Is this true??

[Monica4316]

Okay I know this seems like a conspiracy theory, but… I found this record of an exorcism in which demons were commanded to answer questions about some things… it’s from the 1970s. The website contains information about Bayside which is not approved, but this particular record seems to be unrelated to Bayside. I’m wondering, could it be true??? because in the picture of Pope Paul VI, he does look kind of different in the second one. tldm.org/News4/WarningsFromBeyond.2of3.htm

The link is basically saying that Pope Paul VI was actually in support of the TLM, but he was silenced by some of the cardinals/bishops who were corrupt, and there was a double of him… and that he didn’t mean to sign the paper approving the initial Mass revisions, - he thought he was signing his own document which was in support of the TLM.

Again I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory but the account of this exorcism and the picture really make me wonder.

If this is true, then the Novus Ordo is actually NOT approved by the Pope. It is still a real Mass, still has the Sacraments, there is still a priesthood, and the Papacy of course, - and it’s valid because it has the essential parts like the Consecration - but the rest of it - the form and the prayers - didn’t come from obedience to the Pope, but disobedience. This means that it’s important to stay in the Church but the TLM should be celebrated. (which points towards the FSSP or the SSPX, which are the two groups that have been trying to do both - staying in the Church and celebrating only the 1962 Missal).

What do you all think??? I really don’t know how to argue against this. But if it’s wrong, then believing it is also very dangerous.

If this is true, then - I wouldn’t say it’s wrong to attend a Novus Ordo Mass if there are no other Masses around, - because we still have the Sunday obligation, and it’s still a Mass with the Sacraments. But it does mean that the form of it needs to be fixed soon - either through changing it gradually back to what it’s supposed to be (the new translation being the first step), or, just switching back, through another council. It also means that if we have the option of attending a TLM, we should.

Also like I said, in any case, the Church is still the Church, the Papacy is still real, it’s still important to be a member of the Church, the Mass is still a Sacrifice and has the Sacraments and grace, - but the form really needs to be changed back to what was accepted by the Church. Essentially that article is saying that the Mass of Pope Paul VI was never approved by Pope Paul VI… scary

I really am not sure what to think… I don’t want to make any mistake

 

[PA650]

I highly doubt what you have read is true. Nevertheless, one thing to remember is that the Missal of Paul VI never abrogated the Tridentine Mass, which can be lawfully celebrated by a priest of the Roman Rite as stated by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

 

[JM3]

My opinion:

1. the second photo is doctored.
2. Judas Iscariot is not a demon
3. You said, " The website contains information about Bayside which is not approved, but this particular record seems to be unrelated to Bayside."

The site says, “The following work confirms many of the Bayside revelations.”

If it is not approved by the Church, then why would you believe it?

 

[PiousTemplar]

GAhh, last time you were looking up conspiracies and anti-catholic material I gave you advice to stop… I guess you didn’t…

Of course it’s not real

 

[PiousTemplar]

Here you go:

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1375&CFID=77057784&CFTOKEN=10347784

Review of the site

 

[MsgrPlante]

As in all conspiracy theories, the proponents challenge others to prove that the theory is not true. However, proving that something did not happen is a philosophical impossibility! No one can prove non existence. Yet, for some people, when the history and the data add up to a reality they do not want to accept, then a conspiracy theory is only means by which they can persist in their disbelief.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

From a purely observational standpoint, the suspicion that the picture is doctored is a good one but I would also like to add the following.

1. As this is the internet, there is no immediate way of knowing the date of a photo. The second photo looks more like an older and wearier version of the first one.
2. The second image could also (albeit less likely) be a portrait. The quality of the lighting is not very realistic. That could just be me looking at it too hard.

 

[RSD]

Okay I know this seems like a conspiracy theory, but… I found this record of an exorcism in which demons were commanded to answer questions about some things… it’s from the 1970s. The website contains information about Bayside which is not approved, but this particular record seems to be unrelated to Bayside. I’m wondering, could it be true??? because in the picture of Pope Paul VI, he does look kind of different in the second one. tldm.org/News4/WarningsFromBeyond.2of3.htm

The link is basically saying that Pope Paul VI was actually in support of the TLM, but he was silenced by some of the cardinals/bishops who were corrupt, and there was a double of him… and that he didn’t mean to sign the paper approving the initial Mass revisions, - he thought he was signing his own document which was in support of the TLM.

Again I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory but the account of this exorcism and the picture really make me wonder.

