Priest Dies and Goes to Hell. 24 November, 2012 Feast of St. John of the Cross, CD. St. Chrysoganus M

Priest Dies and Goes to Hell - by Bro. Peter Dimond (MHFM)

_________________________________________

"This is Bro. Peter Dimond (www.vaticancatholic.com). 

A few days ago, Fr. Martin Stepanich, a so-called traditionalist priest died.  As we pointed out in the past, Martin Stepanich was an outspoken and obstinate proponent of the heresy that souls can be saved in false religions and by "baptism of desire ."  Like almost all of the other priests, he believed souls could be saved in any religion without the Catholic faith.  He obstinately rejected Catholic dogma and was a heretic, and since he died as a heretic he went to Hell.   He had no more belief in Christ or His necessity than the Dalai Lama.

He dressed up in robes and pretended to be Catholic, but he did not have an ounce of the apostolic faith.  Not only did Stepanich believe that souls could be saved in any religion, but he went out of his way to attack Jesus Christ's teaching on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism.  Of course, he did this with arguments that have been completely refuted.  He was a truly wicked man.

Here's a quote from this heretic, who was without a doubt a mortally sinful liar.  He stated that Catholics who correctly believe in the necessity of the Catholic faith and baptism for salvation are:  "Incredibly asserting that all who are not formal and visible members of the Church, this would mean all Protestants, all Orthodox, all Jews, all Muslims, all pagans of every brand or color or nationality, are automatically excluded from eternal salvation.  But this is something which the Church has never taught and never will teach." Fr. Martin Stepanich)

So he says the Church has never taught that all the non-Catholics are not saved, without the Catholic faith, yet that is exactly what the Church has taught as we see here.

It is an infallibly defined dogma that all who die without the Catholic faith are lost.  That includes all pagans, heretics, schismatics, Jews etc.  That's why they need to be converted.
So Stepanich directly denies and openly lies about the Church's teaching.  He asserts that the Church has "never taught and never will teach" what it infallibly teaches.

Even if you put aside that heretical aspect of what he's saying, he is blatantly lying to people.
He is stating something that is demonstrably false, that the Church has never taught what it in fact has taught.

By any standard that's a mortal sin.  That's a lie.  He's a public mortal sinner and a liar, not to mention a heretic.  So, now that Stepanich is dead he knows the truth; he was wrong.  He rejected Church teaching; he ralled against Christ's baptism; he persecuted Christ by attacking His truth; and he was an apostate who long ago lost the grace of supernatural grace in Him and His truth as a result of sin and bad will.    And it was heretics just like this who facilitated the Great Vatican II Apostasy.

And, even though he knows the truth because he's been judged, it's too late for Stepanich.  He died as a heretic; was damned and is in Hell, and there's no doubt about this.  In fact, if such a heretic who obstinately rejected and publicly opposed defined Catholic teaching on the necessity of the faith for salvation could be saved - and certainly can not - then no dogma matters at all.

Moreover, all those who praise this deceased, damned, dispicable heretic (as a number of evil "false traditionalists" are already doing), likewise confirm themselves on the path to damnation.  They have no shame.  Barring an extraordinary conversion, they will line up with him, alongside the damned, on Judgement Day - as enemies of the Lord, enemies of His dogma, enemies of His baptism, and enemies of His necessity.

And some people who think that what I'm saying is too hard, that you can't say that he's in Hell, are simply devoid of the apostolic faith.  That's why this scripture is extremely important.   1 John 4:6 - " We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us.  He that is not of God, heareth us not.  By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."

Those with the true Christian Catholic faith, know that people that clearly depart from Catholic teaching are not of God.   The people who say, "Well, we cannot judge or we don't know, when you are talking about someone who clearly departs from Catholic teaching, as Stepanich did, don't have the apostolic faith.   Someone who has the faith has the conviction, has the certainty, that someone who rejects the truth is not of God and therefore on the road to damnation.

This is how we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.  Those who do not hear us, meaning the Church, the Church's teachings, the line of Christ are not of God.  And, of course, the first rule of salvation, the condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith.   "Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity."

