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.