If this is true, then the Novus Ordo is actually NOT approved by the Pope. It is still a real Mass, still has the Sacraments, there is still a priesthood, and the Papacy of course, - and it’s valid because it has the essential parts like the Consecration - but the rest of it - the form and the prayers - didn’t come from obedience to the Pope, but disobedience. This means that it’s important to stay in the Church but the TLM should be celebrated. (which points towards the FSSP or the SSPX, which are the two groups that have been trying to do both - staying in the Church and celebrating only the 1962 Missal).

What do you all think??? I really don’t know how to argue against this. But if it’s wrong, then believing it is also very dangerous.

If this is true, then - I wouldn’t say it’s wrong to attend a Novus Ordo Mass if there are no other Masses around, - because we still have the Sunday obligation, and it’s still a Mass with the Sacraments. But it does mean that the form of it needs to be fixed soon - either through changing it gradually back to what it’s supposed to be (the new translation being the first step), or, just switching back, through another council. It also means that if we have the option of attending a TLM, we should.

Also like I said, in any case, the Church is still the Church, the Papacy is still real, it’s still important to be a member of the Church, the Mass is still a Sacrifice and has the Sacraments and grace, - but the form really needs to be changed back to what was accepted by the Church. Essentially that article is saying that the Mass of Pope Paul VI was never approved by Pope Paul VI… scary

I really am not sure what to think… I don’t want to make any mistake

I did not check the link you gave, I was just thinking. You are suggesting that the Pope had a body double who somehow was allowed by the then Pope and all the Swiss guard to sign a document that was not intended by the real Pope, and no one since then, no Pope, no vocal Bishop, no secretary, no journalist, noticed? Pope John Paul II of blessed memory just let all those years go by allowing this wrong document to rule the Church? Does this seem likely? I think that the Swiss guard is actually pretty good at what they do. And as a purely irrelevant note, I did find out when I was in Switzerland that the Swiss Guard is actually made of Swiss people, just in case you were wondering.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Hi Monica,

I glanced over the page and viewed the pictures.

I don’t believe it. First of all, priests do not engage in conversation or ask demons questions during an exorcism. It is counterproductive. If they had, why would anyone trust a demon? They lie! “The Father of Lies”

Secondly, the second picture is clearly an older Pope. His face shows signs of age and is more rounded. His face is looking somewhat downward in the first picture. The different angles make his nose appear to be different lengths in comparison to his ears. The ears appear to match. What are the odds that two men would have ears like that!

 

[trials]

There are a lot of paths within the realm of the Catholic faith that can be very distracting and disturbing. Examples: conspiracy theories like these, weeping statues, etc. I’m speaking from experience because when I re-verted to my faith and tried to learn a bit about it on the net as well as in the Catechism, I found the net to be alive with these conspiracy theories, tales of visionaries, speculation about the Third Secret of Fatima, etc. - they’re exciting and somewhat addictive too. However, what is most important is really the daily grind, you and God, you trying to convert your heart to God in every moment. Boring, in comparison with these stories, but essential if you really want to deepen your faith. Think about it, who would want to distract the faithful from living out their faith, who would want to inspire confusion and doubt? Even if they all turned out to be true, all these conspiracy theories and false visions… at the end of the day when we meet our Maker they are irrelevant. It’ll be about how we lived out our life, nothing else.

 

[patrick457]

Okay I know this seems like a conspiracy theory, but… I found this record of an exorcism in which demons were commanded to answer questions about some things… it’s from the 1970s. The website contains information about Bayside which is not approved, but this particular record seems to be unrelated to Bayside. I’m wondering, could it be true??? because in the picture of Pope Paul VI, he does look kind of different in the second one. tldm.org/News4/WarningsFromBeyond.2of3.htm

The link is basically saying that Pope Paul VI was actually in support of the TLM, but he was silenced by some of the cardinals/bishops who were corrupt, and there was a double of him… and that he didn’t mean to sign the paper approving the initial Mass revisions, - he thought he was signing his own document which was in support of the TLM.

Again I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory but the account of this exorcism and the picture really make me wonder.

If this is true, then the Novus Ordo is actually NOT approved by the Pope. It is still a real Mass, still has the Sacraments, there is still a priesthood, and the Papacy of course, - and it’s valid because it has the essential parts like the Consecration - but the rest of it - the form and the prayers - didn’t come from obedience to the Pope, but disobedience. This means that it’s important to stay in the Church but the TLM should be celebrated. (which points towards the FSSP or the SSPX, which are the two groups that have been trying to do both - staying in the Church and celebrating only the 1962 Missal).