Certainly, a guy who not only openly denied the faith, believed that souls can be saved in any religion, attacked the necessity of water baptism for salvation, and openly and publicly lied about what the Church teaches.  He's as heretical as it can get.  He's without question lost - I wish he had been different and had not been a heretic and had been saved - but he was a heretic, and these issues matter, and when people die, the time is up, and that's why people need to conform to the truth and believe the truth while they are on earth."

Why a Christian can only be a Catholic. 23rd Sunday after Pentecost. Charles Borromeo, BpC. Sts.Vitalis & Agricola, Mm

Why a Christian can only be a Catholic

A Christian is one who follows the true faith of Jesus Christ.  In the Acts of the Apostles, we read that it was at Antioch that the followers of Christ were first called Christians.

                Acts 11: 26 - "And they conversed there in the church a whole year, and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians."


Interestingly, it was also at Antioch, in the year 110, that the term "Catholic" was first applied to the Christian Church.  This was done by the famous martyr of the ancient Christian Church, St. Ignatius.

                 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smymaeans, Chapter 8, 110 A.D.- "Apart from the bishop, let no one do anything that pertains to the Church.  The only true Eucharist is the one performed by the bishop or by him whom the bishop has appointed.  Wherever the bishop is, there must be the congregation, just as wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church.

In Greek, the term "Catholic" means universal.  Thus, the one universal Christian Church came to be known as the Catholic Church.  It makes sense that the terms Christian and Catholic became interchangeable, for the only Christian Church which existed from the beginning was the Catholic Church.  Ignatius had a real connection to the original Christians.  He was the third bishop of Antioch.   Ignatius knew St. Polycarp who knew the apostle John himself.

Many think that being Christian means accepting everyone, being kind to everyone.  Certainly being Christian involves a true charity toward all men.  This means that you work and desire each man's salvation - each man's eternal happiness.  First and foremost, however, being a Christian requires that one believe all the truths of Jesus Christ.  It requires that one hear the one Church He established.  For Jesus Himself declared that preaching the Christian faith (the Gospel) means "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19).  In Matthew 18:17, we read that those who don't hear the Christian Church established by Jesus are to be considered as the "heathen and publican."

The true Christian faith has a real power.  This power is of course identified with the miracles of its founder, the God-man, Jesus Christ.  But the power of the Christian faith didn't dry up and disappear once Jesus ascended into Heaven.  No, Jesus left that power with His Church.  He left it not only in the miracles which He said some of His followers would perform (John 14:12), but in the supernatural protection and guidance which would sustain His visible Christian institution.

 In Matthew 16:18-20, we read that this Christian Church structure was founded on the apostle Peter, who would be the first pope.  This visible Christian structure would be an ongoing testament to Jesus Christ's power.  It would guide Christians on the way of truth.  It would also be necessary for salvation; for the Lord would add all who were to be true Christians to this one Christian Church (Acts 2:47).

________________________________

One of the most moving episodes in Christian history - which illustrates the power of the Christian Church and its visible structure- involved Atilla the Hun and his invasion of Italy in 452.  Attila the Hun was a fierce non-Christian emperor in the East.  He was greatly feared by many in the Christian Roman Empire.  In 447, Attila invaded the Eastern Empire.  In 452, he was ready to invade Rome itself, the centre of the Christian Church. 

 With Atilla threatening the centre of the Christian Church, Pope Leo the Great, the undisputed leader of the Christian Church, faced him down.  He went out to meet Attila.  As Pope Leo went out to meet Attila, he was miraculously flanked by the apostle Peter.  History tells us that St. Peter threatened Attila with death if he should proceed further.  Attila was so frightened that he turned back.  If Attila had not turned back, all of history might have been different.  The leader of the Christian Church carried with him the supernatural protection of Christianity's founder, the Lord Jesus Christ.

_______________________________

After the initial establishment of the Christian Church, each century brought new challenges and trials for the Christian.  Heresies would appear and lead many astray.  Many who were Christians were separated by these heresies from the true Christian faith.  Arianism was the most notorious of all the early heresies which threatened the Christian.  It proclaimed that Jesus Christ was not true God, that He was not equal with the Father.  Arianism spread wildly in the 4th century, causing countless people to lose the true Christian faith.


