We present below three mysterious incidents that all bear a common thread: seemingly inexplicable behavior and/or the reversal of a previous promise on the part of Pope Paul VI. We know from Our Lady of the Roses message the explanation: the overthrow of Pope Paul VI’s papacy, what Our Lady of the Roses has called “the deception of the century.”  Also worthy of note is the observation of Solange Hertz that Pope Paul VI had reversed himself in his condemnation of Pentecostalism, something perplexing indeed: "So difficult were the antics in St. Peter's to reconcile with Paul VI's previously known position on pentecostalism, that many who heard about the incident began seriously entertaining a theory then current of an impostor Pope who impersonated Giovanni Montini under the direction of enemies of the Faith in the Vatican."

Cardinal Gagnon and Pope Paul VI

Alice von Hildebrand reports the following incident in an interview with Latin Mass magazine (Summer 2001). In this interview, she mentions the Italian priest Don Luigi Villa (diocese of Brescia), who published two books in 1998 and 2000. Fr. Villa, at the request of Padre Pio, has devoted many years of his life to the investigation of the infiltration of both Freemasons and Communists into the Church:

“Another of Don Villa’s illustrations of infiltration is one related to him by Cardinal Gagnon. Paul VI had asked Gagnon to head an investigation concerning the infiltration of the Church by powerful enemies. Cardinal Gagnon (at that time an Archbishop) accepted this unpleasant task, and compiled a long dossier, rich in worrisome facts. When the work was completed, he requested an audience with Pope Paul in order to deliver personally the manuscript to the Pontiff. This request for a meeting was denied. The Pope sent word that the document should be placed in the offices of the Congregation for the Clergy, specifically in a safe with a double lock. This was done, but the very next day the safe deposit box was broken and the manuscript mysteriously disappeared. The usual policy of the Vatican is to make sure that news of such incidents never sees the light of day. Nevertheless, this theft was reported even in L’Osservatore Romano (perhaps under pressure because it had been reported in the secular press). Cardinal Gagnon, of course, had a copy, and once again asked the Pope for a private audience. Once again his request was denied. He then decided to leave Rome and return to his homeland in Canada. Later, he was called back to Rome by Pope John Paul II and made a cardinal.” (Latin Mass Magazine, Summer 2001)

The betrayal of Cardinal Mindzenty

The story surrounding the valiant shepherd, Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary (left in photo), adds another dimension to the usurpation of Pope Paul VI's pontificate. This saintly Cardinal suffered imprisonment and torture in his home country of Hungary, speaking out and trying to defend his flock first from Nazism and then from the ravages of communism. In fact, Cardinal Mindszenty suffered at the hands of the communists tortures lasting 39 consecutive days and nights, consisting of sleep-deprivation and every conceivable outrage. In 1956, as communism tightened its grip on the Church in Hungary, Cardinal Mindszenty was given asylum at the American Embassy in Budapest by President Eisenhower. The Cardinal languished there for fifteen years, unable to leave the building. Communist agents awaited him day and night, to assassinate him should he leave the embassy. 
     On September 28, 1971 the world heard that Cardinal Mindszenty had arrived in Rome at the invitation of Pope Paul VI. He was received with real joy and tenderness by Pope Paul. The Holy Father embraced Cardinal Mindszenty and hung his own pectoral cross around his neck. They both concelebrated Mass and the Holy Father spoke of the Cardinal as "a guest we have awaited with longing ... a symbol of unshakeable strength rooted in faith and in selfless devotion to the Church."
     On October 23, 1971 Pope Paul VI again concelebrated Mass with Cardinal Mindszenty.  Pope Paul gave Mindszenty his own cardinal's mantle and told him in Latin, "You are and remain Archbishop of Esztergom and Primate of Hungary. Continue working and if you have difficulties, turn trustfully to us!"  
     The Cardinal returned to his pastoral tours around the world. But on February 5, 1974, something unbelievable occurred: he received a letter from the "Pope" declaring the See of Esztergom vacant.  The Vatican announced to the world that Cardinal Mindszenty had "retired." The Vatican had lied to the world in a public statement. In profound sorrow Cardinal Mindszenty had to make clear that he had not abdicated, but had been deposed.  His Memoirs end with the words: "This is how I arrived at complete and total exile." 
     The Vatican was flooded with protests and the free world's press attacked the deposition of Cardinal Mindszenty with fury. 
      Exactly what did happen? How could Pope Paul VI have betrayed his promise to Cardinal Mindszenty?  Did Pope Paul VI really depose Cardinal Mindszenty on February 5, 1974?  This is extremely unlikely, in light of a message given on August 21, 1974 (the "V" in the quote below represents Cardinal Villot, the Secretariat of State):

