Thursday, May 19, 2011

John Paul II's Amazing Connection to the Upside Down Cross and the Antichrist.Friday 20th May,2011 Feast of St. Bernadine,Confessor

John Paul II's Amazing Connection to the Upside Down Cross and the Antichrist.

-a transcripton of the video by Bro. Peter Dimond,MHFM


"This is Bro. Peter Dimond, want to talk about the upside down cross symbol, the "beatification "of John Paul II and perhaps a few other issues...

People know that in the year 2000, when he was in Israel, John Paul II sat with a large upside down cross over his head, and when we exposed this we were actually attacked not only by defenders of antipope John Paul II and a member of the Vatican II church, but even by some sedevacantists.

They said that John Paul II's decision to sit in a chair with a huge upside down cross over his head, didn't indicate anthing nefarious or occultic at all because St.Peter according to tradition was crucified upside down in Rome.

This is a ridiculous argument as we have pointed out in the past because the upside down cross is clearly one of the most recognizable symbols in Satanism.

It is used by satanic heavy metal groups, mass murders, occultists of various stripes, and there was no commemoration of St.Peter, whatsoever, when John Paul II sat in the chair with the upside down cross over his head.

The Catholic Church does not use the upside down cross, and the only exception would be perhaps an altar or a shrine that is specifically and clearly dedicated to St.Peter.

When John Paul II did it, it was not a feast day of St.Peter - it was not any of his feast days, and there was no indication that he was commemorating St.Peter at all.

But it is another example of an action that is evil and symbolic, but there is just enough touch of ambiguity, so that the wicked defenders of the Counter Church can try to excuse it or explain it away. Those who defend his use of the upside down cross, whether they were members of the Vatican II Church or sedevacantists, are defenders of the mockers of iniquity and demonstrate bad will.

And, on this point, I recently came across an interesting quote, and it deals with the period between the 2nd Crusade and the 3rd Crusade.

At that time there was a huge battle at the Horns of Hatton - at this battle the crusading Christians suffered their worst defeat at the hands of the Muslims of any defeat they suffered during the period of the Crusades.

In other words, it was the worst moment for the Christians in the Crusades.

In this battle the true Cross was captured by the Muslims.

I want to quote from a book called "The New Concise History of the Crusades" by Th0mas E Madden.,page 76.

He says, 'Saladin, the leader of the Muslims, also won for himself a great symbolic prize, the true cross carried into battle by the King of Jerusalem, which was paraded through the streets of Damascus upside down.

So, after winning this huge battle that was so devastating to the Christian side, the Muslims took the true cross and paraded it around the streets of Damascus upside down - I don't think they were doing it to honor St. Peter!

They were doing it because it represented the overturning of Christianity, the destruction and defeat of Christianity, and that's also what John Paul II meant by sitting in the chair with the upside down cross over his head!

Since we believe he was not only an antipope, but actually the Antichrist, it makes sense that he would sit with the symbol over his head.

By the way, I should probably add that the devastating loss suffered at the Horns of Hatton at the hands of the Muslims,was essentially avenged at the 3rd Crusade under Richard the Lionheart.

And the 1st Crusade was a miraculous success, so it's not as if the Muslims had the ultimate victory.

Now, this brings me to another point, which is where did John Paul II sit with the huge upside down cross over his head?

He did it in Israel!

If John Paul II is in fact the Antichrist, as we believe and we can prove without any doubt that he was an antipope, a heretic and would therefore make sense that he would appear in Israel with the upside down cross over his head, because it was in Israel where the true Christ was on the cross - and so if John Paul II was the Antichrist, when he was in the Holy Land, he appeared as the antithesis of Christ on the Cross, with the upside down cross over his head.

It's also such a bold move to sit in a chair with a huge upside down cross over your head in front of 100,000 and on television that would be broadcast to millions of people that he could only probably get away with it once, and of course, the devil's dupes tried to explain it away.

On this point, we recently saw the "beatification" of John Paul II on May 1st as we've discussed.  We believe it will be the "canonization" of John Paul II by Benedict XVI that will fulfil Apocalypse 13., and the second beast causing people to worship the first beast whose deadly wound was healed.

We explain that in our video,"Is the World about to End?" parts 5 through to 7.

The entire video, however, is necessary to get a full picture of that point, and the reason we believe it's the "canonization" and not the beatification" is simply because a beatification is not a binding decree on the universal church - it's a formal allowance that such a person may be considered blessed. It doesn't command the entire Church to recognize him as one of the saints.

It simply allows those who want to regard him as blessed in certain areas to do so.

It's therefore important, but it doesn't invoke the magisterial binding teaching authority of the Church.

With canonization, that's where the entire Church is commanded to recognize this individual as a saint, and that's why canonization has been held to be infallible and not necessarily beatification.

Nevertheless, the "beatification" of John Paul II was extremely significant, because it was a manifestation of apostasy to even allow such a heretic to be called "blessed" - And it's also a major step which precedes the canonization.

Benedict XVI, of course, being a heretic and antipope, has no authority to beatify or canonize anyone.

But, the point is, in view of the concilliar church, he does have authority, and when he "canonizes" John Paul II, he will be forcing the entire group of individuals who acknowledge him as "pope," to worship as a saint in the sense of venerating John Paul II.