The two central dogmas of the Christian faith are the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
The Trinity is the truth that there is one God in three divine persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  Each divine person is God; yet there are not three Gods, but one God.  Each person is a distinct person.  The Sabellian heretics, for example, a group of false Christians, wrongly taught that each person is simply a different aspect of God.  According to them, The Father and the Son are simply different elements of the same person.   This heresy was condemned by the Christian Church.  A Christian must believe that there are three divine persons, that each one is God, but that there is only one God.

The other central dogma of the Christian Church is the Incarnation.  This is the truth that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, became man.  That is, Jesus Christ.  He is one divine person, the second person of the Holy Trinity, with two natures.  He is true God and true man.

[Taken from Most Holy Family Monastery] - (www.vaticancatholic.com)

____________________________________

When you read all that you can easily see why Catholics are Christians, and no one else, not the various Protestant sects, who like to think they are Christian and be called Christian, simply because they reject that one true Church founded by Jesus Christ Outside of which No one at all can be Saved.

What is the Church?

The (Catholic) Church is the visible society founded by Christ Himself, to continue on earth His work of teaching, sanctifying and ruling mankind, for their eternal salvation.

To whom did Christ give power to govern His Church?

Christ gave to St. Peter and the other apostles and to their lawful successors the power to teach, sanctify and rule the members of His Church.

Did Christ found only one Church?

Jesus Christ founded only one Church, for he declared: "There shall be one fold and one Shepherd (John 10:16).

Did Christ give to His Church any marks by which it can be clearly known?

Yes, Christ gave His Church four marks:  He intended His Church to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic (John 10:16; Eph 5, 25-27; Matt. 24, 14: Eph. 2,20).

( From A Catechism of Catholic Doctrine - Official New Zealand Edition 1951 )

________________________________________

In this same Catechism we see demonstrated the heresy that had crept into various pre Vatican II publications and catechisms by the early 1950's, and before, in a subtle way, providing an exception to the dogma as it had been defined , on the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation:

Must everyone belong to the Catholic Church?

Everyone must belong to the Catholic Church, and no one can be saved who, through his own fault, remains outside it.

Which allows, of course, for someone who has not heard of the Church, through "Invincible Ignorance," to save his soul Outside the Catholic Church, which is heresy!

   Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra:
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Note that "ex cathedra" statements refer to when a pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of St. Peter...it is heresy and mortal sin to deny an ex cathedra pronouncement of a pope, which is irreformable( unchangeable), since it constitutes the dogma that Christ revealed to the Church.


Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap.2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: "Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."

 

SSPX Mini-Schism. 25 October,2012 Feast of St. Chrysanthus and Daria, Mm

SSPX  Mini - Schism ( a transcription from the video by Bro. Peter Dimond, Most Holy Family Monastery )

__________________________________________________

"This is Bro. Peter Dimond ( www.vaticancatholic.com ), I would like to offer some comments about the recent mini-schism within the society of St. Pius X - apparently a few weeks ago, a group of approximately 25 priests separated from SSPX as a result of their frustration of how the current leadership is handling negotiations with apostate Vatican II Rome.




Fr. Francois Chazal and Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer who leads the breakaway group

Normally the internal schismatic squabbles of SSPX are not worth a persons time to consider.  However, since the Declaration ( August 10, 2012 ) made by these priests is so revealing about the doctrinal bankruptcy of the SSPX's position in general, it's worth discussing.   It also caught my attention that this breakaway group being led by the priests and Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer in particular - Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer is one of the most outspoken members of the SSPX on the issue of "Baptism of Desire," "Salvation Outside the Church," and arguments that you don't need the Catholic faith for salvation.  [ other priests include Fr. Ronald J. Ringrose, Fr. Richard Voigt, Fr. David Hewko, Fr. Francois Chazal ]

Those arguments have all been refuted, but I find it very interesting a heretic such as this, is the one leading the charge against the movement within SSPX to fully reconcile with apostate Rome.  That really tells you how pathetic the SSPX is as a whole.

Now, in this Declaration, these priests speak of the Vatican II Church as another entity, as a non-Catholic entity - they say there is an illusion that one can join the Vatican II Church without accepting Vatican II.    Well, if it's a non-Catholic entity, the individual who leads it, Benedict XVI, cannot also be the head of the Catholic Church - there is only one fold and one shepherd - that principle applies to a true pope over the true church.   He cannot be the true pope over a non-Catholic Vatican II Church and also the true Catholic Church.    It's just another example of the striking inconsistency in their false position.

They also speak of the adherents of the Vatican II Church as not having the Catholic faith. They say they need to come back to the Catholic faith.   Well. in case they did not know, it's a dogma that there is only one faith in the Church.  If someone does not have the Catholic faith he cannot hold office in the Church - that's a dogma.   The position they express here is heretical - it's actually doctrinal puke as we mentioned in our article on Bishop Williamson's false positions and explanation.

But it doesn't even matter to the followers of the SSPX at large, because, sadly, almost all of them only care about externals and community and the Mass.   They don't care about whether their positions make sense, whether they are true, whether they are faithful to Catholic dogma - it's truly pathetic!  


In this same Declaration, this group criticizes the SSPX current leadership as abandoning the flock to the "wolves" of the diocesan bishops. So, according to them, you should have nothing to do with these wolves, these diocesan bishops. I find this particularly outrageous, because these same priests would officiate at churches which had bookstores that offered materials such as "Sedevacantism - A False Solution To a Real Problem" - which essentially declares that people who do not regard the diocesan bishops as legitimate, and Benedict XVI as the legitimate pope are schismatics.

The priests making this Declaration would still adhere to the position described in that book, namely that the sedevacantist position, which rejects the diocesan bishops as illegitimate, is schismatic.   So while they say that that position is schismatic, and that you must recognize the diocesan bishops, they simultaneously declare that to have anything to do with the diocesan bishops they all recognize or to want to join up with the diocesan bishops they all regard as legitimate, is to abandon the flock to the "wolves"  - it's just pure schism and heresy.   And this is not something they've held for a week or a month or even a year, this is something they've promoted year after year, after year, after year, in the face of the evidence.

In the Declaration, these priests also describe the false teachings of the Vatican II Church as more new heresies - they are correct - there are many heresies in the Vatican II Church's teachings.
Well, if they teach heresies and they adhere to heresies, they are heretics and cannot hold office in the Church.   They even admit that the officials who promote these new heresies are obdurate in this regard - that means obstinate or stubborn or pertinacious.    This undercuts and in fact destroys their claim that the officials who adhere to these new heresies are only material heretics, because their argument that they are only material heretics hinges on their claim that they are not obdurate - but they're admitting that they are obdurate or stubborn or pertinacious, therefore they are formal heretics, therefore they cannot be legitimate occupants of Catholic offices.

It's just one mass of inconsistency and contradiction of Catholic truth after another - it's just doctrinal puke - and they can get away with it, because people don't care about the truth, that is, the people who support them - they only care about externals and community.

Perhaps the most revealing false statement in this Declaration is that they criticize the leadership's use of ambiguous language that refers to two opposite Magisteria - Magisteria is the plural of Magisterium.  What they are saying is that the post Vatican II Church has a Magisterium which contradicts the Magisterium of the pre- Vatican II Church.   That's heresy!

It's a dogma that the Magisterium is infallible, hence the idea that there can be two opposite Magisteria or that the Magisterium can contradict itself, is equivalent to saying that the Catholic Church can defect.

Here are the papal quotes on how the Magisterium is infallible - just a few-  Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16), Dec 31, 1929..." Upon this magisterial office Christ conferred infallibility..."  The magisterium is infallible - if something is magisterial, it's infallible.  The magisterium cannot contradict itself, it cannot oppose it's own teaching.  He says in the same document, "God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium , and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error..."

Pope Leo XIII, in Caritatis Studium #6, July 25, 1898, says that there is "a living perpetual "magisterium", and that it could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.

Therefore, what we have in this Declaration is blatant heresy - and it also speaks to the fact that the SSPX is very deceiving, because people think that they really understand dogmatic principles- they don't at all!   At their seminaries, they focus on liturgy  - they really understand almost nothing about Catholic dogmatic teaching, and the reason for that is, priests who teach at their seminaries, and the people who lead their group, believe in Salvation Outside the Church.  The dogmas aren't important to them, because they don't even believe in the dogmas.