"V does much damage to the Holy Father by changing his correspondence. V rewrites his letters. V censors his mail." - August 21, 1974

"You cannot accept now what comes from Rome, for they do not come, these bulls, and these directions are not written by the pen of Pope Paul VI. They are written by the pen of Benelli and Villot." - Our Lady, September 27, 1975

Was the February 5, 1974 letter sent to Cardinal Mindszenty written by Cardinal Villot? Considering Pope Paul VI's tremendous support of Cardinal Mindszenty and his promise in 1971, this explanation would fit with Our Lady of the Roses message, and the real Third Secret of Fatima. 

Archbishop Lefebvre: meeting of September 11, 1976

The following account of Archbishop Lefebvre's audience with “Pope Paul VI” (actually the impostor pope) on September 11, 1976, is entirely in the Archbishop's own words:

“I tell you quite sincerely that this meeting with the Pope was for me altogether unexpected. Certainly I had been wanting it for several years. I had asked to meet the Holy Father, to talk to him about my seminary, my work - I might say to give him joy because I was still able, in spite of the circumstances, to manage to form some priests, to help the Church in the formation of priests. But I never succeeded. I was always told that the Pope had not time to receive me. Then, little by little, when the seminary was penalized, the difficulties were obviously greater, with the result that I was never able to get through the bronze door. But after those events (the suppression of the seminary and the suppression of the Fraternity) the condition set for my seeing the Holy Father was that I submit to the Council, the post-conciliar reforms, and the post-conciliar orientations desired by the Holy Father - that is, practically, the closure of my seminary. That I did not accept. I could not accept the closure of my seminary or the cessation of ordinations in the seminary, because I consider that I am doing constructive work, I am building the Church, not pulling it down, though the demolition is going on all around me. I consider that I cannot in conscience collaborate in the destruction of the Church. That brought us to a complete deadlock: on the one side the Holy See was imposing conditions which meant the closure of the seminary, and on the other side I would not have the seminary closed. It seemed, therefore, that dialogue was impossible. Then, as you know, that penalty of suspension a divinis was imposed, which is very serious in the Church, especially for a bishop: it means that I am forbidden to perform acts corresponding to my episcopal ordination - no Mass, no sacraments, no administering of sacraments. Very serious. That shocked public opinion, and it so happened that a current of opinion was formed in my favor. It was not I who sought it: it was the Holy See itself which gave tremendous publicity to the suspension and to the seminary. You represent all the means for the diffusion of news, and it was your job to give people what they wanted by speaking of this event. That set moving a wave of opinion which, to say the least, was unexpected by the Vatican.

So the Vatican found itself in a rather delicate and tiresome situation in face of public opinion, and that, I think or least imagine, is why the Pope wanted to see me after all, but not officially through the usual channels: I did not see Mgr. Martin, who usually arranges audiences, nor did I meet Cardinal Villot - I met no one. It so happened that I was at Besançon preparing for Mass when I was told: "There is a priest come from Rome who would like to see you after Mass. It is very urgent and very important." I said: "I'll see him after Mass."