This distinction between the allowance that beatification confers, and the obligation that canonization imposes, is clear in the beatification formula.

In the formula that was pronounced by Benedict XVI, in regard to John Paul II, he said, among other things, " With Our Apostolic Authority, we concede that the venerable servant of God, John Paul II, pope, from this hour can be called blessed."

And, he goes on to say, " It is possible to celebrate his feast."

Therefore it's a concession, not a command, for the universal church - it's still extraordinarily evil, and it's the big symbolic step that precedes the "caononization". However, it's not the command.

There's already a report that the "canonization" of John Paul II will occur in 1 - 5 years, and it might be much sooner than 5 years - it might be a year or two.

When that occurs it will be the "canonization" of New Church, and the defenders of the antipope will be forced to venerate as a saint this man John Paul II who denied everything - he taught universal salvation, taught and denied every dogma you can possibly imagine - basically taught "every man is the Son of God"

And that brings me to another point - which is, we believe that John Paul II is the Antichrist, not only because his trademark teaching was that every man is the son of God, and that fits precisely with the Bible's definition of Antichrist and the dissolving of Jesus Christ, and not only because he fits with what's prophecied in Apocalypse 13 etc., but also because he represented the Antichrist in so many ways.

For example, he was the man who buried Fatima.

It was under his watch that the phony 3rd secret of Fatima was published in the year 2000 - essentially he buried Fatima in the eyes of most of the world.

Not only did he bury Fatima, but he wound up putting himself in the centre of the fulfillment of the 3rd secret, because in the Vatican's official interpretation confirmed by the false Sister Lucy, John Paul II was the man who fulfills the 3rd secret.

So, he buries Fatima; he's the anti - Fatima and he puts himself as the fulfilment of it.

That's the role of the Antichrist, and it makes sense that he would do that.

Also there were numerous other symbolic actions, like I was saying earlier, like how it was in Israel that he appeared with the upside down cross over his head.

It was also in the year 2000, and around the year 2000 that he did a number of things that are highly symbolic.

For example, at that time he proclaimed new martyrs in Rome, at the Colosseum. There was this big ceremony at Rome at the Roman Colosseum, at the spot where the true Christian Catholic martyrs were tortured and killed for not denying the faith - at this spot he procaimed all kinds of non - Catholics to be new martyrs.

He is directly mocking the true saints and martyrs and their sacrifices at the very spot where they made their sacrifice - that was the role of the Antichrist.

He's overturning everything that is important to traditional Christianity.

It was at the same time, around the year 2000, that he denied that Heaven, Hell and Purgatory are places. He therefore undercut the very foundation of eternal life, and that was reported all over the world.

It was questioned for a while, and then people moved on. It was also around the year 2000 that he apologized for the "sins of the church" and the Crusades, these holy endeavors which were approved by the Church, which represented the battle against evil.

He therefore, mocked the Church!

And, the year 2000 is significant because in his first encyclical, " Redemptor Hominis," John Paul II cryptically alludes to a mark on the face of human history which will be left by the year 2000," as we explained in the video, "Is the world about to End?"

It was also, just before the year 2000, that he rejected the entire Council of Trent, by agreeing with the Lutherans on the doctrine of Justification and teaching Justification by Faith alone and that the Council of Trent no longer applied.

Thus, by the year 2000 he had systematically mocked or denied every important aspect of Christianity.

And, of course, there was his notorious promotion of false ecumenism and every detail it involved. He specifically bowed his head with the Jews as they prayed for the coming of the Messiah in the synagogue.

That was the role of the Antichrist, because he wanted to make it public, that as he is the representative of what people thought was the Christian Church, he is saying, Jesus isn't even the Messiah.

He drinks from the bowl that the pagans concoct, specifically to deny what is taught in 1 Corinthians about not drinking from the chalice of the devils, and on and on... so he covered all the bases!

The point is that there is much more than his preaching that every man is Jesus Christ, his notorious promotion of ecumenism, his fulfilment of Apocalypse 13 which persuades us that he is the Antichrist.

He represented the overturning of the Christian Faith.

And those who accept Benedict XVI in the light of the "beatification" of antipope John Paul II, blaspheme God and deny Jesus Christ, and when he "canonizes" him, they will be worshipping the beast in our view, but certainly a beast and an antichrist.

Here's something else which is extremely interesting.

If you do a search for "upside down cross" or "inverted cross," guess who comes up more prominently and more frequently than anyone or anything else?

That's right. John Paul II!

He has been memorialized throughout the world with the upside down cross - anyone who searches ... will find him displaying the symbol.

Wouldn't it make sense, that as Christ is identified with the cross, the Antichrist would go down in history as synonymous with the upside down cross.


Anonymous said...

The cross represents St. Peter's Cross

catholic2007 said...

No, it doesn't.

Did you actually read the article or just look at the pretty (?) pictures?

"The Catholic Church does not use the upside down cross and the only exception would be perhaps an altar or shrine that is specifically dedicated to St. Peter... those who defend his use of the upside down cross, whether they were members of the Vatican II Church...are mockers of iniquity and demonstrate bad will." - as you do!