What's important to them are the external aspects of Catholicism, and by denying the truth of the faith they reveal themselves to be non-Catholics.   So, I just wanted to comment on this as really a revealing example of the doctrinal bankruptcy of the SSPX, and what I'm saying even though it's in regard to this separated group, it applies equally as well to the main SSPX - they hold the same kinds of illogical positions as we pointed out in our file on the SSPX - you can read the documentation of their heretical teachings on Salvation Outside the Catholic Church - they say, over and over again.
  
Lefebvre says that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions; Schmitberger said it; Fellay said it - it's in their publications - that's what all their priests believe - they hold that the non -Catholic Vatican II Church is non - Catholic, yet it is still the Catholic Church and it's leaders are Catholic!

And what's so outrageous is that these priests are upset that their leaders would actually consider joining up with the bishops they all agree are the legitimate bishops - it's just so stupid!   Another point is the fact that, if these priests are going to take a step to separate from the SSPX, they would have a prime opportunity to tell the truth, at least about the sedevacantist position, and say, there's no way we can regard these guys as popes, it's just doctrinally untenable - they're heretics - they are obdurate in their heresies, because one of the things that ties people down to false positions is human attachment - that's one of the most frequent examples of what keeps people in a false or compromised position.

Hence, if they are going to reject the attachment to the SSPX's larger group, then they have a prime opportunity now, to tell the truth about what's going on in Rome.  But NO, they're so bad- willed that they still convince themselves that these members of the Vatican II Church, who don't have the Catholic faith, by their own admission, are the Catholic leaders.    It's really pathetic, and I just wanted to comment on the inconsistency of this position, and why those who would adopt this position or support it, reject the Catholic faith!"

 END


Postscript:

Father Feeney, when in the 1940's and 1950's most of the world's bishops had embraced the idea that salvation could be attained outside the Catholic Church, which paved the way for the acceptance of Vatican II with little resistance, was severely persecuted for upholding the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation.


 

 

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus 16 August, 2012 St. Joachim, Father of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Point

____________________________________________________

Edited Under Fr. Leonard Feeney M.I.C.M. - Saint Benedict Centre

February, 1953

An Open Letter to President Eisenhower

Saint Benedict Center
23 Arrow Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear President Eisenhower:

I am writing this letter in the week of your inauguration to the great dignity which our people have bestowed on you. By the time you are permitted to read this letter, the ceremonies of inauguration will be completed and you will be President Eisenhower, indeed.

I am writing to you as a Roman Catholic priest, living in the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
I am the Superior of a little American Catholic Religious Order, recently founded, and called The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I promise to Your Excellency, as President of our great nation, my respect, my allegiance, and my loyalty - in all the things which God has permitted to put under your charge, which are many indeed, and are endowed with God's own authority to the extent to which He permits you to share it.

As President of our great nation, you are somehow a function; but you are also irrevocably a person, responsible to God and to your nation for what you do. It is with regard to your personal responsibility to God that I wish to appeal, as one of Jesus Christ's Catholic priests, priviledged to be able to speak to you freely,in a free country, at this great time in your installation. And here is what I have to tell you, Dwight Eisenhower, Mr. President, head of our great nation:

Unless you become a Catholic, a Roman Catholic, before you die and unless you give your spiritual allegiance to Christ's Vicar upon earth; unless you become an adopted son of God the Father, by the incorporate requirement of Baptism, and a child of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, by your incorporate fulfilments of the Blessed Eucharist, you will never save your soul.

You cannot plead ignorance of this great challenge where twenty- six million of your subjects are Roman Catholics, where nearly fifty thousand of your subjects are Catholic priests, where one hundred and fifty thousand of your subjects are Catholic nuns - in a nation dedicated to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, where the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is in every town, abundantly and super-abundantly in every great nation, in the Catholic churches you have so frequently passed.

This Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, living and breathing in all His adorability in the Catholic churches of your nation, can use the humblest instrument through which to speak to you. I am a beleaguered Catholic priest, whom some are denying the privilege of speaking freely to the President of this nation, in a land that boasts that it favors the practice of freedom of religion.

I do believe that, as a Catholic priest in a free America, dedicated to the Mother of God, I am free to say to you what I now say: Unless your "Our Fathers" are appeals for the Blessed Eucharist, unless you learn the beautiful "Hail Mary," and call Christ's Mother the Mother of God, you will never save your soul.

The end of some of our past Presidents has been sad, indeed. President Harding's, for instance, and President Wilson's, and very much, indeed, President Roosevelt's. I do not want your end to be such a one, and I do not want to have to stand before the Judgement Seat of God, as a Roman Catholic priest in a free nation, who has been afraid to tell our President what are his obligations to God and to God's only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, Our Lord, the Word Who became flesh and dwelt amongst
us.

Respectfully yours in the Immaculate Heart of Mary,

Leonard Feeney, S.I.H.M.

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, vaticancatholic.com.....I 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 Antichrist...it 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.

Connections - May 1 and the "Death"of Osama Bin Laden. Wednesday 4th May,2011 Feast of St.Monica,W

Connections-May 1 and the Death of Osama Bin Laden

 

[ a transcription of the video from MHFM by Bro. Peter Dimond ]

______________________________

"This is Bro. Peter Dimond, (www.vaticancatholic.com) ...

I want to talk about the hoax surrounding the recent announcement that Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Those who follow these issues know that the evidence is strong that Bin Laden has been dead for years. It is also a fact that Bin Laden is nothing more than a CIA asset and creation, a character on whom they can pin any fake terror attack that they carry out!

He had nothing to do with 9/11, and in fact was not even officially charged with it, yet most Americans believe he was responsible for it.

Now, what I want to talk about is: notice on what day the conspirators announced Bin Laden was dead. They announced he was dead on May 1.

May 1 is the day on which the Illuminati was founded. It is the most important day to occultist members of secret societies.

Many of these conspiratorial events occur from April 19 to May 1, because on April 19 on the satanic calendar,there is a 13 day period of blood sacrifice to the beast culminating on May 1.

What are the chances they actually killed Bin Laden on May 1? Almost zero!

It's obviously a satanic joke that their fictitious character with whom they've been deceiving the public for years is dead and they announce it on the day dear to them.

They are laughing at the people. It's a big HOAX!

It's also relevant that a CIA special operation is the operation which supposedly killed Bin Laden- that's very interesting isn't it - it wasn't regular military,it was a special CIA operation,so it would be much easier for a special CIA operation to carry out the hoax and cover - up of the alleged "killing"of Bin Laden.

And what's interesting, is that the official speech was given just before midnight on May 1.

So, not only was the announcement made in the news, but the official speech confirming it all, happened on May 1.


I also believe it's not an accident that this news came out just a few days after Obama released his so - called long form birth certificate,which many experts claim is a forgery. The evidence for this is building, more and more people are talking about it.


What does the Bin Laden announcement do?

It distracts the entire world from the long form birth certificate issue and shifts the focus away from questions about its authenticity.

I'm convinced the two events are linked. They've had years to decide on what they wanted to do with the long form birth certificate, because they've been fighting its release in lawsuits for a number of years.

I believe they had it planned for sometime to announce the hoax of Bin Laden's death, shortly after the allegedly release of the long form birth certificate.


Not only does it distract the entire world from the long form birth certificate issue, but even more importantly, it rallies public support around Obama and gives him a new found credibility as an American, someone who will take out America's No.1 enemy at the very time many people are questioning his status as an American.


In other words,if you are doubting he is one of us - he's the guy who took out our biggest enemy!


It also, interestingly, was announced during Donald Trump's show, the "Celebrity Apprentice"- and those who follow the news know that Donald Trump and Obama have been sparring - and I read it in the news that the cutaway from Donald Trump's show on NBC, the "Celebrity Apprentice", to cover the breaking news that Osama Binn Laden is dead.

Is that just a coincidence? I don't think so.

This also gives the individuals who carry out these conspiracies numerous options.

They can carry out a fake terror attack as retaliation for the "death"of Osama Bin Laden.

They can also continue to get funding for intelligence gathering operations by pointing to this example of success.

It gives pause to many people whom might have been analyzing the long form birth certificate issue - it might "soften"them up.


So, I believe the whole thing is a hoax!

The fact they did it on May 1, makes it extremely obvious,and when you combine it with what we know about Bin Laden- his CIA connections - how on record they have produced fake Bin Laden videos as well as the fact that they do this just a few days after the alleged long form birth certificate is released, a clear picture begins to emerge.

So it kind of angered me how the whole world is being deceived again, and you see these people chanting, "USA! USA!", as if Bin Laden was our main enemy.

It's just astounding the cluelessness of most people,the level of deception that people are under, when the media is controlled, the whole world can be deceived.


It's really an outrage!"




















____________________________________________

Bonus Feature:

Statue of Our Lady in the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, Christchurch, New Zealand, does 180 degree turn after the 6.3 earthquake of February 22nd 2011 

_________________________________________________

Statue of Our Lady does 180 degree turn after  February 22nd  2011 earthquake

 

"Go out from her my people..."

The following article is a summary of a newspaper report by "Stuff.co.nz" reporting on damage to buildings and in particular Churches, in this town of 400,000, as sustained in the recent February 22, 2011 earthquake to hit Christchurch, N.Z. - it is very interesting how the secular world has failed to grasp the significance of all this - and for us who have the true Catholic faith, the conclusions are hard to ignore...

"Catholicism's Canterbury Spiritual home in doubt."



Before February 22, 2011 2011 Earthquake - red arrow indicates Our Lady's statue facing inwards [click on picture]

 

"A dome and part of the tower that supported it tumbled from the Christchurch Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament in the February 22nd earthquake.



After February 22, 2011 Earthquake

 

A Statue of Our Lady, standing on a ledge inside the tower remained standing.  The statue was unharmed.

Before the quake, it was facing inwards, where the bell ringers could see it as they tolled the bells

After the quake, it was facing outwards.

The bells are silent now. The ringers are wondering what message lies in Our Lady's 180 degree turn?

The domed bascilica is the spiritual home to the Catholics of Canterbury and Westland. It is also a wondrous architectural statement. Perhaps even more wondrous is that the building project was funded by a small congregation of mainly working class Irish immigrants more than a century ago....


The Cathedral has been closed since September 4th when quake damage made it unsafe to enter. The dome has been a significant element in the cityscape since 1905, renowned for its rows of columns and soaring interior vistas, the Cathedral is one of Christchurch's architectural treasures.

Interior of Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament after Vatican II change

Interior of Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament prior to Vatican II

 

Modernist Vatican II Altar of Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament

 



Banished by ancient religious bigotries to beyond the pale of the central city, it has tended to be missed by visitors who admire the city heritage buildings.


If it does not rise again, it will be missed much more. Perhaps that is why Our Lady has turned to face outwards to the world."

Conclusion:

The Church which began at Vatican II does not represent the Catholic Church; it is a new religion completely opposed to the true Church in all its teachings.




Destruction of the Altar of the Vatican II sect after February 22, 2011 Earthquake

 

I believe the fact that Our Lady is now facing outwards can only be interpreted as a sign of her rejection of the "whore of Babylon" as represented by the present occupants of this once Catholic edifice, and a final warning to any Catholic who might be still open to the truth, to come out of Babylon, that is the false Vatican II religion if they don't wish to be tormented by Satan forever in the fires of Hell!


How could it not be otherwise, as Apocalypse 18:4 tells us?




 

Our Lady's Statue turns 180 degrees after Earthquake - A small miracle?

After Feb 22, 2011 earthquake Our Lady faces outwards from Cathedral

 

Video: "The Press was given a birds eye view of the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament" - January 23, 2013

Update on status of the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament showing domes removed sometime between 2012 - 2013 ?

Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament with Domes removed - September 2013

 

"And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying: Go out from her my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues." - Apocalypse 18:4

__________________________________

Addendum:    Watch "Why The New Mass and the New Rite of Ordination are invalid"

... and "New Mass Debate"