So after Mass we retired to a corner of the room where we happened to be, and this priest, Don Domenico La Bellarte I think - I did not know him, having never in my life set eyes on him - said to me: "The Archbishop of Chieti, my superior, saw the Holy Father recently, and the Holy Father expressed a desire to see you." I said to him: "Look, I've been wanting to see the Holy Father for five years. They always impose conditions, and they will impose the same conditions again. I do not see why I should go to Rome now." [note: Our Lady of the Roses message, and the REAL Third Secret of Fatima, mentions that satan would enter Rome in the year 1972] He insisted, saying: "There has been a change. Something has changed at Rome in the situation with regard to you." "Very well. If you can assure me that the Archbishop of Chieti will accompany me to the Holy Father, I have never refused to see the Holy Father and I am willing to go."

I then promised him that I would go to Rome as soon as possible. I had the ceremony at Fanjeaux, so I went to Fanjeaux, so I went to Fanjeux and afterwards went direct by car to Rome. I tried to get in touch with that priest, and I met him in Rome, where he said to me: "You had better, all the same, write a bit of a letter to the Holy Father which I can give to Mgr. Macchi, his secretary, and then you will be able to see the Holy Father." I said: "But what sort of letter? There is no question of my asking pardon or saying that I accept beforehand whatever will be imposed on me. I will not accept that." Then he said to me: "Write anything. Put something on paper and I'll take it at once to Castelgandolfo." I wrote expressing my deep respect for the person of the Holy Father and saying that if there were, in the expressions I had used in speeches and writings, anything displeasing to the Holy Father, I regretted them; that I was always ready to be received, and hope to be received, by the Holy Father. I signed the letter, and that was that.1 The priest did not even read the little note I had written but put it in an envelope. I addressed the envelope to the Holy Father and we set off for Castelgandolfo. He went in to the palace. We remained a while outside. He went to see Mgr. Macchi, who said to him: "I cannot give you an answer at once. I will let you know about seven this evening." That was last Thursday evening. And in fact at seven I got a telephone call in my house at Albano. I was told: "You will have an audience with the Holy Father tomorrow at ten-thirty."

So, the next day, Saturday, at quarter past ten, I went to Castelgandolfo, and there I really believe the Holy Angels had driven out the Vatican employees because I had come back there: there were two Swiss Guards at the entrance, and after that I encountered only Mgr X (not Mgr. Y: their names are very alike). Mgr. X, the Canadian, conducted me to the lift. Only the lift man was there, that is all, and I went up. The three of us went up to the first floor, and there, accompanied by Mgr. X, I went through all the rooms: there are at least seven or eight before you come to the Holy Father's office. Not a living soul! Usually - I have often been to private audience in the days of Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, and even Pope Paul VI - there is always at least one Swiss Guard, always a gendarme, always several people: a private chamberlain, a monseigneur who is present if only to keep an eye on things and prevent incidents. But the rooms were empty - nothing, absolutely nothing. So I went to the Holy Father's office, where I found the Holy Father with Mgr. Benelli at his side. I greeted the Holy Father and I greeted Mgr. Benelli. We seated ourselves at once, and the audience began.

The Holy Father was lively enough at the beginning - one could almost call it somewhat violent in a way: one could feel that he was deeply wounded and rather provoked by what we are doing. He said to me:

"You condemn me, you condemn me. I am a Modernist. I am a Protestant. It cannot be allowed, you are doing an evil work, you ought not to continue, you are causing scandal in the Church, etc..." with nervous irritability.

I kept quiet, you may be sure. After that he said to me:

"Well, speak now, speak. What have you to say?"

I said to him:

"Holy Father, I come here, but not as the head of the traditionalists. You have said I am head of the traditionalists. I deny flatly that I am head of the traditionalists. I am only a Catholic, a priest, a bishop, among millions of Catholics, thousands of priests and other bishops who are torn and pulled apart in conscience, in mind, in heart. On the one side we desire to submit to you entirely, to follow you in everything, to have no reserves about your person, and on the other side we are aware that the lines taken by the Holy See since the Council, and the whole new orientation, turn us away from your predecessors. What then are we to do? We find ourselves obliged either to attach ourselves to your predecessors or to attach ourselves to your person and separate ourselves from your predecessors. For Catholics to be torn like that is unheard of, unbelievable. And it is not I who have provoked that, it is not a movement made by me, it is a feeling that comes from the hearts of the faithful, millions of the faithful whom I do not know. I have no idea how many there are. They are all over the world, everywhere. Everybody is uneasy about this upset that has happened in the Church in the last ten years, about the ruins accumulating in the Church. Here are examples: there is a basic attitude in people, an interior attitude which makes them now unchangeable. They will not change because they have chosen: they have made their choice for Tradition and for those who maintain Tradition. There are examples like that of the religious Sisters I saw two days ago, good religious who wish to keep their religious life, who teach children as their parents want them to be taught - many parents bring their children to them because they will receive a Catholic education from these religious. So, here are religious keeping their religious habit; and just because they wish to preserve the old prayer and to keep the old catechism they are excommunicated. The Superior General has been dismissed. The bishop has been five times, requiring them to abandon their religious habit because they have been reduced to the lay state. People who see that do not understand. And, side by side with that, nuns who discard their habit, return to all the worldly vanities, no longer have a religious rule, no longer pray - they are officially approved by bishops, and no one says a word against them! The man in the street, the poor Christian, seeing these things cannot accept them. That is impossible. Then it is the same for priests. Good priests who say their Mass well, who pray, who are to be found in the confessional, who preach true doctrine, who visit the sick, who wear their soutane, who are true priests loved by their people because they keep the Old Mass, the Mass of their ordination, who keep the old catechism, are thrown on the street as worthless creatures, all but excommunicated. And then priests go into factories, never dress as priests so that there is no knowing what they are, preach revolution - and they are officially accepted, and nobody says anything to them. As for me, I am in the same case. I try to make priests, good priests as they were made formerly; there are many vocations, the young men are admired by the people who see them in trains, on the underground; they are greeted, admired, congratulated on their dress and bearing; and I am suspended a divinis! And the bishops who have no more seminarians, no young priests, nothing, and whose seminaries no longer make good priests - nothing is said to them! You understand; the poor average Christian sees it clearly. He has chosen and he will not budge. He has reached his limit. It is impossible."

"That is not true. You do not train good priests," he said to me, "because you make them take an oath against the Pope."

"What!" I answered. "An oath against the Pope? I who, on the contrary, try to give them respect for the Pope, respect for the successor of Peter! On the contrary, we pray for the Holy Father, and you will never be able to show me this oath which they take against the Pope. Can you give me a copy of it?"

And now, officially, the Vatican spokesmen have published in today's paper, where you can read it, the Vatican denial, saying that it is not true, that the Holy Father did not say that to me: the Holy Father did not say to me that I made my seminarians and young priests take an oath against the Pope. But how could I have invented that? How invent anything of the kind? It is unthinkable. But now they deny it: the Holy Father did not say it. It is incredible. And obviously I have no tape recording. I did not write out the whole conversation, so I cannot prove the contrary materially. But my very reaction! I cannot forget how I reacted to that assertion by the Holy Father. I can still see myself gesturing and saying: "But how, Holy Father, can you possibly say such a thing! Can you show me a copy of the oath?" And now they are saying it is not true. It is extraordinary!

Then the Holy Father said to me, further:

"It is true, is it not, that you condemn me?"

I had the strong impression that it all came back rather to his person, that he was personally hurt:

"You condemn me, so what ought I to do? Must I hand in my resignation and let you take my place?"

"Oh!" I put my head in my hands.

"Holy Father, do not say such things. No, no, no, no!" I then said:

"Holy Father, let me continue. You have the solution of the problem in your hands. You need say only one word to the bishops: receive fraternally, with understanding and charity all those groups of traditionalists, all those who wish to keep the prayer of former days, the sacraments as before, the catechism as before. Receive them, give them places of worship, settle with them so that they can pray and remain in relation with you, in intimate relation with their bishops. You need say only one word to the bishops and everything will return to order and at that moment we shall have no more problems. Things will return to order. As for the seminary, I myself shall have no difficulty in going to the bishops and asking them to implant my priests in their dioceses: things will be done normally. I myself am very willing to renew relations with a commission you could name from the Congregation of Religious to come to the seminary. But clearly we shall keep and wish to continue the practice of Tradition. We should be allowed to maintain that practice. But I want to return to normal and official relations with the Holy See and with the Congregations. Beyond that I want nothing.”

