Roman Catholic Necromancy – Praying to Dead Popes

  Second: John XXIII was a religiously deceptive pope.  Again from Satan’s Seat:[8] “Then in 1959, Pope John declared that he wanted ‘an Ecumenical Council for the whole Church’; that he wanted to invite the ‘separated Communities’ (that is, Protestant and Orthodox bodies) to seek for unity.  With these words, he opened the door for the Second Vatican Council, or ‘Vatican II’ – and thus for the Papacy’s most subtle assault yet on Protestantism!

  “The purpose of Vatican II, Rome declared, was to revitalise the ‘Church’.  In addition, it was to promote the restoration of ‘unity’.  In reality, it was simply to achieve, by another, more subtle means, what the Papacy had always desired and worked for: the complete destruction of Protestantism!  Instead of murdering the ‘heretics’, as it had done for centuries, it would seek to absorb them.  John XXIII invited Protestants to ‘return’ to the ‘one true Church’.  Craftily, certain words were used.  By inviting them to ‘return’, it was implied that they had once been part of her, but had wandered away (of course, since the true Church is made up ONLY of truly saved people, it has NEVER been part of Rome).  By referring to Protestants as ‘separated brethren’ (instead of ‘heretics’ as in the past), it was not only implied that Roman Catholics and Protestants were all ‘Christians’, but that the Protestants had separated themselves from the only true Church.  Rome’s position, in fact, had not changed; she had simply changed tactics…. Yet the Council declared emphatically that Christ built His Church on Peter, that all Christ’s sheep were entrusted to Peter, and that it was through the preaching of the apostles ‘and their successors’ (the Roman Catholic bishops) that Christ wished His people to increase.[9]  Thus, as far as Rome was concerned, she was still the only true Church, and all must belong to her.”

  Was, then, this man, John XXIII, often called “the good pope” by Roman Catholics, really good?  No; he was anything but a good man.  He was, during his term of office, the biblical Antichrist for that time, just as every pope is (2 Thess. 2:1-12); and he was a deceptive, cunning, evil man, who, far from going straight to heaven when he died, did not go to any imaginary purgatory either, but went straight to hell, just like every pope of Rome before him and since.

  John Paul II was pope from 1978 to 2005.  He is credited with playing perhaps the greatest role of anyone in “bringing down Communism.”  But did he really, and who was he really?  We will make just three points:

  First: just like John XXIII, John Paul II was a pro-Communist pope, but with a difference.  Again, the following is taken from Satan’s Seat:[10]  “John Paul II, while pro-Marxist, was not pro-Moscow.  He believed in a version of Communism controlled from the Vatican, not Moscow…. on the one hand, he brought the US and the Vatican together again for the first time since Pius XII; on the other hand, he continued to promote Marxism – the Vatican’s own brand.

  “He began to travel all over the world, more so than any pope before him.  And wherever he went, he promoted Liberation Theology.

  “In 1986, John Paul II said that Liberation Theology… was a necessary part of the ‘Church’s’ political thought….[11] he justified ‘Catholic-Communism’, but opposed Moscow-controlled, atheistic Communism.”

  Second, John Paul II was a religiously deceptive pope.  Not only did he tirelessly push the Vatican’s ecumenical agenda, constantly seeking to do all in his power to bring the Protestants under Rome’s control, but he went even further and worked for the “unity” of all kinds of religions under Rome as well!  As documented in Satan’s Seat,[12] he met with Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Jewish religious leaders, and participated in various interfaith services with them.  In 1986 he even presided over an interfaith day of prayer, a veritable religious Babel.  He was utterly committed to the idea that the Roman Papacy should rule over the whole world, and that all religions and religious institutions should submit to it.

  And then thirdly: when the worldwide priestly sex scandals broke in the latter years of his pontificate, John Paul II did nothing to halt them, did much to cover them up, and did very little for the victims – and these facts were vociferously raised by groups representing the victims of the abuse at the hands of priests, who attended the canonisation to protest the entire charade.  One such group, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (known as SNAP), with 18000 members in 79 countries, declared that canonising John Paul II was like “pouring salt into an open wound.”  Nicky Davis, one of the tens of thousands who had been abused, said at a briefing: “We were abused because John Paul II didn’t act.  We don’t believe it is saintly behavior to allow child abuse to continue for 27 years.”[13]   And SNAP president, Barbara Blaine, said: “There is irrefutable documentary evidence to show that John Paul II refused to take action that would have protected children during his 27-year papacy.  Thousands of victims were abused because John Paul refused to read the reports he was receiving.”[14]

  He staunchly protected predator-priests.  “One of John Paul’s great shames was giving Vatican sanctuary to Cardinal Bernard Law, a horrendous enabler of child abuse who resigned in disgrace in 2002 as archbishop of Boston.  Another unforgivable breach was the pope’s stubborn defense of the dastardly Mexican priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, a pedophile, womanizer, embezzler and drug addict…. [who] serially abused adolescent seminarians, some as young as 12, and had several children with at least two women.  His sons also claimed he abused them.”[15] 

  It has been well said by one writer, a Roman Catholic herself: “John Paul may be a revolutionary figure in the history of the church, but a man who looked away in a moral crisis cannot be described as a saint.  When the church elevates him, it is winking at the hell it caused for so many children and young people in its care.  A big holy wink.”[16]

  A massive cover-up of priestly sexual abuse by John Paul II.  And now another pope (Francis I) has made this man a “saint”.  Which amounts to a second massive cover-up.  And now, sexual-predator priests can, if they are so inclined, pray to the pope who did nothing to stop the abuse and much to allow it to continue!

  Again we ask: was, then, this man, John Paul II, really good?  No; he was anything but a good man.  He was, during his term of office, the biblical Antichrist for that time, just as every pope is (2 Thess. 2:1-12); and he was a deceptive, cunning, evil man, who, far from going straight to heaven when he died, did not go to any imaginary purgatory either, but went straight to hell, just like every pope of Rome before him and since.

 

The “Miracles” Attributed to the Two Popes

  In order for any Roman Catholic, even a pope, to be canonised, two miracles have to be attributed to him after his death.  However, in John XXIII’s case Francis decided to waive the second miracle required and settle for just one.  This indicates a decidedly unseemly haste to push this pope to “sainthood”.  Clearly it was felt that as half a century had gone by since his death and no second miracle had been forthcoming, it might be necessary to wait another half a century without any guarantee that there would be another even then, and it was felt more important to proceed with his canonisation than to wait for some claim of a miracle that may or may not occur.  And so, as it has so often done in a thousand and one different situations, Rome waived the rule.