What do you all think??? I really don’t know how to argue against this. But if it’s wrong, then believing it is also very dangerous.

If this is true, then - I wouldn’t say it’s wrong to attend a Novus Ordo Mass if there are no other Masses around, - because we still have the Sunday obligation, and it’s still a Mass with the Sacraments. But it does mean that the form of it needs to be fixed soon - either through changing it gradually back to what it’s supposed to be (the new translation being the first step), or, just switching back, through another council. It also means that if we have the option of attending a TLM, we should.

Also like I said, in any case, the Church is still the Church, the Papacy is still real, it’s still important to be a member of the Church, the Mass is still a Sacrifice and has the Sacraments and grace, - but the form really needs to be changed back to what was accepted by the Church. Essentially that article is saying that the Mass of Pope Paul VI was never approved by Pope Paul VI… scary

I really am not sure what to think… I don’t want to make any mistake

I was going ["]to nitpick]([URL="Ἔλεον εἰρήνης, Sacrificium laudis: Mercy of Peace, Sacrifice of Praise: A Random Nit to Pick: Novus 'Ordo Missae' or 'Novus Ordo' Missae?) on the term “Novus Ordo Mass” (a more accurate term IMHO) would be ‘New Ordo Missae’), but I won’t.
Now, why is it that theories of body doubles are popular in conspiracy theories? You also have the same thing going with Elvis, Paul McCartney and Sr. Lucia.

And as someone mentioned, why would you trust a demon to tell accurate facts?

 

[puzzleannie]

Bayside is not only not approved by the church but condemned.

Why, pray tell, do Catholics whose most common complaint in spiritual well-being is lack of time to read scripture, pray and carry out works of mercy, have plenty of time to spend investigating non-Catholic and anti-Catholic sites and readings? Furthermore, once straying unintentionally to an obviously anti-Catholic site, would one even give 3 seconds to considering the truth of any allegations there?

 

[Timothysis]

Poor Pope Paul VI.

I cannot imagine why such a gentle and devout man should be subject to such hatred.

Pope Paul, please forgive us.

 

[corsair]

I can remember when this set of photos of Paul VI was circulating. we had a friend that jumped on every little conspiracy that floated by her. She was absolutely convinced that “the real Paul VI, was murdered and the double was put in his place”.

We thought it was garbage back then and it was and still is garbage. But it takes all kinds to make the world go round.

 

[Monica4316]

I did not check the link you gave, I was just thinking. You are suggesting that the Pope had a body double who somehow was allowed by the then Pope and all the Swiss guard to sign a document that was not intended by the real Pope, and no one since then, no Pope, no vocal Bishop, no secretary, no journalist, noticed? Pope John Paul II of blessed memory just let all those years go by allowing this wrong document to rule the Church? Does this seem likely? I think that the Swiss guard is actually pretty good at what they do. And as a purely irrelevant note, I did find out when I was in Switzerland that the Swiss Guard is actually made of Swiss people, just in case you were wondering.

No that is not what the article said… it said that the real Pope signed the document, but he thought it was another document (one that he actually wrote) which supported the TLM. The reason it says he didn’t realize the deception is because he was sick at the time, and had poor eyesight, and they made the document using the exact same style/layout/font etc.

Hi Monica,

I glanced over the page and viewed the pictures.

I don’t believe it. First of all, priests do not engage in conversation or ask demons questions during an exorcism. It is counterproductive. If they had, why would anyone trust a demon? They lie! “The Father of Lies”

Secondly, the second picture is clearly an older Pope. His face shows signs of age and is more rounded. His face is looking somewhat downward in the first picture. The different angles make his nose appear to be different lengths in comparison to his ears. The ears appear to match. What are the odds that two men would have ears like that!

I do think the nose looks different… but Im not saying that’s proof of anything.

In a story about St Dominic, he asked demons in a possessed person to tell him information about which Saint they fear most in Heaven, and they said they fear Our Lady…

Bayside is not only not approved by the church but condemned.

I know about Bayside… but this article is not about Bayside, it doesn’t really have anything to do with it, apart from being on the same website. There are other websites that have this same article too.

Why, pray tell, do Catholics whose most common complaint in spiritual well-being is lack of time to read scripture, pray and carry out works of mercy, have plenty of time to spend investigating non-Catholic and anti-Catholic sites and readings? Furthermore, once straying unintentionally to an obviously anti-Catholic site, would one even give 3 seconds to considering the truth of any allegations there?

whether it is anti-Catholic or not depends on your perspective… they are not saying here that the Church is not the Church, or that the Papacy is false, etc… or that the Pope approved changes that shouldn’t have been… they are saying that the Pope never approved them, so the changes are not truly Catholic. St Padre Pio apparently disagreed with the Novus Ordo too. I’m not saying this is definitely true, - that’s why I made this thread, - to figure this out further, but I do think it’s important to seek to understanding God’s will and what is happening in the Church and the world… also I never complained about a lack of time for other things

I’m not saying this is true, I actually don’t know, but I would say that I do have a problem with many of the changes in the Novus Ordo and I hope that eventually, the Mass will become more like the TLM again. I’ve always thought so, ever since I became Catholic. Even Pope Benedict has acknowledged that the Mass was created too suddenly, without any “organic” true development of liturgy, and that there are abuses in it, and now there’s a new translation because the old one is inaccurate. I’m glad they are making the new translation better and more like the Latin.

The reason I’m thinking about this is because many of the things in the article made sense… they even said that traditionalists should not be proud, that we can still attend the Novus Ordo if there is not another Mass, that it is still the Sacrifice, the Sacraments there are valid, etc… it’s just that the form needs to be corrected, because it came about wrongly. Even without this theory about Pope Paul VI, - the need to correct the liturgy could still be true - we can see it whenever we look at all the liberalism and modernism in today’s Church.

God bless

 

[Timothysis]

I’m not saying this is true, I actually don’t know, but I would say that I do have a problem with many of the changes in the Novus Ordo and I hope that eventually, the Mass will become more like the TLM again.

I’m beginning to think that you have ulterior motives in starting this thread. First, you ask about the legitimacy of these claims, then make critical statements about the Pauline Mass, even saying that “if” true, then it isn’t “truly Catholic.” If the Pauline Mass is not “truly Catholic,” then what is it? If it is not “truly Catholic,” how can it be a valid Mass?

In all honesty, did you really expect someone here to say, "yes, it is true that Pope Paul was replaced with an impostor to further the agenda of the modernists."

 

[Monica4316]

I’m beginning to think that you have ulterior motives in starting this thread. First, you ask about the legitimacy of these claims, then make critical statements about the Pauline Mass, even saying that “if” true, then it isn’t “truly Catholic.” If the Pauline Mass is not “truly Catholic,” then what is it? If it is not “truly Catholic,” how can it be a valid Mass?

In all honesty, did you really expect someone here to say, "yes, it is true that Pope Paul was replaced with an impostor to further the agenda of the modernists."

You know, if you think I have ulterior motives, then think so. I’m not here to prove anything about myself. I did ask about the legitimacy of these claims, because I don’t know what to think about them. Regarding the Mass, - I believe it is valid, but some or many of the changes have damaged it and need to be corrected. (ie: the Eucharist is there, so the Mass is valid, but imperfect). For example, receiving Communion in the hand originated through disobedience to Rome (Fr John Hardon talked about this). Other similar changes are innacurate translations, having unnecessary extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, altar girls, modernizing of the music and getting rid of artwork, - none of this happened in obedience to the Pope, it just happened, because some people liked it better that way. VII documents even said that the priest can celebrate the Mass facing the altar, if he wants, but I don’t see this happening today…why? why were many of the Cardinals/Bishops against the alterations in the Mass when it was first suggested, but the plan went ahead anyways? I don’t know… I’ve thought this way from the beginning. Even Pope Benedict commented on things like receiving Communion kneeling and on the tongue, having sacred music, etc. But my question was about the part about Pope Paul VI. Because it’s one thing if the Novus Ordo needed to exist yet some people took it too far… vs: the idea that we still need to have the TLM, perhaps with minor adjustments, but not a new Mass. Maybe, hopefully with time, there would be a restoration of the Mass to what it was supposed to be like.

 

[JackQ]

Okay I know this seems like a conspiracy theory, but… I found this record of an exorcism in which demons were commanded to answer questions about some things… it’s from the 1970s. The website contains information about Bayside which is not approved, but this particular record seems to be unrelated to Bayside. I’m wondering, could it be true??? because in the picture of Pope Paul VI, he does look kind of different in the second one. tldm.org/News4/WarningsFromBeyond.2of3.htm

The link is basically saying that Pope Paul VI was actually in support of the TLM, but he was silenced by some of the cardinals/bishops who were corrupt, and there was a double of him… and that he didn’t mean to sign the paper approving the initial Mass revisions, - he thought he was signing his own document which was in support of the TLM.

Again I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory but the account of this exorcism and the picture really make me wonder.