He then said to me:

“I must reflect, I must pray, I must consult the Consistory, I must consult the Curia. I cannot give you an answer. We shall see.”

After that he said to me: "We will pray together."

I said: "Most willingly, Holy Father."

We then said the Pater Noster, Veni Creator, and an Ave Maria, and he then led me back very pleasantly, but with difficulty - his walk was painful, and he dragged his legs a little. In the room to the side he waited until Domenico came for me; and he had a small medal given to Don Domenico. We then left. Mgr. Benelli did not open his mouth; he did nothing but write all the time, like a secretary. He did not bother me at all. It was as though Mgr. Benelli were not present. I think it did not trouble the Holy Father, just as it did not trouble me, because he did not open his mouth, and gave no sign. I then said twice again that he had the solution of the problem in his hands. He then showed his satisfaction at having had this interview, this dialogue. I said I was always at his disposal. We then left.

Since then, they are now relating what they like in the newspapers, the most fantastic inventions - that I accepted everything, that I made a complete submission; then they said it was all to the contrary - that I had accepted nothing and conceded nothing. Now they are telling me, in effect, that I lied, that I am inventing things in the conversation I had with the Holy Father. My impression is that they are so furious that this audience took place unforeseen, without going through the usual channels, that they are trying in every way to discredit it, and to discredit me as well. Clearly they are afraid that this audience puts me back in favor with many people, who are saying: Now, if Monseigneur has seen the Holy Father, there are no more problems: he is back again with the Holy Father. In fact, we have never been against the Holy Father and have always wanted to be with the Holy Father.

Moreover, I have just written to him again because Cardinal Thiandoum was so insistent on that² so that he could have a short note from me to take to the Holy Father. I said to him: "Good. I am ready to write a short letter to the Holy Father (though I am beginning to think that this correspondence is endless), I want to thank the Holy Father for granting me this audience." I did that, and thanked the Holy Father.

"My child, I bring to you a sad truth, one that must be made known to mankind .... Our dear beloved Vicar, Pope Paul VI, he suffers much at the hands of those he trusts....
     "He is not able to do his mission. They have laid him low, My child. He is ill, he is very ill. Now there is one who is ruling in his place, an impostor, created from the minds of the agents of satan. Plastic surgery, My child - the best of surgeons were used to create this impostor.
     "Shout from the rooftops! He must be exposed and removed. Behind him, My child, there are three who have given themselves to satan. You do not receive the truth in your country and the world. Your Vicar is a prisoner....
     "Casaroli, you shall condemn your soul to hell! Giovanni Benelli, what road have you taken? You are on the road to hell and damnation! Villot, leader of evil, take yourself from among those traitors; you are not unknown to the Eternal Father." - Our Lady of the Roses, September 27, 1975 

Articles

Pope Paul VI and the impostor pope:

The Deception of the Century
impostor.htm

Murder of Pope John Paul I:

The murder of Pope John Paul I
PopeJohnPaulI.htm

Pope John Paul I was assassinated: A book review of "El Día de la Cuenta" (The Day of Reckoning)
JohnPaulIassassinated.htm

Many are called and few are chosen; A book review of "Se Pedirá Cuenta" (“An Account will be Asked”)
SePediraCuentaReview.htm

Directives

D49 - Pope Paul VI   PDF
D50 - The Impostor Pope  PDF
D127 - Vatican II   PDF
D129 - Third Secret Explained: Part 1 - 666 in Rome   PDF
D130 - Third Secret Explained: Part 2 - Satan entered the Church in 1972   PDF
D131 - Third Secret Explained: Part 3 - Satan entered the highest realms of the hierarchy   PDF
D132 - Third Secret Explained: Part 4 - There shall be bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal, as satan has set himself in their midst.   PDF

Evidence for the REAL Third Secret of Fatima: