The Antichrist Has Come and Gone

Incredible evidence that John Paul II was the antichrist and just about no one knew it. They were deceived.

Definition of Antichrist:

1. Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi Apostolatus, Oct. 4, 1903: “While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God.”

2. 1 John 2:22 – “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.”

3. 1 John 4:2-3 – “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh...”

St. Paul says that Jesus is an Apostle and that Paul, and the twelve, are also apostles and bishops, even Judas, so the antichrist will be a false bishop, a false Christ!

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus:

St. Peter says that Jesus is a bishop and a shepherd.

1 Peter 2:24-25 Who his own self bore our sins in his body upon the tree: that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice: by whose stripes you were healed. For you were as sheep going astray; but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls.

Jesus Christ is Apostle and Bishop and so Jesus is warning in the end times, that there will be false bishops who will show great signs and wonders to deceive catholics. And keep everyone else in their false religion. This is why the antipopes of the vatican II sect, say not to proselytize anyone, leave them as they are, which in truth, means they are spiritually dead!! This is what the devil would want!

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs [bishops] and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.

Mark 13:22 For there will rise up false Christs and false prophets, and they shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect."

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:

John Paul II taught that every man is God, which is the Nestorian heresy. Nestorius, who was the Archbishop of Constantinople in 428 who dissolved Jesus into two persons, by his false teachings. Jesus Christ is one person, with two natures, Divine and Human. John Paul II's teachings dissolved Jesus into every man! Arius was also a bishop, i.e. Arian heresy.

Teaching of the true Catholic church:

Pope St. Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon, 451, ex cathedra: “... we all with one voice teach the confession of one and same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body... one and same Christ... a single person and subsistent being; He is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ...”

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “The holy synod of Ephesus... has pronounced sentence against the heresy of Nestorius... and all those who might later... adopt the same opinions as he held... They express these falsehoods against the true dogmas of the Church, OFFERING WORSHIP TO TWO SONS, trying to divide that which cannot be divided, AND INTRODUCING TO BOTH HEAVEN AND EARTH THE OFFENCE OF THE WORSHIP OF MAN. But the sacred band of heavenly spirits worship along with us only one Lord Jesus Christ.”

Antipope John paul II heresies:

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis #13, March 4, 1979: “... by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with EACH MAN.”

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, July 2, 1986: “... the Son of God, incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary, ‘has in a certain way united himself with each man.’”

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, April 8, 1987: “... by his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in a certain way with EACH PERSON.”

Antipope John Paul II, Letter to Families (# 2): “... the Son of God, who in the Incarnation ‘united himself in some sense with every man.’”

He said Christmas is the feast of man, instead of Jesus Christ.

Antipope John Paul II, Urbi et Orbi, Dec. 25, 1978: “I am addressing this message to every human being, to man in his humanity. Christmas is the feast of man.”

Please remember that Judas Iscariot was also a bishop, who betrayed and killed Jesus.

Acts 1:16-17, 20 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. … For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Antipope John Paul II's teachings were very subtle and from the pit of hell.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made.

Pope Pius VI and Pope St. Pius X wrote encyclicals warning about the subtle and ambiguous writings of heretics and false councils.

BULL OF POPE PIUS VI AUCTOREM FIDEI 1794

Truly in these tumultuous times, in this revolutionary upheaval, all good men must join the burdensome struggle against any and all enemies of the Christian name. The guardianship and guidance of the entire flock entrusted to our pastoral care are a more serious matter for Us, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upon all others. … For in fact, when a leader of God’s holy Church, under the name of Priest, turns the very people of Christ away from the path of truth toward the peril of an erroneous belief, and when this occurs in a major city, then clearly the distress is multiplied, and a greater anxiety is in order.

To be sure, this has not occurred in far-off lands, but in the full blaze of Italy, under the eyes of the City [viz. Rome], and near the threshold of the Apostles [viz. the tombs of Ss. Peter and Paul]. There has been a bishop, distinguished by the honor of two Sees (Scipione de’ Ricci, formerly the bishop of Pistoia and Prato), whom we embraced with paternal love as he approached Us to take up his pastoral duty. In the very text of the rite of his sacred ordination, he, in turn, bound himself by means of a scrupulous, solemn oath to the fidelity and obedience due to Us and to this Apostolic See. And yet, this same man in the short space of time after he had left our embrace with the kiss of peace, surrounded by the deceits of a pack of teachers of a perverse school of thought, went to the people entrusted to him. He began to apply himself, but not in the measure he should have, that is to say, by defending, nurturing, and perfecting the praiseworthy and peaceful form of Christian teaching that his predecessor bishops had already introduced long ago and almost secured. Instead, he embarked on confusing, destroying, and utterly overturning it by introducing troublesome novelties under the guise of a sham reform. And furthermore, when at our urging he had decided upon a diocesan synod, it happened that, by his inflexible pertinacity in his own way of thinking, a more severe occasion of ruin grew out of the source from which we should have looked for some kind of remedy for the wounds. Truly, after the Synod of Pistoia emerged from the hiding places in which it lurked concealed for some time, there was no one with pious scruples and with any good sense who did not at once warn that the plan of the authors had been to unite into one whole, like a body, the seeds of the vicious teachings they had scattered beforehand through numerous pamphlets; to revive errors not long since condemned; and to detract from the faith and authority of those apostolic decrees by which they stood condemned. When we clearly perceived that the more serious problems are in themselves, the more considerably they demand the support of our pastoral care, we did not delay to focus our attention on taking those counsels that seemed more apropos, either in healing or suppressing the emergent evil. And so, first of all, being mindful of the sage advice of our predecessor St. Zosimus: to wit, Those things that are of great importance call for a weighty examination,6 We tasked four bishops and their personal theologians from the secular clergy to examine the Synod that this bishop produced. Next we assigned a committee of several cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church and other bishops to study diligently the complete collection of [the synod’s] acts, to compare the widely scattered passages with each other, and to discuss the identified formal opinions. We personally received their decisions, both orally and in writing.

They decided that the synod must be universally condemned and that very many of the propositions taken from the synod must be reproved with more or less serious censures, some indeed in and of themselves and others in connection with the formally expressed opinions. … However, in case obstinate men seize an opportunity for detraction on account of this, notwithstanding either the very carefully conducted comparison of passages or the investigation of the formal opinions, We have determined, in order to meet this probable calumny, to make use of the wise counsel, duly and cautiously applied, which several of our most holy predecessors along with highly esteemed bishops and even general councils had left attested and recommended with notable examples when they had cause to restrain the rise of dangerous or harmful novelties of this sort.

They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error. Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it. It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine8 who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed. In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged. …

Pope St. Pius X, wrote an encyclical that the meanings of dogmas are never to be changed but always retained in meaning and the same purport.

Pope St. Pius X, Oath Against Modernism-1910

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. …

… Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. … Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion.

… I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

Offered in charity.