he may have destroyed Papal respectibility he may have been a Freemason but a Jєω?
Someones been into the funny grass. :smoke-pot:
-
I like the post prev to the one directly above but be careful as u are on thin ice.
-
Though I have developed a more mature approach since starting this thread, and it's embarrassing to me to see how crazed I used to be, saying Montini is a Jєω is apparently proven. Father Saenz y Arriaga and others state flat-out he had Jєωιѕн ancestry. Famously, he wore the Jєωιѕн breastplate, the ephod.
Even if there were no direct proof, it would not be wrong to suspect him of being a Jєω, because his actions lead directly to that suspicion. Suspicion is only wrong if there isn't sufficient basis for it. Some people adopt the pseudo-pious position that this means we must have proof, preferably a video or a photograph or whatever. But if we had that, it wouldn't be "suspicion" anymore, would it? Suspecting someone of being a Jєω because they have a big nose and are cheap would be wrong, but it is not wrong to suspect the "Pope" who convoked an anti-Catholic and Judaizing Council, who wore an ephod, and who spurned almost every element of the papacy -- going so far as to be buried in a plain wooden coffin -- of being a Jєω.
However, that is all moot since apparently it is proven that Montini's mother is a Jєω. That makes him a Jєω. Period.
-
The term "Jєω" has lost all meaning. There are no more "Jєωs" as in the Hebrews of the Old Testament remaining in the world. The Nation of Israel was destroyed by God and the people were dispersed only to be utterly diluted out of existence. Those who claim they are Jєωιѕн today, as in the biblical sense of the term, are delusional. If there were a country (pick an imaginary name) that was destroyed over 2,000 years ago and I come along today and claim that I am of that Nation today, you'd look at me like I was crazy. Why do people simply assume they are what they say they are?
-
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.
It's Vandaler, not Vandeler.
In this case, you're quite right, I don't care.
-
Acc to Pope Paul IV, if a Pope were discovered to be a heretic, he would lose his office. Sodomy is heretical-- add it up.
Are the other three sins which cry to Heaven for vengeance also heretical?
-
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.
It's Vandaler, not Vandeler.
In this case, you're quite right, I don't care.
And that's why you have a reputation of zero.
-
And that's why you have a reputation of zero.
:laugh1:
My reputation HERE is zero, because I am against the grain.
I'd love to see your reputation in the wild, where the real world live, and not in this comfortable nest of conformity where your ideas are received favorably.
-
And that's why you have a reputation of zero.
:laugh1:
My reputation HERE is zero, because I am against the grain.
I'd love to see your reputation in the wild, where the real world live, and not in this comfortable nest of conformity where your ideas are received favorably.
That's rather subjective, your "comfortable nest of conformity" is in fact the world in which you live and the spirit of which you appear to imbide, your accuracy regarding secular events notwithstanding.
-
And that's why you have a reputation of zero.
:laugh1:
My reputation HERE is zero, because I am against the grain.
I'd love to see your reputation in the wild, where the real world live, and not in this comfortable nest of conformity where your ideas are received favorably.
That's rather subjective, your "comfortable nest of conformity" is in fact the world in which you live and the spirit of which you appear to imbide, your accuracy regarding secular events notwithstanding.
Have to agree with you here, Caminus, for a change.
-
That's rather subjective, your "comfortable nest of conformity" is in fact the world in which you live and the spirit of which you appear to imbide, your accuracy regarding secular events notwithstanding.
Sure, and it's valid for everyone. Drawing conclusions from a reputation rating on an opinionated board is really not much of a conclusion. It only measures someones popularity. Few have the discipline or the inclinations to rate favorably a well reasoned and written post if it don't agree with their core values.
-
The term "Jєω" has lost all meaning. There are no more "Jєωs" as in the Hebrews of the Old Testament remaining in the world. The Nation of Israel was destroyed by God and the people were dispersed only to be utterly diluted out of existence. Those who claim they are Jєωιѕн today, as in the biblical sense of the term, are delusional. If there were a country (pick an imaginary name) that was destroyed over 2,000 years ago and I come along today and claim that I am of that Nation today, you'd look at me like I was crazy. Why do people simply assume they are what they say they are?
The importance of this statement cannot be underestimated. The whole future of the world on earth as we know it lies in this statement. If people understood this statement and its meaning, we would have a totally different world.
The "Jєωs" today are not the descendents of the lost tribes. Neither is their religion, a тαℓмυdic Phariseeism, the religion that was practiced by Our Lord. He was born into the faith that was called The Oral Tradition. It was only composed of what we know today as the five books of Moses.
The khazarian imposters, their elitist leaders of course, are exploiting the Old Testament to gain material advantage and power in this physical plane of existence.
The more people that understand this, the more that will be saved by the Precious Blood of Jesus. The more people that understand this, the more they will come running to the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our only salvation.
-
That's rather subjective, your "comfortable nest of conformity" is in fact the world in which you live and the spirit of which you appear to imbide, your accuracy regarding secular events notwithstanding.
Sure, and it's valid for everyone. Drawing conclusions from a reputation rating on an opinionated board is really not much of a conclusion. It only measures someones popularity. Few have the discipline or the inclinations to rate favorably a well reasoned and written post if it don't agree with their core values.
