Symbols are convenient

Il Duomo Nuovo di Brescia, Italia
Brescia Cattedrale
Msgr. Monari, what kind of chair did you provide for our Holy Father?
Brescia Cattedrale
Symbolism is very convenient for them, because it is "impossible" to identify the meaning of this or that symbol exactly. They can include other meanings, hidden meanings, or double meanings, not standard meanings, into this or that symbol, secretly. For this reason, they (not including our Holy Father, of course) can keep on being arrogant, fearless, in their hidden heart.
Brescia Cattedrale
About the images (figures) on the arms and the back of this chair, they would insist, of course, that these are the symbols of Four Evangelists. Nevertheless, the designs of these images remind me of Egyptian or other paganism strongly.
Horus Golden Calf
Brescia Cattedrale
Brescia Cattedrale
Brescia Cattedrale


Isn't it too simple?

Many people seem to have a tendency to draw conclusion too straight from the sight which their eyes caught.

For example, when they look at such sights as these,

(At World Youth Day in Israel on March 24, 2000)

they think, "This is the evidence that John Paul II believes in Satanism."
And they don't seem to think about other possibilities.

But isn't it too simple?

Don't you have the concept of "Ecclesiastical Freemasonry"?
They are always trying to discredit the Popes.
And sometimes they use even the childish means.
But even the childish means are often rather effective.
People who saw such photos say immediately, "Oh, the Pope is a Satanist."

But isn't it too simple?
Who is being deceived?
Who is being cheated by the ploy of enemies?

And where was the above event held?
Israel may have mischievous children
more than other areas.

“He is a good man, with a heart that is soft, and often he can be misled.”


Beautiful? Sacred?

Il Duomo Nuovo di Brescia, Italia

Brescia Cattedrale

Brescia Cattedrale

Brescia Cattedrale
Is this a Catholic art!!!???
Where did this bird come from?
From Heaven?
No, it's quite impossible.
From Hell?
From the darkness of the abyss?
Is this beautiful?
Is this sacred?
Does this match Catholic Church?
No, this does match diabolic church or occultic church!

Brescia Cattedrale
Beautiful? Sacred?

Brescia Cattedrale


No Mystery, No Confusion

"Traditionalists are not always getting the full picture."
Examining the text of Pope Paul's address today, one can scarcely believe that it was uttered by the Roman Pontiff, divinely appointed guardian of Tradition and the common good of the Church. It defies comprehension that the Vicar of Christ could, in such ironic tones, exhort us to behave "like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance"; to abandon "the language of the angels"; to reject something of "priceless worth", the "loftiest of our Church's values"; and to accept instead a new rite of Mass concocted by an obscure Monsignor named Bugnini, with the aid of a liturgical committee assisted by six Protestant advisors!
The mystery deepens even further when one considers that only a year before this address Pope Paul had lamented the "auto-demolition" of the Church in the aftermath of the Council. Did Pope Paul think that this process of auto-demolition would be arrested by what Gamber called "the real destruction of the traditional Mass"? Stranger still, three years after he had imposed the Bugnini rite upon the Church, Pope Paul would lament that, "From somewhere or other the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God." From somewhere or other.
Considering the tumultuous pontificate of Paul VI, and the confusing signals he was giving, e.g.: speaking about the “smoke of Satan that had entered the Church,” yet refusing to condemn heresies officially; his promulgation of Humanae Vitae (the glory of his pontificate), yet his careful avoidance of proclaiming it ex cathedra; delivering his Credo of the People of God in Piazza San Pietro in 1968, and once again failing to declare it binding on all Catholics; disobeying the strict orders of Pius XII to have no contact with Moscow, and appeasing the Hungarian Communist government by reneging on the solemn promise he had made to Cardinal Mindszenty; his treatment of holy Cardinal Slipyj, who had spent seventeen years in a Gulag, only to be made a virtual prisoner in the Vatican by Paul VI; and finally asking Archbishop Gagnon to investigate possible infiltration in the Vatican, only to refuse him an audience when his work was completed – all these speak strongly against the beatification of Paolo VI, dubbed in Rome, “Paolo Sesto, Mesto” (Paul VI, the sad one).
God alone is the judge of Paul VI. But it cannot be denied that his pontificate was a very complex and tragic one.
I respect Mr. Ferrara and Dr. Hildebrand sincerely. Nevertheless, I agree with the anonymous e-mail titled "WILL THE REAL MONTINI PLEASE STAND UP?" (CLICK). Namely, I think that they (traditionalists) are not always getting the full picture. Truly, in hidden truth, there would have been neither mystery nor confusion around Pope Paul VI, with him.
Of course, he was a human being, and he was assuming a heavy responsibility. So I don't think that he was entirely free from confusion (human weakness). Nevertheless, at the same time, I don't think that he was confused to a tragic extent.
Their observation is much more right than the observation which the general Catholic faithfuls do. Nevertheless, they are incorrect on the identification of the cause, I think.
According to their observation, Pope Paul VI is like Jekyll and Hyde. However, he would have been never so.
The correct answer is much stranger than it.
The correct answer is much simpler than it.
He was "They".
How do you think about the fact that Brescia loves Pope Paul VI and at the same time can have such sinister monument as containing the curse to him? This appears to be a contradiction to our eyes. How do you understand this?
As for me, even if the founders of institutions or foundations (for example Istituto Paolo VI) with the name of Paul VI in Brescia and the people who had put the sinister monument to Pope Paul VI in Brescia Cathedral overlap each other, I'm not be surprised.
I can write only very poor English. Could I make myself understood somehow?
For me, the monument of Brescia Cathedral seems to be precise reflection of Bayside Prophecies and Warnings From Beyond (exorcism document).



