It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The satanic meaning of burying John Paul II in the tomb of John XXIII

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:51 PM
The election of the illuminati agent John XXIII was a key moment in the illuminati satanic plan.

The first consequence was that the third secret of Fatima was not revealed, against the expectations of millions that were anxiously waiting for 1959 to come to an end, since the secret was to be announced the latest until 1960.
October 11 1962 - Second Vatican Council opens, a milestone in the plan to destroy the catholic church in one generation, i.e. until 2000. It called for abolition of the ancient liturgy. The Church no longer had enemies, said 'Good Pope John' (XXIII), as the illuminati media immediately called him.

As in 1962 NATO deployed Jupiter missiles in Turkey and Russia retaliated in Cuba, the nuclear clock reached the timetable foreseen in the third vision of Fatima, in November.
And then the miracle happened: John XXIII renounced his satanic vows and accepted God.
He informed Kennedy and Kruschev about it.
McNamara ordered JFK to launch a full scale nuclear attack against Russia or face death.
But John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that was not only the first catholic but also the first non-illuminati to have become US president, vowed to oppose the illuminati(1) to the last consequences.
John XIII died June 1963.
The stage was set for Vatican II to complete the satanic task.
November 22 1963 - The Council's first edict, called Sacrosanctum Concilium (This Sacred Council), was issued. St Cecilia's Day, patroness of the very music it destroyed, while in Dallas Texas, indeed while the Council still deliberated, President Kennedy was assassinated.

(1) - Just like in the case of Ronald Reagan, the only other non-illuminati president ever, the illuminati had made clear that they unless JFK allowed them to decide who would be vice-president & Co. JFK would be dead before being president. See:
24 years ago God saved Ronald Reagan from the illuminati bullets - 7 years grace time

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:43 PM

u r a loser

Syrinx thats not very nice and kinda against the policies of the board.

Terms and Conditions

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:53 PM
I think im going to be sick after reading that and now im going to be sick even replying. Wow.. May this thread burn. I understand that this site is about conspiracy theories and MUCH MUCH MORE.. But where do people draw the line. Some people make me sick.

[edit on 6-4-2005 by madmangunradio]

[edit on 6-4-2005 by madmangunradio]

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 12:02 AM
You live in a world of fantasy, my friend. Do you make this stuff up yourself, or simply regurgitate what you read somewhere else?

[edit to remove quote-nygdan]

[edit on 7-4-2005 by Nygdan]

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 12:13 AM
Matt, only problem is, I don't think the Pope has been the one running the show since the Jesuits came around, so in essence, that may have been the first planted Pope, but the others were influenced, if not as directly.

Maybe this is the John we are talking about?

Now loading...

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 12:22 AM
You lost me at hello akilles. I do however agree with the fact major corporations are running this country. But what does this have to do with the Matts crazy rant? Maybe the fact Im suffering from a hangover is causing me to not read into your post like I should. Enlighten me. As long as its on topic.

Damn, I need to proofread before I hit the enter button

[edit on 7-4-2005 by madmangunradio]

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 01:06 AM
McNamara did not order a strike against Russia, it was Curtis LeMay and another general who were gung ho to nuke Russia with "Acceptable losses of 400 Million lives" (more than the total US population today)

Please at least research some of the names you are dropping.

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 06:07 AM

The illuminati have a role for each actor. You would not expect that the role of calculating "Acceptable losses" would be officially assumed by a civilian, do you?

[edit to remove quote, add header-nygdan]

[edit on 7-4-2005 by Nygdan]

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 02:51 PM
October 22 1996 - Pope John Paul II writes history, proclaiming implicitly the destruction of the catholic church.
March 25 2005 - The martyrdom of Theresa Maria Schindler on Holy Friday symbolises, among other things, that the dream of JFK for America is gone. For ever.
April 8 - John Paul II will be buried in the tomb of John XXIII, to symbolise, among other things, that God's hope for humans to refuse satan is gone. For ever.

Made public by Matt Marriott first time worldwdide at

No more available. Deleted by the "christian" censor in charge, (the Colonel) after some hours. He was just following orders...

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 03:04 PM
Where to you come up with this stuff man?

I mean, I've said it before but I'll say it again:

You are all over the place with different times having different meanings that only you could uncover. Yet it all relates to the "Illuminati" in your book...