I agree. But the core values of a Catholic necessarily creates enmity with the world and its spirit. The manifestation of this enmity comes about in various forms and that which you relentlessly attack is but a secondary, accidental feature that relates to concrete historical events. The question is whether you possess the same spirit which is at odds with the spirit of the world, that place which you seem to imply is your very own comfortable nest of conformity. The reason why people here question your sincerity is because it appears as though there seems to be no real conflict with your "core values" as a Catholic and the world. Even supposing you are correct in controversies relating to secular events, it is the manner in which you approach them evinces a certain worldly mind. I appreciate a critical attitude regarding claims, but the irony is that you don't seem to hold out the same critical spirit regarding the neo-pagan world, its institutions and claims or the religion of scientism to which it adheres so faithfully. A Catholic who fails to understand the true state of the world and church today, at least in a general way, which necessarily results in mourning, grief and disgust, who does not find himself in a constant struggle against the spirit of the world, the flesh and the devil, is one who manifestly does not possess the Spirit of Christ. So when we see one who apparently sits which such comfort and ease among the Kingdom of Satan, even to the extent of mocking a fellow Catholic, the question becomes to which Kindgom do you really belong?
-
That's rather subjective, your "comfortable nest of conformity" is in fact the world in which you live and the spirit of which you appear to imbide, your accuracy regarding secular events notwithstanding.
Sure, and it's valid for everyone. Drawing conclusions from a reputation rating on an opinionated board is really not much of a conclusion. It only measures someones popularity. Few have the discipline or the inclinations to rate favorably a well reasoned and written post if it don't agree with their core values.
If the "core values" are known to be at odds with an even merely morally certain truth, why would anybody "rate" this with favor?
Well reasoned error?
-
I appreciate a critical attitude regarding claims, but the irony is that you don't seem to hold out the same critical spirit regarding the neo-pagan world, its institutions and claims or the religion of scientism to which it adheres so faithfully.
Well written.
You do need to realize that my interventions here are limited to those subjects I feel I can press comfortably. It's why I am hardly ever in trouble, shown wrong, or unable to support my points with evidence.
I assure you though, that there are other venues in which I pursue what I hope is my critical exploration of the world in which I (we) live.
-
If the "core values" are known to be at odds with an even merely morally certain truth, why would anybody "rate" this with favor?
Well reasoned error?
AH !
I love this question... Maybe I should have used the term "core beliefs" instead of "core values" since the latter implies like you say; moral judgement. The scope of moral judgement is rather limited and does not apply to many worldly debates which often only revolve around fact-checking and soundly inferring from those facts.
-
But the core values of a Catholic necessarily creates enmity with the world and its spirit. The manifestation of this enmity comes about in various forms and that which you relentlessly attack is but a secondary, accidental feature that relates to concrete historical events.
But those enmity I relentlessly attack are not those that are created by the core values of Catholics against the world and it's spirit. If it was, the types of arguments I would encounter would be reflective of that (and they would be of far greater quality, I hope)
I've had a few scraps lately Caminus, I'd be more then impressed if you could extract the essence of those enmities and how they have in fact motivated my opponent responses. I debate these subject on many sites Sir, and the arguments are the same everywhere... Catholic or not.
You don't think it's "Catholicly" motivated to throw around that Silverstein said "pull it" or that Vikings used to sweat around in shorts now do you ? *Irony*
-
If the "core values" are known to be at odds with an even merely morally certain truth, why would anybody "rate" this with favor?
Well reasoned error?
AH !
I love this question... Maybe I should have used the term "core beliefs" instead of "core values" since the latter implies like you say; moral judgement. The scope of moral judgement is rather limited and does not apply to many worldly debates which often only revolve around fact-checking and soundly inferring from those facts.
Moral certainty has nothing to do with "moral judgment." If you don't understand these terms, maybe you need to do a little more study before you post?
-
And Montini gave away the Papal Tiara to the U.N. who sold it to a Jєω!?!
Maybe that is symbolic that they are really in charge of the conciliar church.
That would explain why the N.O. catholics I know are so gungho on Jєωs getting Jerusalem.
-
That's rather subjective, your "comfortable nest of conformity" is in fact the world in which you live and the spirit of which you appear to imbide, your accuracy regarding secular events notwithstanding.
Sure, and it's valid for everyone. Drawing conclusions from a reputation rating on an opinionated board is really not much of a conclusion. It only measures someones popularity. Few have the discipline or the inclinations to rate favorably a well reasoned and written post if it don't agree with their core values.
And why do you think people like Raoul, Gladius Veritatis, and Caminus became popular here? It was the religious knowledge in their posts that made them popular, not how many posts they have or how long they've been around. That's why your reputation is zero, your posts lack logical reasononing in several different areas, particularly when dealing with politics and the NWO.
-
If the "core values" are known to be at odds with an even merely morally certain truth, why would anybody "rate" this with favor?
Well reasoned error?
AH !
I love this question... Maybe I should have used the term "core beliefs" instead of "core values" since the latter implies like you say; moral judgement. The scope of moral judgement is rather limited and does not apply to many worldly debates which often only revolve around fact-checking and soundly inferring from those facts.
Moral certainty has nothing to do with "moral judgment." If you don't understand these terms, maybe you need to do a little more study before you post?
You're right, I missed the meaning of the term and your entiere statement. I don't have much to say about the revised meaning, especially since this is only about guidance to rate posts.
It's given to you the opportunity to reward or punish in whatever manner you wish. Enjoy.