If this is true, then the Novus Ordo is actually NOT approved by the Pope. It is still a real Mass, still has the Sacraments, there is still a priesthood, and the Papacy of course, - and it’s valid because it has the essential parts like the Consecration - but the rest of it - the form and the prayers - didn’t come from obedience to the Pope, but disobedience. This means that it’s important to stay in the Church but the TLM should be celebrated. (which points towards the FSSP or the SSPX, which are the two groups that have been trying to do both - staying in the Church and celebrating only the 1962 Missal).

What do you all think??? I really don’t know how to argue against this. But if it’s wrong, then believing it is also very dangerous.

If this is true, then - I wouldn’t say it’s wrong to attend a Novus Ordo Mass if there are no other Masses around, - because we still have the Sunday obligation, and it’s still a Mass with the Sacraments. But it does mean that the form of it needs to be fixed soon - either through changing it gradually back to what it’s supposed to be (the new translation being the first step), or, just switching back, through another council. It also means that if we have the option of attending a TLM, we should.

Also like I said, in any case, the Church is still the Church, the Papacy is still real, it’s still important to be a member of the Church, the Mass is still a Sacrifice and has the Sacraments and grace, - but the form really needs to be changed back to what was accepted by the Church. Essentially that article is saying that the Mass of Pope Paul VI was never approved by Pope Paul VI… scary

I really am not sure what to think… I don’t want to make any mistake

If it is true, then Jesus’ promise failed, and the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against his Church.

 

[JM3]

I’ve thought this way from the beginning.

Your error in reasoning comes from your lack of understanding of what the Church teaches. Vatican II reformed the liturgy because of abuses in the TLM. You might want to read the Constitution on the Liturgy.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.
2. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

Wherefore, in the revision of the liturgy, the following general norms should be observed:

1. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

This is what Trent says:

SESSION THE SEVENTH,
Celebrated on the third day of the month of March, MDXLVII.
DECREE ON THE SACRAMENTS

DECREE ON REFORMATION
The same sacred and holy Synod, the same legates also presiding, purposing to prosecute, unto the praise of God, and the increase of the Christian religion, the work which It hath begun touching residence and reformation, has thought good to ordain as follows,-saving always, in all things, the authority of the Apostolic See.

SESSION THE TWENTY-FIRST,
Being the fifth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the sixteenth day of July, MDLXII.

CHAPTER II.
The power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have intimated, when he says; Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. And indeed it [Page 142] is sufficiently manifest that he himself exercised this power,- as in many other things, so in regard of this very sacrament; when, after having ordained certain things touching the use thereof, he says; The rest I will set in order when I come. Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,–from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,–she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at pleasure, without the authority of the Church itself.

 

[Timothysis]

I did ask about the legitimacy of these claims, because I don’t know what to think about them. Regarding the Mass, - I believe it is valid, but some or many of the changes have damaged it and need to be corrected. (ie: the Eucharist is there, so the Mass is valid, but imperfect).

Please explain to me how the validly consecrated Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ can be imperfect.

For example, receiving Communion in the hand originated through disobedience to Rome (Fr John Hardon talked about this). Other similar changes are innacurate translations, having unnecessary extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, altar girls, modernizing of the music and getting rid of artwork, - none of this happened in obedience to the Pope, it just happened, because some people liked it better that way. VII documents even said that the priest can celebrate the Mass facing the altar, if he wants, but I don’t see this happening today…why?

None of what you list has to do with the liturgy itself but the discipline of how the liturgy is celebrated. For those Churches without a high altar (and there are many) the priest DOES face the altar; in fact the priest and the entire congregation face the altar!

Even Pope Benedict commented on things like receiving Communion kneeling and on the tongue, having sacred music, etc.

Pope Benedict is not against communion in the hand. He distributes kneeling and on the tongue as a teaching moment to the rest of the world. He did not say “I’m not doing it.”

But my question was about the part about Pope Paul VI. Because it’s one thing if the Novus Ordo needed to exist yet some people took it too far… vs: the idea that we still need to have the TLM, perhaps with minor adjustments, but not a new Mass. Maybe, hopefully with time, there would be a restoration of the Mass to what it was supposed to be like.

So how far back do you want to go? The Tridentine Mass was “forced” on the Latin Church in 1570, suppressing other rites that had been around for less than 2 centuries. In St. Francis’ time, the Roman Rite wasn’t even used in the diocese of Rome. Are you suggesting that the Church return to the localized versions of the Gallican Rite? Do you want the Mass to be “what it was supposed to be like,” or do you want it the way YOU want?