New Black Pope - Adolfo Nicolás

New Black Pope - Adolfo Nicolás

en.wikipedia.org

On the second ballot of the thirty-fifth General Congregation (GC XXXV) of the Society of Jesus, Nicolás was elected as the Order’s thirtieth Superior General on January 19, 2008, succeeding the Dutch Fr. Peter Hans Kolvenbach. His election was immediately relayed to Pope Benedict XVI, who confirmed him in the post.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I couldn't see any references to this on ATS. As Peter-Hans Kolvenbach is reported to have ordered 9/11 according to this source

www.vaticanassassins.org...

it might be worth knowing who has taken over as head of the Jesuits

en.wikipedia.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by sinthia



since i read that he and i share the same day of birth, 29 April,
my interest in him is risen (a tad)


but i'm wondering how did the Jesuits get the 'Black Pope' label
of their organizational leader?

I would have thought that the Orthodox Christians and especially
the Orthodox Patriarch who the Orthodox counterpart to the Vatican Pope,
would be the "Black Pope"...
and there are 3 major Patriarchs to pick from at any given time;
the Coptic Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox



~ related issue;
the Serbia-Kosovo area is the Russian Orthodox 'Holy Land' from the info i'm gleaning, and watch-see if the Russians don't conduct their own 'Crusade' in concert with Serbia to save the Kosovo region, or parts thereof...
the Russian Orthodox Patriarch, in this future scenario would be a more fitting Black-Pope...(as in Anti-Pope) than a Jesuit leader in consort/counsil with the Pope of Rome.


or does black pope have the meaning of the visible Pope's hidden equal
a covert pope operating in the shadows? ergo 'Black Pope'?


thanks ahead of time

I think the latter is most likely although i'm not sure.

There are certain sites which claim that the Jesuits are a terrible bunch, yet they don't seem to get much press on ATS, so either there is little to the claim, or most people on ATS don't give much creedence to the idea.

I'm coming to think that rather than an illuminati serving alien/reptilian beings, it's simply satan and his demons - all gearing up for judgement day. I also think that the catholics and offshoot christian churches aren't following the bible, but are, often unwhittingly by the general clergy and congregation, serving satan.

So which country doues our new Pontifex Maximus aka Papa Nero hail from? Superior General Adolfo Nicolas inherits the successes of the art of war as practiced by a disciplined orginization. This is a fun topic to research.

edit: Spain is the answer. I should have read the links first.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by stikkinikki]

The thought just occured to me, wouldn't the ultimate conspiracy involve a dissolution of the Catholic Church through worldwide disgust at church involvement in the attacks of September 11, 2001 in NYC, DC, and PA? This would fulfill that hair brained theory (in addition to this one) that this is the last or next to last pope. Then somehow this gets back to us returning to worship the sun aka RA. Baphomet is also involved.

The catholic church is one of the churches of satan. They changed the sabbath from saturday to sunday, which most other christian sects now also follow. They also decided on the celebrating of easter and christmas and when - the false festivals being mentioned in the Zietgiest movie. If you check your bible, nowhere does it state that Jesus was born in december - the satanists linked it to one of their existing solstice festivals.
They even banned the bible being read at one point.

On a Sunday Sabbath:

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord's day, the new day of rest in Christ. Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.*

Regardless of your opinion on the above, what are your thoughts on:

Colossians 2:16
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.


On the date of Christmas:
There is a very widespread theory that Christmas began in Rome as a response to pagan festivities centering around the winter solstice, which was locally considered to be 25 December. The pagan celebration, which was first established by the Roman emperor Aurelian in AD 274, was called The Birth of the Invincible Sun. However, there is evidence that, some years earlier, Christians had made a sincere attempt to calculate the actual date of Jesus’ birthday. People commonly believe that Christmas was instituted on the date of a pagan holiday to supplant it, but it was actually the other way around. Christmas was there first.
In ancient Judaism, there was a common belief, which ancient Christians inherited, that the prophets of Israel died on the on the same date as their birth or conception. This may be behind the long-standing Christian custom of referring to the date of a martyr’s death as their “birthday in heaven.” According to ancient western calculations, Jesus was crucified on 25 March, so they assumed that 25 March was the date of Jesus’ conception. The Annunciation is still commemorated on that date to this day. Nine months after 25 March leads to 25 December, which would be the birthday of Jesus Christ if all those assumptions and calculations were correct. They aren’t correct, but the fact remains that the date has a Christian origin. footnote
In AD 354, Philocalus wrote a Christian martyrology that dates the nativity of Jesus Christ on December 25, and cites an earlier work as backup. From this we can deduce that Christmas was celebrated on the present date at least as early as AD 335 in Rome.*
The Catholic Church never banned the reading of the Bible.


*Quoted from someone else. I don’t want to take undue credit.

Eric

reply to post by sinthia


i wouldn't trust much from that source, but it is possible.

reply to post by EricD


This is what I like to see.

Actual debate.

It shows me I need to research far more. I really haven't heard too many people post counters to a lot of the commonly posted things.

A lot in here did though. Well considering it's age and topic. lol

But this thread has some good skeptics and I think I need to do a lot of reading.

This stuff really never gets talked about so maybe bumping this thread is a bad idea.

NEXT POPE? - PETER KODWO APPIAH TURKSON a certainty!

There are various prophecies associated with the next, and, believed to be last Pope of all time...

- Malachy suggests that he will be associated with the name "Peter". No Pope can ever take the name Peter , but it could be associated with his real name.
- Malachy also describes him as "Peter the Roman"
- Another one says that he will be the sin of a Turk. This traditionally meant that he would be apostate, but maybe it could be literal.
- After two old Popes, they invariably elect a young one.
- Many suggest that it is well over time for there to be a black Pope.
- Popes always come from countries that are politically and militarily weak, but hopefully stable.

ONE MAN FITS THIS DESCRIPTION PRECISELY.

PETER KODWO APPIAH TURKSON.

- His name really is Peter.
- As he went to study in Rome, he is literally already known as "Roman Peter" in his native village.
- His name is literally TURKSON.
- He is one of the youngest Cardinals
- He is from tropical Africa.
- He comes from Ghana. Although militarily and poitically weak, Ghana is a stable country, albeit a dictatorship.
- He is free from scandal and controversy.

I am convinced that Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson will be the next Pope.

Incidentally, just to remind you that there are TWO ways in which a Pope can be elected...

1. By relevant majority of votes in a conclave.
2. By act of God. Only row Popes have ever been appointed by act of God. First there was Peter, the first, who was apponited by Jesus. Secondly there was a curious incident about 1,500 years ago. As the conclave opened, a dove flew down and landed on the head of a nearby minor priest who happened to be there. As a dove is considered to be, in effect the hand of God, this was taken as an appointment by God and th epriest was immediately appointed Pope on the spot without further vote.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by aristocrat2]

reply to post by aristocrat2


Thanks for posting, interesting info you got there.

I looked him up.

en.wikipedia.org...

So how does this work? Will Adolfo Nicolas rule from behind Peter?

And who is behind them?

_____ ? Invisible man behind the curtain lol.

That's why I mentioned aliens earlier. If it's something like that maybe I shouldn't open the door LOL!

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by sinthia

 

but i'm wondering how did the Jesuits get the 'Black Pope' label
of their organizational leader?
.
or does black pope have the meaning of the visible Pope's hidden equal
a covert pope operating in the shadows? ergo 'Black Pope'?

I was thinking because the jesuits only have the pope as their boss and the highest jesuit (general) always wears black and the pope is always dressed in white.

The jesuits are practically all high educated intelectuals and the one appointed jesuit general by the pope is highly regarded by the jesuit order. Maybe even more than they regard the pope...

Let us not forget that the jesuit order only takes orders from the pope and not from any bischop or cardinal.....it is like a church within the church. The only one keeping the jesuit-general from being the highest priest in the catholic church is the pope.

I think that the jesuits represent the christian doctrine without the BS and concentrate on reality, the real workings of the world. Most jesuits are scientist...thinkers.

I find them an interesting bunch and have respect for their dicipline and way of life...also ofcourse because the former jesuit general Kolvenbach was a dutch fellowman.