Posted by R. K.
Now HERE'S a Conspiracy Theory!
Below is the complete text of a fascinating email I received a few days ago. I have not been able to confirm any of this information or find the web page that it originated from, or even find who the author is. I will not vouch that it is true. But like all conspiracy theories, some of it makes sense. If ALL of it is true (and that's a BIG "if"), then we truly have been deceived in a huge way.
Pope Paul VI was perhaps the most betrayed pope of history whose subjects took the law into their own hands and promulgated their designs in his name
A common mistake held even among traditionalists is that Pope Paul Vl was the architect of the post-conciliar Mass (Novus Ordo) when in fact he had virtually nothing to do with it. During the last two years of the Vatican II Council he actually resisted any notions of a new Mass and would put it in writing on September 3, 1965, stating that, "It cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his own authority modify the formulas used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic doctrine of belief."
Traditionalists are not always getting the full picture about Vatican II. When the agents of Freemasonry infiltrated the Council their objective wasn't only to generate a reform and corrupt the Faith, but equally, their plan was to shift the blame onto the pope so as to discredit the papacy and drive the good Catholics from the Church so that they could get on with their destructive plans without any competition from them. It was carefully calculated in their plan to make us think that Paul VI was the modernist culprit who masterminded the new Mass, or that the past five popes have been antipopes, or that the Mass today is *not valid, so that good Catholics would no longer feel a reason to remain in their parishes and fight.
When the Second Vatican Council convened in the early sixties their aim was to use Pope Paul VI to spearhead the new reform, but when the pope got wise to their plan (through Cardinal Ottaviani) and rejected their proposal for a new Mass they were so infuriated against him that they haven't ceased punishing him ever since. Unfortunately, much of this punishment today is coming from traditionalists.
Pope Paul certainly wasn't perfect. For instance, he could have stood behind his May 1969 prohibition of Communion in the hand with a little more force, just as he could have put his foot down harder against the reform of liturgy. But the new Mass was not his work and should never be attributed to him, especially after he had gone on record as saying that the rule of language [Latin rite] that had preserved the Faith for so many centuries "must be religiously preserved." (9-3-65)
The change of liturgy was in fact the work of the devil who infiltrated the bishops at Vatican II. The infernal enemy broke into the Church at a time when the hierarchy was vulnerable (open to the spirit), prompting Pope Paul VI to later make his famous statement: "From some fissure the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God." (June 29, 1972)
The game plan was to bring about a change of ordinance. [Novus Ordo Seclorum] The devil knew that if he could get his foot in the door he could use the Church as a forum to advance this New Order and pave the way toward a coming New World Order. Forty years of slow conditioning have just about brought this plan to fruition - the reform was well planned.
Their primary objective was to turn the priest around so that he says the Mass facing the people with his back to the tabernacle.
The idea was to suggest that the Church should turn its back on God and turn to one another instead, which is what we have seen since the Council. A shift of focus has ensued where the emphasis today is on the community instead of on God. Pope Pius XII after his reading of the Fatima Third Secret stated that the day was coming when the Church would "be tempted to believe that man has become God."
With apostasy encroaching upon the Church in the middle sixties Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical on the Eucharist (Mysterium Fidei) in order to remind the faithful of how God through the centuries had established and preserved a rule of language [old liturgy] for the purpose of safeguarding the Church's dogma on the Eucharist so that Catholics wouldn't adopt false notions concerning it. (e.g. the Eucharist is a symbol of our unity, we are the true Eucharist, the Mass is a meal, the Mass is a community gathering, the Mass is a celebration, etc.) In His document he states, "The Church, therefore, with the long labor of centuries and the help from the Holy Ghost has established a rule of language [old liturgy], confirming it with the authority of the Councils. This rule which has often been the watchword and banner of orthodox Faith must be religiously preserved... Let no one presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new science. Who would ever tolerate that the dogmatic formulas used by the ecumenical councils for the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation be judged as no longer appropriate for men of our times and therefore that others [new Mass] be rashly substituted for them?" (Mysterium Fidei, September 3, 1965)
The following Masonic directive is from a set of 34 guidelines that was issued by the Italian P.2 Lodge in March of 1962 and gives us a better idea of where the new Mass really came from: (11) "Stop the practice of saying Mass before the Holy Eucharist in the Tabernacle. Do not allow any tabernacles on the tables used for the Mass. Make the table look like a dinner table. Make it portable, to imply that it is not sacred, but could do double duty for anything, such as a conference table or for playing cards. Later, put at least one chair at this table. Make the priest sit in this after Communion to signify that he rests after his meal. Never let the priest kneel at Mass, nor genuflect - people don't kneel at meals."
The above closely coincides with directive no. 4 of this same set of guidelines: "Stop all Latin in Mass liturgy, devotions, and songs. It lends a feeling of mystery and respect. Show it up as mumbo-jumbo of soothsayers." Removing the solemnities of the old Mass would open the way for the many other abuses planned by the Masons in 1962, for instance their plan concerning the reception of Communion: (30) "Get women and laity to give Communion, say that this is the age of the laity. Start giving Communion in the hand like the Protestants, instead of on the tongue, say that Christ did it this way. Collect some for Satan Masses."
These infernal guidelines were primarily executed by fallen members of the clergy, especially Masonic initiates like Archbishop Bugnini, the key architect of the new Mass who was seen many times going to the Masonic lodge to receive his regular paycheck to carry out his commission to destroy the Church. That is to say, the change of liturgy was not from Pope Paul VI.
Even so, many today find it difficult to accept Pope Paul's innocence, one of the reasons being that from 1975 on there was an impostor in Rome who went about discrediting him. This was common knowledge among diplomatic circles and is well documented in a book by German author, Theodore Kolberg, entitled The Impostor Pope. Therein he substantiates his claim with numerous photos of the two popes as well as with voice prints of both men speaking the same words [papal blessing] which show that there were two different men speaking from the Vatican balcony on Easter and Christmas of 1975. (voice prints will stand as evidence in a court of law) The impostor was an Italian actor with the initials P.A.R. who worked as a puppet under the control of those who had seized control of the Vatican in 1972, namely, Cardinal Villot, Cardinal Benelli, and Cardinal Casaroli whom the Wanderer in 1999 had even identified as a KGB affiliate. They drugged the true pope and created this impostor, using the best of plastic surgeons, so that the true pope made very few appearances from that point on.
These are standard news photos of the two men as they were seen and known in the press as Pope Paul VI. Note the visible difference in the nose. Pope Paul VI (left) has a longer, straighter, more pointed nose, while the impostor (right) has a shorter and rounder nose.
The photos were taken only four years apart, Pope Paul in 1973 (left) and the impostor in 1977 (right). Trick photography or creativity was not used in either photograph. The Photos speak for themselves and attest to the powers of darkness at work in the Vatican. The four years that lapsed between the two photos would not account for such a drastic difference in appearance.
The existence of the impostor would explain the many discrepancies that had confused the faithful concerning Pope Paul VI, for instance, why he would condemn the Charismatic Movement in 1969, and why he would embrace it in 1975; or why he would forbid Communion in the hand in May of 1969, and why then he would sanction it from 1975 on. Having an impostor in Rome made it easier for the modernists to get on with their reform which up to that point had been hampered by the Holy Father's resistance.
Pope Paul himself would lament the turbulent aftermath of Vatican II and identify the underlying force behind it when he gave us this quote on October 13, 1977: "The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the Faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church."
Question: Does this sound like a pope who consented to the change of ordinance that had wrought so much destruction upon the Church? Did he not warn the hierarchy in 1965 of their obligation to maintain their fidelity to the Mass of the Council of Trent?
Despite the changes to the liturgy the Mass today remains valid, not because of any reforms, but because of the essential elements of tradition that are still intact in the new rite. The modernist innovations render today's Mass illicit, not invalid. The priest will always have the power to confect a valid sacrament provided he be legally ordained and that the essentials of the Consecration are present in the Mass. (which they still are) The illicit conduct or procedure of the priest does not affect the validity of the Mass unless his procedure causes him to mutilate or omit the essentials altogether. According to the Council of Trent the essentials of the Consecration needed to confect a valid Mass are the words: "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood." The preceding and subsequent words of Consecration (e.g. which shall be shed for you and for many, etc.) do not constitute part of the essential wording and therefore the changing of these non-essentials does not invalidate the Mass unless this change is such that promotes formal heresy, which of course is not the case today.