I somehow imagine you pacing back and forth in an apartment that is cluttered with old newsprint and magazines from floor to 5 feet high. With walls littered with pasted pages and scribbled notes.

And some crusty old cat that keeps you company. His name is snowflake or something.

Am I close?


posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 03:22 PM
Cardinal Angelo Roncalli took the name of John XXIII, which was a great shock to many because that had been the name of an anti-pope in the 15th century.

There are indeed many questions regarding this pope. One he reported to be a member of the "Rose-Croix" a hermitic group w/ based there faith on the teachering of John and not Peter.

Also, Pope John XXIII put a great value on Jesus's blood. And declared for the first time that a cathloic could be a Freemason.

He is a very interesting figure but I need more inforamtion on the point of this thread......

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 11:00 PM
Just research the Number 23, and you will know it is the calling card.

Finding out why, well, that will be a long search,

What a surprise, though, that he chose the name of an AntiPope (pope of disputed legitimacy, from back when France/Italy decided Popes could only come from their country, etc.).

What letter of the alphabet is Omega???

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 05:39 AM

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 12:44 PM
Some people ask questions:
After his "escape" from Boston, Law was appointed "archpriest" at the St. Mary Major Basilica in Rome. When I say escape, he resigned as archbishop after being blamed for shuffling priests around after learning they had been abusing young boys. He had been doing this for decades and finally something was done about it. But, in a bizarre twist, after resigning, he was given a job in the Vatican? What does this say to the parents of the abused children?

Secondly, he is then asked to lead one of the masses following the Pope's funeral? Does anyone else find this disgusting and in serious poor taste?

David Clohessy, national director for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, called it "terribly insensitive," adding that "it rubs salt into the already deep wounds of victims and it allows the best-documented complicit bishop to exploit the pope's death for his own selfish purposes."
Answer is at the begin: one generation plan to destroy the church

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:40 PM
Your quote
"But John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that was not only the first catholic but also the first non-illuminati to have become US president, vowed to oppose the illuminati(1) to the last consequences."

Not true at all.
George Washington was not part of the illuminati, nor were many more of our presidents including Jimmy Carter. Considering I am directly related to GW, TJ, and Jimmy Carter I would know. I can honestly say that more U.S. Presidents have been Episcopalian (11 of them) than any other demonination and that's true but your illuminati stuff is complete Bovine Scatology.

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 02:21 PM
I don't want to name call or denigrate my fellow ATS members,so I will just say this: The OP is full of misinformation, biased viewpoints, and scrambled thinking.

For one day, please, let JPII rest in peace without disturbing his precious memory.


posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 02:28 PM
Aw man, did I walk into the tabloid section of the press room again? Rats. I thought this was news and current events. Second door on the left, not right. I'll get it right next time. Later on guys, enjoy the sci-fi.

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 02:54 PM
Stop sniffing gas, paint and glue. This topic is just plain ole ridiculous.

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:46 PM
MM, are you joking? For real, it was Cardinal Law?

Wow, they really look after their own, huh... I guess they couldn't let some 'allegations' get in the way of their plans, either.

And the fact that all this happens on the date of a solar eclipse, well isn't that special.

Warning to people in America, a solar eclipse can take 6 months for its effects to be felt, so watch out for economic disaster, etc. in the Fall. Or don't. Continue speculating.

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 10:06 PM
Matt, that is pure 100% fantasy. The Satanists do not worship anyone, there are not that many of them compaired to Christianity. The Illuminati was a German Irregular Masonic temple that was destroyed by the European aristocracy a long, long time ago because it had such radical ideas as "equal representation" and "democratic process" No pope has ever been a Satanist, and no American president has ever been in the Illuminati.

Akilles, I can tell you from firsthand experience the Jesuits do not run the Catholic Church. In fact if they did, Catholocism would be a much more liberal religion and the preist sex abuse scandal would have been delt with very harshly.

As for the solar eclipse, it wasn't even visable in Rome. I don't know about your little therory regarding bad things following them. Sounds like something out of middle ages superstition to me. If there was an economic disaster every eclipse, well I really doubt that we would make much headway in economics as they really aren't terribly uncomon events. I think the last century alone blows your idea out of the water.


top topics

<<   2 >>

log in